In the Matter of MERSCORP, INC., et al., Appellants,
v.
EDWARD P. ROMAINE et al., Respondents.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.
Decided June 10, 2002.
S. Miller, J.P., Krausman and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the motion for a preliminary injunction is granted pending the Supreme Court’s determination of the hybrid proceeding and action on the merits.
The petitioners, Merscorp, Inc. (hereinafter Merscorp), and its subsidiary, MortgageElectronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter MERS), operate a national electronicregistration system (hereinafter the MERS System) for residential mortgages and related instruments (hereinafter MERS Instruments). In essence, lenders who subscribe to the MERS System (hereinafter MERS Members) designate MERS as their nominee or the “mortgagee of record” for the purpose of 432*432 recording MERS Instruments in the county where the subject real property is located. The MERS Instruments are registered in a central database, which tracks all future transfers of the beneficial ownership interests and servicing rights among MERS Members. As of May 2001, the MERS System had recorded more than four million MERS Instruments in more than 3,000 counties in all 50 states, including more than 16,000 MERS Instruments in Suffolk County.
On April 5, 2001, the Attorney General issued Informal Opinion No. 2001-2 (2001 Atty Gen [Inf Ops] 2001-2) in response to two questions posed by the Nassau County Clerk regarding the latter’s obligation to record and index MERS Instruments. Although the Attorney General concluded that the Nassau County Clerk had a statutory duty under Real Property Law § 291 to record MERS Instruments if they were duly acknowledged and accompanied by the proper fee, he advised the Nassau County Clerk to list the MERS Instruments in the County’s alphabetical indexes under the names of the actual lenders. Based in part on the Attorney General’s Informal Opinion, the Suffolk County Clerk announced that as of May 1, 2001, he would no longer accept MERS Instruments which listed MERS as the mortgagee or nominee of record unless MERS was, in fact, the actual mortgagee.
Simultaneously with commencing this hybrid proceeding and action, Merscorp and MERS moved, inter alia, for a preliminary injunction to compel the Suffolk County Clerk to record MERS Instruments and list MERS as the mortgagee in the County’s alphabetical mortgagee-mortgagor indexes for recorded conveyances. Although the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.), granted the request of Merscorp and MERS for a temporary restraining order on May 2, 2001, the same court (Catterson, J.), subsequently denied their request for a preliminary injunction on May 22, 2001.
It is well established that the decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748, 750). In exercising that discretion, however, the Supreme Court must consider several factors, including whether the moving party has established (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm if the injunction is denied, and (3) a balance of the equities in favor of the injunction (see CPLR 6301, 6312 [a]; Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 517; Clarion Assoc. v Colby Co., 276 AD2d 461). Upon our review of the record, we find that the Supreme Court failed to set forth specific findings with respect to the tripartite test for injunctive relief and 433*433 improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
Merscorp and MERS demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on the merits of its claim for a writ of mandamus to compel the Suffolk County Clerk to record MERS Instruments (see Klostermann v Cuomo, 61 NY2d 525, 539). Contrary to the contention of the Suffolk County Clerk, he has a statutory duty that is ministerial in nature to record a written conveyance if it is duly acknowledged and accompanied by the proper fee (see Real Property Law § 290 [3]; § 291; County Law § 525 [1]). Accordingly, the Clerk does not have the authority to refuse to record a conveyance which satisfies the narrowly drawn prerequisites set forth in the recording statute (see People ex rel. Frost v Woodbury, 213 NY 51; People ex rel. Title Guar. & Trust Co. v Grifenhagen, 209 NY 569; Matter of Westminster Hgts. Co. v Delany, 107 App Div 577, affd 185 NY 539; Putnam v Stewart, 97 NY 411).
This Court notes that the Suffolk County index is governed exclusively by Real Property Law § 316-a. Real Property Law § 316-a (1) provides that the Suffolk County Clerk shall record and index “[e]very instrument affecting real estate or chattels real, situated in the county of Suffolk * * * which shall have been recorded in the office of the [C]lerk of said county * * * pursuant to the provisions of this act” (emphasis supplied). Pursuant to Real Property Law § 316-a (2), the Suffolk County Clerk must maintain the indexes so they “contain the date of recording of each instrument, the names of the parties to each instrument and the liber and page of the record thereof and shall be substantially the forms of the schedules hereto annexed” (emphasis supplied; see also Real Property Law § 316-a [5]).
Therefore, in light of Real Property Law § 316-a, Merscorp and MERS also demonstrated a reasonable probability of success on the merits of their claim to compel the Suffolk County Clerk to perform his ministerial duty to index MERS Instruments as the language of Real Property Law § 316-a is mandatory and not permissive (see Klostermann v Cuomo, supra at 539).
Moreover, to the extent that the Suffolk County Clerk has recorded approximately 16,000 MERS Instruments before May 1, 2001, MERS established irreparable harm to its business operation, the mortgage lending industry, and the general public, in the absence of a preliminary injunction compelling the Suffolk County Clerk to record and index MERS Instruments (see Clarion Assoc. v Colby Co., supra; McLaughlin, Piven, 434*434 Vogel v Nolan & Co., 114 AD2d 165, 174), particularly since Real Property Law § 316-a (8), (9) and (10) sets forth a mechanism for correcting any mistakes in the indexes.
Goldstein, J., concurs in the result, with the following memorandum:
Although I do not necessarily agree with my colleagues that there is a likelihood of success on the merits, I nevertheless concur in granting a preliminary injunction, as the Supreme Court failed to take into consideration and address the other factors which must be taken into account, namely, irreparable harm to the movant absent the granting of a preliminary injunction, and a balancing of the equities (see Melvin v Union Coll., 195 AD2d 447, 448). Where, as here, the case involves issues of first impression in the courts, it is appropriate to grant a preliminary injunction, “`to hold the parties in status quo while the legal issues are determined in a deliberate and judicious manner'” (Time Sq. Books v City of Rochester, 223 AD2d 270, 278,quoting Tucker v Toia, 54 AD2d 322, 326; State of New York v City of New York, 275 AD2d 740; Sau Thi Ma v Xuan T. Lien, 198 AD2d 186).
The trial court opinion was published in the New York Law Journal.
KINGS COUNTY Real Property Bank Fails to Rebut Satisfaction’s Validity Created By Notary’s Acknowledgment; Foreclosure Denied
Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Moise
Defendants seek summary judgment based on the fact that Plaintiff has not shown a valid assignment of the mortgage and note.
Plaintiff originally submitted an assignment of the mortgage dated April 30, 2009. The assignment was signed by Yolanda Williams, Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic Systems, Inc.. However, the notary public’s acknowledgement states that she witnessed and acknowledged the signature of Herman John Kennerty, whose name does not appear anywhere on the document.
Plaintiff acknowledges that there was a mistake on the assignment and argues the mistake was de minimis not curat lex. It also argues that the Court should simply replace the defective assignment with the correction assignment, and proceed with its action. In fact, the error was not de minimis as the signature of the purported assignor was not acknowledged, rendering the assignment a nullity.
A simple typographical error can be amended, but a failure to properly acknowledge the signature of a person who signed the instrument cannot be. No affidavit is submitted either Yolanda Williams or the notary Lisa Rhyne explaining what the alleged error was or how it occurred. In fact, the so called “correction” assignment in fact is acknowledged by a different notary on a different date.
The Law Offices of David J. Stern has only about 15 attorneys, according to legal directories.
However, it’s the biggest filer of mortgage foreclosure suits in Florida, reports the Tampa Tribune. Aided by a back office that dwarfs the law firm, with a staff of nearly 1,000, the Miami area firm files some 5,800 foreclosure actions monthly.
The back-office operation, DJSP Enterprises, is publicly traded and hence must file financial reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It netted almost $45 million in 2009 on a little over $260 million in gross revenue that year. The mortgage meltdown of recent years apparently has been good to the company: In 2006, it earned a profit of $8.6 million on $40.4 million in revenue.
Stern, who is the company’s chairman and chief executive officer, could not be reached for comment, the newspaper says.
His law firm has been in the news lately, after one Florida judge dismissed a foreclosure case due to what he described as a “fraudulently backdated” mortgage document, and another said, in a hearing earlier this month concerning another of the Stern firm’s foreclosure cases, “I don’t have any confidence that any of the documents the court’s receiving on these mass foreclosures are valid.”
Earlier coverage:
ABAJournal.com: “Judge Dismisses Mortgage Foreclosure Over ‘Fraudulently Backdated’ Doc”
Dear Honorable Judges in Foreclosure and Bankruptcy Proceedings:
This letter concerns how a Jacksonville, Florida publicly-traded company, Lender Processing Services, Inc. solves Deutsche Bank National Trust Company missing documents in foreclosure cases. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“DBNTC”) is the plaintiff in the majority of foreclosure actions filed in thousands of counties in America since 2007. Deutsche Bank is sometimes referred to as “America Foreclosure King.” There is currently a Department of Justice investigation of LPS and its influence over law firms in foreclosure actions, according to an article in the Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review on April 16, 2010.
In these foreclosure actions, DBNTC is usually acting as the trustee for a mortgagebacked securitized trust. This means that a securities company made a commodity out of approximately 5,000 mortgages that were bundled together. The notes in the trust have a face value of approximately $1.5 billion in each trust. Investors buy shares of these trusts. Deutsche Bank is the most common name in the business of being a Trustee for Mortgage-Backed trusts. Other banks very active in this role of Trustee include Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Citibank, Bank of New York, JP Morgan Chase and HSBC.
When each of these trusts was made, the securities company responsible for the securitization (often Financial Assets Securities Corporation in Greenwich, Connecticut) was supposed to have obtained mortgage assignments showing that the trust had acquired each mortgage and note from the previous owner, which was most often the original lender. The trust documents specify that the mortgages, notes and assignments in recordable from will have been obtained by the trust. Most mortgage-backed trusts included the following or equivalent language regarding Assignments:
Assignments of the Mortgage Loans to the Trustee (or its nominee) will not be recorded in any jurisdiction, but will be delivered to the Trustee in recordable form, so that they can be recorded in the event recordation is necessary in connection with the servicing of a Mortgage Loan.
Trustees take very few actions relating to the individual properties in the trust. Typically, the bank acting as a trustee for a mortgage-backed trust hires a mortgage servicing company to deal with issues involving the individual mortgages in the trust. The mortgage servicing companies in turn hire a “default management company” to foreclose when a homeowner defaults on payments on a loan that is part of the trust. Lender Processing Services in Jacksonville, Florida, is the largest mortgage default management company. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company uses several mortgage servicing companies, but most often uses American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. in Irving, Texas as its mortgage servicing company.
In tens of thousands of foreclosure cases filed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee for a mortgage-backed trust, Deutsche Bank has not produced the mortgage, note or Assignment and instead has filed pleadings claiming that the original mortgage and note were inexplicably lost. In these cases, Deutsche Bank uses specially prepared Mortgage Assignments to show that they have the right to foreclose. These documents were often prepared by clerical employees of Docx, LLC, a subsidiary company of Lender Processing Services, the default management company. Hundreds of thousands of other Mortgage Assignments came from the LPS office in Dakota County, Minnesota. More recently, these documents were produced from the LPS offices in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. In thousands of other cases, LPS directs the law firms it hires to use the employees of the law firms to sign as officers of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems to create the documents necessary for foreclosure
a) Mortgage Electronic Registration Services (MERS) is identified as the grantor and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. is identified as the grantee; within days (or minutes), a second Assignment is filed, identifying American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as the grantor and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee for the trust as the grantee;
b) a mortgage company no longer in existence is identified as the grantor and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. is identified as the grantee; within days (or minutes), a second Assignment is filed, identifying American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as the grantor and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee for the trust as the grantee;
c) a mortgage company no longer in existence is identified as the grantor and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee is identified as the grantee;
d) American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., purporting to be the “successor-in-interest” to Option One Mortgage Company, is identified as the grantor and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee is identified as the grantee;
e) Sand Canyon Corporation, formerly known as Option One Mortgage Company, is identified as the grantor and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee is identified as the grantee, with no further explanation of how both American Home Mortgage Servicing and Sand Canyon have authority to act for Option One Mortgage.
On several hundred thousand Assignments, the individuals signing as officers of the grantor were actually clerical employees of Lender Processing Services, the mortgage default management company hired by American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., working for the grantee – Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. On several hundred thousand Assignments, the very same individuals signed as officers of both the grantor and grantee.
In all of these hundreds of thousands of cases, no Assignment actually took place on the date stated and no consideration was paid by the grantee to the grantor despite the representations in the Assignments. Most significantly, no disclosure was ever made to the Court in the foreclosure or bankruptcy case or to the homeowners in default that the original Assignments to the Trust were never made – or were lost – or were defective and that the recently-filed Assignments were specially made to facilitate foreclosures years after the property was transferred to the trust.
An examination of the signatures on these Assignments shows that many are forgeries, with several different people signing the names Linda Green, Tywanna Thomas, Korell Harp, Jennifer Ohde, Linda Thoresen and many of the other names used on several million mortgage assignments, as I have reported in my article “Compare These Signatures.” Many of these same individuals use at least a dozen different job titles as I have reported in my article, “An Officer of Too Many Banks.” These articles are available at www.frauddigest.com.
Please do not hesitate to contact me for additional information.
Yours truly,
Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq.
This article could also have been titled:
HOW LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, INC. SOLVES U.S. BANK’S MISSING PAPERWORK PROBLEM IN FORECLOSURES
-or-
HOW LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, INC. SOLVES WELLS FARGO MISSING PAPERWORK PROBLEM IN FORECLOSURES
-or-
HOW LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, INC. SOLVES BANK OF NEW YORK MISSING PAPERWORK PROBLEM IN FORECLOSURES
-or-
HOW LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, INC. SOLVES CITIBANK’S MISSING PAPERWORK PROBLEM IN FORECLOSURES
-or-
HOW LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, INC. SOLVES HSBC’S MISSING PAPERWORK PROBLEM IN FORECLOSURES
For a copy of the Exhibits referenced below, please contact szymoniak@mac.com.
Copies of Assignments from MERS to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. are attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Copies of Assignments from American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc. to Deutsche Bank as Trustee are attached as Exhibit 2.
Copies of Assignments from American Brokers Conduit, a mortgage company no longer in existence at the time the Assignments were made, to Deutsche Bank as trustee are attached as Exhibit 3.
Copies of other Assignments to Deutsche Bank as Trustee signed by employees of Lender Processing Services, working for the grantee Deutsche Bank, but signing on behalf of the grantor mortgage companies or banks, or MERS as nominee for the grantor mortgage companies or banks, are attached as Exhibit 4.
Copies of Assignments from American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as the successorin-interest to Option One Mortgage as grantor and Deutsche Bank as Trustee as the grantee are attached as Exhibit 5.
Copies of Assignments from Sand Canyon, formerly known as Option One Mortgage as grantor and Deutsche Bank as Trustee as the grantee are attached as Exhibit 6.
Copies of Assignments signed by employees of law firms working for Lender Processing Services on behalf of American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. and ultimately for grantee Deutsche Bank, where such employees signed as officers of MERS as grantor are attached as Exhibit 7.
Copies of Assignments signed by employees of Lender Processing Services on behalf of grantors and notarized in Duval County, Florida for grantee Deutsche Bank, filed by law firms working for Deutsche Bank are attached as Exhibit 8.
Anytime you have the word “FRAUD” involved in an on-going investigation, It makes you wonder when corps go at it together even more…click the links below to see what I mean.
The Duval County Clerk’s Office has offered online bidding for foreclosed properties for some time, and now Jacksonville-based Lender Processing Services is bringing bank-foreclosures all over the U.S. online.
Through its LPSAuctions.com Web site, LPS is to open bidding on single-family homes, condominiums and town homes from Coral Springs to Tacoma, Wash. The bid deadline for the homes listed in the “Spring Clearance” auction on the site is May 10.
So now it’s official they have they’re hands in all Real Estate! My question is how…why would any state permit them to sell anything if they are under the scope of the FEDS?? Take a look below.
The Florida Legislature is in session until April 30th. There are a variety of bills pending in the legislature which threaten to dramatically change the practice of consumer law and would eliminate homeowner and consumer rights.
The bankers, the foreclosure mills and other wrongdoers are lobbying Tallahassee hard and they absolutely will get some kind of legislation passed….if every one of us doesn’t act now to do something about it.
Subject to confirmation of the date, we will have a rally on the Capital. The date is tentatively set for Wednesday April 21, but it may be April 19 or 20 if those days would be more effective given committee schedules and other considerations.
Please mark your calendars now and please put forth this extra effort of service to our profession, our courts and to the citizens of the State of Florida. As attorneys, we took an oath to defend the Constitution, the citizens and our courts. These are all under attack and we are all duty bound and obligated to rise up and defend them.
In Tallahassee, we will meet with our local representatives and with the leadership of both houses. Our message is clear and distinct….
We must preserve and restore the dignity of the courts and ensure consumers and homeowners continue to have access to a fair and properly funded judiciary.
We cannot allow the continued breakdown of law and lack of respect for courts that currently exists in courts across the State of Florida.
We cannot allow the unethical foreclosure mills and zombie lenders to continue to infect our courts with the cancer they are spreading in courts across the State of Florida
We owe this duty to our courts. We owe this duty to our judges who are overwhelmed, overburdened and facing impossible pressures from all sides and we owe this duty to the citizens of the State of Florida–whether they are represented by counsel or not.
Please mark your calenders and begin making plans now. We will be chartering busses from major areas and more details will be forthcoming! We expect that consumers and other pro-se advocacy groups will rally behind this cause as part of a major grass-roots effort. There are brave and principled leaders in Tallahassee who share our concerns and we need to take our message of support to them.
MARK YOUR CALENDERS AND PLAN TO JOIN US IN TALLAHASSEE!
SAME RESPONSES OBJECTIONS AND NO DOCUMENTS. IT IS THE GAME. HOPEFULLY WE CAN BREAK THIS GAME. WE ALL HAVE ERICA JOHNSON-SECKS DEPOSITION. JUST FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD.
This may sound crude, but it’s the only analogy that’s easy for people and judges to understand.
A woman goes to a party or is promiscuous and sleeps with 6 men in a night or week. The following week she is pregnant. There is one man who is the best looking, strongest, best shape and richest of them all, so she wants him to be the father. Two other men who find out she’s pregnant claim paternity. NOW, before the age of DNA and computers and all, it was simply someone’s word and testimony against another.
However, with the advent o DNA testing and sequencing genes, we can tell who the father is. So, a judge would understand the following:
Judge, this has been a very promiscuous note. It’s gotten around (transfered, pledged, sold, assigned) quite a bit and it never used protection (recording in public records and indorsing note). After being with at least a dozen different partners, our note is now pregnant (ripe for pay off/liquidation).
The MOM (MERS, servicers) says Daddy #1 is the daddy, but the baby (original note) has blond hair and blue eyes judge and the mom and claimed dad are both dark hair and dark eyes so we’re suspicious.
Two dark hair and brown eyes men come forward and state: Judge we both slept with this woman during the time she claimed to be pregnant. Now, 3 different men have potential paternity.
NOW, THE ONLY WAY you can determine who the father (holder in due course) is to take blood samples (accounting, servicing, custody, and investor reports and data) from EACH MAN (servicer//transferee etc..) to see who’s DNA it was and all the others to determine the dad and who owes child support.
Unless you do the DNA (forensic analyses of all docs and records), it doesn;t matter what the bank lawyers, or servicers say, it what really transpired here!
Without seeing where that NOTE (not mortgage) came on and off anyones books; how it was endorsed and when; who has possession and custody and who negotiated the note and PAID for it, you’ll never be able to answer the age old question, “WHO’S YOUR DADDY?”
I put enough into these figures as I do in the “real” unemployment numbers. While they try to count numbers, I count lives.
WASHINGTON – March 23, 2010 – How many foreclosed homes are really out there? No one can say for sure, but the number seems to be somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million.
To date, no one has been able to track the total number of properties owned by banks, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and mortgage investors. Here are a few approximations:
• Barclays Capital uses foreclosure data from mortgage securities to estimate that there are slightly more than 600,000 homes in the process of foreclosure.
• RealtyTrac, which examines public records, estimates the number is closer to 700,000.
• Independent housing economist Tom Lawler combines data from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and securitization trusts to conclude that there are actually about 500,000.
Source: The Wall Street Journal, James R. Hagerty (03/19/2010)
How about puting the many faces and families into this equation instead of trying to put emphasis on numbers! Try numbers on Illegal foreclosure, evicted shattered lives MAYBE?
William Jeff Barnes, Esq. 1515 North Federal Highway
Atrium Building, Suite 300
Member of Florida and Colorado Bars Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Certified Mediator (Florida, Minnesota)
Certified Arbitrator (Florida) telephone: (561) 864-1067
telefax: (702) 804-8137
Ruth Barnes: International/Multilingual
Certified Mediator (Florida, Minnesota) e-mail: wjbarnes@cox.net
Certified Arbitrator (Florida)
July 2, 2008
VIA FAX AND MAIL
(954) 233-8333
Maria M. Solomon, Esq.
Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A.
801 South University Drive, Suite 500
Plantation, Florida 33324
Re: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Defendant (Key West, Florida): FORMAL STATUTORY
DEMAND TO DISMISS FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, CLEAR
TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY, REFUND MONIES PAID, AND FOR PAYMENT
OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FLA.STAT. SEC. 57.105
Dear Ms. Solomon:
This letter is being provided to you, the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., and your client Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Plaintiff in the Action identified herein) as formal notice, pursuant to the matters herein and Fla.Stat. sec. 57.105, of this Firm’s client Defendant demand that you immediately and forthwith dismiss, with prejudice, that certain civil action styled Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Defendant et al., 16th Judicial Circuit Court Case No. 2007-CA-1120-K (Key West, Florida, hereafter referred to as the “Action”); to provide clear title to the real property the subject of the Action; for refund of all monies paid by Defendant incident to the alleged “loan” the subject of the Action; and for payment of attorneys’ fees and costs which are awardable under various Federal and state statutes violated by your filing of the Action. This letter is also being sent as formal notice of Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (copy attached hereto) which will be filed and set for hearing unless, pursuant to Fla.Stat. sec. 57.105(4), within twenty-one (21) days of today, Defendant’s demands as set forth herein are not complied with in writing confirmed by fax receipt, by this Firm, of the July 2, 2008 57.105 demand and notice to Maria Solomon, Esq. re: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Defendant et al., page 2 of 3
necessary documents to legally effect the demands made herein. The facts supporting this demand and the attached Motion are as follows, which are admissions by you, as an agent of the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., in the Complaint which you filed:
(a) On or about August 22, 2007, you, as an agent and attorney of the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., caused a civil action for foreclosure and to “enforce loan documents” to be filed in the 16th Judicial Circuit in and for Monroe County, Florida, which has been assigned case number 2007-CA-1120-K;
(b) In paragraph “5.” of Count I of the Complaint, you affirmatively represent to the Court that “The Plaintiff owns and holds the Note and Mortgage”;
(c) In paragraph “4? of Count I, you affirmatively represent to the Court that the mortgage was “subsequently” assigned to the Plaintiff “by virtue of an assignment to be recorded” (that being some time in the future);
(d) In paragraph “20? of Count II, you affirmatively represent to the Court that “The Plaintiff is not presently in possession of the Note and Mortgage” and “the Plaintiff cannot reasonably obtain possession of the Note and Mortgage because THEIR whereabouts cannot be determined (original emphasis):
(e) In paragraph “22? of Count II, you affirmatively represent to the Court that “The Plaintiff will agree to the entry of a Final Judgment of Foreclosure wherein it will be required to indemnify and hold harmless the Defendant(s) [sic] Defendant, from any loss they [sic] may occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the lost Note and Mortgage.”;
(f) The Action thus inconsistently but affirmatively alleges, in Count I, that “Plaintiff owns and holds the Note and Mortgage” when in fact the admissions in Count II demonstrate, by the allegations of paragraphs “20? and “22? of the Complaint, that the Plaintiff DOES NOT and CANNOT legally establish possession or ownership of the Note or the Mortgage and that same is/are in the possession of an unknown party or parties;
(g) A copy of the Note is not even attached to the Complaint (only an alleged “ledger of loan”);
(h) By virtue of the admissions of the Plaintiff in paragraphs “20?, “21?, and “22? of the Complaint, the Plaintiff has actual knowledge that it never, at any time material, had possession of either the mortgage or the note as same were sold, assigned, or transferred as part of the single-transaction securitization process which resulted in the subject mortgage and/or note being sold as
July 2, 2008 57.105 demand and notice to Maria Solomon, Esq. re: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Defendant et al., page 3 of 3
parceled obligations and becoming part of one or more tranches within a special investment vehicle;
(i) that the Plaintiff cannot establish that the subject note or mortgage is owned or controlled by the Plaintiff “indenture trustee” for unnamed holders of a series of asset-backed bonds (a copy of which are not even attached to the Complaint);
(j) As a direct and proximate result of the transaction referred to in paragraph “h” above, the Plaintiff does not and cannot establish legal standing to even institute a foreclosure action;
(k) As such, the allegation by the Plaintiff in paragraph “5? of the Complaint constitutes matters which are completely devoid of factual or legal support and are thus “frivilous” within the meaning of Fla.Stat. sec. 57.105;
(l) As the primary and threshold issue of legal standing to institute the Action cannot be satisfied (which was known to you, the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., and the Plaintiff at the time that the Action was instituted), the Action is a patently frivilous claim within the meaning of Fla.Stat. sec 57.105 and the filing and prosecution thereof constitutes a fraud upon the Court.
Your client and your Firm are thus charged with actual notice of the filing of an frivilous claim, as you, your client, and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. knew or should have known that the Action was both not supported by the material (and record) facts necessary to establish the claim for foreclosure and would not (and could not) be supported by the application of then-existing law to the material (and record) facts.
As such, this Firm has been directed to file and set for hearing, after the expiration of twenty-one (21) days from today (that being Thursday, July 24, 2008), the attached Motion for Sanctions and to seek attorneys’ fees from both your client and your Firm if the demands set forth herein for immediate dismissal of the Action with Prejudice, providing of clear title to the property the subject of the action, refund of all monies paid by Defendant in connection with the original “loan” the subject of the Action, and payment of all attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this demand are not complied with in writing by the close of business (5:00 p.m.) Wednesday, July 23, 2008.
Sincerely,
Jeff Barnes, Esq.
WJB/bhs
attachment (enclosed with mailed original)
copy to: Defendant (w/attachment)
Why do mortgage companies continue to buy defaulted loans where the borrowers are either dilinquent or stopped making payments completely? For those who also want to know as to why the banks do not want to work with you. Well this is why…
Stop trying to get through the front door…use the back door…Get a Forensic Audit!
Not all Forensic Auditors are alike! FMI may locate exactly where the loan sits today.
This will make your lender WANT to communicate with you. Discover what they don’t want you to know. Go back in time and start from the minute you might have seen advertisements that got you hooked ” No Money Down” “100% Financing” “1% interest” “No income, No assetts” NO PROBLEM! Were you given proper disclosures on time, proper documents, was your loan broker providing you fiduciary guidance or did they hide undisclosed fees from you? Did they conceal illegal kickbacks? Did your broker tell you “Don’t worry before your new terms come due we will refinance you”? Did they inflate your appraisal? Did the developer coerce you to *USE* a certain “lender” and *USE* a certain title company?
If so you need a forensic audit. But keep in mind FMI:
DO NOT STOP FORECLOSURE
DO NOT NEGOTIATE ON YOUR BEHALF WITH YOUR BANK OR LENDER
DO NOT MODIFY YOUR LOAN
DO NOT TAKE CASES that is upto your attorney!
FMI does however, provide your Attorney with AMMO to bring your Lender into the negotiation table.
Yup! You heard it right X’s 2…I feel it’s going to be one of the great defense attorney’s in Florida that will bring down the MILL’s who are destroying families. Mark my words watch for Jeff Barnes, Matt Weidner, Greg Clark, George Gingo and Ice Legal… Baby! Many other…Lets not forget the attorney who is diligently uncovering assignment fraud time after time Lynn Szymoniak ESQ.
FDN has obtained another borrower victory in Florida by having a summary judgment of foreclosure vacated. The Judge in the Brevard County Circuit Court has entered an Order, on motion of the borrower which was prepared, filed, and argued in person by Jeff Barnes, Esq., vacating and setting aside a Final Summary Judgment of Foreclosure and enjoining any foreclosure sale. The Motion set forth that the Judgment was void as there was no proof of legal standing.
The Complaint, filed by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., alleged that the Plaintiff was the holder and owner of the note and mortgage by an assignment “to be filed”. No such assignment was ever filed, and thus Plaintiff Deutsche Bank fraudulently represented to the Court that it had proper legal standing to foreclose when in reality it did not. The threshold hurdle of proof of legal standing to foreclose under Florida law was recently highlighted by the Florida Second District Court of Appeal in the BAC Funding decision which was recently discussed on this website.
The same day that the hearing took place on the Brevard County Motion, FDN attorney Jeff Barnes, Esq. was presented with yet another case filed by the same attorney from the Stern law office for the same client (Deutsche Bank as “Trustee” of a securitized mortgage loan trust) with the same problem (no assignment or proof of VALID ownership of the Note and Mortgage) but filed in Manatee County, Florida with a summary judgment having been entered in favor of Deutsche Bank despite no assignment ever having been filed. A Motion has thus been filed to seek vacatur of the Stern Summary Judgment entered in this separate proceeding.
FDN litigates foreclosure cases throughout the State of Florida as well as in 27 other states, assisted by local counsel. The consistent pattern which is emerging, as to Deutsche Bank, is a misrepresentation of ownership of the Note and Mortgage (or “Deed of Trust” as it is called in non-judicial states other than Georgia, which terms the instrument a “Security Deed”); lack of valid ownership interest in these instruments and the rights attendant thereto; and a failure to produce competent evidence of any ownership (meaning that meritless MERS assignments are not “competent”). This pattern is present in numerous states with different law Firms. Deutsche Bank thus continues to be an entity whose representations must be carefully examined in any foreclosure attempt, because there is a high probability that one or more of its representations are false.
WHOA! …before any of this BS happens. Who is going to address the Perpetual Fraud that exist? Is anyone from the government even doing any due diligence on any of the TOP FORECLOSURE HELP sites? WE HAVE DONE MOST OF YOUR WORK FOR YOU. Who is going to rescue the homeowners buying these fraudulent issues encumbered in these homes? In our illegal foreclosures today and yesterday? May I please have 1 day in the White House to fix all this because apparently they are digging all this up, even further. In order to fix this crap this needs to be fixed first. I think the government has learned a thing or 2 from these bankers (a bird in a hand is worth two in a bush). They are running with their heads in the dark! GoHERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HEREand HERE…you see I did it for you! For a start…YOU MUST FIX THESE ISSUES BEFORE ANYTHING!
In an effort to end the foreclosure crisis, the Obama administration has been trying to keep defaulting owners in their homes. Now it will take a new approach: paying some of them to leave.
This latest program, which will allow owners to sell for less than they owe and will give them a little cash to speed them on their way, is one of the administration’s most aggressive attempts to grapple with a problem that has defied solutions.
More than five million households are behind on their mortgages and risk foreclosure. The government’s $75 billion mortgage modification plan has helped only a small slice of them. Consumer advocates, economists and even some banking industry representatives say much more needs to be done.
For the administration, there is also the concern that millions of foreclosures could delay or even reverse the economy’s tentative recovery — the last thing it wants in an election year.
Taking effect on April 5, the program could encourage hundreds of thousands of delinquent borrowers who have not been rescued by the loan modification program to shed their houses through a process known as a short sale, in which property is sold for less than the balance of the mortgage. Lenders will be compelled to accept that arrangement, forgiving the difference between the market price of the property and what they are owed.
“We want to streamline and standardize the short sale process to make it much easier on the borrower and much easier on the lender,” said Seth Wheeler, a Treasury senior adviser.
The problem is highlighted by a routine case in Phoenix. Chris Paul, a real estate agent, has a house he is trying to sell on behalf of its owner, who owes $150,000. Mr. Paul has an offer for $48,000, but the bank holding the mortgage says it wants at least $90,000. The frustrated owner is now contemplating foreclosure.
To bring the various parties to the table — the homeowner, the lender that services the loan, the investor that owns the loan, the bank that owns the second mortgage on the property — the government intends to spread its cash around.
Under the new program, the servicing bank, as with all modifications, will get $1,000. Another $1,000 can go toward a second loan, if there is one. And for the first time the government would give money to the distressed homeowners themselves. They will get $1,500 in “relocation assistance.”
Should the incentives prove successful, the short sales program could have multiple benefits. For the investment pools that own many home loans, there is the prospect of getting more money with a sale than with a foreclosure.
For the borrowers, there is the likelihood of suffering less damage to credit ratings. And as part of the transaction, they will get the lender’s assurance that they will not later be sued for an unpaid mortgage balance.
For communities, the plan will mean fewer empty foreclosed houses waiting to be sold by banks. By some estimates, as many as half of all foreclosed properties are ransacked by either the former owners or vandals, which depresses the value of the property further and pulls down the value of neighboring homes.
If short sales are about to have their moment, it has been a long time coming. At the beginning of the foreclosure crisis, lenders shunned short sales. They were not equipped to deal with the labor-intensive process and were suspicious of it.
The lenders’ thinking, said the economist Thomas Lawler, went like this: “I lend someone $200,000 to buy a house. Then he says, ‘Look, I have someone willing to pay $150,000 for it; otherwise I think I’m going to default.’ Do I really believe the borrower can’t pay it back? And is $150,000 a reasonable offer for the property?”
Short sales are “tailor-made for fraud,” said Mr. Lawler, a former executive at the mortgage finance company Fannie Mae.
Last year, short sales started to increase, although they remain relatively uncommon. Fannie Mae said preforeclosure deals on loans in its portfolio more than tripled in 2009, to 36,968. But real estate agents say many lenders still seem to disapprove of short sales.
Under the new federal program, a lender will use real estate agents to determine the value of a home and thus the minimum to accept. This figure will not be shared with the owner, but if an offer comes in that is equal to or higher than this amount, the lender must take it.
Mr. Paul, the Phoenix agent, was skeptical. “In a perfect world, this would work,” he said. “But because estimates of value are inherently subjective, it won’t. The banks don’t want to sell at a discount.”
There are myriad other potential conflicts over short sales that may not be solved by the program, which was announced on Nov. 30 but whose details are still being fine-tuned. Many would-be short sellers have second and even third mortgages on their houses. Banks that own these loans are in a position to block any sale unless they get a piece of the deal.
“You have one loan, it’s no sweat to get a short sale,” said Howard Chase, a Miami Beach agent who says he does around 20 short sales a month. “But the second mortgage often is the obstacle.”
Major lenders seem to be taking a cautious approach to the new initiative. In many cases, big banks do not actually own the mortgages; they simply administer them and collect payments. J. K. Huey, a Wells Fargo vice president, said a short sale, like a loan modification, would have to meet the requirements of the investor who owns the loan.
“This is not an opportunity for the customer to just walk away,” Ms. Huey said. “If someone doesn’t come to us saying, ‘I’ve done everything I can, I used all my savings, I borrowed money and, by the way, I’m losing my job and moving to another city, and have all the documentation,’ we’re not going to do a short sale.”
But even if lenders want to treat short sales as a last resort for desperate borrowers, in reality the standards seem to be looser.
Sree Reddy, a lawyer and commercial real estate investor who lives in Miami Beach, bought a one-bedroom condominium in 2005, spent about $30,000 on improvements and ended up owing $540,000. Three years later, the value had fallen by 40 percent.
Mr. Reddy wanted to get out from under his crushing monthly payments. He lost a lot of money in the crash but was not in default. Nevertheless, his bank let him sell the place for $360,000 last summer.
“A short sale provides peace of mind,” said Mr. Reddy, 32. “If you’re in foreclosure, you don’t know when they’re ultimately going to take the place away from you.”
Mr. Reddy still lives in the apartment complex where he bought that condo, but is now a renter paying about half of his old mortgage payment. Another benefit, he said: “The place I’m in now is nicer and a little bigger.”
Listen carefully it’s not only the sub-prime …it’s now those who called everyone in foreclosure a dead beat. Those “who” were living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones because one might come bouncing back to shatter. We are now in this together so I welcome you with open arms and into a hug because I know you will need one.
We hold that a series of standardized agreements to cure default between a non-debtor mortgagor and the mortgage servicer are covered by the Consumer Fraud Act, even when executed post-foreclosure.
As a lot of you have come to realize LOAN MODIFICATIONS have not solved anyone’s problems but to put more money into the bank’s pockets and have the homeowner eventually wind up back where they were before the loan mod, but this time with the bank arguing that although they tried to help the homeowner the homeowner fell behind again, therefore they need to finish the foreclosure. The bank also argues that if they were any discrepancies or infractions on the original loan, well by the homeowner agreeing to a LOAN MODIFICATION the original loan is null and void and the terms on the loan modifications are in effect. They also argue that the homeowner basically signed away their rights to the original loan and are bound by the loan mod terms. However the bank still maintains theirs and will seek to foreclose on the homeowner. Well, the judges are beginning to see what we have been saying all along. BE AWARE if fraud was committed in the original loan ti does not make it go away because the bank gave the homeowner a loan modification and it puts the homeowner in a position to seek legal and financial compensation from the bank. GOD BLESS
Here is the detail info:
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2634-08T2
This is why getting a Forensic Loan Audit is much needed. This is not something an amateur should attempt leave this to the professionals who have the keen eye for understanding complexities to address all applicable regulatory compliance requirements as well as any Federal and State violations.
These “Black Deeds”, collectively, are proof that the notaries, witnesses, and signatories on each and every like assignment of mortgage is suspect at best; created as purely fabricated malarkey at worst. Professionals are starting to surmise that all of these mortgage assignments magically produced, presto-chango, to ram another foreclosure through “the system” are not credible evidence upon which the transfer of property, dispensation of justice, and the roof over a family’s head should rest.
And, then, here ya’ go: another colleague found a mortgage assignment back-dated four years in order to assign property two years hence. Being no math whiz, would someone please clarify if that is a net back-dating of two years? Perhaps it’s a cumulative formula, adding the 4 years to 2 years, makes the “off dating” 6 years? I dunno! How’s that really work? Sounds like an episode of Beat The Clock!
This is no mere document failure! Please. Call it what it is: foreclosures upon millions of families, evicted from their homes by financial entities with no more rights to take those homes than have you or I. When faced with this fact, the financial entities are creating, fabricating (aka MAKING UP) the “evidence” to prove that they have the
right to take a family’s home and throw them with all their worldly
possessions into the street! Where are the investors who really put up the money for these home loans? They must be singing the blues to see some interloper foreclose a million times over and keep the proceeds from the post-foreclosure sale. Welcome to America! Waive to the Statue of Liberty on your way in. Breathe in that democratic process air we’ve prided ourselves on for lo these 233 years.
There are millions upon millions of families being evicted onto the streets, many with no alternative housing options. It’s not so easy to find a job in the best of circumstances today. Ever tried to find and/or hold down a job without a fixed address? How ’bout the children, in the middle of their school year? What about the beloved pets of foreclosure, fully members of the newly homeless family? Ever tried to find emergency shelter or housing with a deeply loved animal or two? What of the elderly who do not have the remaining lifespan to recover from the terrible financial and personal blow and may face their remaining “golden years” begging for scarce, dwindling social-net resources. What of the disabled, those of us living in America who, without dramatic rescue, are too ill and infirm to ever hope to again live independently under cover.
I may or may not return here to add more…………I’m too distraught to continue writing of my country’s egregious willful complicity in these relentless evictions and property confiscation. My heart and soul start to rupture past the point of repair when I think of how America is treating it’s citizenry, including the weakest of us all; based on a million-fold fraudulent transactions from mortgage origination well past post-foreclosure sale.
Let’s move on in a more wickedly delicious track, shall we?
Two unrelated, remorseful individuals have come forward, whispering to us colleagues with tales of the inner workings and “business practices” of document creation “mills” which may or may not be operating under the direction of foreclosure mill law firm. Permission from the parties has been extracted to publish this post.
Apparently, that same fear, hopelessness, and rage which descend upon one who is evicted from the only home they know to face a bleak and uncertain future……….. Yes, THAT fear, hopelessness and rage! Well, that same emotional response seems to have hit hard on a few past and/or current employees of certain companies which may have been involved in dubious, questionable “business practices”.
A crisis of conscience? Fear of criminal charges? Facing foreclosure themselves? Relative evicted? Family member tenet unexpectedly “trashed out”? Seeing the futility of working out a loan mod? One of the signatories (or employers thereof) who frantically googles the same names over and over and over in a mad search for what is known, what is published?
Could it be one or more of these signatories, while working for a “document solutions” company, have been “transferring property and assets” valued in the multi-billions and ostensibly owned by the top financial institutions in the world? Ron Mehig? Bethany Hood? Linda Green? From New House Title? Cheryl Hodge? Korrell Harp? From Law Offices of David Stern? Scott Anderson? Lori Brown? Barbara Hindman? Lori Brown? Whitney K. Cook? Melissa Flanagan? Lillana Morcan? Liquenda Allotey? Christina Trowbridge? Raquel Smith? Branden Kiel? Beth Cottrell? Twanna Thomas? From DocX? Winona Church? Nancy Reyes? William W. Huffman? Jill Arnold? Shameca Harrison? Kari Marx? Renee Hertzler? Mark Biscof? From LPS? Lorraine Brown?
Who knows? I’m not one to force another to reveal their personal motivations. I enjoy the privacy afforded me by the hard bones of my skull. I often keep my thoughts to myself and extend to others the same respect.
For a short period of time in Florida, pretender lenders and their attorneys had a field day in Florida courts, obtaining foreclosure judgments and title to property based on the flimsiest of evidence. Now courts are aware of many of the problems with these files and lenders can no longer count on a free ride to the foreclosure auction. Below is a sampling of case headnotes from recent circuit court opinions that denied foreclosure. Judges in circuits across the state are now standing up for consumers (or at least for the rule of law) and requiring lenders to prove their right to claim the relief they seek. A sampling of the headnotes follows:
Mortgages — Foreclosure — Stay — Foreclosure action is stayed until mortgagor has been afforded mitigation and modification opportunities of home affordable modification program
Mortgages — Foreclosure — Standing — Motion for final judgment of foreclosure denied — Plaintiff that did not become holder of note until after suit was filed did not have standing to bring action — Even if assignment could confer standing retroactively, assignment is deficient where jurat does not indicate that it was signed in presence of notary, and assignor does not have documented authority to assign mortgage — Further, motion for summary judgment is deficient where supporting affidavit was signed by person whose only demonstrated authority is to assign and release liens, not by individual with corporate authority and demonstrated knowledge.
Mortgages — Foreclosure — Complaint — Plaintiff has failed to state cause of action where partial terms sheet attached to foreclosure complaint omits details as to who gets paid, when and where payment is due, and amount of payment — Further, assignment that is dated after filing of suit is at variance with complaint — Complaint dismissed with leave to amend.
Mortgages — Foreclosure — Standing — Motion to dismiss is granted with leave to file new or amended complaint to allege that plaintiff is owner and holder of note and mortgage and to allege additional facts that support that allegation.
Mortgages — Foreclosure — Where note filed by plaintiff is endorsed but does not name entity to which it is made payable, plaintiff failed to plead in complaint that it is owner of note or mortgage, mortgage names entity other than plaintiff as mortgagee, plaintiff has filed assignment of mortgage executed and recorded after complaint was filed, and complaint does not demonstrate equitable assignment of mortgage to plaintiff before complaint was filed, plaintiff must amend complaint to allege that it is owner and holder of note and mortgage and identify documents upon which it relies to establish that it holds and owns note and mortgage
Recent Comments