In submitting any future orders of reference said application shall include an affidavit from plaintiff indicating whether this loan is subject to a H.A.M.P. review and whether plaintiff is or is not prevented from proceeding with the instant foreclosure by reason of any applicable federal H.A.M.P. directives.
RE: Emergent Amendments to Rules 1:5-6, 4:64-1 and 4:64-2
In light of irregularities in the residential foreclosure practice as reported in sworn deposition testimony in New Jersey and other states, the Court has adopted, on an emergent basis, amendments to Rules 1:5-6, 4:64-1 and 4:64-2. These amendments are effective December 20, 2010. The new rule and the amendments, along with the Order adopting them, appear with this notice. The Court’s Order also contains directions for counsel in pending uncontested residential foreclosure cases.
Ally Financial/GMAC Bank of America Citibank JP Morgan Chase OneWest Bank Wells Fargo Bank
Action Date: December 20, 2010 Location: Mercer County, NJ
New Jersey State Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner entered an order To Show Cause “In The Matter of Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Pleadings and Document Irregularities” in Civil Action No. F-059553-10, Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, General Equity Part, Mercer County on December 20, 2010. Six mortgage servicing companies and their bank-owners were ordered to show cause why the Court should not suspend their rights to foreclose.
First on the list was Ally Financial, formerly known as GMAC. Ally/GMAC is the employer of Jeffrey Stephan who was exposed as one of many “robo-signers” – a phrase indicating that an employee signed thousands of documents used in foreclosure cases with no idea of the truth of the matters asserted in the documents, and more often than not, without even having read what was signed.
Stephan signed thousands of Affidavits, but he signed tens of thousands of Mortgage Assignments – the documents used by mortgage-backed trusts to show that the trusts acquired the mortgages at issue and have the right to foreclose.
Stephan signed these Mortgage Assignments for many different mortgage-backed trusts. Over 50 RALI (Residential Accredit Loans, Inc.) Trusts relied almost exclusively on Mortgage Assignments signed by Stephan. Over 44 RAMP (Residential Asset Mortgage Products) Trusts also used Assignments churned out by Stephan. At least 20 RASC (Residential Asset Securities Corp.) Trusts used Stephan assignments almost exclusively in foreclosures. At least 40 other mortgage-backed trusts, including certain Aames Mortgage Investment Trusts, certain Bear Stearns Trusts and certain Harborview Trusts all relied on Ally/GMAC’s Stephan for proof of their right to foreclose.
These trusts needed the Stephan-made assignments because the trusts’ depositors, sponsors, trustees and document custodians failed to obtain the critical documents, including notes and assignments, at the inception of the trust – despite promises to investors and regulators that these documents had been obtained and were being safeguarded.
In Florida, Stephan’s name appears on thousands of Mortgage Assignments, most often on documents prepared by the Law Offices of David Stern, who is under investigation by the Florida Attorney General. In almost every case, Stephans signed as a Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.
According to the Stephan documents, the trusts almost always acquired these mortgages AFTER they were already in default, and often AFTER foreclosure proceedings had been initiated.
Many different banks, in their capacity as Trustees for mortgage-backed trusts, used Stephan Assignments, but Stephan documents were most often used by Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Bank of NY Mellon and U.S. Bank.
Assuming that each trust has mortgage loans with a face value of one billion dollars – and that over 200 trusts are involved, the amount in controversy is staggering.
Also disturbing is the number of Assignments on Stephan/Stern documents where the assignee trust is unidentified. The Stephan/Stern team repeatedly prepared and filed Assignments where only the Trustees – and not the trusts themselves – were identified as the new owners of the mortgages. “U.S. Bank as Trustee” and “Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee” are the new owners of thousands of mortgages.
Stephan often wrongly stated his own job title, the date the assignment to the trusts took place, and the identity of the trusts. Stephan’s conduct – and the documents he produced – will not stand up to the most superficial examination. Chief Justice Rabner seems determined to dig much deeper.
The other five companies named by Chief Justice Rabner have the very same problems, having produced hundreds of thousands of flawed loan documents for mortgage-backed trusts, signed by individuals with very limited knowledge or authority. Their role was to sign their names without questioning or understanding what they signed.
According to Chief Justice Rabner, the next step may be the Appointment of a Special Master “to inquire into and report to the court on the extent of irregularities concerning affidavits, certifications, assignments and other documents from time to time filed with the court in residential mortgage foreclosure actions…” Past and present business practices would be examined and the Master could also consider whether sanctions should be imposed…and a suggested formula to determine an appropriate sanction.”
By his Order, Chief Justice Rabner gave hope to hundreds of thousands of victims of fraud by securities companies, banks, mortgage companies and mortgage servicing companies.
The nature of the problem calls for a balancing of the court’s supervisory and adjudicatory roles and responsibilities. The court has therefore established the procedure in this Order to address the pressing needs of the Office of Foreclosure while providing due process to affected parties. The court will direct that the six Foreclosure Plaintiff’s named on this order show cause at a hearing scheduled for January 19, 2011, why the court should not suspend the processing of all foreclosures matters involving the six Foreclosure Plaintiffs and appoint Special Masters to review their past and proposed foreclosure practices.
ANITA A. VIDA, Plaintiff,
v. ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., a Delaware corporation formerly known as IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B., and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, a Government Chartered Association formerly known as Fannie Mae, Defendants.
Civ. No. 10-987-AC.
United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division.
December 13, 2010.
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN V. ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge.
Introduction
Plaintiff Anita A. Vida (“Vida”) alleges claims for breach of contract and fraud, and seeks declaratory judgment cancelling the trust deed and reinstating her mortgage. Defendants OneWest Bank, FSB (“OneWest”) and Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) (collectively “Defendants”) move for dismissal of all claims. Defendants argue that Vida has failed to state a claim for relief on the following grounds: (1) Vida may not state a breach of contract claim arising under the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (“HAMP”) because it does not authorize a private right of action; (2) Vida has not pleaded her fraud claim with sufficient particularity; and (3) Vida’s allegation that she did not receive adequate notice of the foreclosure action is preempted by state law. Defendants assert generally that Vida has otherwise failed to state claims of breach of contract and fraud.
“Issues”…Nah no “issues”? If this isn’t sending us a message or 127 messages that there aren’t any “issues”… Let them continue to submit exactly what they were filing before the *New Rule*… don’t stop now! Believe me there is more than these!
EXCERPT:
Pursuant to an Administrative Order of the Chief Judge, dated October 20, 2010, all residential mortgage foreclosure actions require an affirmation from the attorney representing the plaintiff/lender/bank, as stated in the affirmation attached to this order, that he/she has inspected all documents.
The plaintiff is also directed on any future application to provide a copy of this Court’s order, the prior application/motion papers and an updated affidavit of regularity/merit from the plaintiff/lender/bank’s representative that he/she has reviewed the file in this case and that he/she documents that all paperwork is correct. The plaintiff/lender/bank’s representative shall also provide in said affidavit of regularity her/his position, length of service, training, educational background and a listing of the documents and financial records reviewed substantiating the review of the amounts owed. The affidavit should also include that she/he has personally reviewed both the mortgage and the note and any assignments for accuracy.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proof in a summary judgment proceeding and judgment will only be awarded when all doubt is removed as to the existence of any triable issue of fact. Under the present circumstances, where there have been numerous instances alleged as to “robo” signing of documents and a failure to attest to the accuracy of documents in mortgage foreclosure proceedings, the plaintiff must prove its entitlement to foreclose on a mortgage as a matter of law by establishing the regularity and accuracy of the financial documentary evidence submitted and the Court will be scrutinizing all documents for accuracy.
The foregoing constitutes the decision of the Court.
Any issues with “Defendant MERS VP Roger Stotts” signing an affidavit for “Plaintiff ONEWEST”?? See image below 🙂
ONEWEST BANK, FSB AS SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO INDYMAC‘ BANK, FSB
Plaintiff,
-against-
JESUS GARCIA,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR INDYMAC
BANK, FSB,
Excerpt:
Plaintiffs failure to provide a note or notes reflecting the amount it claims is due from
defendant-mortgagor precludes the Court from granting the relief requested. It is well settled that in
order to make a prima facie case in a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must show the existence of the
note and mortgage and that it is the owner of same. Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB v Miffer, 18 AD3d 527
(2d Dept 2005); MERS v Coakfey, 41 AD3d 674 (2d Dept 2007); Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537 (2d
Dept 1988). The note provided here reflects only partial proof of the amount allegedly owed.
Additionally, with regard to the proof necessary on a motion for default in general, CPLR
321 5(f) requires that the applicant “shall file … proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default and
the amount due by affidavit …” Neither the affirmation of Jason E. Brooks nor the affidavit of Roger
Stotts satisfies that requirement. Such failure is particularly striking in view of the confusion present
here by virtue of allegations which are inconsistent with documents, and documents which are
submitted without explanation.
Continue below… Make sure you see the image down below as well…
In hours of congressional hearings last week, the nation’s banks were repeatedly condemned for dual-track loan modification systems that give hope to homeowners seeking lower monthly payments while at the same time foreclosing on their properties behind their backs.
“Unacceptable deficiencies,” is how the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency put it. Failed oversight, ineffective practices and insufficient staffing were criticisms added by other top regulators and legislators.
Boca Raton resident James Strassburger could have told lawmakers all that. He just wishes they were listening this year when One West Bank sold his home at foreclosure auction during negotiations for a loan modification.
Strassburger, 56, and his wife, Deborah, 58, who lived in their home for 19 years, were ordered out in May, holding two yard sales so they could squeeze into a rented apartment.
But the real kick in the gut came in August, six months after the auction, when they got a letter congratulating them for earning a trial loan modification. It was followed by a note alerting them to a hearing that would essentially give them their home back. Their mortgage payment was due Sept. 1, the letter reminded.
“This all could have been avoided. We could have been living our lives,” said James Strassburger, a former business owner whose flooring jobs dropped off when the economy fell. “It’s not a good feeling. I don’t like seeing my wife cry.”
One West Bank said it was looking into the Strassburgers’ case, but did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Washington lawmakers began paying earnest attention to the nation’s foreclosure nightmare this fall as banks pulled back on their home repossessions after acknowledging assembly line-like processing systems had potentially illegal shortcomings.
Hastily prepared court documents, as well as the dual-track foreclosure and loan modification process, were discussed Wednesday in a hearing of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and Thursday in the House Judiciary Committee.
I want to tell you all a little story. The story begins, as all American dreams do, with unfettered hope and belief, but has, over time, become a nightmare from the darkest recesses of our national psyche. This is not a fairy tale, and I beg you to see yourself in our heroine; for you could find yourself in her shoes very soon. And I promise you that that is not a place you want to be. But read on, and judge the veracity of my words for yourself.
I have been in the mortgage industry for almost a decade, and have seen my share of the ugly side of lending: the foreclosures, the forgotten families, and the greedy, heartless, faceless “holder of the note” gone wild. I have experienced all of this more times than I care to admit, and have been ashamed of my industry more times than I care to count, but the borrower I wish to tell you of was the reason I broke into this business in the first place. People like her, hard-working, honest Americans, are the ones a broker like myself looks for day and night, and strives to take care of in whatever capacity we are capable of.
Why you ask? What makes her so special? There are many answers to these questions, and the easy answer would be that she perfectly fit the mold we in the business look for. She had been employed for 22 years with the same corporation, and had managed to pay every liability on time for her entire adult life. No late payments, no missed payments, and nothing at all to indicate that she would ever change. Her credit score was 780, and she had owned a home for 10 years in Miami Beach (an expensive place to buy). This showed unequivocally that she understood liability, and knew how to get things done in the lending market. In short, she was a lender’s dream come true. A loan you approve and forget about because the payments are always in on time, and so, as a lender, you just count money for 30 years. What could be better from our point of view than that? Every lender in the world will tell you the answer to that question is nothing; absolutely nothing.
This lady decided to move to Chicago to be closer to her corporate office, so she sold her home in Miami and took her dreams and possessions north to Chicago. This took place in 2006 while the housing bubble was still growing larger, and no one outside of the industry had any expectation that it may burst at any time. She did her due diligence while looking for a home in the Chicago area, and eventually settled on a brand new property in an area ripe for gentrification. Basically, she bought in an older neighborhood that was undergoing massive urban renewal projects that were projected to raise property values in her area significantly; as long as there was no unforeseen disaster looming. That is the danger of things unforeseen. They eventually come to pass, and no one is prepared to combat them.
She started with an Interest-Only Loan as at that time it made more sense to use her principal money on personal investments rather than giving it to a lender to make decisions with. Even though interest rates were high at the time, IO rates slightly higher than fixed, she was able to get the property for almost $75K less than it initially appraised for, so she was already ahead of the game. She maintained her perfect history, 0×30 on her mortgage, and everything else for that matter, but that was before the wise and powerful bankers in America decided to play 3-Card Monty with America’s future.
As the signs of the encroaching financial apocalypse began to show themselves, she attempted, through her lender, to pursue refinancing, but was told her case called for the loan modification process. The press was making a fuss about how these modifications were the way for borrowers to get the help they needed to stay afloat in the carnage that followed the bubble bursting, and as an intelligent and savvy borrower with a perfect history she expected the process to go smoothly for her. In that assumption, she would have been right if not for the new credit card laws passed that allowed the companies to raise their interest rates and reduce the line of credit available on any given card. These changes have had an enormous, unintended consequence in the lending world since loans are in large part based on debt-to-income (DTI) ratios.
Imagine this borrower has a credit line of $10K on a card with only a $2K balance, but is then targeted by the credit card company for a reduced credit line of say $2500, so her 20% balance has now become 80% without her actually doing anything irresponsible. Yet, when lenders looked at her DTI they would see that she is nearly maxed out on her card, and in this industry that is a major red flag. She understood DTI, and how it could affect her ability to qualify for extra money (even though she did nothing untoward or rash in terms of spending), but why should that hamper her from getting a reduced rate? It is asinine to ask a person to re-qualify for something they already have, or to tell them they must qualify to save money, but this is what is happening in America today. She signed no agreement stating she could not refinance in the future with the help of her lender, so all she is left with are questions. Questions that for her and the millions like her, unfortunately, have no good answers. The American Dream, for this model American, is quickly becoming the American Nightmare.
There are so many questions our borrower wants to ask, but there are no phone lines to call or government offices to visit with any answer other than, “talk to the lender”. This is just endless runaround from the lender, and more and more frustration for her and her family. How is it possible to be locked into a loan, with bankruptcy laws so much tougher, and have absolutely no way to refinance? More transparency in the industry is great, but how can our borrowers appease the credit companies interest hikes while losing equity in their property due to the housing catastrophe and still meet the necessary financial obligations they agreed to prior to this meltdown? This is a recipe for mass bankruptcy and foreclosure; two things that hurt us all in the long run.
It was March of 2009 when our borrower started the conversation about refinancing with her current mortgage company, Indy Mac, from the 7.625% IO-Loan to a 4.5% fixed rate. They explained to her that she would need to print out a new financial packet, and send it, along with all other pertinent information, in to be reviewed before they could proceed; she did just that. After an entire month had passed, she called in to check the status of her application, and was told that the servicing company, Indy Mac, was changing hands, but she would still be taken care of by the new investor, One West.
Just like that, she and thousands of other customers were being sold to the highest bidder, and after some research she discovered that One West actually only paid up to far less than full value for these notes. It gets better. One West actually had the federal government guarantee them anything lost over a certain percentage. What does this mean you ask? All the numbers are there in black and white on the internet for anyone to see; but no one looks. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that it would be more profitable to foreclose quickly and collect the guaranteed funds than to refinance the borrower’s note at a current market rate.
The changing of the servicer of her note, as unsettling as it was, would have been fine if not for the dramatic change in guidelines and customer service she experienced. This often happens after a change of this magnitude in any business field, but these differences were downright ridiculous. She was informed that the financial packet she had sent was no longer valid, so she would have to assemble another one before any process could begin. So, once again she followed procedure in hopes of capturing that elusive lower interest rate.
She waited and waited for a call to inform her of the status of her newest application, and finally tried calling herself to enquire; but to no avail. Her calls were treated as a joke. They repetitiously asked for the same documents, and even claimed after three business days that they had never received her fax, and that it took all that time to verify whether or not they had received her documentation. They have done this over 50 times from March of 2009 to the present day! That is preposterous, shameful, and ought to be criminal! But it gets better; or worse for our heroine.
After calling repeatedly for three months she finally got them to look at her application. They told our borrower that the check stubs submitted were out of date according to Fannie Mae guidelines (must be less than 90 days old), but when she remedied that they told our borrower that her check stubs were fraudulent. Check stubs from one of the three largest airlines in the world which she has worked with for more than 20 years by the way. They focused on some minutiae that they knew to be nothing, but she was forced to get a complete employment record from her employer to along with a Letter of Explanation (LOX) from her Human Resources department. This process has stretched into years with no results. She was even told that the best way to get help is to be late on her mortgage payments! Imagine that. It has become so bad that when she follows up on any fax or correspondence they claim she has never talked to anyone about her issue, and when she asked about recording the conversation she was told it was against their policy. I am not making this up. Every word is true and to the point, and the point is that One West and Indy Mac, Fannie Mae and the federal government are fleecing, and failing we the people.
This is dangerous and uncontrolled corporate behavior, and it cannot be allowed to continue. One West has become the poster child for what is wrong with this industry; what is wrong with America in fact. In my humble opinion (and that of thousands of other Americans…not to mention all the honest lenders in the industry), they have pulled out all the stops when it comes to delaying and deceiving their customers in order to get a government handout and make a dishonest buck. This must not be allowed to stand.
Help her. She has asked again and again, and researched every option. She can’t refinance due to not having value. She can’t modify because it’s not profitable to the lender to do so, and she can’t walk away as her state won’t allow this. Why I ask myself? Is it considered walking away if you have no more options? Why is it easier to profit from bad deals than good ones? There is no hope for this borrower that she can see. The only hope I can think of is a Federal Reserve for primary borrowers in America. By that, I mean the feds open the vaults to primary homeowners at a specific rate, and work directly with the borrowers from a federal standpoint. Cut the banks out. Let them focus on commercial deals and second homes where the rates are higher and people know what they are getting into from day one. I do not think these customers’ closing paperwork said anything about having to stay in one rate for thirty years. Do you know anyone on record in today’s environment that can say they stayed in their home for thirty years at the same rate? I don’t think that is even possible. Please share…
Here are some sites that clearly have people in the same situation, read, educate, follow and post, let’s start the revolt against One West/ Indy Mac and Fannie Mae.
Go to Google, You-tube or any engine for that matter and type class action Indy Mac, Type Complaints Indy Mac/ One West; you will see firsthand what we are all up against.
SFF has posted numerous court orders involving this firm and nothing has come about the fraud they are submitting and swearing to under oath. Shocking.
Lets set aside that these are FORECLOSURES for a second…T h e s e a r e o f f i c e r s o f t h e c o u r t [PERIOD END OF STORY], intentionally submitting bogus, fraudulent documents even after they were made aware of new filing requirements.
“We cannot allow the courts in New York State to stand by idly and be party to what we now know is a deeply flawed process, especially when that process involves basic human needs–such as a family home–during this period of economic crisis,” said New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman in a statement.
Judge Melvyn Tanenbaum suspends the following cases
Excerpt:
This Court has repeatedly directed plaintiffs counsel to submit proposed orders of reference
and judgments of foreclosure in proper form and counsel has continuously failed to do so. The Court
provided counsel’s office directly with copies of orders and judgments which would satisfy the
requirements and counsel has responded by submitting correspondence addressed to the Court from
non-attorney employees with improper and inadequate submissions. The Court deems plaintiffs
counsel’s actions to be an intentional failure to comply with the directions of the Court and a
dereliction of professional responsibility. Accordingly it is…
Continue to the Orders All The Way Down…
.
Another 18 reasons why an Investigation should be in order…some of us are keeping track and trust me there is many more!
Judge Murphy deserves an applause for the great job of questioning all facts and making no assumptions.
SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK
TRIAL TERM. PART 17 NASSAU COUNTY
PRESENT:
Honorable Karen V. Murphv
Justice of the Supreme Court
ONEWEST BANK, FSB
155 North Lake Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91101,
Plaintiff(s),
-against-
ALEXADER ROTH, MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
AS NOMINEE FOR E*TRADE WHOLESALE
LENDING CORP., ET AL.,
Defendant(s).
Excerpts:
In this matter Plaintiff failed to establish that it is entitled to the relief sought. It is well settled that a foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it and absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of mortgage is a nullity. (Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 A. 2d 537 538536 N. 2d 92 (2d Dept. , 1988)). While Plaintiff alleges that it is the holder of both the note and mortgage, the record before the Court suggests otherwise and raises factual issues as well as issues of credibility that can not be determined herein. (see .J Capelin Assoc. v. Globe Mfg. Corp. 34 N. 2d 338 341 313 N. 2d 776 357 N. 2d 478 (1974)).
The Complaint filed September 4, 2009 stated that Plaintiff is “the owner and holder of a note and mortgage being foreclosed.” Bald assertions of possession of the original note without more, in light of the conflicting evidence, is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Furtermore, the assignment recorded on October 1 , 2009 specifically states that it is an “assignment of mortgage ” and makes no reference to the note. Thus, a question of fact exists as to whether the note was ever assigned or delivered to Plaintiff. It may well be that the note was neither assigned nor delivered to Plaintiff prior to commencement of this action and Plaintiff would then be without authority to bring this action.
A stamp on the copy of the note provided by Plaintiff appears to be an indorsement of the note in blan, by the original lender, and is not dated (U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore, 68 A.D.3d 752 890 N. 2d 578 (2d Dept. , 2009)). Additional issues regarding the timing of that indorsement on the note and whether MERS, at the time it executed the Assignment of Mortgage had authority, let alone the abilty, to assign the note and/or whether, in fact the note had already been assigned at the time of the purported assignment of the mortgage exist (id).
ORDERED that movant shall serve a copy of this Order upon all parties, or their attorneys if represented by counsel and shall there after file affidavits of service with the County Clerk and it is further,
ORDERED that a copy of this Order and proof of service of same be anexed as exhibits to any future applications regarding the subject mortgage and note.
The foregoing constitutes the Order of this Court.
Dated: September 1 , 2010
Mineola, N.
NASSAU COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK’S
LOXAHATCHEE, Fla.—Israel Machado’s foreclosure started out as a routine affair. In the summer of 2008, as the economy began to soften, Mr. Machado’s pool-cleaning business suffered and like millions of other Americans, he fell behind on his $400,000 mortgage.
But Mr. Machado’s response was unlike most other Americans’. Instead of handing his home over to the lender, IndyMac Bank FSB, he hired Ice Legal LP in nearby Royal Palm Beach to fight the foreclosure. The law firm researched the history of Mr. Machado’s loan and found two interesting facts.
First, the affidavits IndyMac used to file the foreclosure were signed by a so-called robo-signer named Erica A. Johnson-Seck, who routinely signed 6,000 documents a week related to foreclosures and bankruptcy. That volume, the court decided, meant Ms. Johnson-Seck couldn’t possibly have thoroughly reviewed the facts of Mr. Machado’s case, as required by law.
Secondly, IndyMac (now called OneWest Bank) no longer owned the loan—a group of investors in a securitized trust managed by Deutsche Bank did. Determining that IndyMac didn’t really have standing to foreclose, a judge threw out the case and ordered IndyMac to pay Mr. Machado’s $30,000 legal bill.
Mr. Machado and his lawyer, Tom Ice, say they now want to convince the owners of the mortgage to cut Mr. Machado’s loan balance to between $150,000 and $200,000—the current selling price for comparable homes in his community near West Palm Beach. “The whole intent was to get them to come to the negotiating table, to get me in a fixed-rate mortgage that worked,” Mr. Machado said.
OneWest Bank employee: ‘Not more than 30 seconds’ to sign each foreclosure document
The recent announcements by J.P. Morgan Chase and Ally Financial that they were freezing some foreclosures because of paperwork irregularities raises a key question: How many more mortgage companies employed “robo-signers?”
In a sworn deposition in July, Erica Johnson-Seck, an Austin, Tex.,-based vice president for bankruptcy and foreclosure for OneWest Bank, said she and her team of seven others sign 6,000 documents a week or about 24,000 a month without reading all of them.
Johnson-Seck estimated that she spent no more than 30 seconds to sign each document.
She explained that while she does not check everything, she does check some information, “which is why I said 30 seconds instead of two seconds.”
Please welcome Ericka Johnson Seck to the ROBO-SIGNER Hall of Sham!
MERS & LPS once again the “Common Thread”
Here is a list of her many Corporate Hats:
Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS)
Vice President of Deutsch Bank National Trust
Vice President of Bank of New York
Attorney in Fact of IndyMac
Attorney in Fact of ONEWEST
Attorney in Fact of FDIC
I must confess, she was my first study because she signed two assignments for “one” of my properties using “two” different employers. 🙂 ‘<blush> I even created my very first youtube video in her honor (see below)!
Thanks to Judge Arthur Schack and Tom Ice from Ice Legal in Palm Beach County, we all became familiar with Erica for wearing too many corporate hats.
She is the “Robo-Signer” Judge Schack called out in three particular cases in NY and made her an instant foreclosure household name. I don’t think she ever emerged in NY soon after this. Also see the HSCB v. Yasmin case.
Excerpt of DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST v. HARRIS
The Court is perplexed as to why the assignment was not executed in Pasadena, California, at 46U Sierra Madre Villa, the alleged “principal place of business” for both the assignor and the assignee. In my January 3 1, 2008 decision (Deutsche Bank National Tr (1st Canpuny v Maraj, – Misc 3d – [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 50176 [U]), I noted that Erica Johnson-Seck, claimed that she was a Vice President of MERS in her July 3,2007 INDYMAC to DEUTSCHE BANK assignment, and then in her July 3 1,2007 affidavit claimed to be a DEUTSCHE BANK Vice President. Just as in Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v Maraj, at 2, the Court in the instant action, before granting itn application for an order of reference, requires an affidavit from Ms. Johnson-Seck, describing her employment history for the past three years.
Further, the Court requires an explanation from an officer of plaintiff DEUTSCHE BANK as to why, in the middle of our national subprime mortgage financial crisis, DEUTSCHE BANK would purchase a non-perferforming loan from INDYMAC, and why DEUTSCHE BANK, INDYMAC and MERS all share office space at 460 Sierra Madre Villa, Pasadena, CA 91 107.
24,000 Monthly Documents executed by her team
Now Lets move on to this below… according to this deposition her office signs 24,000 mortgage related documents out of the this figure she signed about “750” a week making it approximately 3000 mortgage documents used in foreclosure cases. Anything from Affidavits of Debt, Lost Note Affidavits, Assignment of Mortgages, Declarations pretty much anything having to deal with Bankruptcy and Foreclosures.
This is what she signs without any notary present.
Below is a sale that happened in DC all in 1 single day! It appears she also puts properties in her name with her co-employees Roger Stotts and Eric Friedman.
ROGER STOTTS signs these as well and according to the depo above Indymac/Onewest is “NOT” the custodian as defined below. Why do they commit fraud?
FIRST VIDEO MADE OF DAVID J. STERN, ERICA JOHNSON-SECK BACK IN FEBRUARY 2010
Last Updated: 12:01 PM, February 28, 2010 Posted: 12:54 AM, February 28, 2010
As the mortgage melt down paralyzed the economy across the US and throughout New York State, one company in the center of the storm had all the business it could handle.The little-known law firm of Steven J. Baum PC, which is based in suburban Buffalo, NY, and represents dozens of banks in matters of failed mortgages, last year filed a staggering 12,551 foreclosure lawsuits in New York City and the suburbs, which works out to about 48 a day.
The foreclosure mill is one of a handful of super-regional law firms used by the country’s banks — and its lawyers appear to have practiced in every county courthouse and bankruptcy court from Staten Island to Plattsburgh and from Montauk to Niagara Falls.
But as the volume of its workload increased, so did complaints from opposing lawyers and judges that some of the thousands of lawsuits contained questionable legal work.
One bank caught in the crosshairs is JPMorgan Chase Bank, one of the largest mortgage lenders in the city.
Last month, Diana Adams, the US Trustee in Manhattan, filed papers in court supporting punitive financial sanctions against the bank for a string of bad behavior, including seeking to foreclose on homes after they rejected the attempts to make on-time payments and for failing to prove they own the mortgage on a home even as they move to seize it.
Chase filed documents that appear to be patently false or misleading, Adams said in the filing.
Although Chase has recently taken steps to address concerns expressed by courts in connection with other cases, based on Chase’s past and current conduct it needs to be sanctioned, Adams wrote.
A spokesperson for Chase had no comment on the US Trustee’s action.
The complaints against Baum — on the record during hearings, in legal pleadings and, eventually, borne out in judges’ decisions — include:
* Not divulging mortgage payments: In the White Plains bankruptcy of Blanca Garcia, Baum’s firm filed papers claiming Garcia was in arrears — when she actually made payments and showed the court her receipts, but they were not credited to her account. When Garcia’s lawyer complained, Baum’s firm answered the claim but, the lawyer said in court papers, ignored the receipts and continued to claim the mortgage was in arrears.
* Creating questionable assignments: A Suffolk County judge took it upon himself to investigate a filing by Baum’s firm when it attempted to foreclose on the home of Gloria E. Marsh. “A careful review,” the judge wrote in a four-page order, “reveals a number of glaring discrepancies and unexplained issues of substance.”
By Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., Ed. Fraud Digest, May 6, 2010
CALIFORNIA – ORANGE COUNTY
Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC
Tom Croft and others
CALIFORNIA – SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Chase Home Finance
FLORIDA – BROWARD COUNTY
Patricia Arango, Caryn Graham and others
Law Offices of Marshal Watson
FLORIDA – BROWARD COUNTY
Cheryl Samons, Beth Cerni and others
Law Offices of David Stern
FLORIDA – DUVAL COUNTY
Lender Processing Services
Valerie Broom, Margaret Dalton, Michele Halyard, Michael Hunt, Joseph
Kaminsky, Kathy Smith, Coleman Stokes and others
FLORIDA- HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
Florida Default Law Group or Law Offices of Daniel Consuegra
FLORIDA – PALM BEACH COUNTY
Ocwen Loan Servicing
Scott Anderson, Oscar Taveras, Doris Chapman, Jonathan Burgess, Laura
Buxton and others
FLORIDA – PINELLAS COUNTY
Nationwide Title Clearing
Bryan Bly, Vilma Castro, Dhurato Doko, Jessica Fretwell and others
GEORGIA – FULTON COUNTY
Lender Processing Services
Linda Green, Korell Harp, Jessice Ohde, Linda Thoresen, Tywanna Thomas,
Cheryl Thomas, Christie Baldwin and others
MINNESOTA -DAKOTA COUNTY
Lender Processing Services
Liquenda Allotey, Topeka Love, Christine Anderson, Christine Allen, Eric Tate
OHIO – FRANKLIN COUNTY
Chase Home Finance
Christina Trowbridge, Whitney Cook and others
PENNSYLVANIA – ALLEGHANY COUNTY
Home Loan Services, Inc.
PENNSYLVANIA – MONTGOMERY COUNTY
GMAC (and Homecomings Financial)
Jeffrey Stephan, John Kerr and others
SOUTH CAROLINA – YORK COUNTY
America’s Servicing Company
John Kennerty, China Brown and others
TEXAS – COLLIN COUNTY
BAC Home Loan Servicing, f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP
TEXAS – DALLAS COUNTY (COPPELL, TX)
American Home Mortgage Servicing
TEXAS – HARRIS COUNTY
Litton Loan Servicing, LP
Marti Noriega, Denise Bailey, Diane Dixon and others
TEXAS – TARRANT COUNTY
Saxon Mortgage Services
TEXAS – TRAVIS COUNTY
IndyMac Bank Home Loan Servicing
Brian Burnett, Kristen Kemp, Suchan Murray, Chamagne Williams and others
TEXAS – WILLIAMSON COUNTY
IndyMac Bank (years after IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. ceased to exist, many of the signers will sign as officers of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (the entity that should have made the assignment to the trust years ealier)
Erica A. Johnson-Seck, Dennis Kirkpatick, Eric Friedman and others
UTAH
SALT LAKE COUNTY
Select Portfolio Servicing
Luisa Alfonso, Bill Koch and others
Many mortgage-backed securitized trusts are missing critical documents needed to foreclose – i.e., the mortgage assignment. An excellent discussion of this is found in the decision of Massachusetts Land Court Judge Keith Long reaffirming a 2009 ruling (Ibanez) that invalidated foreclosures on two properties because the lenders did not hold clear title to the properties at the time of the foreclosure sale. Mortgage assignments were a key issue in Ibanez, a case that involved ineffective assignments to the Trust. Judge Long noted:
…the plaintiffs’ own securitization documents required mortgage assignments to be made to the plaintiffs in recordable form for each and every loan at the time the plaintiffs acquired them. Surely, compliance with this requirement would (and certainly should) have been a priority for an entity issuing securities dependent on recoveries from loans, such as these, known from the start to have a higher than normal risk of delinquency and default. U.S. BANK, N.A. v. Antonio Ibanez, et al., Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Land Court Dept., 08 MISC 384283 (KCL).
This Ibanez decision and many others deal with the issue of mortgage assignments prepared years after the closing date of the trust, usually when the Trustee or mortgage servicer has realized that the Trust does not have the assignment needed to foreclose or has a defective assignment – such as one issued in blank, unsigned and undated.
Many trusts and servicers try to replace the missing assignments, often with assignments executed within a few months of the foreclosure – and in many cases even after the foreclosure is filed or the home is sold (in non-judicial foreclosure states). The date and place of the Assignment often reveals whether the Assignment is actually a “replacement” – issued years after the Trust closed, and even years after the original lender supposedly making the Assignment disappeared into bankruptcy.
The servicer rarely identifies itself and discloses that this is an attempt to replace a missing assignment. It is, therefore, very useful to know that Mortgage Assignments notarized in the counties above are more often than not replacement Assignments prepared by or on behalf of the Trusts – by the servicers for the Trust or document preparation companies working for the servicers, or even law firm employees working for the Trust.
Please send corrections/additions to szymoniak@mac.com.
Included here is a short excerpt that discusses the way MERS allows nearly any member have MERS authority to sign documents. The article says that some states require the signor to be a VP of the actual member. Eventually some states allow them to be an authorized signatory despite not being an employee. If any late assignments apply to you this is then a must read.
FIGHTING FOR EVIDENCE HEARING. PLAINITIFF HAS COPY OF NOTE ENDORSED IN BLANK AND EVIDENCE THE SECURITY INTEREST WAS ASSIGNED SEPARATELY. THIS IS A NULLITY. I WANT THE TRUTH TO SURFACE. CALIFORNIA IS A HARD STATE TO HAVE A FAIR HEARING. I HOPE THIS ONE WILL PUT PRESSURE BY EVIDENCE FOR THE NEED TO DIRECTLY VIEW SUCH DOCUMENTS.
This is moot however, this is the response most lenders will file for a foreclosure complaint. Well written and good law firm. The Demurrer was helpful for filing a nearly new Second Amended Complaint. This was not heard due to the filing of the second complaint prior to the hearing date. there are cases as addendum which will be filed separately.
Plaintiff is having difficulty in acquiring any documents with the discovery process. There is a Evidence Hearing on 4-26-10. Notice refers to attached letter from Defedants counsel.
The SEC’s complaint charges Goldman Sachs and Tourre with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The Commission seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, prejudgment interest, and financial penalties.
![[NYSC] NY JUDGE DENIES 42 FORECLOSURE CASES “HAMP, AFFIDAVIT” ISSUES](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2010/12/denied.gif&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
![[NYSC] Judge Finds Issues With “NOTE AMOUNTS”, Robo Signer “ROGER STOTTS” Affidavit: ONEWEST v. GARCIA](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2010/12/fudgepaper.jpg&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
Recent Comments