P.A. | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "P.A."

FLORIDA CLASS ACTION: HUBER v. GMAC, ALLY FINANCIAL

FLORIDA CLASS ACTION: HUBER v. GMAC, ALLY FINANCIAL


COUNT I

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF STATE OF LAW42U.S.C.1983

COUNT II
ABUSE OF PROCESS

COUNT III
UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES, FLA. STAT. 501.201 et. seq.

COUNT IV
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT- UNCLEAN HANDS 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202

COUNT V
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT- VOID AFFIDAVITS 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

[ipaper docId=41467074 access_key=key-26mabjuyq21vtvvdzrw0 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF HOLLAN FINTEL FORMER FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP ATTORNEY

FULL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT OF HOLLAN FINTEL FORMER FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP ATTORNEY


Excerpts:

Q. Okay. And did it actually grant you
14 authority to sign as vice president anywhere in there?
15 A. The listing capacity on that assignment was
16 — is a clerical error. It needed to state “attorney in
17 fact.” This document grants the power as attorney in
18 fact.
19 Q. Okay. So —
20 A. But it does grant the authority to execute
21 the assignment of mortgage.
22 Q. Okay. So you are not vice president of
23 Wells Fargo Bank N.A.?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Okay. During your employment at Florida

1 Default Law Group, were there other companies that you
2 would execute assignments of mortgages on behalf of?
3 A. Yes. I believe there were others.
4 Q. And would you execute those assignments of
5 mortgages as attorney in fact or vice president?
6 A. I believe it varied. I do believe there were
7 other corporate resolutions that it did vary, the
8 capacity in which I signed.
9 Q. Okay. Do you recall specifically any of the
10 other entities that you would execute assignments of
11 mortgages on behalf of?
12 A. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
13 known as MERS.
14 Q. MERS?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And what was your capacity as — what was
17 your signing authority on behalf of MERS?
18 A. I believe it was as vice president and
19 assistant secretary. I’m not positive, but I believe it
20 was as vice president.
21 Q. All right. Are you currently — this grants
22 you authority to act as attorney in fact for Wells Fargo
23 Bank until December 31st, 2010.
24 Do you still then execute documents as
25 attorney in fact for Wells Fargo Bank?

1 A. No, I don’t.
2 Q. Okay. And when did you stop doing that?
3 A. It would have been when I left Florida
4 Default in October of 2008.
5 Q. Okay. So was the sole basis of your actions
6 to sign documents as attorney in fact for Wells Fargo
7 Bank out of your employment for Florida Default Law
8 Group?
9 MS. HILL: Object to form.
10 MR. GANO: Objection to the form.
11 A. I’m sorry. Can you rephrase it?
12 Q. Outside of working as an attorney for Florida
13 Default Law Group, did you execute assignments of
14 mortgages for Wells Fargo Bank pursuant to this for any
15 other types of actions not related to Florida Default
16 Law Group?
17 A. No.
18 MS. HILL: When you say “this,” you pointed.
19 For record, you are referring to?
20 MR. IMMEL: This Limited Power of Attorney.
21 MR. GANO: Exhibit A.
22 MR. IMMEL: Exhibit A.
23 Q. And have you ever been to Wells Fargo Bank’s
24 headquarters or any of their offices?
25 A. No. I don’t believe I have.

1 Q. Okay. Are you aware — did you have to apply
2 for the limited power of attorney status with Wells
3 Fargo?

4 A. No.
5 Q. Are you aware of how you were chosen as a
6 limited — to be appointed the limited power of
7 attorney?
8 A. No, I don’t.
9 Q. Okay. Did Wells Fargo Bank provide you any
10 formal training or, I guess, any sort of detailed job
11 responsibilities, or was just this limited power of
12 attorney provided to you?
13 MR. GANO: I’m going to object as far as that
14 going into any specific instructions regarding
15 particular files that she was working while at
16 Florida Default on behalf of the Plaintiff.
17 Q. Without divulging privileged information, if
18 you would limit the answer to that.
19 A. Instruction from Wells Fargo, no.
20 Q. Okay. Did you receive any compensation from
21 Wells Fargo Bank for your duties as an attorney in fact,
22 limited power of attorney?
23 MR. SMITH: You’re asking about her
24 personally?
25 MR. IMMEL: Yes, her personally.

1 A. No.
2 Q. No. Okay. Did you ever attend any board
3 meetings or executive meetings for Wells Fargo Bank?

4 A. No.
5 Q. For that matter, with regard to your signing
6 authority on behalf of MERS, was there any difference
7 between how you carried out your authority with being
8 able to sign documents on behalf of MERS versus Wells
9 Fargo Bank?
10 MS. HILL: I’m going to object to the form.
11 A. I’m sorry. Rephrase, please.
12 Q. Okay. In executing an assignment of mortgage
13 on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank pursuant to the Limited
14 Power of Attorney, when you would do that, did that
15 differ in any way from when you would execute them and
16 an assignment of mortgage on behalf of MERS?
17 A. No.
18 MS. HILL: Object to the form.
19 Q. Okay. Are you still — do you still have
20 signing authority on behalf of MERS?

21 A. I don’t know.
22 Q. You don’t know?
23 A. No, sir.
24 Q. Okay. Did MERS pay you for executing
25 assignments of mortgages?

1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. Approximately, how many assignments of
3 mortgages would you execute on behalf of Wells Fargo
4 Bank?
5 A. I have no —
6 MS. HILL: Object to the form.
7 A. I don’t know.
8 Q. Okay. Going back to Exhibit A, it says that
9 Mark Wooton, Vice President of Loan Documentation,
10 granted this Limited Power of Attorney.
11 Did you ever meet Mark Wooton?
12 MS. HILL: I’m going to object to the form
13 only to the extent that Mark Wooton signed the
14 Limited Power of Attorney, I don’t know if signing
15 it is the same thing as granting it or if there is
16 a distinction. But to that extent, I’m objecting
17 to the question.
18 Q. Mark Wooton signed the Limited Power of
19 Attorney. Did you ever meet Mark Wooton?
20 A. Not that I recall.
21 Q. Okay. Are you aware of whether he was
22 authorized to sign this Limited Power of Attorney?
23 A. No. I don’t know.
24 Q. Okay. Did you report to anyone directly at
25 Wells Fargo Bank?

1 A. No.
2 Q. Did you receive directions to execute an
3 assignment of mortgage directly from Wells Fargo Bank?
4 MR. GANO: I’m going to object base upon
5 attorney-client privilege, any specific
6 instruction she obtained regarding this case or
7 any other cases.
8 Q. Without divulging privileged information.
9 A. We did have a procedure that under certain
10 circumstances, yes, we were directed to prepare the
11 assignments.
12 Q. Okay. Could you, I guess, describe the
13 procedure for when you would be directed, without
14 divulging attorney-client privileges?
15 A. Yes. When our client referred in the
16 mortgage referral.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. It could be the owner or it could be the
19 servicer. In this particular case with Wells Fargo,
20 they sent in the referral. They indicated that they
21 were the servicer for the new owner, which I believe was
22 HSBC, and indicated that HSBC was the proper owner and
23 holder of the note.
24 In that event of record, Wells was the last
25 of-record owner and holder of the note; therefore, we

1 were to effectuate the assignment of mortgage prepared
2 and executed on behalf of Wells Fargo.
3 Q. Okay. What type of documents would you rely
4 upon to determine that aside from just the referral
5 stating that HSBC Bank was, I guess, the owner of the
6 note; what other documents would you rely upon to
7 ascertain that?
8 A. That HSBC was the owner?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. We relied on our client’s referral indicating
11 that they had sold it to HSBC.
12 Q. Okay. Was there any other information that
13 you can recall?
14 A. Not that I recall.
15 Q. Okay. So going back to the referral, the
16 determination to execute an assignment of mortgage then
17 would be sent to you by Wells Fargo in a case like this
18 — in this case?
19 MR. GANO: Object to the form.
20 A. I’m sorry. I don’t quite understand that
21 question.
22 Q. Okay. Wells Fargo directed you to execute
23 the assignment of mortgage in this case?
24 MR. GANO: Again, I’m going to object based
25 upon any specific information given as

1 attorney-client privilege.
2 Q. Without divulging attorney-client privilege.
3 A. Under the procedure we had, yes.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Okay. And how would the referral — how was
7 the referral sent?
8 A. I’m not positive. It varied. I believe it
9 was electronic.
10 Q. Okay. And in situations where the — would
11 you ever rely upon the note to determine who to execute
12 an assignment of mortgage to?
13 A. Rely upon the note?
14 Q. The note, the promissory note.
15 A. A copy or the original?
16 Q. Copy, original, any fashion, the promissory
17 note?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. So whether or not the note was lost at
20 the time of the referral would not impact your execution
21 of the assignment of mortgage?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. How would you receive a promissory
24 note then from the plaintiff or whoever referred the
25 case to you?

1 A. Typically, they would mail the original
2 documents to our office.
3 Q. Do you recall if it would be mailed by any
4 sort of certified mail or return receipt; would you sign
5 for anything?
6 A. I don’t know. It didn’t come to me directly.
7 Q. And in cases such as this where Wells Fargo
8 would send the referral to you and state that they were
9 the servicer, what type of information would you review
10 to ascertain that they were, in fact, the servicer?

11 MR. GANO: Object to the form, and object to
12 any specific information, again, on this
13 particular referral.
14 Q. Without divulging privileged information.
15 A. We just relied on them indicating that they
16 were the servicer —

17 Q. Okay.
18 A. — who the plaintiff was to be.

See Deposition/Transcript below

[ipaper docId=40930400 access_key=key-14tbucc5ecqz7e01ho05 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

No Summary Judgment in This Foreclosure Action

No Summary Judgment in This Foreclosure Action


THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR
CHASEFLEX TRUST SERIES 2007-3,

-vs-

DAVID J. MOSQUERA; ELIZABETH
MOSQUERA;

ICE LEGAL does it again…

Thank you to Lynn Szymoniak for her Expert Witness Affidavit used in this foreclosure case!

[ipaper docId=34155185 access_key=key-npkyn8uzzco86kisdz2 height=600 width=600 /]


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



Posted in bank of new york, dismissed, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, ice law, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Law Firm of David J. Stern (DJSP) Appears to Be Under State And Federal Investigation For Fraud, Stern Law Firm Even Has It’s Own “Michael Clayton”.

Law Firm of David J. Stern (DJSP) Appears to Be Under State And Federal Investigation For Fraud, Stern Law Firm Even Has It’s Own “Michael Clayton”.


Forrest McSurdy Michael Clayton came to Stern’s rescue on my ordeal with the MILL! So I can vouch for what this article states about the “fixer” is 100% accurate !

Meticulously Written by Florida’s Very Own Bill Warner Private Detective, SARASOTA TO PANAMA CITY FL

Friday, May 14, 2010

A subsidiary of a company that is a top provider of the documentation used by banks in the foreclosure process is under investigation by federal prosecutors. The prosecutors are “reviewing the business processes” of the subsidiary of Lender Processing Services Inc., (LPS) based in Jacksonville, Fla., according to the company’s annual securities filing released in February. People familiar with the matter say the probe is criminal in nature.

Lender Processing Services Inc., (LPS) does work for the Law Firm of David J. Stern (DJSE) in Plantation Fl. Michelle Kersch, an LPS spokeswoman, said the subsidiary being investigated is Docx LLC. Docx processes and sometimes produces documents needed by banks to prove they own the mortgages. LPS’s annual report said that the processes under review have been “terminated,” and that the company has expressed its willingness to cooperate. Ms. Kersch declined to comment further on the probe.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office for the middle district of Florida, which the annual report says is handling the matter, declined to comment.  The case follows on the dismissal of numerous foreclosure cases in which judges across the U.S. have found that the materials banks had submitted to support their claims were wrong. Faulty bank paperwork has been an issue in foreclosure proceedings since the housing crisis took hold a few years ago. It is often difficult to pin down who the real owner of a mortgage is, thanks to the complexity of the mortgage market. LPS was recently referenced in a bankruptcy case involving Sylvia Nuer, a Bronx, N.Y., homeowner who had filed for protection from creditors in 2008.

Diana Adams, a U.S. government lawyer who monitors bankruptcy courts, argued in a brief filed earlier this year in the Nuer case that an LPS employee signed a document that wrongly said J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. had owned Ms. Nuer’s loan.  Documents related to the loan were “patently false or misleading,” according to Ms. Adams’s court papers. J.P. Morgan Chase, which has withdrawn its request to foreclose, declined to comment.

A Florida state-court judge, in a rare ruling, said a major national bank perpetrated a “fraud” in a foreclosure lawsuit filed by the Law Firm of David J. Stern, raising questions about how banks are attempting to claim homes from borrowers in default.

The ruling, made last month in Pasco County, Fla., comes amid increased scrutiny of foreclosures by the prosecutors and judges in regions hurt by the recession. Judges have said in hearings they are increasingly concerned that banks are attempting to seize properties they don’t own.

The Florida case began in December 2007 when U.S. Bank N.A. sued a homeowner, Ernest E. Harpster, after he defaulted on a $190,000 loan he received in January of that year. The Law Offices of David J. Stern, which represented the bank, prepared a document called an “assignment of mortgage” showing that the bank received ownership of the mortgage in December 2007. The document was dated December 2007.

But after investigating the matter, Circuit Court Judge Lynn Tepper ruled that the document couldn’t have been prepared until 2008. Thus, she ruled, the bank couldn’t prove it owned the mortgage at the time the suit was filed. The document filed by the plaintiff (through the Law Firm of David J. Stern), Judge Tepper wrote last month, “did not exist at the time of the filing of this action…was subsequently created and…fraudulently backdated, in a purposeful, intentional effort to mislead.” She dismissed the case.

Forrest McSurdy, a lawyer at the David Stern firm (McSurdy is General Councel for Stern law Firm) that handled the U.S. Bank case, said the mistake was due to “carelessness.” The mortgage document was initially prepared and signed in 2007 but wasn’t notarized until months later, he said. After discovering similar problems in other foreclosure cases, he said, the firm voluntarily withdrew the suits and later re-filed them using appropriate documents.

Foreclosure mill lawyer Forrest McSurdy calls truth a “technicality”. Lawyers operating foreclosure mills often are paid based on the volume of cases they complete. Some receive $1,000 per case, court records show. Firms compete for business in part based on how quickly they can foreclose. The David Stern law firm had about 900 employees as of last year, court records show.


“The pure volume of foreclosures has a tendency perhaps to encourage sloppiness, boilerplate paperwork or a lack of thoroughness” by attorneys for banks, said Judge Tepper of Florida, in an interview. The deluge of foreclosures makes the process “fraught with potential for fraud,” she said (Law Firm of the David J. Stern) .

At an unrelated hearing in a separate matter last week, Anthony Rondolino, a state-court judge in St. Petersburg, Fla., said that an affidavit submitted by the David Stern law firm on behalf of GMAC Mortgage LLC in a foreclosure case wasn’t necessarily sufficient to establish that GMAC was the owner of the mortgage. “I don’t have any confidence that any of the documents the Court’s receiving on these mass foreclosures are valid,” the judge said at the hearing.

Forrest G. McSurdy of Stern & McSurdy, P.A. Incorporated by David J Stern, Forrest G McSurdy, Stern and McSurdy, P.A. is located at 801 S University Dr Ste 500 Plantation, FL 33324. Stern and McSurdy, P.A. was incorporated on Friday, October 08, 1999 in the State of FL and is currently active. David J Stern represents Stern and McSurdy, P.A. as their registered agent.

Forrest McSurdy of the Law Firm of David J. Stern in Plantation Florida appears to show up everytime there is a legal mess to clean up for the Stern Law Office, McSurdy is Stern’s fixer ”Michael Clayton”.   ”Michael Clayton Movie” The Truth Can Be Adjusted Plot: A law firm brings in its “fixer” to remedy the situation after a lawyer has a breakdown while representing a chemical company that he knows is guilty in a multi-billion dollar class action suit.


Forrest McSurdy of the Law Firm of David J. Stern in Plantation Florida shows up as legal counsel for all of Stern’s attorneys when there is a Florida Bar complaint filed agasint them.

Chardan 2008 China Acquisition Corp. (CACA, CACAW, CACAU) signed a definitive?agreement for a business combination with DAL Group, LLC, a provider of processing services for mortgage lenders and servicers in Florida. At the closing of the business combination with Chardan, DAL will own 100% of the business and operations of Default Servicing, Inc. and Professional Title & Abstract Company of Florida and the non-legal operations supporting the foreclosure and other legal proceedings handled by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., collectively known as the Company.  Default Servicing, Inc is now STERN HOLDING COMPANY – DS, INC see Florida Division of Corporations records click here.

Upon consummation of the transaction, Beijing, China-based Chardan will change its name to DJSP Enterprises, Inc. “DJSP” (David J. Stern Processing), and its stock is expected to trade on the Nasdaq under the symbols DJSP, DJSPU, and DJSPW. Assuming no redemptions by Chardan shareholders, the current owners of the company, the “Stern Parties” will receive approximately $111 million from DAL and the right to receive another $35 million in post-closing cash. In addition, “Stern Parties” will also hold equity interests. Kerry Propper, Chardan’s chief executive officer said, “The acquisition should generate significant value for our shareholders. David J. Stern, who will be DJSP’s CEO, has an impressive record building this business by continually strengthening the customer relationships on which it is based.”

Chardan 2008 China Acquisition was run by Kerry S. Propper he has had some problems with the SBA and the Department of Justice as did his father Dr. Richard D. Propper. Kerry S, Proper, Richard D. Propper and Royale Holdings own 1,151,128 shares of Chardan 2008 China Acquisition, they are the majority share holders of the company now directly linked to David J. Stern and DJSP Enterprises, Inc..

DAVID J. STERN LAW OFFICE is DJSP Enterprises on NASDAQ, Major Shareholders David J. Stern and Kerry S. Propper the Subject of Department of Justice Investigation And SBA Law Suit.
1). Kerry S. Propper was the subject of 2003 Federal law suit filed in Conn. by the Small Business Administration one of his co-defendants was Acorn Ct Investments LP, they all ended up paying the SBA $1,764,333 in total see link http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/04D0487P.pdf

2). Kerry S. Propper was/is under Dept of Justice investigation with his father Richard Propper. One of their partners was convicted of defrauding the SBA and sent to Federal prison for 70 months. SBA seeks to recover $96 million from Richard Propper and the rest of the crew in yet another SBA lawsuit, see info below……

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2006, U.S. Files Suit Against John Torkelsen, Richard Propper, Daniel Beharry, & Sovereign Bank Alleging Fraud of $32 Million Against the Small Business Administration.

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department announced today that it has filed a lawsuit accusing John Torkelsen, Richard Propper, Daniel Beharry, and Sovereign Bank of defrauding the Small Business Administration’s Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program of $32 million. The suit was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the False Claims Act, which allows the United States to recover up to three times the amount of its losses plus civil penalties.


The government’s complaint alleges that Torkelsen, Propper and Beharry violated the conflict of interest and management fee rules of the SBIC program by engaging in multiple secret transactions that funneled government money into companies controlled by Propper and Beharry or Torkelsen and his family. The SBIC program has rules designed to prevent the unauthorized investment of government funds in companies controlled by those who act as managers of the SBICs. The alleged fraud is believed to be the largest perpetrated upon the program to date.


The SBIC program, administered by the U.S. Small Business Administration, was created in 1958 to fill the gap between the availability of venture capital and the needs of small businesses in start-up and growth situations. The government, itself, does not make direct investments or target specific industries. Rather, the SBIC program is a “fund of funds” – meaning that portfolio management and investment decisions are left to qualified private fund managers. Small businesses which qualify for assistance from the program are able to receive equity capital, long-term loans and expert management assistance.


The investigation of the fraud allegations against the defendants was conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Philadelphia, Pa.; the U.S. Small Business Administration’s Office of Inspector General and Office of General Counsel; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the Justice Department’s Civil Division. The United States has settled with, or reached settlement in principle with, a number of other individuals or entities involved in the alleged fraud.


David J Stern Attorney, Related People:

Adam S Gumsom
•Forrest G McSurdy
•Gibbons Cline
•Howard Bernstein
•James Rosen
•Nuccia McCormick
•Roger Wittenberns
•Spring Baldini


Related Companies:
•Attorneys’ Title Agency, P.A.
•Default Services, Inc.
•Default Servicing, Inc.
•Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A.
•Professional Title and Abstract Company of Florida
Stern and McSurdy, P.A.
•Sunset Servers of South Florida, Inc.
•The Harborage Association Inc.


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



Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, djsp enterprises, foreclosure fraud, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, Mortgage Foreclosure FraudComments (1)


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

Archives