Retroactive | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "retroactive"

IN RE: TIFFANY M. KRITHARAKIS | US Bankruptcy Trustee Slams Deutsche Bank and their “Retroactive” Assignments of Mortgage

IN RE: TIFFANY M. KRITHARAKIS | US Bankruptcy Trustee Slams Deutsche Bank and their “Retroactive” Assignments of Mortgage


UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION

In re
TIFFANY M. KRITHARAKIS,
Debtor.

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR RULE 2004 EXAMINATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS
TRUSTEE FOR SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2005-OPTI,
ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-OPTI

EXCERPT:

21. Also annexed to the Amended Proof of Claim is a copy of the Sand Canyon AOM whereby Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation assigned its rights to the Mortgage to Deutsche. See Amended POC at Part 8. The Sand Canyon AOM is dated June 11, 2010 but has an effective date of assignment of May 1, 2005. Id. The Sand Canyon AOM is signed by Rhonda Werdel (“Werdel”) as Assistant Secretary of Sand Canyon Corporation FKA Option One Mortgage Corporation. Id. The May 1, 2005 effective date contained in the Sand Canyon AOM conflicts with the January 19, 2005 dated contained in the Option One Allonge. See Amended POC at Part 5 and Part 8.

22. On information and belief, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. purchased the mortgage servicing rights of Sand Canyon in April 2008. See Declaration of Dale M. Sugimoto, As President of Sand Canyon Corporation, dated March 18, 2009, doc id # 141 in In re Ron Wilson, Sr. and LaRhonda Wilson, 07-11862 (EWM), United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana attached here to as Exhibit 3 (“March 2009 Sugimoto Declaration”). According to the March 2009 Sugimoto Declaration, Sand Canyon does not own any mortgage servicing rights or any residential real estate mortgages. See Exhibit 3 at ¶ ¶ 5, 6. As such, it appears that the Sand Canyon AOM executed in June 2010 may be deficient because Sand Canyon did not own any mortgages in 2010.

Continue below …

[ipaper docId=54318319 access_key=key-z151xlx5vl7092b3eem height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

NYSC Gives EMC The Boot For Not Having Standing, Vacates Judgment of Foreclosure, Sale Due To Retroactive Assignment

NYSC Gives EMC The Boot For Not Having Standing, Vacates Judgment of Foreclosure, Sale Due To Retroactive Assignment


NEW YORK SUPREME COURT – QUEENS COUNTY

EMC MORTGAGE CORP.,

v.

JEANETTA TOUSSAINT

excerpt:

In order to commence a foreclosure action, plaintiff must have a legal and equitable interest in the subject mortgage (Wells Fargo Bank v Machine 69 AD3rd 204). Here, the subject mortgage was not assigned until October 2, 2007, which was after the action was commenced on October 1, 2007. A retroactive assignment to September 25, 2007 cannot be used to confer standing upon the foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of the assignment. (Countrywide Home Loans v Giess 68 AD3rd 709).

<SNIP>

The plaintiff, not being the holder of the assignment at the time the action was commenced, it did not have standing to commence this action. Accordingly, the Court vacates the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale, which the County Clerks minutes indicate was executed on April 9, 2009 and dismisses the complaint.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=49231983 access_key=key-2aughts7w0vnizchyf7y height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

[NYSC] Standing is a threshold issue, pathway to the courthouse is blocked: WELLS FARGO v. CAMPBELL

[NYSC] Standing is a threshold issue, pathway to the courthouse is blocked: WELLS FARGO v. CAMPBELL


NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT – QUEENS COUNTY
Present:
Honorable JAMES J. GOLIA
Justice
Index No: 13555/07

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., D/B/A
AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY
,

against

ROXANNE CAMPBELL, AMERICA’S SERVICING
COMPANY, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AS NOMINEE
FOR WILMINGTON FINANCE, INC., NEW
YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD,
NEW YORK CITY PARKING VIOLATIONS
BUREAU, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
ADJUDICATION BUREAU, MR. KANE,

Excerpt:

Standing is a threshold issue. If standing is denied, the pathway to the courthouse is blocked.(Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki, 100 N.Y.2d 801A[ 2003]) Therefore, the court first considers the issue of plaintiff’s standing.

A plaintiff has standing to maintain an action upon alleging an injury in fact that falls within its zone of interest” (Silver v Pataki, 96 NY2d 532, 539 [2001]). The requirement that a litigant asserting a claim have an injury in fact — an actual stake in the matter being adjudicated — ensures that a person seeking judicial review has some concrete interest in prosecuting the action, which casts the dispute in a form capable of judicial resolution (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 772, 573 N.E.2d 1034, 570 NYS2d 778 [1991]).

To have standing in an action for foreclosure of a mortgage the action must be brought by one who has title to it (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537 [2d Dept 1988]) and an assignee of a mortgage does not have standing unless the assignment is complete at the time the action is commenced. (See U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752 [2d Dept 2009]; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gress, 68 AD3d 709 [2d Dept 2009]). A retroactive assignment cannot be used to confer standing upon the assignee in a foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of an assignment.” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 210, 887 N.Y.S.2d 615 [2d Dept 2009]).

[ipaper docId=39561306 access_key=key-of37m6lhm801q1hn0at height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

AN ASSIGNMENT OR A FORMALIZATION OR A MEMORIALIZATION? By LYNN E. SZYMONIAK, ESQ.

AN ASSIGNMENT OR A FORMALIZATION OR A MEMORIALIZATION? By LYNN E. SZYMONIAK, ESQ.


AN ASSIGNMENT OR A FORMALIZATION OR A MEMORIALIZATION?

The standard language in most of the mortgage assignments being signed by employees of Lender Processing Services (most recently, Kathy Smith, Joseph Kaminsky) has changed in one significant respect.

The effective date of the transfer from grantor to grantee is now not stated as a specific date. Instead, we have the following:

“This document has been executed and is being recorded in order to formalize and memorialize an assignment of the subject mortgage which took place prior to December 17, 2009.”

A copy of this particular “assignment” is attached.  It is signed by Kathy Smith “Assistant Secretary, MERS as nominee for American Home Mortgage.”

This language is easy enough to locate on the document because a different type font is used.

How this prior assignment took place without a document is left unexplained.

IN THE PAST MONTHS, THIS CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE BY MANY OF THE FORECLOSURE MILL LAW FIRMS DIRECTED BY LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES, SO,

THERE MUST BE A MEMO DIRECTING THIS.


This is really an acknowledgment that the document is NOT the original assignment – but a replacement.  Who will recognize this shoddy attempt to “create” standing to foreclose?  No doubt, the state court judges in Brooklyn, the federal court judges in Ohio, a few bankruptcy judges, a few Massachusetts land court judges (Keith Long) and many bankruptcy trustees.

In Florida, the scheme will perhaps be first be exposed by state court judges Bailey, Traynor or Rondolino.

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



Posted in foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, fraud digest, kahane, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, Lynn Szymoniak ESQ, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.Comments (1)

Indymac depositors get another shot at retroactive deposit insurance

Indymac depositors get another shot at retroactive deposit insurance


Ryan Carter
Posted: 05/27/2010 04:23:20 PM PDT

Local lawmakers Thursday introduced an amendment to financial reform that would allow depositors at failed Pasadena-based Indymac Bank to recoup a collective $233 million in lost savings.

The amendment, called the Indy Act, would make a federal deposit insurance cap of $250,000 retroactive to the time IndyMac failed in July of 2008. At the time, deposit insurance was set for deposits up to $100,000. But as the financial crisis grew Congress only a few months later approved the heightened cap.

But the cap did not extend to institutions that failed before October 2008.

“The whole thing is about fairness,” said Rep. David Dreier, R-San Dimas, who along with Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice, introduced the bill Thursday.

Source: www.pasadenastarnews.com

Posted in foreclosure fraud, indymacComments (0)


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

Archives

Please Support Me!

All Of These Are Troll Comments