robo signers | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "robo signers"

A Foreclosure Film in the Making Awaits Final Scene

A Foreclosure Film in the Making Awaits Final Scene


American Banker-

What do an insurance agent in Tennessee, a homemaker in Ohio, a private investigator from Wisconsin and a helicopter stunt pilot in Hollywood have in common?  Well, for one thing, they’ve all participated in some fashion in “Foreclosure Diaries,” the documentary that my company, Pacific Street Films, has been producing, in fits and starts, since 2006.

When work first started on the film, the original tag was “Follow the Money,” and the road seemed to lead towards a dark and confusing destination. There was all this talk in the industry about scads of money to be made in servicing “subprime” loans.  There were seminars, conferences, it seemed all the rage. 

[AMERICAN BANKER]

image: macgasm.net

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

Action Alert – Facing foreclosure in Massachusetts? Please call your reps asap – the vote is 5/16/2012!

Action Alert – Facing foreclosure in Massachusetts? Please call your reps asap – the vote is 5/16/2012!


via: BOSTON67

Jamie Ranney, Esq. vs FRAUDclosures

There is a bill pending in the Massachusetts Legislature called H-04083 that is designed to provide more requirements that lenders work with  borrowers to provide real loan modifications before they can commence foreclosure and to hold lenders accountable where they unlawfully foreclose.  Unfortunately, the bill suffers from some substantial weaknesses which I have tried to remedy with edits and amendments.

The bill is scheduled to be voted on – THIS WEDNESDAY MAY 16, 2012 – so your immediately action is needed.

I would ask that you take the time to immediately contact your state representative and state senator, ask them to stand up for  the homeowners and borrowers of the commonwealth and request that they amend H-04083 to include these changes and amendments.  You can email the edits and comments directly to your state rep and state senator.

Their contact list can be found here: http://www.malegislature.gov/People/FindMyLegislator

Please email the following amendments and a memo explaining them:
Bill H-04083 edits    Memo RE H-04083 amendments and edits

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Servicers Behaving Badly: An Insider’s Perspective on the Root Cause of this Recurring Problem

Servicers Behaving Badly: An Insider’s Perspective on the Root Cause of this Recurring Problem


The Subprime Shakeout-

The Principal – Agent Problem: Part I – RMBS Data Integrity

Back near the dawn of time when I was in business school, and the faculty was hard-pressed to find topics to fill up the curriculum, they introduced the Principal – Agent Problem.  As future corporate managers and agents of the stockholders, I suppose they wanted to explain to us that our economic interests were not identical to those of the owners.  This wasn’t exactly the most shocking news we had ever received, but that was all that was said about the issue, back then.

Of course, there is considerably more to this multi-faceted problem. According to Wikipedia, “The principal–agent problem arises when a principal compensates an agent for performing certain acts that are useful to the principal and costly to the agent, and where there are elements of the performance that are costly to observe,” primarily due to asymmetric information, uncertainty and risk.

Let’s look at the relationship between the RMBS bondholder

[THE SUBPRIME SHAKEOUT]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Investigation of Lender Processing Services, Inc.

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Investigation of Lender Processing Services, Inc.


Market Watch-

The investigation concerns whether the Company or its fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties by improperly processing mortgages and mortgage foreclosures. A civil lawsuit filed in December 2011 by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada alleges that LPS and certain of its subsidiaries: (1) engaged in a pattern and practice of falsifying, forging and/or fraudulently executing foreclosure related documents, resulting in numerous foreclosures that were predicated upon deficient documentation; (2) fraudulently notarized documents without ensuring that the notary did so in the presence of the person signing the document; (3) implemented a widespread scheme to forge signatures on key documents, to ensure that volume and speed quotas were met; (4) concealed the scope and severity of the fraud by misrepresenting that the problems were limited to clerical errors; (5) improperly directed and/or controlled the work of foreclosure attorneys by imposing inappropriate and arbitrary deadlines that forced attorneys to churn through foreclosures at a rate that sacrificed accuracy for speed; (6) improperly obstructed communication between foreclosure attorneys and their clients; and (7), demanded a kickback/referral fee from foreclosure firms for each case referred to the firm by LPS and allowed this fee to be misrepresented as “attorney’s fees” on invoices passed on to Nevada consumers and/or submitted to Nevada courts.

[MARKET WATCH]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

LPS Uses Bogus Florida IG Report on Firing of Foreclosure Fraud Investigators in Motion to Dismiss Nevada Lawsuit

LPS Uses Bogus Florida IG Report on Firing of Foreclosure Fraud Investigators in Motion to Dismiss Nevada Lawsuit


If this isn’t proof something isn’t smelling right at the Florida’s AG’s office, I don’t know what this is?

When you read David Dayens article, keep in mind where the assignments came from… LPS/DOCx!

FDL-

We’re at T-minus four days for sign-ons to the foreclosure fraud settlement, and we know that Florida’s Pam Bondi is on board, despite pushback from advocates in her state, ground zero for the foreclosure crisis. There’s an interesting nugget buried in this article, though.

Bondi spokeswoman Jennifer Meale said in an email that their concerns are “misguided” because the settlement would provide a historic level of monetary relief and will overhaul the mortgage industry.

“Rather than engaging in political grandstanding, Attorney General Bondi is working hard to reach an agreement that gets Floridians substantial relief now and holds banks accountable for their misconduct,” Meale wrote.

The settlement is expected to provide $1,800 each for about 750,000 families across the country. It is a response to such practices as “robo-signing” by bank employees who often knew little or nothing about the mortgage documents they were hired to sign.

Nevada, New York, Delaware, New Hampshire and Massachusetts contend the deal isn’t strong enough because it would protect banks from future civil liability.

It will not, though, fully release them from future state criminal lawsuits.

Put aside Bondi’s dissembling for a second …

[FIRE DOG LAKE]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Lender Processing Services, Inc. Files Motion to Dismiss Nevada Attorney General Complaint

Lender Processing Services, Inc. Files Motion to Dismiss Nevada Attorney General Complaint


JACKSONVILLE, Fla., Jan. 31, 2012 /PRNewswire/ — Lender Processing Services, Inc. (NYSE: LPS), a leading provider of integrated technology, data, and analytics to the mortgage and real estate industries, today responded to the civil complaint filed by the Nevada Attorney General against the company in December 2011.

In the company’s Motion to Dismiss, LPS makes clear that the Attorney General’s complaint contains significant legal defects which require the court to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  Perhaps most significantly, LPS points out that the Attorney General’s complaint fails to allege that any document executed by subsidiaries of LPS was incorrect, contained errors, or caused any borrower financial harm.

“LPS filed this Motion to Dismiss in response to the allegations made by the Nevada Attorney General,” said Hugh Harris, LPS president and chief executive officer. “Although we have to defend ourselves against allegations that we believe are untrue, we remain committed to working with the Attorney General’s office to resolve these matters.”

To review the Motion to Dismiss, please click here or visit http://www.lpsvcs.com/LPSCorporateInformation/MultimediaLibrary/PublishingImages/LPS_DefendantsMotionToDismiss.pdf

About Lender Processing Services

Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS) is a leading provider of integrated technology, services and mortgage performance data and analytics to the mortgage and real estate industries. LPS offers solutions that span the mortgage continuum, including lead generation, origination, servicing, workflow automation, portfolio retention and default, augmented by the company’s award-winning customer support and professional services. Approximately 50 percent of all U.S. mortgages by dollar volume are serviced using LPS’ loan servicing platform, MSP. LPS also offers proprietary mortgage and real estate data and analytics for the mortgage and capital markets industries. For more information about LPS, visit www.lpsvcs.com.

SOURCE Lender Processing Services, Inc.

Back to top RELATED LINKS
http://www.lpsvcs.com

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Brown to Feds: Don’t Let Wall Street Banks Use the Assets of Middle Class Ohioans to Pay the Penalty for Breaking the Law

Brown to Feds: Don’t Let Wall Street Banks Use the Assets of Middle Class Ohioans to Pay the Penalty for Breaking the Law


As Big Banks Prepare to Settle Case on Mortgage and Foreclosure Fraud, Brown Urges Involved Parties to Reject Wall Street Plan to Allow Banks to Use the Assets of Hardworking Americans to Pay the Penalty for Illegal Foreclosure Practices

January 19, 2012

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As officials near a settlement agreement with the nation’s largest banks following last year’s robo-signing crisis, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) urged Administration officials and state attorneys general to hold banks financially accountable for illegal practices and to protect the pensions of Ohio’s workers. The current settlement terms allow mortgage servicers to use mortgage capital to pay penalties—hurting investors, but not the banks that broke the law.

In a letter to Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, and Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, Brown said that mortgage servicers should be required to provide meaningful assistance to Ohio homeowners who lost their homes illegally, but not on the backs of other working Ohioans.

“Instead of taking full responsibility for illegal foreclosures, Wall Street banks are trying to use the assets of middle class Americans to pay the penalty,” Brown said. “Penalties for Wall Street’s illegal practices must ensure meaningful relief for the more than one in five homeowners who owe more on their mortgage than their house is worth. But Wall Street banks must not be allowed to pass the buck to investors. The reported settlement terms would amount to a slap on the wrist, allowing banks to write down the investments of many of my constituents, without sacrificing anything. Teachers, first responders, law enforcement officials, and other pensioners and retirees should not be penalized for wrongdoing by Wall Street.”

The pending agreement would require the largest mortgage servicers to commit to between $17 and $25 billion to help borrowers.  The proposed settlement would offer one million borrowers nationwide an average of $20,000 in principal reduction.  According to a recent report, Ohio alone has 482,048 homeowners who are nearly $15 billion underwater. The average underwater Ohioan owes $31,000 more than their home is worth.  According to CoreLogic, about 22 percent of all U.S. homes have negative equity totaling about $750 billion.

The reported settlement would also permit servicers to pay the proposed penalty by writing down the value of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) owned by investors—including Ohio pensions funds, without requiring servicers to reduce principal on the mortgages and second liens that they own. Ohio’s pension funds, retirement systems, and universities, all heavily invested in MBS, are key stakeholders in any settlement.  

Brown has led the fight against wrongful foreclosures and unfair practices by Wall Street. Brown is the sponsor of the Foreclosure Fraud and Homeowner Abuse Prevention Act of 2011.  This legislation would expand access to foreclosure prevention services, while increasing protections for homeowners and investors in mortgage-backed securities. Last July, in the wake of reports that banks and mortgage processors have continued forging signatures and submitting false affidavits, Brown wrote to federal regulators urging them to better protect consumers by publicly releasing information related to their settlements with 14 mortgage servicers in order to prevent further illegal practices.

Brown also encouraged federal regulators to freeze foreclosures after the discovery last year that many servicers were wrongfully foreclosing on homeowners and not following existing foreclosure procedures and laws. Both the Associated Press and Reuters reported that despite regulators’ assurances to the contrary, illegal robo-signing allegedly remains rampant in both foreclosure and non-foreclosure cases.  The reports also suggest that some regulators are aware of these violations.

Below is full text of the letter.

January 19, 2012

The Honorable Thomas Perrelli
Associate Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20530

The Honorable Richard Cordray
Director
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
(Attn: 1801 L St.)
Washington, D.C.  20220

The Honorable Shaun Donovan
Secretary
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
451 7th Street S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20410

The Honorable Tom Miller
Iowa Attorney General
1305 E. Walnut Street
Des Moines, IA  50319

Dear Associate Attorney General Perrelli, Secretary Donovan, Director Cordray, and Attorney General Miller:

As the senior Senator from Ohio and a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, I am all too familiar with the struggles faced by distressed homeowners, resulting from a pattern of abuse by the largest bank servicers.  My home state experienced 14 consecutive years of increasing foreclosures until 2010, when some of the nation’s largest mortgage servicers instituted a foreclosure moratorium amid reports of widespread legal document forgery.  This issue is at the heart of your 50-state mortgage and foreclosure fraud investigation.  Accordingly, I write today to express my concern based upon recent reports outlining some of the proposed settlement terms.

It is reported that the proposed settlement will include a number of components to address the wrongdoings of Wall Street banks and their affiliated servicers, including a system of mortgage principal reduction based on a credit system.  With more than one in five Ohioans owing more on their mortgage than their house is worth, and Ohioans nearly $16 billion underwater on their mortgages, there is no question that principal reduction can and should be an element of any plan to aid homeowners.   Many of these people are underwater through no fault of their own.  As New York Federal Reserve President Bill Dudley said recently, “[t]his isn’t a moral hazard issue, this is just the bad luck associated with the timing of the purchase and an exceptionally weak jobs market.”   A settlement must provide meaningful, widespread relief to Ohio homeowners.  Unfortunately, the numbers reported in various media accounts fail to meet this test.  The settlement must also redress the injuries suffered by families that have already lost their homes.  Any settlement that fails to achieve these two goals would be insufficient.

A settlement must also impose adequate penalties on servicers who broke the law.  There are reports that the settlement could permit servicers to receive credit for writing down the value of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) owned by investors, without requiring servicers to reduce principal on the mortgages and second liens that they own.   Ohio’s public employee pension funds have significant investments in MBS, and therefore have significant interest in the terms of the settlement.   The reported settlement terms would allow banks to write down the investments of many of my constituents, without sacrificing anything.  And, depending upon the scope, any settlement could potentially preclude these funds from pursuing actions to recoup more than $457 million in losses, allegedly due to credit ratings agencies improperly rating MBS.   Such terms are unacceptable.

Teachers, first responders, law enforcement, and other pensioners and retirees should not be penalized for wrongdoing by Wall Street.  An adequate loss-sharing arrangement would acknowledge the reality that there is no penalty for servicers writing down the value of assets that belong to someone else.  There is also no penalty associated with servicers writing down a portion of their assets – in this case, their second lien holdings – that actually have no value.  It is often in investors’ best interest to reduce mortgage principal, but this settlement must penalize the servicers who broke the law.

As Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve said recently, financial penalties “remind regulated institutions that noncompliance has real consequences; the law is not a scarecrow where the birds of prey can seek refuge and perch to plan their next attack.”   It thwarts the objective of punishing servicer wrongdoing and deterring future robosigning, predatory lending, consumer deception, and other violations by permitting wrongdoers to settle exclusively with “other people’s money.”  State attorneys general tried this approach in a 2008 settlement with servicer Countrywide—it did not work.

Accordingly, mortgage servicers must not be able to settle these claims using investments held by state pension funds, retirement systems, and universities.  The penalty for bank servicer misconduct must come from the bank’s balance sheets, not other sources of mortgage capital.  The proposed principal reduction program must focus on banks settling with their own money, rather than shifting their financial liability to Private Label Securities (PLS) trusts.  And the net present value (NPV) model for calculating the value of a mortgage modification must be publicly disclosed, transparent, and based upon reasonable economic assumptions (e.g., the correct discount rate), to ensure that principal is being reduced when it is financially appropriate.

Mortgage servicers must be required to assist homeowners who have lost their homes illegally or are underwater through no fault of their own.  But the remedies and penalties must be meaningful, and not come solely from the retirement savings of middle class workers—some of whom may have already lost their homes as result of the illegal practices that the settlement is meant to address.  

This is a critical issue for Ohioans who have been victimized by widespread foreclosure fraud and will be affected by any settlement, both as homeowners and as investors in MBS portfolios managed by public pension and retirement systems.  Your efforts to ensure a fair and transparent settlement will have lasting effects for a generation and establish a very important legal precedent.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my views on this important matter.


Respectfully,


Sherrod Brown
United States Senator


Cc: The Honorable Mike DeWine, Ohio Attorney General


Press Contacts:
202-224-3978source: http://brown.senate.gov[ipaper docId=78824091 access_key=key-97jhkuepkb7fgw8opeg height=600 width=600 /] 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (4)

Lawyer seeks class status for robo-signing lawsuit against LPS

Lawyer seeks class status for robo-signing lawsuit against LPS


This is hardly the beginning. It’s just getting started.

CBS-

(AP)  LAS VEGAS — A lawyer in Las Vegas has filed a civil lawsuit seeking class-action status on behalf of homeowners he says have been hurt by the filing of fraudulent foreclosure documents during an alleged “robo-siging” scheme.

Matthew Callister said he wants a state judge to stop tainted home sales and evictions and order Lender Processing Services Inc. and several bank and mortgage companies to modify loans and pay monetary damages to affected homeowners.

“This is to say, ‘Stop. Let us try to modify the loan appropriately,'” Callister said. “Then we’ll seek damages.”

[CBS NEWS]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Nevada AG says outsourcing claims by lender ‘groundless’

Nevada AG says outsourcing claims by lender ‘groundless’


Someone best remind LPS of what the Nevada Attorney General is capable of!

She has opened the doors for other great AG’s to follow her footsteps. We’re sure to see in the very near future.

LVRJ-

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto called allegations that her office improperly outsourced a foreclosure document robosigning investigation “groundless.”

The claim was made by Lender Processing Services Inc., the nation’s largest lender services company, after Masto filed a lawsuit on Friday claiming the company participated in a widespread fraud involving robosignings and other deceptive practices.

[LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Lender Processing Services drops on fraud charges

Lender Processing Services drops on fraud charges


Nevada attorney general accuses the company of document fraud and illegal fee-splitting. Shares are likely to continue to decline.

 
MSN-

The shares of Lender Processing Services (LPS +1.87%) came under fire Friday, dropping nearly 20% on unusually high volume after Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto filed fraud charges against the company.

Although LPS, a billion-dollar company by market capitalization, has several business lines, the fraud charges relate to its largest (by revenue) default services division. Given the nature of the charges and the mound of evidence AG Masto cites in the complaint, Friday’s fall in share price is likely only the beginning.

In recent years, LPS’s default servicing division has come under fire for two practices central to the attorney general’s charges: document fraud and illegal fee-splitting. Both types of claims go right to the heart of LPS’s business model.

[MSN MONEY]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

LPS Responds to Allegations from Nevada Attorney General

LPS Responds to Allegations from Nevada Attorney General


How dare they call AG Masto’s allegations false!

They will not survive this time around as the complaint is pretty much bulletproof.

PRNEWS-

Unfortunately, the company’s efforts to engage in meaningful discussions with the Nevada Attorney General’s office have been frustrated by the Nevada Attorney General’s decision to outsource its investigation to Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a plaintiff’s law firm located in Washington, D.C., in apparent violation of Nevada law.  The complaint highlights misconceptions about LPS and seeks to sensationalize a variety of false allegations in a misleading manner. 

[PRNEWSWIRE]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Critics: Bondi lax in pursuing big mortgage lenders amid continuing foreclosure crisis

Critics: Bondi lax in pursuing big mortgage lenders amid continuing foreclosure crisis


Lax is a major understatement given the Atomic Bomb Nevada AG just dropped… on an Organization Bondi claims is investigating, with headquarters in Florida!

Orlando Sentinel-

As attorneys general in other foreclosure-battered states step up their investigations into fraudulent mortgage practices by large U.S. banks, some Florida groups are accusing state Attorney General Pam Bondi of being soft on the giant lenders.

Florida’s Democratic state senators recently released a video that targets Bondi, a Republican elected to a nonpartisan office. Titled “Ignoring the Florida Foreclosure Crisis,” the video contrasts new fraud investigations launched by California Attorney General Kamala Harris with controversial forced resignations of two key mortgage-fraud investigators in Bondi’s Fort Lauderdale office.

[ORLANDO SENTINEL]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

NV AG Masto Strikes Again, Likely Slaying Lender Processing Services

NV AG Masto Strikes Again, Likely Slaying Lender Processing Services


RiiiiiiiiCCCCooooLLLLLaaaaaaaa!

Where does this leave an old post from last May via a former employee that alleged LPS Used TARP Funds to Cover-Up Assignment of Mortgage conflicts? If in fact, this comes to be true?

Abigail Field-

Document fraud infects many if not most foreclosures across the country, and Lender Processing Services (LPS) is a major reason why. As a result, many are celebrating Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto’s civil fraud suit against the company. Her suit details, based on numerous witnesses’ testimony, documents, and other evidence, how LPS’s business model was deceptive and fraudulent.

LPS organized its workforce to churn out documents that were replete with lies, improperly directed foreclosure and bankruptcy attorneys, misrepresented its fees, and made numerous misleading statements to investors. Frankly, it’s hard to see how LPS survives this suit and the shareholder and other cases that are sure to follow.

The suit’s tremendous clarity and detail raise several questions beyond “when will LPS declare bankruptcy?”

[REALITY CHECK]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

COMPLAINT | STATE OF NEVADA vs. LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES INC., FIS, DOCX

COMPLAINT | STATE OF NEVADA vs. LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES INC., FIS, DOCX


STATE OF NEVADA

Plaintiff

vs.

LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES INC.;

FIDELITY NATIONAL IINFORMATION SERVICES INC.;

LPS DEFAULT SOLUTIONS INC.;

DOCX, LLC; DOES 1-XX,

Defendants

EXCERPTS:

5. Following the exposure of deceptive document execution practices at DOCX

[…]

15 Georgia, LPS then misrepresented that it had processes and internal controls in place at the LPS
16 Default Solutions office in Minnesota to ensure that affidavits were signed properly and in
17 accordance with industry standard. LPS senior executives expressly contradicted these
18 representations in sworn court testimony.

[ipaper docId=75880962 access_key=key-cu3armxuntttgvwheh1 height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (4)

Nevada AG officially sues LPS for allegedly falsifying foreclosure documents, consumer fraud

Nevada AG officially sues LPS for allegedly falsifying foreclosure documents, consumer fraud


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Jennifer López
DATE: December 16, 2011 702-486-3782

NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL SUES LENDER PROCESSING
SERVICES FOR CONSUMER FRAUD

Carson City, NV – Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto announced today a lawsuit against Lender Processing Services, Inc., DOCX, LLC, LPS Default Solutions,
Inc. and other subsidiaries of LPS (collectively known “LPS”) for engaging in deceptive practices against Nevada consumers.

The lawsuit, filed on December 15, 2011, in the 8th Judicial District of Nevada, follows an extensive investigation into LPS’ default servicing of residential mortgages in
Nevada, specifically loans in foreclosure. The lawsuit includes allegations of widespread document execution fraud, deceptive statements made by LPS about
efforts to correct document fraud, improper control over foreclosure attorneys and the foreclosure process, misrepresentations about LPS’ fees and services, and evidence of an overall press for speed and volume that prevented the necessary and proper focus on accuracy and integrity in the foreclosure process.

“The robo-signing crisis in Nevada has been fueled by two main problems: chaos and
speed,” said Attorney General Masto. “We will protect the integrity of the foreclosure
process. This lawsuit is the next, logical step in holding the key players in the
foreclosure fraud crisis accountable.”

The lawsuit alleges that LPS:

1) Engaged in a pattern and practice of falsifying, forging and/or fraudulently executing foreclosure related documents, resulting in countless foreclosures that were predicated upon deficient documentation;

2) Required employees to execute and/or notarize up to 4,000 foreclosure related documents every day;

3) Fraudulently notarized documents without ensuring that the notary did so in the presence of the person signing the document;

4) Implemented a widespread scheme to forge signatures on key documents, to ensure that volume and speed quotas were met;

5) Concealed the scope and severity of the document execution fraud by misrepresenting that the problems were limited to clerical errors;

6) Improperly directed and/or controlled the work of foreclosure attorneys by imposing inappropriate and arbitrary deadlines that forced attorneys to churn through foreclosures at a rate that sacrificed accuracy for speed;

7) Improperly obstructed communication between foreclosure attorneys and their clients; and

8 ) Demanded a kickback/referral fee from foreclosure firms for each case referred to the firm by LPS and allowed this fee to be misrepresented as “attorney’s fees” on invoices passed on to Nevada consumers and/or submitted to Nevada courts.

LPS’ misconduct was confirmed through testimony of former employees, interviews of servicers and other industry players, and extensive review of more than 1 million pages of relevant documents. Former employees and industry players describe LPS as an assembly-line sweatshop, churning out documents and foreclosures as fast as new
requests came in and punishing network attorneys who failed to keep up the pace.

LPS is the nation’s largest provider of default mortgage services, processing more than fifty percent of all foreclosures annually.

The Office of the Nevada Attorney General recently indicted Gary Trafford and Gerri Sheppard as part of a separate, criminal investigation into the conduct of robo-signing
scheme which resulted in the filing of tens of thousands of fraudulent documents with the Clark County Recorder’s Office between 2005 and 2008.

Nevada homeowners who are in foreclosure or are facing foreclosure are advised to seek assistance as soon as possible. Homeowners can find information for a counseling
agency approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by calling 800-569-4287 or by visiting http://1.usa.gov/NVCounselingAgencies.

Additional information on foreclosure resources can be found at www.foreclosurehelp.nv.gov.

Anyone who has information regarding this case should contact the Attorney General’s Office hotline at 702-486-3132 (when promoted select “0”) to obtain information on how to submit a written complain. Nevada consumers can file a complaint with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office about LPS by sending a letter with copies of any supporting documentation to the Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Protection: 555 E. Washington Ave Suite 3900, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Read the complaint by visiting: http://bit.ly/LPScomplaint
###

[ipaper docId=75880204 access_key=key-2cvrlk1jd7n4d4dbdvk0 height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Robo-Signers Please Stand Up! NV AG Office Encourage YOU to Call and File a Complaint NOW!

Robo-Signers Please Stand Up! NV AG Office Encourage YOU to Call and File a Complaint NOW!


This is your chance before your bosses throw you under the bus! Most of us understand you were told what to do and how to do it. Your bosses may have said you had a special “surrogate license” to sign away other co-workers names… but?

This isn’t limited to just Nevada.

Do yourself a favor and if you’re part of this epidemic file a complaint.

 

8NewsNow-

One of two accused home loan robo-signers faced a judge for the first time Wednesday. Former loan title officer Gerri Shepperd pleaded not guilty to more than 600 counts of fraud.

The Nevada Attorney General’s Office charged Shepperd with paying notaries to forge signatures on home loans to speed up the foreclosure process. The AG says this fraud affects tens of thousands of Nevada home loans.

[8NEWSNOW]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

NYSC Judge Schack Slams Foreclosure Firm Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C. “Conflicted Robosigner Kim Stewart”

NYSC Judge Schack Slams Foreclosure Firm Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C. “Conflicted Robosigner Kim Stewart”


Decided on December 12, 2011

Supreme Court, Kings County

U.S. Bank, N.A., Plaintiff,

against

Wayne Ramjit et al., Defendants.

17027/08 Plaintiff Rosicki Rosicki and Associates

Batavia NY

Arthur M. Schack, J.

In this foreclosure action, plaintiff, U.S. BANK N.A. (U.S. BANK), moved for an order of reference and related relief for the premises located at 1485 Sutter Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4259, Lot 22, County of Kings). For the Court to consider the motion for an order of reference, I ordered plaintiff’s counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., on July 29, 2011, to comply with the October 20, 2010 Administrative Order of then Chief Administrative Judge Ann T. Pfau, as revised on March 2, 2011, and concluded that:

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that plaintiff U.S. BANK N. A.’s motion for an

order of reference and related relief for the premises located at 1485

Sutter Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4259, Lot 22, County of

Kings) and the instant foreclosure action will be dismissed with

prejudice, unless, within sixty (60) days from this decision and order,

counsel for plaintiff, U.S. BANK N.A., complies with the new Rule,

promulgated by the Chief Administrative Judge Ann T. Pfau on

October 20, 2010, as revised on March 2, 2011, by submitting an

affirmation, to my Chambers (not the Foreclosure Department), [*2]

360 Adams Street, Room 478, Brooklyn, NY 11201, using the new

standard Court form, pursuant to CPLR Rule 2106 and under the

penalties of perjury, that counsel for plaintiff, U.S. BANK N.A., has

“based upon my communications [with named representative or

representatives of plaintiff], as well as upon my own inspection and

reasonable inquiry under the circumstances . . . that to the best of

my knowledge, information and belief, the Summons, Complaint and

other papers filed or submitted to the Court in this matter contain no

false statements of fact or law”, and is “aware of my obligations under

New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200) and

22 NYCRR Part 130.”

On September 23, 2011, plaintiff’s counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., filed with the Court the instant motion, requesting an extension of thirty (30) days, up to and including October 26, 2011, to submit the required attorney’s affirmation.

According to ¶ 15 of the affirmation in support of the motion, by Timothy Menasco, Esq., of Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., “plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel has been actively reviewing the file in order to properly abide by said Administrative Order creating the delay in submission of the affirmation.” Mr. Menasco then states, in ¶ 16 of his affirmation, “[i]t is unduly harsh and inappropriate to dismiss this action, on the basis of a delay in submitting an affirmation to the court.”

Plaintiff’s counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., continued, for reasons unknown and not satisfactorily explained to the Court, to not comply with the Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge and my July 28, 2011 order. I have not received the affirmation from plaintiff’s counsel, as ordered by the Chief Administrative Judge’s Administrative Order and my previous order.

Today, plaintiff U.S. BANK’S instant motion to extend the time to file the required attorney’s affirmation, appeared on my motion calendar. It is one hundred thirty-seven (137) days since I issued my July 28, 2011 order and four hundred eighteen (418) days since the Chief Administrative Judge issued her Administrative Order. Therefore, for violation of these orders, the instant foreclosure action is dismissed with prejudice and the notice of pendency is cancelled and discharged.

Discussion

The Office of Court Administration issued a press release on October 20, 2010 explaining the reasons for the Administrative Ordered issued that day by Chief Administrative Judge Pfau. It stated:

The New York State court system has instituted a new filing

requirement in residential foreclosure cases to protect the integrity

of the foreclosure process and prevent wrongful foreclosures. Chief

Judge Jonathan Lippman today announced that plaintiff’s counsel in

foreclosure actions will be required to file an affirmation certifying

that counsel has taken reasonable steps — including inquiry to banks

and lenders and careful review of the papers filed in the case — to

verify the accuracy of documents filed in support of residential [*3]

foreclosures. The new filing requirement was introduced by the

Chief Judge in response to recent disclosures by major mortgage

lenders of significant insufficiencies — including widespread deficiencies

in notarization and “robosigning” of supporting documents — in

residential foreclosure filings in courts nationwide. The new requirement

is effective immediately and was created with the approval of the

Presiding Justices of all four Judicial Departments.

Chief Judge Lippman said, “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. This new filing requirement will play a vital role in

ensuring that the documents judges rely on will be thoroughly examined,

accurate, and error-free before any judge is asked to take the drastic step

of foreclosure.” [Emphasis added]

(See Gretchen Morgenson and Andrew Martin, Big Legal Clash on Foreclosure is Taking Shape, New York Times, Oct. 21, 2010; Andrew Keshner, New Court Rules Says Attorneys Must Verify Foreclosure Papers, NYLJ, Oct. 21, 2010).

The failure of plaintiff’s counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., to comply with two court orders, my July 28, 2011 and Chief Administrative Judge Pfau’s October 20, 2010 order, as revised on March 2, 2011, demonstrates delinquent conduct by Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C. This mandates the dismissal with prejudice of the instant action. Failure to comply with court-ordered time frames must be taken seriously. It cannot be ignored. There are consequences for ignoring court orders. Recently, on December 16, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp., 16 NY3d 74, 81 [2010], instructed:

As this Court has repeatedly emphasized, our court system is

dependent on all parties engaged in litigation abiding by the rules of

proper practice (see e.g. Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 748 [2004];

Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]). The failure to comply with

deadlines not only impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and

the adjudication of claims, but it places jurists unnecessarily in the

position of having to order enforcement remedies to respond to the

delinquent conduct of members of the bar, often to the detriment of

the litigants they represent. Chronic noncompliance with deadlines

breeds disrespect for the dictates of the Civil Practice Law and Rules

and a culture in which cases can linger for years without resolution.

Furthermore, those lawyers who engage their best efforts to comply

with practice rules are also effectively penalized because they must

somehow explain to their clients why they cannot secure timely [*4]

responses from recalcitrant adversaries, which leads to the erosion

of their attorney-client relationships as well. For these reasons, it

is important to adhere to the position we declared a decade ago that

[i]f the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial

system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders

with impunity [Emphasis added].” (Kihl, 94 NY2d at 123).

Despite Mr. Menasco’s assertion, it is not unduly harsh and inappropriate to

dismiss the instant action because of the delay by plaintiff’s counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C. to submit the required affirmation. “Litigation cannot be conducted efficiently if deadlines are not taken seriously, and we make clear again, as we have several times before, that disregard of deadlines should not and will not be tolerated (see Miceli v State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 3 NY3d 725 [2004]; Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 748 [2004]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]) [Emphasis added].” (Andrea v Arnone, Hedin, Casker, Kennedy and Drake, Architects and Landscape Architects, P.C., 5 NY3d 514, 521 [2005]).As we made clear in Brill, and underscore here, statutory time frames —like court-order time frames (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]) — are not options, they are requirements, to be taken seriously by the parties. Too many pages of the Reports, and hours of the courts, are taken up with deadlines that are simply ignored [Emphasis added].” (Miceli, 3 NY3d at 726-726). The Court cannot wait for plaintiff’s counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., to take its time in complying with court mandates.

Moreover, even if plaintiff U.S. BANK’s counsel complied in a timely manner

with my July 28, 2011 order and the order of the Chief Administrative Judge, plaintiff U.S. BANK would have to address its use, in the instant action, of conflicted robosigner Kim Stewart. The instant mortgage and note, were executed on October 11, 2007 and recorded on December 10, 2007, by MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATIONS SYSTEM, INC. (MERS), “acting solely as a nominee for Lender [U.S. BANK]” and “FOR PURPOSES OF RECORDING THIS MORTGAGE, MERS IS THE MORTGAGEE OF RECORD,” in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, at City Register File Number (CRFN) 2007000605594. Then on May 23, 2008, MERS assigned the instant mortgage and note back to U.S. BANK. This was recorded on July 24, 2008. in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, at CRFN 2008000294495.

The assignment was executed for MERS, in Owensboro, Kentucky, by Kim Stewart, Assistant Secretary of MERS, as assignor. The very same Kim Stewart, as Assistant Vice President of assignee U.S. BANK, on April 13, 2009, also in Owensboro, Kentucky, executed the affidavit of merit for an order of reference in the instant action.She signed the affidavit of merit as Assistant Vice President of plaintiff U.S. BANK. However, in ¶ 1 of her affidavit of merit, Ms. Stewart alleges to “a Vice President of U.S. BANK, N.A., the plaintiff.”

Perhaps, plaintiff U.S. BANK and its counsel, Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., do not want the Court to confront the conflicted Ms. Stewart? This would certainly contradict the disingenuous opening statement by Richard K. Davis, Chairman, President and Chief Executive [*5]Officer of U.S. BANCORP, (U.S. BANK’s parent corporation), in his cover letter to the 2010 Annual Report of U.S. BANCORP, sent to U.S BANCORP’s shareholders. Mr. Davis stated that “[t]hroughout its history, U.S. Bancorp has operated with a tradition of uncompromising honesty and integrity.”

Further, the dismissal of the instant foreclosure action requires the cancellation of the notice of pendency. CPLR § 6501 provides that the filing of a notice of pendency against a property is to give constructive notice to any purchaser of real property or encumbrancer against real property of an action that “would affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of real property, except in a summary proceeding brought to recover the possession of real property.” The Court of Appeals, in 5308 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp. (64 NY2d 313, 319 [1984]), commented that “[t]he purpose of the doctrine was to assure that a court retained its ability to effect justice by preserving its power over the property, regardless of whether a purchaser had any notice of the pending suit,” and, at 320, that “the statutory scheme permits a party to effectively retard the alienability of real property without any prior judicial review.”

CPLR § 6514 (a) provides for the mandatory cancellation of a notice of pendency by:

The Court,upon motion of any person aggrieved and upon such

notice as it may require, shall direct any county clerk to cancel

a notice of pendency, if service of a summons has not been completed

within the time limited by section 6512; or if the action has been

settled, discontinued or abated; or if the time to appeal from a final

judgment against the plaintiff has expired; or if enforcement of a

final judgment against the plaintiff has not been stayed pursuant

to section 551. [emphasis added]

The plain meaning of the word “abated,” as used in CPLR § 6514 (a) is the ending of an action. “Abatement” is defined as “the act of eliminating or nullifying.” (Black’s Law Dictionary 3 [7th ed 1999]). “An action which has been abated is dead, and any further enforcement of the cause of action requires the bringing of a new action, provided that a cause of action remains (2A Carmody-Wait 2d § 11.1).” (Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 40 [2d Dept 2005]). Further, Nastasi at 36, held that the “[c]ancellation of a notice of pendency can be granted in the exercise of the inherent power of the court where its filing fails to comply with CPLR § 6501 (see 5303 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., supra at 320-321; Rose v Montt Assets, 250 AD2d 451, 451-452 [1d Dept 1998]; Siegel, NY Prac § 336 [4th ed]).” Thus, the dismissal of the instant complaint must result in the mandatory cancellation of plaintiff U.S. BANK’s notice of pendency against the subject property “in the exercise of the inherent power of the court.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that the instant action, Index Number 17027/08, is dismissed with

prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that the Notice of Pendency in this action, filed with the Kings

County Clerk on June 16, 2008, by plaintiff, U.S. BANK, N.A., to foreclose on a mortgage for real property located at 1485 Sutter Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4259, Lot 22, County [*6]of Kings), is cancelled and discharged.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER

________________________________HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACK

J. S. C.

[ipaper docId=75594339 access_key=key-1yzylquoa5s9lc5xuhvc height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Nevada Grand Jury transcripts in Foreclosure Fraud case released – Trafford Sheppard GJ Trascript Day 2

Nevada Grand Jury transcripts in Foreclosure Fraud case released – Trafford Sheppard GJ Trascript Day 2


PART 1: Nevada Grand Jury transcripts in Foreclosure Fraud case released – Trafford Sheppard GJ Trascript Day 1

[ipaper docId=75168853 access_key=key-10z2446gt940bdmyf545 height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Nevada Grand Jury transcripts in Foreclosure Fraud case released – Trafford Sheppard GJ Trascript Day 1

Nevada Grand Jury transcripts in Foreclosure Fraud case released – Trafford Sheppard GJ Trascript Day 1


Isn’t this what LPS’s DOCx called:

Surrogate signers” signing countless foreclosure documents – with someone else’ name?

 

Many thanks to MYNEWS3 for these.

Begin on page 17:

Excerpt pg 22:

Through the course of this investigation, I’ve learned that the name has been changed a number of times. Chicago Title being one of the names that was used. LPS, Lender Processing Services. LPS, Default Title & Closing, LSI Title, Fidelity National Default. It’s a variety of names.

[ipaper docId=75147180 access_key=key-w5z9m98z00epdany7sc height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Barney Frank requests hearing on mortgage abuses at Ally

Barney Frank requests hearing on mortgage abuses at Ally


Just one day after Attorney General Martha Coakley urged Congress to investigate Ally, GMAC, this comes.

REUTERS-

Congressman Barney Frank on Wednesday asked his colleagues to hold a hearing on alleged mortgage abuses at Ally Financial, a day after the attorney general from his home state of Massachusetts requested that lawmakers investigate.

“Given Ally’s significant role in the mortgage business and the federal government’s considerable financial investment,” Frank wrote to Spencer Bachus, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, “a prompt investigation of this matter by the Committee is warranted.”

The U.S. Treasury owns some 74 percent of Ally after a 2008 investment in the firm.

Last week Massachusetts sued Ally’s mortgage unit, GMAC Mortgage, and four other top banks for allegedly pursuing illegal foreclosures and deceiving homeowners whose loans they service.

[REUTERS]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

[VIDEO] CA AG Harris and NV AG Masto Foreclosure Fraud Investigation Announcement

[VIDEO] CA AG Harris and NV AG Masto Foreclosure Fraud Investigation Announcement


We now have AG’s Biden & Schneiderman in the East and AG’s Harris & Masto from the West.

We applaud you.


By on Dec 6, 2011

Attorney General Harris, joined by Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, today announced that their states have entered into a joint investigation alliance designed to assist homeowners who have been harmed by misconduct and fraud in the mortgage industry.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

LETTER: Attorney General Martha Coakley urges Congress to investigate Ally, GMAC

LETTER: Attorney General Martha Coakley urges Congress to investigate Ally, GMAC


THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ONE ASHBURTON PLACE
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108
MARTHA COAKLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
(617) 727-2200
www.mass.gov/ago

December 6, 2011
The Honorable Tim Johnson
Chairman

U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
534 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Financial Services
2129 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Ally Financial; GMAC Foreclosure Behavior

I am writing regarding what we believe is serious misconduct committed by Ally
Financial, through its subsidiary GMAC Mortgage, against homeowners in
Massachusetts.

Last week, our office filed a lawsuit against Ally and four national banks for
pursuing illegal foreclosures and deceptive loan servicing. Ally and other banks charted
a destructive path by cutting corners and rushing to foreclose on homeowners without
following the rule of law, which has exacerbated the nation’s foreclosure crisis.
In light of Ally’s alleged deceptive and illegal actions against homeowners in
Massachusetts and across the country, I respectfully request that your committees
investigate Ally’s serious misconduct and consider what actions the federal government
can take to ensure that Ally adheres to the law.

[…]

[ipaper docId=74953296 access_key=key-26rwiob9swfb2t53q7p9 height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives