IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

PHILIP REDMON AND PATRICIA
REDMON,
Appellants,

vs.

HOMEQ SERVICING, INC.; BANK OF
NEW YORK MELLON TRUST
COMPANY; PATRICK KING; AND
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
COURTS FORECLOSURE MEDIATION
PROGRAM,
Respondents.

ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND REMANDING

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review arising in a foreclosure mediation action. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Patrick Flanagan, Judge.

Following an unsuccessful mediation conducted under Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program, appellants Philip and Patricia Redmon (the Redmons) filed a petition for judicial review seeking sanctions against their loan servicer,  respondent HomEq Servicing, Inc. (HomEq). The district court concluded that HomEq’s conduct was not sanctionable and ordered that a foreclosure certificate be issued. As explained below, we vacate the district court’s order and  remand this matter to the district court.

The Redmons’ mediation was scheduled for December 28, 2009. On that day, the Redmons met with the mediator and an attorney representing HomEq. Due to an apparent miscommunication, HomEq’s attorney was unable to contact via telephone a HomEq employee who ostensibly had the authority to  negotiate the Redmons’ loan. Two days later, a follow-up conference call was held in which the mediator, HomEq’s attorney, and the HomEq employee articipated—but not the Redmons.

The Redmons’ petition for judicial review contended that, among other things, HomEq should be sanctioned for its failure to make someone available during the mediation who had the authority to negotiate their loan. See NRS 107.086(5) (indicating that the mediator shall recommend sanctions when the beneficiary or its representative “does not have the authority or access to a person with the authority” to negotiate a loan modification). In denying their petition, the district court failed to explain the basis for its conclusion that HomEq had made someone with authority available during the mediation. Specifically, the district court’s order does not explain who had authority on HomEq’s behalf, nor does it explain on what day or days the mediation took place.

On remand, we direct the district court to make the factual findings necessary to determine whether HomEq made someone available during the mediation who had the authority to negotiate the Redmons’ loan. If the district court concludes that HomEq failed in this regard, the district court shall determine how HomEq should be appropriately sanctioned. Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev.     , P• 3d (2011) (construing NRS 107.086(5) to mean that a violation of one of the four statutory requirements must be sanctioned and that the district court is to consider several factors in determining what sanctions are appropriate). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court VACATED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.

[…]

[ipaper docId=59993939 access_key=key-hskm3cn2kccv2n7s0j6 height=600 width=600 /]

Cite as: Leyva v. National Default Servicing Corp.

127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 40

July 7, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 55216

MOISES LEYVA,

Appellant,

vs.

NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CORP.; AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY; AND WELLS FARGO,

Respondents.

Appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review in a foreclosure mediation action.  Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Donald M. Mosley, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Crosby & Associates and David M. Crosby and Troy S. Fox, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

Snell & Wilmer, LLP, and Gregory A. Brower and Cynthia Lynn Alexander, Las Vegas, for Respondents America’s Servicing Company and Wells Fargo.

Wilde & Associates and Gregory L. Wilde, Las Vegas, for Respondent National Default Servicing Corp.

BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.

OPINION

By the Court, HARDESTY, J.:

In this appeal, we consider issues arising out of Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program.  First, we must determine whether a homeowner who is not the original mortgagor is a proper party to participate in the program.  We conclude that the Foreclosure Mediation statute, NRS 107.086, and the Foreclosure Mediation Rules (FMRs) dictate that a homeowner, even if he or she is not the named mortgagor, is a proper party entitled to request mediation following a notice of default.

Second, we must determine if a party is considered to have complied with the applicable statute and FMRs governing document production in a mediation proceeding by producing what the district court referred to as “essential documents.”  In this, we address whether substantial compliance satisfies the mandates of the statute and FMRs.  Because we conclude that strict compliance is compelled by NRS 107.086(4) and (5), that the assignment offered was defective, and that no endorsement of the mortgage note was provided according to Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, we conclude that Wells Fargo failed to produce the documents required under NRS 107.086(4).  Additionally, we recently concluded in Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (Adv. Op. No. 39, July 7, 2011), that a party’s failure to produce the enumerated documents required by NRS 107.086 and the FMRs prohibits the district court from directing the program administrator to certify the mediation so that the foreclosure process can proceed.  Here, we again conclude that, due to the statute’s and the FMRs’ mandatory language regarding document production, a party is considered to have fully complied with the statute and rules only upon production of all documents required.  Failure to do so is a sanctionable offense, and the district court is prohibited from allowing the foreclosure process to proceed.  Therefore, we must reverse and remand this case to the district court for it to determine appropriate sanctions against respondents.[1]

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant Moises Leyva received and recorded a quitclaim deed in 2007 in exchange for taking over monthly mortgage payments on a residence in Las Vegas.  Leyva did not expressly assume the mortgage note, however, and it remained in the original mortgagor’s name, Michael Curtis Ramos.  Nonetheless, Leyva made the mortgage payments in Leyva’s name to respondent Wells Fargo’s servicing company for 25 months.  Thereafter, Leyva defaulted on the mortgage and, upon receiving a notice of election to sell, decided to pursue mediation through the Foreclosure Mediation Program.  Both he and Ramos signed the form electing to mediate.  The mediation occurred on September 23, 2009,[2] and Leyva, Ramos, and Wells Fargo were represented by counsel at the mediation.  Leyva was present at the mediation, while Ramos was available by telephone.  At the mediation, Wells Fargo produced a certified copy of the original deed of trust and mortgage note, on both of which MortgageIT, Inc., not Wells Fargo, was named as the lender, as well as a notarized statement from a Wells Fargo employee asserting that Wells Fargo was in possession of the deed of trust and mortgage note, as well as any assignments thereto.  Wells Fargo did not submit copies of any assignments.  The parties failed to resolve the foreclosure at the mediation, and the mediator’s statement indicated that Wells Fargo failed to bring the statutorily required documents to the mediation.  The mediator did not, however, indicate that Wells Fargo participated in the mediation in bad faith.

Leyva then filed a petition for judicial review in district court, claiming that Wells Fargo mediated in bad faith and that it should be sanctioned.  After conducting hearings on the petition, the district court found that

there is a lack of showing of bad faith on the part of [Wells Fargo] in that all essential documents were provided, contrary to the indication of the mediator, and that [Wells Fargo] otherwise negotiated in good faith notwithstanding the fact that an agreement was not reached.

Absent timely appeal, a Letter of Certification shall enter.

(Emphasis added.)  This appeal followed.[3]

DISCUSSION

In resolving this appeal, as a preliminary matter, we must determine whether Leyva could properly elect to mediate and participate in the mediation even though he was not a named party on the mortgage note and did not assume the note in his purchase of the residence.  Determining that he could participate as the title holder of record, we next consider whether the district court erred in finding that Wells Fargo brought “all essential documents” to the mediation.  In doing so, we address Wells Fargo’s argument that possessing the original mortgage note and deed of trust is sufficient to demonstrate ownership of the same.  We conclude that Wells Fargo failed to produce the documents required under the applicable statute and FMRs and to otherwise show that it had an enforceable interest in the property subject of the mediation.  Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion, and sanctions are warranted pursuant to our holding in Pasillas, 127 Nev. at ___, ___ P.3d at ___.

Leyva was a proper party to the mediation

Wells Fargo first argues that because Leyva was neither the grantor on the deed of trust nor the obligor on the note, he was not a proper party to the mediation.  We disagree.

NRS 107.086(3) allows “[t]he grantor or the person who holds the title of record” to elect to mediate.  (Emphasis added.)  Similarly, FMR 5(1) states that “any grantor or person who holds the title of record and is the owner-occupant of a residence” is eligible to participate in the Foreclosure Mediation Program.  (Emphasis added.)  Leyva recorded his ownership of the subject property in March 2007 and is therefore clearly the title holder of record eligible to participate in the Foreclosure Mediation Program.

Even though the mortgage note remained in Ramos’s name, this bifurcation of title ownership and liability on the note served only to potentially limit the foreclosure solutions available to Leyva at the mediation, not to exclude all possible remedies.  And while Wells Fargo argues that modification was not an option because Leyva lacked authority over the loan, the record reflects that Ramos, the person with such authority, signed the election-of-mediation form, was represented by counsel at the mediation, and was available by telephone during the mediation.  Therefore, Wells Fargo’s argument lacks merit.  Regardless, because both NRS 107.086(3) and FMR 5(1) permit the person holding the title of record to mediate, and Wells Fargo does not dispute that Leyva possessed a valid, recorded quitclaim deed, we conclude that Leyva could properly elect to mediate and was eligible to participate in the Foreclosure Mediation Program.

Wells Fargo failed to meet the mediation program’s documentation requirements, compelling consideration of sanctions

In Pasillas, we held that if a party fails to (1) provide the required documents, or (2) either attend the mediation in person or, if the beneficiary attends through a representative, that person fails to have authority to modify the loan or access to such a person, the district court is required to impose appropriate sanctions.  127 Nev. at ___, ___ P.3d at ___. Here, despite Wells Fargo’s failure to bring the assignments for the mortgage note and deed of trust, the district court refused to impose sanctions.[4]  “[W]e . . . review a district court’s decision regarding the imposition of sanctions for a party’s participation in the Foreclosure Mediation Program under an abuse of discretion standard.”  Id.

Wells Fargo concedes that it did not provide written assignments of the deed of trust and mortgage note as required by NRS 107.086(4) and FMR 5(6).  Nevertheless, it argues that it fulfilled the purpose of the statute and rule, and thus, its failure to bring actual copies of any assignments was harmless.  In essence, Wells Fargo asserts that its failure to strictly comply with the statute’s and FMRs’ requirements should not subject it to sanctions, because it substantially complied with those requirements.

“Substantial compliance may be sufficient ‘to avoid harsh, unfair or absurd consequences.’  Under certain procedural statutes and rules, however, failure to strictly comply . . . can be fatal to a case.”  Leven v. Frey, 123 Nev. 399, 407, 168 P.3d 712, 717 (2007) (quoting 3 Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 57:19, at 58 (6th ed. 2001)).  To determine whether a statute and rule require strict compliance or substantial compliance, this court looks at the language used and policy and equity considerations.  Id. at 406-07, 168 P.3d at 717.  In so doing, we examine whether the purpose of the statute or rule can be adequately served in a manner other than by technical compliance with the statutory or rule language.  See id. at 407 n.27, 168 P.3d at 717 n.27 (citing White v. Prince George’s County, 877 A.2d 1129, 1137 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2005) (“Where the purpose of the notice requirements is fulfilled, but not necessarily in a manner technically compliant with all of the terms of the statute, this Court has found such substantial compliance to satisfy the statute.” (internal quotation omitted))).

Here, both the statutory language and that of the FMRs provide that the beneficiary “shall” bring the enumerated documents, and we have previously recognized that “‘shall’ is mandatory unless the statute demands a different construction to carry out the clear intent of the legislature.”  S.N.E.A. v. Daines, 108 Nev. 15, 19, 824 P.2d 276, 278 (1992); see also Pasillas, 127 Nev. at ___, ___ P.3d at ___.  The legislative intent behind requiring a party to produce the assignments of the deed of trust and mortgage note is to ensure that whoever is foreclosing “actually owns the note” and has authority to modify the loan.  See Hearing on A.B. 149 Before the Joint Comm. on Commerce and Labor, 75th Leg. (Nev., February 11, 2009) (testimony of Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley).  Thus, we determine that NRS 107.086 and the FMRs necessitate strict compliance.

Because we conclude that strict compliance is necessary, we must discuss what constitutes a valid assignment of deeds of trust and mortgage notes.  Transfers of deeds of trust and mortgage notes are distinctly separate, thus we discuss each one in turn.

The deed of trust, with any assignments, identifies the person who is foreclosing

In this case, Wells Fargo was not the original named beneficiary on the deed of trust, but it contends on appeal that it has the right to foreclose as the assignee of the original beneficiary, MortgageIT.  Although Wells Fargo conceded during oral argument that it did not provide the written assignment, it claims that because it provided a certified copy of the deed of trust and a notarized statement from its employee claiming that it was the rightful owner of the deed of trust, no written assignment was necessary.  We disagree.

A deed of trust is an instrument that “secure[s] the performance of an obligation or the payment of any debt.”  NRS 107.020.  This court has previously held that a deed of trust “constitutes a conveyance of land as defined by NRS 111.010.”[5]  Ray v. Hawkins, 76 Nev. 164, 166, 350 P.2d 998, 999 (1960).  The statute of frauds governs when a conveyance creates or assigns an interest in land:

No estate or interest in lands, . . . nor any trust or power over or concerning lands, or in any manner relating thereto, shall be created, granted, assigned, surrendered or declared . . . , unless . . . by deed or conveyance, in writing, subscribed by the party creating, granting, assigning, surrendering or declaring the same, or by the party’s lawful agent thereunto authorized in writing.

NRS 111.205(1) (emphases added).  Thus, to prove that MortgageIT properly assigned its interest in land via the deed of trust to Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo needed to provide a signed writing from MortgageIT demonstrating that transfer of interest.  No such assignment was provided at the mediation or to the district court, and the statement from Wells Fargo itself is insufficient proof of assignment.  Absent a proper assignment of a deed of trust, Wells Fargo lacks standing to pursue foreclosure proceedings against Leyva.

Mortgage note

The proper method of transferring the right to payment under a mortgage note is governed by Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code- Negotiable Instruments, because a mortgage note is a negotiable instrument.[6]  Birkland v. Silver State Financial Services, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00035-KJD-LRL, 2010 WL 3419372, at *4 (D. Nev. Aug. 25, 2010).  The obligor on the note has the right to know the identity of the entity that is “entitled to enforce” the mortgage note under Article 3, see NRS 104.3301, “[o]therwise, the [homeowner] may pay funds to a stranger in the case.”  In re Veal, No. 09-14808, 2011 WL 2304200, at *16 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. June 10, 2011) (holding, in a bankruptcy case, that AHMSI did not prove that it was the party entitled to enforce, and receive payments from, a mortgage note because it “presented no evidence as to who possessed the original Note.  It also presented no evidence showing [e]ndorsement of the note either in its favor or in favor of Wells Fargo, for whom AHMSI allegedly was servicing the [bankrupt party’s] Loan.”).  If the homeowner pays funds to a “stranger in the case,” then his or her obligation on the note would not be reduced by the payments made. See id. at *7 (“if a[n obligor on a mortgage note] makes a payment to a ‘person entitled to enforce,’ the obligation is satisfied on a dollar for dollar basis, and the [obligor] never has to pay that amount again”).

Wells Fargo argues that, under Nevada law, possession of the original note allowed it to enforce the note.  We disagree and take this opportunity to clarify the applicability of Article 3 to mortgage notes, as we anticipate increasing participation in the Foreclosure Mediation Program, as well as a corresponding increase in the number of foreclosure appeals in this state.  As discussed below, we conclude that Article 3 clearly requires Wells Fargo to demonstrate more than mere possession of the original note to be able to enforce a negotiable instrument under the facts of this case.

Pursuant to NRS 104.3102(1), Article 3 applies to negotiable instruments.  Negotiable instruments are defined as

an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it:

(a) Is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder;

(b) Is payable on demand or at a definite time; and

(c) Does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money.

NRS 104.3104(1).  Thus, a mortgage note is a negotiable instrument, and any negotiation of a mortgage note must be done in accordance with Article 3.

A note can be made payable to bearer or payable to order.  NRS 104.3109.  If the note is payable to bearer, that “indicates that the person in possession of the promise or order is entitled to payment.”  NRS 104.3109(1)(a).  However, “[a] promise or order that is not payable to bearer is payable to order if it is payable to the order of an identified person . . . . A promise or order that is payable to order is payable to the identified person.”  NRS 104.3109(2).

For a note in order form to be enforceable by a party other than to whom the note is originally payable, the note must be either negotiated or transferred.[7]  A “‘[n]egotiation’ means a transfer of possession, whether voluntary or involuntary, of an instrument by a person other than the issuer to a person who thereby becomes its holder.”  NRS 104.3201(1).  “[I]f an instrument is payable to an identified person, negotiation requires transfer of possession of the instrument and its endorsement by the holder.”[8]  NRS 104.3201(2) (emphasis added).  An “endorsement” is a signature that is “made on an instrument for the purpose of negotiating the instrument.”  NRS 104.3204(1).  Thus, if the note is payable to the order of an identifiable party, but is then sold or otherwise assigned to a new party, it must be endorsed by the party to whom it was originally payable for the note to be considered properly negotiated to the new party.  Once a proper negotiation occurs, the new party, or “note holder,” with possession is entitled to enforce the note.  NRS 104.1201(2)(u)(1) (“Holder means . . . [t]he person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.”).

If a party cannot attain “holder” status by showing a valid negotiation, the party may establish its right to enforce the note by showing that the note has been validly transferred.  NRS 104.3203(2).  The only distinction between a negotiation and a transfer is that, in the case of a transfer, the note need not be endorsed by the party who is relinquishing enforcement rights.  Because a transferred note is not endorsed, however, the party seeking to establish its right to enforce the note “must account for possession of the unendorsed instrument by proving the transaction through which the transferee acquired it.”  U.C.C. § 3-203 cmt. 2 (explaining the effect of § 3-203(b), codified in Nevada as NRS 104.3203(2)).  In other words, because the party seeking to enforce the note cannot “prove” its right to enforce through the use of a valid endorsement, the party must “prove” by some other means that it was given possession of the note for the purpose of enforcing it.[9]

In this case, the adjustable rate mortgage note provides:  “In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay U.S. $192,000.00 . . . plus interest, to the order of Lender.  Lender is [MortgageIT, Inc.]” (emphasis added).  Because the mortgage note is payable to the order of a specific party, MortgageIT, to negotiate the note to a new party, in this case Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo must have possession of the note and the note must be properly endorsed by MortgageIT.  See NRS 104.3201(2).  No such endorsement was included in the documents produced at mediation or in the documents filed with the district court, nor was a valid assignment produced as proof of the note’s transfer, and mere possession does not entitle Wells Fargo to enforce the note.  Therefore, because the mortgage note is payable to MortgageIT, unless Wells Fargo can prove that the note was properly endorsed or validly transferred, thereby making it the party entitled to enforce the note, it has not demonstrated authority to mediate the note.

As we concluded in Pasillas, a foreclosing party’s failure to bring the required documents to the mediation is a sanctionable offense under NRS 107.086 and the FMRs.  Therefore, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion when it denied Leyva’s petition for judicial review.  Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order and remand this matter to the district court with instructions to determine the appropriate sanctions for Wells Fargo’s violation of the statutory and rule-based requirement.  In doing so, the district court should consider the factors discussed in Pasillas.[10]

DOUGLAS, C.J., and CHERRY, SAITTA, GIBBONS, PICKERING, and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ., concur.

**********FOOTNOTES**********

[1]        Because we reverse on other grounds, we do not reach Leyva’s contention that respondent Wells Fargo also participated in the mediation in bad faith because it refused to offer anything other than a cash-for-keys option to avoiding foreclosure.

[2]        Therefore, this mediation was governed by the Foreclosure Mediation Rules in effect from July 31, 2009, until September 28, 2009, at which time the rules were amended.  See In the Matter of the Adoption of Rules for Foreclosure Mediation, ADKT 435 (Order Adopting Foreclosure Mediation Rules, June 30, 2009, and Order Amending Foreclosure Mediation Rules and Adopting Forms, September 28, 2009).  Although the changes required some renumbering of the rules, the language of the rules important to this case, namely, those specifying who can participate in the mediation and the documents that must be provided, remain essentially the same.

[3]        This court has jurisdiction over the appeal from the district court’s final order in the judicial review proceeding.  Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; NRAP 3A(b)(1).

[4]        At the time the district court entered its order, the Pasillas opinion had not been published.

[5]        “‘Conveyance’ shall be construed to embrace every instrument in writing, except a last will and testament, whatever may be its form, and by whatever name it may be known in law, by which any estate or interest in lands is created, aliened, assigned or surrendered.”  NRS 111.010(1).

[6]        Article 3 is codified in NRS 104.3101-.3605.

[7]        Since the documents provided at the mediation did not establish transfer of either the mortgage or the note, we express no opinion on the issue addressed in the Restatement (Third) of Property section 5.4 concerning the effect on the mortgage of the note having been transferred or the reverse.

[8]        Under NRS 104.3301(1)(a), a person entitled to enforce an instrument is “[t]he holder of the instrument.”

[9]        To “prove” a transaction under NRS 104.3203(2), a party must present evidence sufficient to establish that it is more likely than not that the transaction took place.  NRS 104.3103(1)(i) (defining “prove”); NRS 104.1201(h) (defining “burden of establishing”).

[10]      In Pasillas, we concluded that the following nonexhaustive list of factors would aid district courts in determining what sanctions are appropriate: “whether the violations were intentional, the amount of prejudice to the nonviolating party, and the violating party’s willingness to mitigate any harm by continuing meaningful negotiation.”  Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA, 127 Nev. ___, ___, ___ P.3d ___, ___ (Adv. Op. No. 39, July 7, 2011).

*****************************

[ipaper docId=59629180 access_key=key-1rxuzowvxn02h09lwmc9 height=600 width=600 /]

Cite as: Pasillas v. HSBC Bank USA

127 Nev. Adv. Op. 39

EMILIANO PASILLAS AND YVETTE PASILLAS, Appellants,
v.
HSBC BANK USA, AS TRUSTEE FOR LUMINENT MORTGAGE TRUST; POWER DEFAULT SERVICES, TRUSTEE; AND AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC., Respondents.

No. 56393.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

July 7, 2011.

Terry J. Thomas, Reno, for Appellants.

Pite Duncan, LLP, and Gregg A. Hubley, Laurel I. Handley, and Cuong M. Nguyen, Las Vegas, for Respondents.

BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.

OPINION

By the Court, HARDESTY, J.:

In this appeal, we consider issues arising out of Nevada’s Foreclosure Mediation Program and address whether a lender commits sanctionable offenses when it does not produce documents and does not have someone present at the mediation with the authority to modify the loan, as set forth in the applicable statute, NRS 107.086, and the Foreclosure Mediation Rules (FMRs).

Because NRS 107.086 and the FMRs expressly require that certain documents be produced during foreclosure mediation and that someone with authority to modify the loan must be present or accessible during the mediation, we conclude that a party’s failure to comply with these requirements is an offense subject to sanctions by the district court. In such an event, the district court shall not direct the program administrator to certify the mediation to allow the foreclosure process to proceed until the parties have fully complied with the statute and rules governing foreclosure mediation.

Here, because respondents HSBC Bank USA, Power Default Services, and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (AHMSI), did not bring the required documents to the mediation and did not have access to someone authorized to modify the loan during the mediation, we conclude that the district court erred in denying appellants Emiliano and Yvette Pasillas’s petition for judicial review. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s order and remand this matter to the district court so that the court may determine sanctions.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Pasillases purchased a home in Reno in 2006 with a loan from American Brokers Conduit. The note and deed of trust were allegedly assigned to HSBC.^[1] Near the end of 2009, Power Default Services became a substitute trustee, removing HSBC from that role. Allegedly, the servicer for the Pasillases’ loan is AHMSI.^[2]

When the Pasillases defaulted on their mortgage and received a notice of election to sell, they elected to mediate pursuant to the Foreclosure Mediation Program provided for in NRS 107.086. Two separate mediations occurred, one on February 18, 2010, and one on March 8, 2010,^[3] but neither mediation resulted in a resolution.

While a representative of AHMSI was available by phone at both mediations, it is unclear whether HSBC was present or represented by counsel. There is some disagreement between the parties regarding who the respondents’ attorneys represented at the mediations and at the hearing on the petition for judicial review. In the addendum to the mediator’s statement, the mediator stated that “HSBC . . . was identified as Beneficiary . . . and represented by Cuong Nguyen, Esq. of Pite Duncan, LLP.” In the second mediation, the mediator indicated that “HSBC . . . was again identified as Beneficiary . . . and represented by Heather Hudson, Esq. of Pite Duncan, LLP.” However, in responding to the Pasillases’ petition for judicial review, the Pite Duncan law firm indicated that it was not counsel for HSBC. Specifically, the response opened with the following statement: “Respondents AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. (`AHMSI’), erroneously named herein as HSBC BANK USA AS TRUSTEE FOR LUMINENT MORTGAGE TRUST.” Respondents also claimed that the Pasillases were “incorrect that Pite Duncan, LLP attended [the mediations] on behalf of HSBC.” At oral argument before this court, respondents’ counsel stated that they represented all of the respondents named in this case at the mediations, but they did not dispute the mediator’s finding that respondents needed additional authority from investors to agree to a loan modification.

After both mediations were completed, the mediator filed a statement indicating that (1) “[t]he parties participated but were unable to agree to a loan modification or make other arrangements,” (2) “[t]he beneficiary or his representative failed to participate in good faith,” and (3) “[t]he beneficiary failed to bring to the mediation each document required.” The mediator also filed an addendum to his statement, wherein he stated that two pages of the mortgage note were missing, that the assignment purportedly assigning the mortgage note and deed of trust to HSBC was incomplete, that instead of an appraisal HSBC provided a broker’s price opinion,^[4] and that respondents stated they would need additional investor approval before agreeing to a loan modification. The mediator concluded that he would not recommend that the administrator issue a certificate authorizing further foreclosure proceedings because HSBC “failed to participate in [the] mediation in good faith as evidenced by its failure to produce required documents and information initially, or subsequently to cure its failures.” The Pasillases subsequently filed a petition for judicial review in the district court. In the petition, the Pasillases requested sanctions in the form of a modification of their mortgage and attorney fees.

The district court conducted a short hearing, during which the only issue addressed was the parties’ failure to come to an agreement. The district court did not address whether respondents failed to provide the required documents at the mediation or whether respondents lacked the requisite authority at the mediation to modify the loan. After the hearing, the district court entered an order finding that “Respondents] [have] met the burden to show cause why sanctions should not lie,” and directed the Foreclosure Mediation Program administrator to issue a certification authorizing the foreclosure to proceed. The Pasillases appealed.

DISCUSSION

In resolving this appeal, we must determine whether the district court abused its discretion when it refused to enter sanctions against respondents for failing to satisfy express statutory requirements and allowed respondents to continue with the foreclosure process. We begin our discussion with a brief background of the Foreclosure Mediation Program.

The Foreclosure Mediation Program

The Nevada Legislature enacted the Foreclosure Mediation Program in 2009 in response to the increasing number of foreclosures in this state. Hearing on A.B. 149 Before the Joint Comm. on Commerce and Labor, 75th Leg. (Nev., February 11, 2009) (testimony of Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley). The program requires that a trustee seeking to foreclose on an owner-occupied residence provide an election-of-mediation form along with the notice of default and election to sell. NRS 107.086(2)(a)(3). If the homeowner elects to mediate, both the homeowner and the deed of trust beneficiary must attend, must mediate in good faith, provide certain enumerated documents,^[5] and, if the beneficiary attends through a representative, that person must have authority to modify the loan or have “access at all times during the mediation to a person with such authority.” NRS 107.086(4), (5); FMR 5(7)(a). After the conclusion of the mediation, the mediator must file a mediator’s statement with the program administrator, indicating whether all parties complied with the statute and rules governing the program. FMR 12(2). If the beneficiary does not (1) attend the mediation; (2) mediate in good faith; (3) provide the required documents; or (4) if attending through a representative, have a person present with authority to modify the loan or access to such a person, the mediator is required to “submit … a petition and recommendation concerning the imposition of sanctions.”^[6] NRS 107.086(5). The homeowner may then file a petition for judicial review with the district court,^[7] and the court “may issue an order imposing such sanctions against the beneficiary of the deed of trust or the representative as the court determines appropriate.” See FMR 5(7)(f).^[8] But if the district court finds that the parties met the four program requirements, it will direct the program administrator to certify the mediation, allowing the foreclosure process to proceed. See NRS 107.086(2)(c)(2), (3), (6), (7).

Respondents failed to meet the mediation program’s statutory requirements

The Pasillases argue that respondents failed to meet the program’s requirements—the document requirement because respondents failed to bring a complete mortgage note and failed to provide assignments of the note and deed of trust, and the loan modification authority requirement because they failed to have someone present at the mediation with the authority to modify the loan. We agree.

The scope and meaning of a statute is a question of law, which we review de novo. Arguello v. Sunset Station, Inc., 127 Nev. ___, ___ P.3d ___. (Adv. Op. No. 29, June 2, 2011). Court rules are also subject to de novo review. Moon v. McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, 126 Nev. ___, ___, 245 P.3d 1138, 1139 (2010). “When the language in a provision is clear and unambiguous, this court gives `effect to that meaning and will not consider outside sources beyond that statute.'” City of Reno v. Citizens for Cold Springs, 126 Nev. ___, ___, 236 P.3d 10, 16 (2010) (quoting NAIW v. Nevada Self-Insurers Association, 126 Nev. ___, ___, 225 P.3d 1265, 1271 (2010)).

Both NRS 107.086 and the FMRs use the word “shall” or “must” when listing the actions required of parties to a foreclosure mediation. Use of the word “shall” in both the statutory language and the FMRs indicates a duty on the part of the beneficiary, and this court has stated that “`shall’ is mandatory unless the statute demands a different construction to carry out the clear intent of the legislature.” S.N.E.A. v. Daines, 108 Nev. 15, 19, 824 P.2d 276, 278 (1992). Additionally, Black’s Law Dictionary defines “shall” as meaning “imperative or mandatory. . . . inconsistent with a concept of discretion.” 1375 (6th ed. 1990). And as it is used here, “must” is a synonym of “shall.” We conclude that NRS 107.086(4) and (5) and FMR 5(7)(a) clearly and unambiguously mandate that the beneficiary of the deed of trust or its representative (1) attend the mediation, (2) mediate in good faith, (3) provide the required documents, and (4) have a person present with authority to modify the loan or access to such a person.

Here, the mediator’s statement and his addendum to that statement, which were provided to the district court in the Pasillases’ petition for judicial review, clearly set out respondents’ failure to bring the required documents to the mediation and to have someone present with authority to modify the loan. Additionally, respondents do not dispute that they failed to bring all the required documents to the mediation.^[9] Although respondents argue on appeal that their counsel at the mediation “had the requisite authority and/or access to a person with the authority to modify the loan,” they do not controvert the mediator’s statement that their counsel claimed at the mediation that additional investor approval was needed in order to modify the loan. The record before the district court demonstrates that respondents failed to meet the statutory requirements. Nonetheless, respondents argue that the district court’s conclusion that sanctions were unwarranted did not constitute an abuse of discretion because, despite the failures noted above, they mediated to resolve the foreclosure in good faith. We disagree.

Standard of review

At the outset, we establish that we will review a district court’s decision regarding the imposition of sanctions for a party’s participation in the Foreclosure Mediation Program under an abuse of discretion standard. See Arnold v. Kip, 123 Nev. 410, 414, 168 P.3d 1050, 1052 (2007) (abuse of discretion standard used to review district court’s imposition of sanctions on a party for discovery abuses); Banks v. Sunrise Hospital, 120 Nev. 822, 830, 102 P.3d 52, 58 (2004) (reviewing sanctions imposed for spoliation of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard). When determining whether the district court has abused its discretion in such cases, we do not focus on whether the court committed manifest error, but rather we focus on whether the district court made any errors of law.

Failure to satisfy statutory mandates is a sanctionable offense

As discussed above, under NRS 107.086(5), there are four distinct violations a party to a foreclosure mediation can make: (1) “fail[ure] to attend the mediation,” (2) “fail[ure] to participate in the mediation in good faith,” (3) failure to “bring to the mediation each document required,” and (4) failure to demonstrate “the authority or access to a person with the authority [to modify the loan].” If any one of these violations occurs, the mediator must recommend sanctions. Id. If the homeowner petitions for judicial review, “[t]he court may issue an order imposing such sanctions against the beneficiary of the deed of trust or the representative as the court determines appropriate.” Id. We interpret NRS 107.086(5) to mean that the commission of any one of these four statutory violations prohibits the program administrator from certifying the foreclosure process to proceed and may also be sanctionable. See Tarango v. SIIS, 117 Nev. 444, 451 n.20, 25 P.3d 175, 180 n.20 (2001) (explaining that “may” can be interpreted as “shall” in order to carry out the Legislature’s intent, which in the instant case was to make mandatory the requirements set forth in NRS 107.086(5)).

In this case, despite the mediator’s opinion that respondents did not participate in the mediation in good faith based on their failure to comply with the FMRs, the district court did not impose sanctions and instead entered a Letter of Certification that allowed respondents to proceed with the foreclosure process on the Pasillases’ property. The district court essentially ignored the fact that respondents failed to bring “to the mediation each document required” and did “not have the authority or access to a person with the authority” to modify the loan, failures which we determine constitute sanctionable offenses. Thus, the district court’s order directing the program administrator to enter a letter of certification and its failure to consider sanctions was an abuse of discretion because respondents clearly violated NRS 107.086 and the FMRs.^[10] This abuse requires us to remand the case for the district court to consider appropriate sanctions.

The nature of the sanctions imposed on the beneficiary or its representative is within the discretion of the district court. We have previously listed factors to aid district courts when considering sanctions as punishment for litigation abuses. See Young v. Johnny Ribeiro Building, 106 Nev. 88, 93, 787 P.2d 777, 780 (1990); see also Bahena v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 126 Nev. ___, ___, 235 P.3d 592, 598-99 (2010); Arnold, 123 Nev. at 415-16, 168 P.3d at 1053. However, we conclude that other factors, more specific to the foreclosure mediation context, apply when a district court is considering sanctions in such a case. When determining the sanctions to be imposed in a case brought pursuant to NRS 107.086 and the FMRs, district courts should consider the following nonexhaustive list of factors: whether the violations were intentional, the amount of prejudice to the nonviolating party, and the violating party’s willingness to mitigate any harm by continuing meaningful negotiation.

Because, in this case, the foreclosing party’s failure to bring the required documents to the mediation and to have someone present at the mediation with the authority to modify the loan were sanctionable offenses under the Foreclosure Mediation Program, the district court abused its discretion when it denied the Pasillases’ petition for judicial review and ordered the program administrator to enter a letter of certification authorizing the foreclosure process to proceed. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s order and remand this matter to the district court with instructions to determine the appropriate sanctions for respondents’ violations of the statutory and rule-based requirements.

DOUGLAS, C.J., CHERRY, SAITTA, GIBBONS, PICKERING and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ., concur.

[1] The Pasillases claim that HSBC failed to provide a valid assignment; the one it provided during the mediation was signed by American Brokers Conduit but did not state who the assignee was.

[2] The parties do not argue and we do not reach the question of whether AHMSI is a valid agent for HSBC or the real party in interest, or the “person entitled to enforce” the promissory note in this case. See In re Veal, No. 09-14808, 2011 WL 2304200, at *12-14 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. June 10, 2011).

[3] These mediations were governed by the Foreclosure Mediation Rules (FMRs) as amended on November 4, 2009.

[4] We note that while FMR 11(7)(b) currently allows for a broker’s price opinion in lieu of an appraisal, the rules applicable to this matter called for an appraisal without mention of a broker’s price opinion. In the Matter of the Adoption of Rules for Foreclosure Mediation, ADKT 435 (Order Adopting Foreclosure Mediation Rules, June 30, 2009, and Order Amending Foreclosure Mediation Rules and Adopting Forms, November 4, 2009).

[5] With regard to the documents required, NRS 107.086(4) provides that “[t]he beneficiary of the deed of trust shall bring to the mediation the original or a certified copy of the deed of trust, the mortgage note[,] and each assignment of the deed of trust or mortgage note.” The FMRs echo this documentation requirement nearly word for word. FMR 5(7)(a). FMR 7(2) also provides that “[t]he beneficiary of the deed of trust or its representatives shall produce an appraisal. . . and shall prepare an estimate of the `short sale’ value of the residence.”

[6] If the homeowner fails to attend the mediation, the administrator will certify that no mediation is required. NRS 107.086(6).

[7] Generally, if the parties fail to reach an agreement and neither party files a petition for judicial review, the program administrator will certify the mediation, which allows the foreclosure process to proceed. NRS 107.086(3), (6), (7).

[8] The current version of the FMRs requires the district court to review a case de novo when a party files a petition for judicial review. FMR 21(5) (rules including amendments through March 1, 2011). De novo review may include an evidentiary hearing concerning what transpired at the mediation. See Black’s Law Dictionary 924 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “de novo judicial review” as “[a] court’s nondeferential review of an administrative decision, usu[ally] through a review of the administrative record plus any additional evidence the parties present”).

[9] At oral argument, respondents’ counsel argued that an assignment for the mortgage note was provided, but the name of the assignee was missing. We determine that an assignment provided without the name of the assignee is defective for the purposes of the Foreclosure Mediation Program because it does not identify the relevant parties.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recently reached the same conclusion regarding the production of assignments to mortgage notes and deeds of trust, albeit in a slightly different context. In U.S. Bank National Ass’n v. Ibanez, 941 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. 2011), two separate banks foreclosed on the mortgages of two homeowners whose properties the banks then bought at the foreclosure sales. Id. at 44. The banks later filed complaints in the lower court seeking a declaration that they had clear title to the properties. Id. Because the banks failed to show an interest in the mortgages at the time of the foreclosure sales, the sales were invalid, and the lower court entered judgment against the banks. Id. at 45. On appeal, the court determined that, similar to this case, the banks were not the original mortgagees and, therefore, they had to show that the mortgages were properly assigned to them in writings signed by the grantors before they could notice the sales and foreclosures of the properties. Id. at 51. In an attempt to prove that they had the authority to foreclose on the properties, the banks provided contracts purporting to assign to them bundles of mortgages; however, the attachments that identified what mortgages were being assigned were not included in the documents provided. Id. at 52. The court concluded that the banks demonstrated no authority to foreclose on the properties because they did not have the assignments. Id. at 53 (“We have long held that a conveyance of real property, such as a mortgage, that does not name the assignee conveys nothing and is void; we do not regard an assignment of land in blank as giving legal title in land to the bearer of the assignment.”). The court additionally stated that “[a] plaintiff that cannot make this modest showing cannot justly proclaim that it was unfairly denied a declaration of clear title.” Id. at 52. We agree with the rationale that valid assignments are needed when a beneficiary of a deed of trust seeks to foreclose on a property.

[10] Respondents argue that this court should decline to address the Pasillases’ argument that respondents failed to provide someone at the mediation with the authority to modify the loan because it was not raised in the petition for judicial review. First, we note that our decision here would require the district court to impose sanctions even if respondents’ only omission was the failure to provide the required documents. However, we determine that the Pasillases adequately raised this issue in their petition for judicial review by alleging that respondents’ counsel at the mediations did not accurately state who they were representing. Therefore, our decision of the issue is appropriate.

[ipaper docId=59602935 access_key=key-rckck71ucb7lsl18mx6 height=600 width=600 /]

By FRAUD DIGEST

False Statements

Brian Burnett
Freddie Mac
IndyMac Bank, FSB
MERS
OneWest Bank, FSB

Action Date: June 27, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA

California Bankruptcy Judge Laura Stuart Taylor has joined the ranks of judges who will not tolerate fraudulent documents produced by banks to foreclose. Judge Taylor entered an Order To Show Cause why OneWest Bank, FSB, should not incur “a significant coercive sanction intended to deter any future tender of misleading evidence to any court of this district.” Judge Taylor ordered OneWest to appear before her on July 29, 2011, to show cause as to why it should not be subject to compensatory and/or coercive sanctions, in the case In re Jessie M. Arizmendi, Bk. No. 09-19263-PB13, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of California. The case involves a motion for relief from stay filed by OneWest supported with a declaration of Brian Burnett, who declared under penalty of perjury that OneWest was the real party in interest in connection with the Motion because OneWest was the current beneficiary under the terms of a promissory note and Deed of Trust.

According to the Burnett declaration, OneWest received its interest in the Trust Deed pursuant to an Assignment from MERS. The assignment of the Trust Deed and the Note showed the transfer from MERS as nominee for the original lender directly to OneWest in 2010.

At trial, however, OneWest’s witness, Charles Boyle, testified that the beneficiary of the loan was actually Freddie Mac. Based on this conflict, the Court required post-trial briefings.

According to the Court, “OneWest, in its post-trial brief, provided a standing argument based on a new version of the Note, which attached an allonge dated July 24, 2007 evidencing a transfer from Original Lender to IndyMac Bank, FSB and bore an endorsement in blank from IndyMac Bank, FSB. This was new information not presented in the OneWest Declaration and this note was not identical to the note authenticated by the OneWest Declaration and attached to the OneWest Proof of Claim.

This Court is concerned, thus, that OneWest provided false or misleading evidence to the Court and that OneWest did so willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and/or for an inappropriate purpose.”

According to research by Fraud Digest, Brian Burnett has used many different job titles when signing mortgage-related documents for OneWest, often using different titles on the same day, including:

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Acoustic Home Loans;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Aegis Wholesale Corporation;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for American Brokers Conduit;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Beach First National Bank;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Credit Suisse Financial Corp.;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for CTX Mortgage Company, LLC;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for DHI Mortgage Company, Ltd.;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Express Capital Lending;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Finasure Home Loans, LLC;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for First Magnus Financial Corporation;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for First Meridian Mortgage;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Flick Mortgage Investors, Inc.;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Home Loan Center, Inc. d/b/a LendingTree Loans;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Impac Funding Corp., d/b/a Impac Lending Group;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for IndyMac Bank, FSB;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for LoanCity;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for MortgageIt, Inc.;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for NetBank, a Federal Savings Bank;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for New American Funding, a California Corporation;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Opteum Financial Services, LLC;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for OneWest Bank, FSB;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Quicken Loans, Inc.;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Sloan Mortgage Group, Inc.;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Taylor, Bean & Whitaker;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for TM Capital, Inc.

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for d/b/a Fedfirst Mortgage Corporation; and

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for UBS AG.

July 29, 2011, may be the day that Brian Burnett and OneWest are held accountable for the thousands of mortgage assignments – with false statements regarding the history and ownership of mortgages – presented to courts to foreclose.

This isn’t the first time. For the first from 2002 go to THE FLORIDA BAR vs. DAVID J. STERN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

THE FLORIDA BAR,

Complainant,

v.

DAVID JAMES STERN,

Respondent.
——————–~/

Excerpt:

By the conduct set forth above, respondent violated the following R. Regulating Fla. Bar:

A. Rule 3-4.2 [Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by the rules governing The Florida Bar is a cause for discipline.];

B. Rule 4-3.4(c) [A lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation
under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.]; and

C. Rule 4-8.4(a) [A lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.].

[ipaper docId=58116492 access_key=key-1512nbaydf7k0m6o3f47 height=600 width=600 /]

NakedCapitalism–

One of the striking things, as the mortgage crisis has ground on, is how persistent and to some degree effective the industry incumbents have been in influencing news stories. One can argue they’ve been more successful than the TBTF banks, perhaps because if you can tank the global economy, keep your job, and still continue to pay yourself egregious bonuses, you don’t need to stoop to throttling every bit of negative coverage. The fact that near-urban legends like strategic defaults are trumpeted in the media as if they are a meaningful phenomenon, or that defenses of securitization practices by firms like K&L Gates, which have liability on their legal opinions, dominated the coverage on that issue for quite some time until more and more court decisions showed their analysis to be sorely wanting, illustrates how much spin there is in what purports to be news.

Continue reading [NAKEDCAPITALISM]

In re: Jessie M. Arizmendi, Debtor.
OneWest Bank FSB, its assignees and/or successors, Moving Party,
v.
Jessie M. Arizmendi, Debtor; Thomas H. Billingslea, Chapter 13 Trustee; and Indymac Mortgage Services, Junior Lien, Respondents.

Bk. No. 09-19263-PB13, RS No. CNR-2.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. California.

May 26, 2011.

Not for Publication

MEMORANDUM DECISION

LAURA S. TAYLOR, Bankruptcy Judge

EXCERPTS:

Additional Briefing.

At the trial, the Court carefully considered the demeanor of the various witnesses and the testimony provided. In connection with the trial, the Court also reviewed all other evidence and argument appropriately before the Court. Notwithstanding, however, significant questions continued, and the Court required additional briefing in connection with several issues as outlined in the Order Setting Briefing Schedule, Outlining Preliminary Determinations, and Establishing Procedures for Final Resolution of Issues (Dkt. No. 56) (the “Briefing Order”).

OneWest’s post-trial documents provided the analysis and argument required by the Briefing Order. But, these documents also contained factual assertions inconsistent with the OneWest Declaration and the Claim. OneWest now provided a standing argument based on a new version of the Note (the “Endorsed Note”).^[3] The Endorsed Note attached an allonge dated July 24, 2007 evidencing a transfer from Original Lender to “IndyMac Bank, FSB” and bore an endorsement in blank from IndyMac Bank F.S.B. OneWest argued in connection therewith that it had enforcement rights under the Endorsed Note as a holder notwithstanding the admittedly accurate testimony at trial indicating that OneWest is a servicer for Freddie Mac and not the secured creditor. The OneWest post-trial memorandum also references a separate agreement with Freddie Mac, but fails to further evidence or discuss this agreement. The OneWest post-trial memorandum, finally, bases a standing argument on physical possession of the Endorsed Note and OneWest’s alleged status as a trust deed beneficiary based on the Assignment.

[…]

But, there are key assumptions that the Court must make in order for this set of facts to withstand scrutiny. And they are that OneWest, in fact, holds the Endorsed Note and held the Endorsed Note at all appropriate points in time. Frankly, the Court is not willing to make such assumptions at this time. OneWest attached the Unendorsed Note to both its Proof of Claim and the Declaration. The Declaration stated under penalty of perjury, that the Unendorsed Note was a true and accurate copy of the Note held by OneWest. The Proof of Claim implicitly stated the same and OneWest, of course, is obligated to provide only accurate information in connection with its Proof of Claim. The problem is that the Unendorsed Note does not bear the endorsement or attach the allonge found on the Endorsed Note, a document produced only after trial and the close of evidence. One West, thus, leaves the Court with the quandary of guessing which promissory note OneWest holds, whether and when One West held the Endorsed Note, and what the explanation is for the failure to provide the Endorsed Note prior to the close of evidence.^[10]

A further evidentiary anomaly arises on account of the Assignment; MERS executed this document as a nominee for the Original Lender. But the allonge to the Endorsed Note makes clear that the Original Lender assigned its interests in the Note more than three years prior to execution of the Assignment. And rights under the Trust Deed follow the Note. Polhemas v. Trainer, 30 Cal. 686, 688 (1866). Thus, MERS’ purported assignment of the Trust Deed and the related note as nominee for the Original Lender and without a reference to either IndyMac Bank, FSB or Freddie Mac appears designed to disguise rather than to illuminate the facts.

And finally, even if OneWest’s second post-trial discussion of standing and submission of evidence were accurate, one thing remains clear: OneWest failed to tell the true and complete story in the OneWest Declaration and in the Claim.

The Court is concerned, as a result, that OneWest does not hold the Endorsed Note. But, perhaps more significantly, the Court is concerned that OneWest has determined that business expediency and cost containment are more important than complete candor with the courts. On these points, Ms. Arizmendi has a right to be heard, and the Court has a right to explanation.

Further, this is not the first time that OneWest has provided less than complete information in the Southern District of California. See “Memorandum Decision Re Motion to Vacate Clerk’s Entry of Default and Motion to Dismiss Complaint; Order to Show Cause for Contempt of Court”, docket no. 39, Adv. Pro. 10-90308-MM (In re Doble; Bk. Case No. 10-11296) (Defendants, including OneWest, were neither candid nor credible in explaining failure to respond timely to complaint and submitted multiple and different notes as “true and correct”); “Order to Show Cause Why OneWest Bank, FSB and Its Attorneys Law Offices of Randall Miller and Christopher Hoo Should Not Appear Before the Court to Explain Why They Should Not Be Held in Contempt or Sanctioned”, docket no. 47, In re Carter, Bk. Case No. 10-10257-MM13 (among other things OneWest provides inconsistent evidence as to its servicer status); and “Order After Hearing to Show Cause Why Indymac Mortgage Services; OneWest Bank, FSB; Randall S. Miller & Associates, P.C.; Christopher J. Hoo; Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP; and Darlene C. Vigil Should Not Appear Before the Court to Explain Why They Should Not Be Held in Contempt or Sanctioned”, docket no. 47, In re Telebrico, Bk. No. 10-07643-LA13 (Court concerned that OneWest provided evidence that was either intentionally or recklessly false).

The curious thing about these cases is that OneWest likely would prevail in each of them if it completely and candidly explained the basis for its motion and its standing in connection therewith. Undoubtedly, however, doing so is more costly than using a form declaration that is not customized as to the facts on a case by case basis and that is signed by an uninformed declarant. OneWest perhaps assumes that it really does not matter if the Court provides relief based on erroneous information. But, OneWest should remember an earlier theme in this decision and that is that the law is the law, rules are rules, and both must be obeyed. And, when it becomes clear that OneWest did not obey the rules, the Court can and, indeed, must act.

In short, the Court will not participate in a process where OneWest increases its profits by disobeying the rules of this Court and by providing the Court with erroneous information. The Court, thus, will take two steps. First, the Court will deny the Stay Motion without prejudice based first on the evidentiary problems that make it impossible for the Court to determine that OneWest is properly before the Court and that render evidence critical to OneWest’s prima facie case unreliable and second based on the Court’s inherent authority to regulate and control proceedings. Next, the Court hereafter will issue an order to show cause why One West should not be held in contempt and/or otherwise sanctioned. In connection therewith, the Court will consider a compensatory sanction to include a recovery of any costs Ms. Arizmendi would not have incurred but for OneWest’s improper actions. The compensatory sanction, frankly, could be quite limited. But, the Court also believes that a coercive sanction may well be appropriate. Given the orders to show cause that pre-date the one this Court will issue, it appears that the Court must create an economic disincentive for OneWest that will counter balance the economic benefit of a lack of complete candor. Further detail on the Court’s sanctions considerations will be set forth in the order to show cause and will not be further discussed here.

The Court finally notes that the order to show cause will issue only as to OneWest and possibly as to MERS. OneWest uses a variety of law firms. The Court was in a position to observe the demeanor of the lawyers handling this matter when the witness stated that OneWest was a mere servicer. The Court concludes based on this observation that they were unaware of this fact and unaware that OneWest supplied questionable documentary evidence. And frankly, there is nothing to be gained in pursuing the individual attorneys who must regularly appear in front of this Court. OneWest can simply change counsel and then be less than candid with a new set of attorneys.^[11] The Court is interested in modifying OneWest’s behavior at an entity level, and any coercive sanction will be designed to achieve the same.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Stay Motion is denied without prejudice to the right of OneWest to refile a stay relief motion. In so doing, OneWest must provide declaratory evidence that explains when and how it obtained physical possession of the Endorsed Note and/or Unendorsed Note and that otherwise provides case specific evidence of standing given its servicer status.

[ipaper docId=57567731 access_key=key-22ffgxbli042xfmdtz1o height=600 width=600 /]

Naked Capitalism- Yves Smith

The very fact that this item “LPS fires back with motion seeking sanctions against Alabama attorney,” was treated as a news story by Housing Wire is further proof that Housing Wire is above all committed to promoting client and mortgage industry interests and only incidentally engages in random acts of journalism.

LPS is desperate to create a shred of positive-looking noise in the face of pending fines under a Federal consent decree, mounting private litigation, and loss of client business under the continued barrage of bad press. Housing Wire, who has LPS as one of its top advertisers, is clearly more than willing to treat a virtual non-event as newsworthy to help an important meal ticket.

If you know anything about litigation, particularly when small fry square off against large companies, it’s standard for the well funded party to engage in a war of attrition against the underdog. One overused device is to threaten or file for sanctions. Even when they are weak or groundless, they still waste opposing counsel’s time and energy.

According to AP,  the court on Monday issued a high profile-case order in the matter of Pino v. Bank of New York Mellon. One of the issues in the case is whether there was a fraud on the trial court.

And we all now the original work behind this was none other than Law Offices of David J. Stern, who has recently shut down as of March 31, 2011.

On February 2, 2011 the Florida 4th DCA said

We conclude that this is a question of great public importance, as many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents. The defendant has requested a denial of the equitable right to foreclose the mortgage at all. If this is an available remedy as a sanction after a voluntary dismissal, it may dramatically affect the mortgage foreclosure crisis in this State. Accordingly we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as of great public importance

[ipaper docId=52792589 access_key=key-myy4q2y0u4vihs7pu7x height=600 width=600 /]

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC

v

Bozymowski

00296-2010

Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26 Harvester Avenue
Batavia, New York 14020

Lydia Bozymowski
Defendant Pro Se
8 Hofstra Drive
Greenlawn, New York 11740-1908

Peter H. Mayer, J.

Upon the reading and filing of the following papers in this matter: (1) Notice of Motion by the plaintiff, dated May 21, 2010, and supporting papers; and (2) prior Order of this Court, dated November 1, 2010; and now

UPON DUE DELIBERATION AND CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT of the foregoing papers, the motion is decided as follows: it is

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s application (seq. #001) in this foreclosure action is hereby denied for the reasons set forth herein; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff shall appear for a hearing on May 13, 2011, 10:00 a.m., at which time the Court will conduct an inquiry of the plaintiff’s witnesses concerning the information and documents submitted by the plaintiff in connection with this foreclosure action, and will determine what, if any, sanction to impose upon the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff’s attorney; and it is further

ORDERED that at the time of the hearing, the plaintiff shall produce the following witnesses to provide testimony under oath in response to all inquiries by the Court: (1) Margaret Burke Tarab, Esq., the attorney from plaintiff’s counsel’s firm who executed the December 13, 2010 attorney affirmation, which is purportedly compliant with the October 20, 2010 Order of the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York; (2) Karen Griffith, Vice President of plaintiff Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, the individual who executed the February 2, 2010 affidavit in support of plaintiff’s application for an order of reference; and (3) Robert D. Repass, plaintiff’s Senior Vice President, identified in Ms. Tarab’s December 13, 2010 affirmation as the plaintiff’s representative with whom she communicated for purposes of executing her said affirmation; and it is further

ORDERED that at the time of the hearing, the plaintiff shall produce for Court inspection all of the documents and records reviewed by plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiff’s other representatives for purposes of submitting its application for an order of reference, including but not limited to the original note and mortgage, and all documents demonstrating exactly when the plaintiff acquired possession of the note and ownership of the mortgage in this case; and it is further

ORDERED that the plaintiff shall promptly serve, via first class mail, a copy of this Order upon the homeowner-defendant(s) at all known addresses, as well as upon all appearing parties (or upon their attorney[s] if represented by counsel), and shall promptly thereafter file the affidavit(s) of such service with the County Clerk; and it is further

ORDERED that failure to comply with any of the directives set forth herein shall result in [*2]the Court issuing any sanction the Court deems appropriate under the CPLR and/or Court Rules, including but not limited to waiver of any interest, attorneys fees and costs to which the plaintiff claims entitlement, as well as dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

In this foreclosure action, the plaintiff filed a summons and complaint on January 12, 2010. The complaint essentially alleges that the defendant-homeowner, Lydia Bozymowski, defaulted in payments with regard to the subject mortgage, dated April 22, 2004, in the principal amount of $225,000.00, for the premises located at 8 Hofstra Drive, Greenlawn, New York 11740. The original lender, Florida Bank, N.A. d/b/a Florida Bank Mortgage (“Florida Bank”), is alleged to have had the mortgage assigned to the plaintiff, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (“Bayview Loan”), by assignment dated November 25, 2009. The assignment was purportedly executed by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for Florida Bank. In its application (001), the plaintiff requested a default order of reference and amendment of the caption to remove the “Doe” defendants as parties.

By Order dated November 1, 2010, this Court referred the plaintiff’s application to a conference with the Court on December 15, 2010. As part of that Order, the plaintiff’s counsel was instructed to review the pending application prior to the conference “to determine whether or not such application is fully compliant with all foreclosure-related statutes, case law and Court Rules.” If so, counsel was to then “execute and submit to the Court at the conference the requisite attorney affirmation mandated by the October 20, 2010 Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York.” With regard to such attorney affirmation, this Court’s November 1, 2010 Order stated that, “[i]f plaintiff’s counsel is unable for personal or professional reasons to execute the necessary affirmation, the pending application may be withdrawn without prejudice and with leave to resubmit upon proper papers, including the mandatory attorney affirmation.” The November 1, 2010 Order also warned counsel that “with regard to any scheduled court conferences or future applications, if the Court determines that such conferences have been attended, or such applications have been submitted, without proper regard for the applicable statutes, case law and Court Rules, or without regard for the required proofs delineated herein, the Court may, in its discretion, strike the non-compliant party’s pleadings or deny such applications with prejudice and/or impose sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1, and may deny those costs and attorneys fees attendant with the filing of such future applications.”

On December 15, 2010, a conference was held and plaintiff’s counsel submitted an attorney affirmation. Initially, the Court notes the plaintiff’s failure to submit proof of compliance with RPAPL §1304. For those actions commenced on or after September 1, 2008 and prior to January 14, 2010, RPAPL §1304 requires that, with regard to a “high-cost home loan” (as defined in Banking Law §6-l), or a “subprime home loan” or a “non-traditional home loan” (as defined in RPAPL §1304), at least 90 days before a lender or mortgage loan servicer commences a foreclosure action against the borrower, the lender or mortgage loan servicer must give the borrower a specific, statutorily prescribed notice. In essence, the notice warns the borrower that he or she may lose his or her home because of the loan default, and provides [*3]information regarding available assistance for homeowners who are facing financial difficulty. The specific language and type-size requirements of the notice are set forth in RPAPL §1304(1).

Pursuant to RPAPL §1304(2), the requisite 90-day notice must be “sent by the lender or mortgage loan servicer to the borrower, by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower, and if different, to the residence which is the subject of the mortgage. Notice is considered given as of the date it is mailed.” The notice must also contain a list of at least five housing counseling agencies approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or those designated by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, that serve the region where the borrower resides, as well as the counseling agencies’ last known addresses and telephone numbers.

This action was commenced on January 12, 2010. Therefore, barring any statutorily stated exceptions, if the subject loan being foreclosed upon qualifies as a “high-cost home loan,” a “subprime home loan,” or “non-traditional home loan,” the pre-commencement notice requirements of RPAPL §1304 will apply. Plaintiff, however, has failed to submit evidentiary proof, including an affidavit from one with personal knowledge, as to whether or not this action involves such a loan and, if so, proof of compliance with the applicable pre-commencement requirements of RPAPL §1304 or, in the alternative, an affidavit sufficient to show why such requirements do not apply. Such failure requires denial of plaintiff’s application for an order of reference. The boilerplate language in paragraph 4(c) of the complaint regarding compliance with RPAPL §1304 “if the underlying mortgage qualifies,” is ambiguous and is, therefore, insufficient to affirmatively show such compliance, particularly where, as here, the complaint is not verified by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff has also failed to submit a properly sworn affidavit in support of the requested relief. In this regard, CPLR §2309(b) requires that an “oath or affirmation shall be administered in a form calculated to awaken the conscience and impress the mind of the person taking it in accordance with his religious or ethical beliefs.” Accordingly, for affidavits to have sufficient validity, a notary public witnessing signatures must take the oaths of the signatories or obtain statements from them as to the truth of the statements to which they subscribe their names (see, Matter of Helfand v Meisser, 22 NY2d 762, 292 NYS2d 467 [1968]; Matter of Imre v Johnson, 54 AD3d 427, 863 NYS2d 473 [2d Dept 2008]; Matter of Leahy v O’Rourke, 307 AD2d 1008, 763 NYS2d 508 [2d Dept 2003]).

In support of its application for an order of reference, the plaintiff submits an affidavit from Karen Griffith, Vice President of plaintiff Bayview Loan; however, there is no showing that the notary who witnessed Ms. Griffith’s signature took an oath from Ms. Griffith, and no statement by Ms. Griffith attesting to the truth of the statements contained in her affidavit. Instead, there is a statement disguised to appear as a proper oath. Rather than swearing to the truth of the statements contained in her affidavit, Ms. Griffith merely attests in paragraph 12 to the truth of the contents of “the [plaintiff’s] complaint” (emphasis added). Such statement is insufficient to satisfy the form of oath required by CPLR §2309(b) with regard to Ms. Griffith’s [*4]affidavit. This is particularly pertinent here because additional submissions by the plaintiff raise questions as to the reliability of Ms. Griffith’s affidavit, as well as the plaintiff’s standing to bring this action.

A plaintiff has standing to maintain the action only where the plaintiff is the proper assignee of the mortgage and the underlying note at the time the foreclosure action was commenced (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 890 NYS2d 578 [2d Dept 2009]; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone, 303 AD2d 546, 755 NYS2d 730 [2d Dept 2003]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 887 NYS2d 615 [2d Dept 2009]; First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, 234 AD2d 414, 651 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2d Dept 1996]). It remains settled that 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 the mortgage is a nullity (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, supra; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92 [2d Dept 1988]). Furthermore, a plaintiff has no foundation in law or fact to foreclose upon a mortgage in which the plaintiff has no legal or equitable interest (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, supra; Katz v East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243, 672 NYS2d 308 [1st Dept 1998]). Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, supra).

To support its contention that Bayview had proper standing to commence this action, Ms. Griffith’s alleges in paragraph 6 of her affidavit that “[t]he loan was acquired by and in the possession of the Plaintiff on April 22, 2004″ (emphasis added). Notably, this is the same date the mortgage documents were executed by the defendant-borrower to the original lender, Florida Bank. Even if this nebulous statement by Ms. Griffith were construed to mean that Bayview was in possession of the “note and mortgage” on April 22, 2004, such statement fails to show that the plaintiff was the holder of the note and mortgage when the action was commenced, nearly six years later (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, supra; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone, supra; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, supra; First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, supra). On the one hand, Ms. Griffith alleges in paragraph 6 of her affidavit that the loan was in the possession of the plaintiff on April 22, 2004. On the other hand, in the same paragraph of her affidavit she states that the mortgage “instruments were assigned to [the Plaintiff] by [assignment] dated November 25, 2009.” Compounding this confusion is the handwritten statement on the assignment, asserting that it was “effective as of: 7/1/09.”

Despite these inconsistent statements of fact in support of ownership, there is an additional submission that suggests the true owner is or may be CitiMortgage, Inc. (“CitiMortgage”), a non-party to this action. In this regard, affixed to the last page of the note is an undated indorsement from Florida Bank to CitiMortgage. This indorsement, which was executed by Jacqueline Ring as Florida Bank’s Vice President, specifically states, “WITHOUT RECOURSE PAY TO THE ORDER OF CITIMORTGAGE, INC.” Thus, the plaintiff’s assertion that it possessed “the loan” on the same date it was executed by the borrower, and the inconsistent assertion that plaintiff obtained the mortgage instruments by assignment dated [*5]November 25, 2009, is rebutted by the fact that when the note was indorsed to CitiMortgage, the mortgage passed to CitiMortgage as an inseparable incident (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 890 NYS2d 578 [2d Dept 2009]. Therefore, without the valid transfer of the note to the plaintiff, the assignment of the mortgage to the plaintiff was a nullity (id.; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92 [2d Dept 1988]). Curiously, evidence of the indorsement to CitiMortgage by Florida Bank was not in the plaintiff’s affidavit or attorney affirmation.

The plaintiff has also failed to comply with this Court’s November 1, 2010 Order regarding submission of an attorney affirmation in the form and with the language required by the October 20, 2010 Administrative Order of Hon. Ann Pfau, New York’s Chief Administrative Judge. As explained in this Court’s November 1, 2010 Order, “[p]ursuant to the Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York, dated and effective October 20, 2010, plaintiff’s counsel in foreclosure actions must file with the court in all such actions an affirmation in a form prescribed by the Order.” It remains clear from the language of Judge Pfau’s October 20, 2010 Order, as well from the language of the official mandatory affirmation and its preamble, that the intent of the new Rule is to assure accountability for and accuracy of all court filings in foreclosure actions.

With the intent of the new Rule in mind, this Court requires that after October 20, 2010, the mandatory affirmation must accompany all applications made at any and all stages of foreclosure proceedings. Obviously, a mere single filing at only one phase of the case would not comport with the intent of Judge Pfau’s Order. Indeed, if compliance were sufficient by filing the requisite affirmation at only one phase, improper or untruthful papers could be filed at other phases with virtual impunity. Therefore, plaintiff’s failure to submit the official mandatory affirmation in the form and with the language prescribed by Judge Pfau’s October 20, 2010 Order must result in denial of the requested relief.

In relevant part, the Court’s November 1, 2010 Order also included, with italicized emphasis, the warning set forth in the last sentence of the preamble paragraph of the official mandatory affirmation, which states: “The wrongful filing and prosecution of foreclosure proceedings which are discovered to suffer from these defects may be cause for disciplinary and other sanctions upon participating counsel” (emphasis added). Despite this language required by the official mandatory affirmation, and despite this Court’s emphasis of that language in its November 1, 2010 Order, the December 13, 2010 affirmation signed by plaintiff’s attorney, Margaret Burke Tarab, Esq., does not include such language. Also, as required by paragraph 3 of the official mandatory affirmation, the plaintiff’s attorney must affirm that “[b]ased upon my communication with [plaintiff’s representative], as well as upon my own inspection of the papers filed with the Court and other diligent inquiry, I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Summons and Complaint and all other documents filed in support of this action for foreclosure are complete and accurate in all relevant respects . . .” (emphasis added). In counsel’s December 13, 2010 affirmation, the word “diligent” was omitted and replaced with the word “reasonable.” In addition, as required by paragraph 4 of the official mandatory affirmation, the plaintiff’s attorney must acknowledge that he or she understands “that [*6]the Court will rely on this Affirmation in considering the [plaintiff’s] application.” In paragraph 4 of counsel’s affirmation, however, she omitted the specific mandatory language and replaced it with a generic acknowledgment, that “I am aware of my obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200) and 22 NYCRR Part 130.”

Although the Court has heard several attorneys for plaintiff banks informally question Judge Pfau’s authority to have issued the October 20, 2010 Order in the first instance, this Court gives full deference to her Honor’s Order (see NY Const, art VI, § 28). Counsel for plaintiff banks have also claimed that the attorney affirmation required by Judge Pfau’s Order was unofficially amended on November 18, 2010 and posted on the internet in amended form. Counsel, however, has failed to submit an order by Judge Pfau executed after her October 20, 2010 Order, or any other legitimate legal authority, in which the language of the official mandatory affirmation was modified. Therefore, this Court requires counsel to submit an attorney affirmation in the specific form and with the specific language originally mandated by her Honor’s Order of October 20, 2010.

In this Court’s November 1, 2010 Order, the Court warned of potential sanctions, pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1, if a party submits an application “without proper regard for the applicable statutes, case law and Court Rules.” Indeed, although the plaintiff’s December 13, 2010 attorney affirmation does not include certain language mandated by Judge Pfau’s October 2010 Order, the affirmation does, nevertheless, state at paragraph 4 that counsel is “aware of [her] obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200) and 22 NYCRR Part 130.” With regard to sanctions, 22 NYCRR §130-1.1 states, in pertinent part that:

(a) . . . [T]he court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct as defined in this Part, which shall be payable as provided in section 130-1.3 of this Part. . . .

(b) The court, as appropriate, may . . . impose such financial sanctions against either an attorney or a party to the litigation or against both. Where the . . . sanction is against an attorney, it may be against the attorney personally or upon a partnership, [or] firm . . . that has appeared as attorney of record. The . . . sanctions may be imposed upon any attorney appearing in the action or upon a partnership, firm or corporation with which the attorney is associated.

(c) For purposes of this Part, conduct is frivolous if:

(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law;

(2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or

(3) it asserts material factual statements that are false. [*7]

. . . In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider, among other issues the circumstances under which the conduct took place, including the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct, and whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, or should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the party.

(d) An . . . imposition of sanctions may be made . . . upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The form of the hearing shall depend upon the nature of the conduct and the circumstances of the case.

At the December 15, 2010 conference, plaintiff’s counsel represented to the Court that the plaintiff’s submitted application was, in fact, fully compliant with all applicable statutes, case law and Court Rules. Counsel then tendered to the Court Ms. Burke Tarab’s December 13, 2010 affirmation, which is purported to be compliant with the requirements of Judge Pfau’s Order of October 20, 2010. In counsel’s affirmation, she identifies Robert D. Repass, plaintiff’s Senior Vice President, as the representative with whom she communicated on December 10, 2010 for purposes of executing her affirmation.

According to paragraph 2 of the affirmation, Mr. Repass reportedly informed Ms. Tarab that he “personally reviewed plaintiff’s documents and records relating to this case for factual accuracy.” He also allegedly “confirmed the factual allegations set forth in the Complaint and any supporting affirmations filed with the court, as well as the accuracy of the notarizations contained in the supporting documents (Plaintiff’s Affidavit[s]) filed therewith.” Neither the proofs submitted in support of the order of reference, nor the mandatory attorney affirmation are sufficient to grant an order of reference.

Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff’s application for an order of reference is denied. The nature of the proofs provided by the plaintiff, from all sources, compels the Court to order hearing in accordance with 22 NYCRR §130-1 to determine if the conduct undertaken by the plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s counsel was “frivolous” as defined in 22 NYCRR §130-1.1(c) and what, if any, sanction should be imposed.

This constitutes the Order of the Court.

Dated:February 17, 2011

PETER H. MAYER, J.S.C.

[ipaper docId=49755154 access_key=key-1nqux6te6r5mleytllbl height=600 width=600 /]

By Joe Rauch and Clare Baldwin

CHARLOTTE, N.C./NEW YORK (Reuters) – Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo — three of the biggest banks in the United States — said they could face fines from a regulatory probe into the industry’s foreclosure practices.

The statements, made in regulatory filings on Friday, are the most direct admission yet from major banks that they could have to pay significant amounts of money to settle probes and lawsuits alleging that they improperly foreclosed on homes.

Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), the largest U.S. bank by assets, said the probe could lead to “material fines” and “significant” legal expenses in 2011.

Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N), the largest U.S. mortgage lender, said it is likely to face fines or sanctions, such as a foreclosure moratorium or suspension, imposed by federal or state regulators. It said some government agency enforcement action was likely and could include civil money penalties.

Citigroup Inc (C.N) said it could pay fines or set up principal reduction programs.

The biggest U.S. mortgage lenders are being investigated by 50 state attorneys general and U.S. regulators for foreclosing on homes without having proper paperwork in place or without having properly reviewed paperwork before signing it.

The bad documentation threatens to slow down the foreclosure process and invalidate some repossessions.

Continue reading … REUTERS

[ipaper docId=49518182 access_key=key-16u8cdjwkgsu6mle5251 height=600 width=600 /]

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Plaintiff,

against

David Zelouf, et. al., Defendants.

17524/09

Plaintiff

Michael Joblonski, Esq.

Steven J. Baum, PC

Buffalo, NY

Defendant

The defendant did not answer.

Arthur M. Schack, J.

In this foreclosure action, plaintiff, WELLS FARGO, N.A. (WELLS FARGO), moved for summary judgment and an order of reference and related relief for the premises located at 14 Stockholm Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3253, Lot 13, County of Kings). The Court received a notice of withdrawal of the instant motion, dated February 18, 2010, from plaintiff’s counsel. There was no valid explanation or reason given by plaintiff’s counsel for his request to withdraw the motion.

Further, plaintiff’s counsel states in his notice of withdrawal, “[t]he Plaintiff will not be discontinuing the above referenced action.” Moreover, in his cover letter to myself, plaintiff’s counsel states that “[t]he law firm of Steven J. Baum, P.C. and the attorneys whom it employs are debt collectors who are attempting to collect a debt. Any information obtained by them will be used for that purpose.” Since this statement was in a cover letter to me and does not appear to be preprinted on the letterhead of the Baum firm, the Court would like to know what debt it [*2]personally owes to the Baum firm or its clients? This statement borders upon frivolous conduct, in violation of 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1. Was it made to cause annoyance or alarm to the Court? Was it made to waste judicial resources? Rather than answer the above rhetorical questions, counsel for plaintiff is directed never to place such a foolish statement in a cover letter to this Court. If this occurs again, the firm of Steven J. Baum, P.C. is on notice that this Court will have the firm and the attorney who wrote this nonsensical statement appear to explain why the firm and the individual attorney should not be sanctioned for frivolous conduct.

With respect to the request of plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw the instant motion for summary judgment and an order of reference, the Court grants the request to withdraw the motion. However, since plaintiff is not discontinuing the instant foreclosure action, the Court, to prevent the waste of judicial resources, dismisses the instant foreclosure action without prejudice. If plaintiff’s counsel chooses to renew the instant motion and restore the instant case, plaintiff’s counsel must comply with the new Rule, promulgated by the Chief Administrative Judge on October 20, 2010, requiring an affirmation by plaintiff’s counsel that he communicated on a specific date with a named representative of plaintiff WELLS FARGO who informed him that he or she:

(a) has personally reviewed plaintiff’s documents and records relating

to this case for factual accuracy; and (b) confirmed the factual

accuracy of the allegations set forth in the Complaint and any

supporting affirmations filed with the Court as well as the accuracy

of the notarizations contained in the supporting documents filed

therewith.

Further, plaintiff’s counsel, based upon his or her communication with plaintiff’s representative or representatives, “as well as upon my own inspection and reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, . . . affirm 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.”

Counsel is reminded that the new standard Court affirmation form states that “I am aware of my obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200) and 22 NYCRR Part 130.” These Parts deal with disciplinary standards and sanctions for frivolous conduct.

Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 1321 allows the Court in a foreclosure action, upon the default of the defendant or defendant’s admission of mortgage payment arrears, to appoint a referee “to compute the amount due to the plaintiff.” In the instant action, plaintiff WELLS FARGO’s application for an order of reference is a preliminary step to obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale against defendant ZELOUF. (Home Sav. of Am., F.A. v Gkanios, 230 AD2d 770 [2d Dept 1996]). Plaintiff’s request to withdraw its motion is granted. However, to allow this action to continue without seeking the ultimate purpose of a foreclosure action, to obtain a judgment of foreclosure and sale, makes a mockery of and wastes judicial resources. Continuing the instant action without moving for a judgment of foreclosure and sale is the judicial equivalent of a “timeout,” and granting a “timeout” to plaintiff WELLS FARGO is a waste of judicial resources. Therefore, the instant action is dismissed without [*3]prejudice.

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 WELLS FARGO’s notice of pendency against the subject property “in the exercise of the inherent power of the court.”

Last, if plaintiff WELLS FARGO’s counsel moves to restore the instant action and motion, plaintiff’s counsel must comply with the new filing requirement to submit, under penalties of perjury, an affirmation that he or she has taken reasonable steps, including inquiring of plaintiff WELLS FARGO and reviewing all papers, to verify the accuracy of the submitted documents in support of the instant foreclosure action. According to the October 20, 2010 Office of Court Administration press release about the new filing requirement, 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 — [*4]

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.

(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).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that the request of plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., to withdraw its motion for an order of reference, for the premises located at 14 Stockholm Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3253, Lot 13, County of Kings), is granted; and it is further

ORDERED, that the instant action, Index Number 17524/09, is dismissed without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that the notice of pendency in the instant action, filed with the Kings County Clerk on July 14, 2009, by plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., to foreclose a mortgage for real property located at 14 Stockholm Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3253, Lot 13, County of Kings), is cancelled; and it is further

ORDERED, that if plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., moves to restore the instant foreclosure action and motion for an order of reference for real property located at 14 Stockholm Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3253, Lot 13, County of Kings, counsel for plaintiff must comply with the new Court filing requirement, announced by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman on October 20, 2010, and ordered by Chief Administrative Judge Ann T. Pfau on October 20, 2010, by submitting an affirmation, using the new standard Court form, pursuant to CPLR Rule 2106 and under the penalties of perjury, that counsel for plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A.: has personally reviewed plaintiff’s documents and records in the instant action; confirms the factual accuracy of plaintiff’s court filings; and, confirms the accuracy of the notarizations in plaintiff’s documents.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER

________________________________
HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACK

J. S. C.

[ipaper docId=49446866 access_key=key-f0mlrghdhkwuefk3jei height=600 width=600 /]

Abigail- knocks this OUT THE BALL PARK! Outstanding!!

By ABIGAIL FIELD Posted 11:30 AM 02/08/11

Foreclosure proceedings in courts nationwide have exposed a swamp of fraudulent documents, and in some cases — though perhaps far too few — those bad docs have sunk attempts by banks to take people’s homes.

Some of Florida’s courts, however, — particularly courts in Lee County — have come under fire for compounding the documentation problems by ignoring the rule of law in order to rush through foreclosures. And a new rule put in place by the Florida Supreme Court to ensure that documents being used in foreclosures are properly certified hasn’t worked well, thanks to a new type of robo-signing that has sprung up to get around it.

In a reflection of how bad things have gotten, lenders are asking judges to “ratify” foreclosures done with robo-signed documents, the Palm Beach Post reported on Saturday. While such “ratification” would not, as a matter of law, mean much, the Post says, it might discourage people from challenging the foreclosures.

With luck, two recent developments may help really clean up the fraud in the Sunshine State. First, an appeals court has asked the Florida Supreme Court to clarify judges’ power to address the fraud, and second, the Florida Bar Association is finally taking a stand.

Asking for Power to Punish Foreclosure Fraud

By William E. Lewis Jr.| Highlands Today

Published: February 6, 2011

A Palm Beach county homeowner fighting alleged foreclosure fraud has ended up before the Florida Supreme Court.

An appeals court last week requested that the high court consider the case of Greenacres homeowner Roman Pino as a matter of “great public importance.” The decision by the 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach was unusual as neither the bank nor the homeowner requested such a review.

“We conclude that this is a question of great public importance, as many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents,” the appeals court wrote in certification to the Supreme Court.

Should the case be accepted by the Florida Supreme Court and a decision rendered in favor of Pino, thousands of cases could be impacted as allegations of document fraud run rampant throughout the state.

courtesy of IceLegal

excerpts:

JUDGE POLEN: I’m afraid I’m not following
that. David Stern’s client at the time was BNY
Mellon Bank, right?

MR. NIEVES: Yes.

JUDGE POLEN: Okay. And that’s evidence of
what, an assignment to a bank?

MR. NIEVES: Basically, the law firm
manufactured evidence for the client’s case.

JUDGE POLEN: Okay.

MR. NIEVES: It was signed and executed by
Cheryl Samons, who works for David Stern, and
executed the assignment solely for the litigation,
and, in the assignment, posed as an officer of a
different entity.

<SNIP>

MS. GIDDINGS: Well, Your Honor, if you look at
the allegations that they have made, almost all of
those allegations pertain to a different case.
They’re not this particular case. I don’t know what
that document — what occurred in that document. But
I think this court is probably going to have a number
of cases that come up before it where that issue
is — it may be at issue in subsequent proceedings.
And when you reopen — if you’re going to reopen
those cases, you have to make sure that you’re
reopening it for something that is material.

JUDGE FARMER: Fraud on the Court is not
material?

MS. GIDDINGS: Your Honor, fraud on the
Court —

JUDGE FARMER: Publishing false documents is
not material?

<SNIP>

MS. GIDDINGS: Because there was no affirmative
relief obtained in this case, Your Honor. And, in
fact, the relief was that Mr. Pino has been living in
the house for a long time, apparently without making
any payments.
And I understand your concerns, Your Honor.
But I’m urging you to consider this case in the grand
scheme of things. If you allow courts to go back and
open up all of these cases, when it’s clear on the
face that there was no affirmative relief obtained,
or that the affirmative relief would not have been
material, then you’re going to create chaos in the
court system.

JUDGE FARMER: So, are you suggesting that this
fraud has been that widespread that it —

MS. GIDDINGS: Your Honor, I’m not
acknowledging that any fraud occurred. I think that
there is — we all know —

JUDGE FARMER: Why would we shrink — as a
court system, why would we shrink, no matter how many
cases it might involve, from looking out for attempts
to defraud courts to publish and utter and use false
instruments? Why wouldn’t we be most vigilant?

To View Video of The Oral Argument Go HERE

[ipaper docId=48141935 access_key=key-luov0ltst9x6k2vgxi4 height=600 width=600 /]

FLORIDA IBANEZ??

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

January Term 2011

ROMAN PINO,
Appellant,
v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
Appellee.

No. 4D10-378

[February 2, 2011]

EN BANC

WARNER, J.

excerpts:

The defendant in a mortgage foreclosure action filed by BNY Mellon appeals
a trial court’s denial of his motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.540(b) to vacate a voluntary dismissal. Th e notice was filed after the
defendant moved for sanctions against the plaintiff for filing what he alleged
was a fraudulent assignment of mortgage. Because the notice of voluntary
dismissal was filed prior to the plaintiff obtaining any affirmative relief from the
court, we affirm the trial court’s order.

BNY Mellon commenced an action to foreclose a mortgage against the
defendant. The mortgage attached to the complaint specified another entity,
Silver State Financial Systems, as lender and still another, Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, as mortgagee. The complaint alleged that BNY Mellon
owned and held the note and mortgage by assignment, but failed to attach a
copy of any document of assignment. At the same time, it alleged the original
promissory note itself had been “lost, destroyed or stolen.” The complaint was
silent as to whether the note had ever been negotiated and transferred to BNY
Mellon in the manner provided by law.1

<SNIP>

In response to this amendment, defendant moved for sanctions. He alleged
that the newly produced document of assignment was false and had been
fraudulently made, pointing to the fact that the person executing the
assignment was employed by the attorney representing the mortgagee, and the
commission date on notary stamp showed that the document could not have
been notarized on the date in the document. The defendant argued that the
plaintiff was attempting fraud on the court and that the court should consider
appropriate sanctions, s u c h as dismissal of the action with prejudice.
Concurrent with the filing of this motion, the defendant scheduled depositions
of the person who signed the assignment, the notary, and the witnesses named
on the document — all employees of Florida counsel for BNY Mellon — for the
following day. Before the scheduled depositions, BNY Mellon filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of the action.

We conclude that this is a question of great public importance, as many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents.

We conclude that this is a question of great public importance, as many,
many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents. The
defendant has requested a denial of the equitable right to foreclose the
mortgage at all. If this is an available remedy as a sanction after a voluntary
dismissal, it may dramatically affect the mortgage foreclosure crisis in this
State. Accordingly we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme
Court as of great public importance:

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=48075927 access_key=key-s5ds5utqjaldbcvi0k3 height=600 width=600 /]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF  MAINE

GORDON T. JAMES

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for
BAFC2006-1,

and

GMAC MORTGAGE LLC

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO
FED. R. CIV. P. 56(G)

In this action in which the original plaintiff’s claims have been dismissed at its request, the original defendant, now counterclaimant and third-party plaintiff, Gordon T. James, seeks sanctions against U.S. Bank National Association (“USB”) and GMAC Mortgage LLC (“GMAC”) arising out of what he characterizes as “a fundamentally false summary judgment affidavit.” Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff Gordon T. James’ Memorandum in Support of Motion for Relief Pursuant to F[ed].R.Civ.P[.] 56(g) (“Motion”) (Docket No. 152) at 1. I grant the motion in part.

The rule invoked by James provides:

continue below…

[ipaper docId=48068353 access_key=key-2h8219q4k12xeaklckgk height=600 width=600 /]

By Prashant Gopal and Thom Weidlich – Feb 1, 2011 3:16 PM ET

A JPMorgan Chase & Co. branch in El Paso, Texas, may have furniture and computers seized by the sheriff unless the bank complies with a judge’s order to pay the legal bills of a single mother whose eviction case he dismissed.

The manager of the Chase branch was served on Jan. 26 with court papers that instructed the New York-based company to pay attorney Richard A. Roman’s $5,000 in fees, according to Detective Hector Lara, an El Paso County sheriff’s officer. The manager, Jose Gomez, told Lara that the branch’s gear is protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and that he would contact the bank’s security staff and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Lara said today in a telephone interview.

Lara said he’s waiting for an opinion from the county attorney on whether the bank’s property can be seized.

“They don’t have a problem putting my client out in the street,” Roman said. “But when somebody prevails against a bank, they pull every string in the book to avoid paying.”

[ipaper docId=47639881 access_key=key-d2ak3tkz5ccj8d89ayl height=600 width=600 /]

via: A. Campbell

Excerpt:

The Court has considered the pleadings, evidence and the arguments of the parties’ counsel and/or representative in this cause and is of the opinion that judgment should be rendered for defendants.

The Court makes the following findings:

A Temporary Restraining Order was signed by the Presiding Judge of the 448th Judicial District Court and was in effect at the time of the foreclosure sale; and

The Foreclosure sale was conducted irrespective of the Order of the 448th Judicial District Court and title is presently at issue.

It is accordingly ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that:

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=47639881 access_key=key-d2ak3tkz5ccj8d89ayl height=600 width=600 /]