stopforeclosurefraud.com | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "stopforeclosurefraud.com"

THIS WEBSITE IS FOR SALE

THIS WEBSITE IS FOR SALE


Greetings everyone,

After 5+ years, I am selling this site that is very well established. I feel the site is best suited for those who practice in defending homes i.e. attorney(s)/forensic auditors/debt consultants/non-profit/ etc.. Ultimately, I would like to find 1 or a group of attorneys that might want to pool in together from across the country. 1,000’s of hours have been carefully dedicated to what the site has grown to become today and for its historical participation of exposing the truth behind massive fraudulent paperwork.

Serious inquiries only. I will consider staying on to continue managing the website.

For more information, please email me at info@stopforeclosurefraud.com

 

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



Posted in featured, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (4)

Prof. Levitin | About Those Notes…Evidence of Securitization Fail

Prof. Levitin | About Those Notes…Evidence of Securitization Fail


You’re either pregnant or you ain’t. Can’t be both!

Credit Slips-

Since last October, shortly after the robosigning scandal broke, I’ve been talking until I turned blue in the face about robosigning being the tip of the iceberg with mortgage problems and that the real issue was chain of title. Robosigning appeared to be an almost unexpected deposition by-product; the real goal in the depositions that uncovered the robosigning was exposing the backdating of mortgage endorsement. And that they did–the notaries’ whose seals were on the documents didn’t have their commissions when the assignments supposedly took place.

But why would anyone bother backdating mortgage assignments? …


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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Fortune Confirms Pervasive Defects in Bank of America Mortgage Documents

Fortune Confirms Pervasive Defects in Bank of America Mortgage Documents


Naked Capitalism-

Do you remember the brouhaha over testimony by a senior executive in Countrywide’s mortgage servicing unit last year? It called into question whether mortgages had been conveyed properly to securitizations, which in turn would impair Bank of America’s ability to foreclose.

Let me refresh your memory. As we wrote last year:

Testimony in a New Jersey bankruptcy court case provides proof of the scenario we’ve depicted on this blog since September, namely, that subprime originators, starting sometime in the 2004-2005 timeframe, if not earlier, stopped conveying note (the borrower IOU) to mortgage securitization trust as stipulated in the pooling and servicing agreement….

As we indicated back in September, it appeared that Countrywide, and likely many other subprime orignators quit conveying the notes to the securitization trusts sometime in the 2004-2005 time frame. Yet bizarrely, they did not change the pooling and servicing agreements to reflect what appears to be a change in industry practice. Our evidence of this change was strictly anecdotal; this bankruptcy court filing, posted at StopForeclosureFraud provides the first bit of concrete proof. The key section:

As to the location of the note, Ms. DeMartini testified that to her knowledge, the original note never left the possession of Countrywide, and that the original note appears to have been transferred to Countrywide’s foreclosure unit, as evidenced by internal FedEx tracking numbers. She also confirmed that the new allonge had not been attached or otherwise affIXed to the note. She testified further that it was customary for Countrywide to maintain possession of the original note and related loan documents.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

At Bank of America, more incomplete mortgage docs raise more questions

At Bank of America, more incomplete mortgage docs raise more questions


Abigail Field-

Fortune examined hundreds of foreclosure documents to determine the validity of mortgage securitizations after Bank of America debunked testimony about them last fall. The results raise more questions than they answer.

Are Countrywide mortgage-backed securities really mortgage-backed? Do banks even have the legal right to foreclose on certain homes?


Check out the related posts below …

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

BLOOMBERG| Foreclosures May Be Undone by State Ruling on Mortgage Transfer

BLOOMBERG| Foreclosures May Be Undone by State Ruling on Mortgage Transfer


Massachusetts’s highest court is poised to rule on whether foreclosures in the state should be undone because securitization-industry practices violate real- estate law governing how mortgages may be transferred.

The fight between homeowners and banks before the Supreme Judicial Court in Boston turns on whether a mortgage can be transferred without naming the recipient, a common securitization practice. Also at issue is whether the right to a mortgage follows the promissory note it secures when the note is sold, as the industry argues.

A victory for the homeowners may invalidate some foreclosures and force loan originators to buy back mortgages wrongly transferred into loan pools. Such a ruling may also be cited in other state courts handling litigation related to the foreclosure crisis.

“This is the first time the securitization paradigm is squarely before a high court,” said Marie McDonnell, a mortgage-fraud analyst in Orleans, Massachusetts, who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of borrowers. The state court, under its practices, is likely to rule by next month.

Claims of wrongdoing by banks and loan servicers triggered a 50-state investigation last year into whether hundreds of thousands of foreclosures were properly documented as the housing market collapsed. The probe came after JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Ally Financial Inc. said they would stop repossessions in 23 states where courts supervise home seizures and Bank of America Corp. froze U.S. foreclosures. Massachusetts is one of 27 states where court supervision of foreclosures generally isn’t required.


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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (4)

Why Mortgage-Backed Securities Aren’t (Backed by Securities): How MERS Toasted the Banks

Why Mortgage-Backed Securities Aren’t (Backed by Securities): How MERS Toasted the Banks


L. Randall Wray

Professor of Economics and Research Director of the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri–Kansas City
Posted: December 30, 2010 08:35 AM

In a series of pieces I have argued that MERS, a creation of the mortgage banking industry, has effectively destroyed the institution of private property in America. Ironically, MERS was created to facilitate quick and easy and cheap securitization of mortgages — what are called mortgage-backed securities. In fact, what it did was to eliminate any backing of the securities by mortgages. Of the total securitized asset universe, something like $7 trillion are (supposedly) backed by residential mortgages. However, MERS helped to delink the securities from the mortgages. At best, they are unsecured debt — there is no property backing the securities. What this means is that foreclosure is not permitted. As I have said before, it is likely that most or even all foreclosures occurring in the US are illegal seizures of property — home thefts. We are talking about 100,000 completed home thefts per month, with another 250,000 new foreclosures started to steal homes every month. Projections are that 13 million homes will have been “foreclosed” (read: stolen) by 2012.

Worse, from the perspective of the banks, they’ve got to take back all the fraudulent MBSs, most of which are toxic.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

MATT TAIBBI: An Extremely Long Metaphor to Explain Mortgage Chaos

MATT TAIBBI: An Extremely Long Metaphor to Explain Mortgage Chaos


POSTED: January 1, 1:25 PM EDT | By Matt Taibbi

Happy New Year, America…

Have multiple relatives en route to my home this morning, but wanted to post a few thoughts on an interesting story that came out this week before I disappear into a weekend of overeating and meaningless NFL games.

The piece, which came out Thursday, is the Washington Post’s feature on MERS, the electronic mortgage registration company that is at the center of the foreclosure/mortgage bubble mess. MERS is the brainchild of the mortgage-lending industry and is essentially an effort at systematically evading taxes (more on that in a moment) and hiding information from homeowners in ways that enabled the Countrywides of the world to defraud investors and avoid legal consequences for same.

The idea behind MERS was to wipe away centuries of legal tradition that mandated the physical transfer of loan notes and ownership information. Whereas lenders once were required to physically register with county clerk offices every time a mortgage loan was extended or re-sold, MERS provided an “electronic registry” of mortgage notes where all such transfers were recorded in the wiry brain of a giant computer instead of on paper.


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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

WaPO: First, the electronic mortgage superhighway. Then, the pileup.

WaPO: First, the electronic mortgage superhighway. Then, the pileup.


Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 2, 2011

In the early 1990s, the biggest names in the mortgage industry hatched a plan for a new electronic clearinghouse that would transform the home loan business – and unlock billions of dollars of new investments and profits.

At the time, mortgage documents were moved almost exclusively by hand and mail, a throwback to an era in which people kept stock certificates, too. That made it hard for banks to bundle home loans and sell them to investors. By contrast, a central electronic clearinghouse would allow the companies to transfer thousands of mortgages instantaneously, greasing the wheels of a system in which loans could be bought and sold repeatedly and quickly.

“Assignments are creatures of 17th-century real property law; they do not coexist easily with high-volume, late 20th-century secondary mortgage market transactions,” Phyllis K. Slesinger, then senior director of investor relations for the Mortgage Bankers Association, wrote in paper explaining the system.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Which of These Banks Was 2010’s Most Shameless Corporate Outlaw?

Which of These Banks Was 2010’s Most Shameless Corporate Outlaw?


Richard (RJ) Eskow

Consultant, Writer, Senior Fellow with The Campaign for America’s Future
Posted: December 30, 2010 04:58 PM

Bankers. The red carpet’s still being rolled out for them in Washington, but if there’s a stain on it they’ll pout for days. Jason Linkins documents the latest set of cheap white whines from very wealthy white men. (Discrimination lawsuits are a routine part of their legal troubles, too.) This time they’re upset because nobody from the six largest banks in America was invited to the president’s CEO Roundtable.

They’re offended because they didn’t meet with the president? From the looks of things they’re lucky not to be meeting with the warden. Their collective rap sheet includes fraud, sex discrimination, collusion to bribe public officials… even laundering drug money for Mexican drug cartels. One of them is accused of ripping off some nuns! None of this criminal behavior has stopped them from sulking over a presidential slight. Let’s review the record for these corporate malefactors, and then decide:

Which of these six banks was “America’s Most Shameless Corporate Outlaw” in 2010? (I mean, really: Nuns?)


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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

NYSC APPELLANTE DIV. “A DEED BASED ON FORGERY IS VOID, MORTGAGE BASED ON SUCH DEED IS INVALID” GMAC v. CHAN

NYSC APPELLANTE DIV. “A DEED BASED ON FORGERY IS VOID, MORTGAGE BASED ON SUCH DEED IS INVALID” GMAC v. CHAN


2008 NY Slip Op 08705

GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, d/b/a DiTECH.COM, appellant,

v.

ROBERT CHAN, ETC., ET AL., respondents, et al., defendants.

2007-11812, 2008-09115.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Decided November 12, 2008.

EXCERPT:

A deed based on forgery or obtained by false pretenses is void ab initio, and a mortgage based on such a deed is likewise invalid (see Cruz v Cruz, 37 AD3d 754; Crispino v Greenpoint Mtge. Corp., 304 AD2d 608; Yin Wu v Wu, 288 AD2d 104; Rosen v Rosen, 243 AD2d 618; Filowick v Long, 201 AD2d 893). Thus, the Supreme Court correctly held that there are triable issues of fact as to the validity of both the deed and subject mortgage and properly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

[ipaper docId=45946796 access_key=key-1v9fh5byvbl8sqbvb17p height=600 width=600 /]

GMAC was denied in 2009

2009 NY Slip Op 70038(U)

GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, D/B/A DiTECH.COM, appellant,
v.
ROBERT CHAN, ETC., ET AL., respondents, ET AL., defendants.

M85448, Motion No: 2007-11812, Motion No: 2008-09115. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Decided April 20, 2009. Before: PRUDENTI, P.J., MASTRO, SPOLZINO and SANTUCCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER ON MOTION

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied, with $100 costs.


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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (6)

NYSC APPELLANTE DIV. REVERSAL “MORTGAGE MAY BE INVALID PENDING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER, FORGERY RESULTS” WARGO v. AIG

NYSC APPELLANTE DIV. REVERSAL “MORTGAGE MAY BE INVALID PENDING FRAUDULENT TRANSFER, FORGERY RESULTS” WARGO v. AIG


Hendra Wargo, appellant,

v.

Paul Henri Jean, et al., defendants, Wilmington Finance, a Division of AIG Federal Savings Bank, respondent. (Action No. 1) Wilmington Finance, a Division of AIG Federal Savings Bank, respondent, v Paul Jean, defendant, Hendra Wargo, appellant.(Action No. 2)

2009-06932 2010-01452 (Index Nos.?4192/06, 8697/06)

October 26, 2010

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. JOSEPH COVELLO THOMAS A. DICKERSON SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ. Mary Patricia Papini Guidetti, Middletown, N.Y., for appellant.

Day Pitney LLP, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Borg of counsel), for respondent in Action No. 1.

Law Offices of Jordan S. Katz, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Michael Lowe of counsel), for respondent in Action No. 2.

Argued-September 30, 2010

Excerpt: Since, at the time Wilmington moved for summary judgment on the complaint in the foreclosure action, the issues of forgery and fraud were also being litigated in the fraud action, the Supreme Court should have granted Wargo’s motion to stay all proceedings in the foreclosure action, pending resolution of the fraud action. If Wargo succeeds in proving that the documents transferring the property to Jean were fraudulent, or that the signatures thereon were forged, then Wilmington’s mortgage is not valid and Wilmington cannot succeed in the foreclosure action (see Johnson v. Melnikoff, 65 AD3d 519, 520; ?GMAC Mtge. Corp. v. Chan, 56 AD3d 521, 522). Moreover, since the Supreme Court did not determine in the foreclosure action that there was no forgery or fraud, but only that the issues of forgery and fraud were irrelevant to the disposition of that action, those issues have not been necessarily decided against Wargo. ? Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable, and the Supreme Court should not have granted Wilmington’s motion to dismiss the complaint in the fraud action on that ground (see Ryan v. New York Tel. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 494, 500).

[ipaper docId=45956416 access_key=key-1vupu7btkw8xtsxeq8s8 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

John O’Brien, the Essex County register of deeds, isn’t buying it, and neither should you

John O’Brien, the Essex County register of deeds, isn’t buying it, and neither should you


Our View: Avoiding another mortgage mess

The Salem News Thu Dec 16, 2010, 06:00 AM EST

They did such a good job depressing the housing market and sending the economy into a tailspin, why not trust the banking cabal with keeping track of all property titles?

John O’Brien, the Essex County register of deeds, isn’t buying it, and neither should you.

O’Brien, of Lynn, is in the forefront of a national effort to challenge the policies and practices of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS). The agency was established in 1995 by a group of banking conglomerates including Bank of America, Countrywide Home Loans and Wells Fargo, to keep track of loans issued against property titles — a task previously performed by the public registries of deeds.

In a Nov. 18 letter to Attorney General Martha Coakley, O’Brien alleged that MERS “has failed to pay the proper recording fees required under Massachusetts statute when a lender assigns a mortgage to another entity.” And this week Coakley announced that she will join her colleagues in several other states in an investigation to see whether MERS is skirting laws regarding such transactions.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Congressional Oversight Panel: HAMP FAILED YOU, SERVICERS CONFLICTS

Congressional Oversight Panel: HAMP FAILED YOU, SERVICERS CONFLICTS


Congressional Oversight Panel Reviews Treasury’s Foreclosure Prevention Programs
HAMP On Track to Prevent Far Fewer Foreclosures Than Expected, but Treasury Can Still Take Steps to Help More Homeowners Avoid Foreclosure

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 14, 2010

Thomas Seay
Thomas_Seay@cop.senate.gov
202-224-9979

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Congressional Oversight Panel today released its December oversight report, “A Review of Treasury’s Foreclosure Prevention Programs.” In the eight months since the Panel’s last report on the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), Treasury has made minor tweaks to the program, but the changes have not resolved the Panel’s core concerns. The Panel now estimates that, if current trends hold, HAMP will prevent only 700,000 foreclosures – far fewer than the three to four million foreclosures that Treasury initially aimed to stop, and vastly fewer than the eight to 13 million foreclosures expected by 2012.

While HAMP’s most dramatic shortcoming has been its poor results in preventing foreclosures, the program has had other significant flaws. For example, despite repeated urgings from the Panel, Treasury has failed to collect and analyze data that would explain HAMP’s shortcomings, and it does not even have a way to collect data for many of HAMP’s add-on programs. Further, Treasury has refused to specify meaningful goals by which to measure HAMP’s progress, while the program’s sole initial goal – to prevent three to four million foreclosures – has been repeatedly redefined and watered down.

Treasury has failed to hold loan servicers accountable when they have repeatedly lost borrower paperwork or refused to perform loan modifications. Treasury has essentially outsourced the responsibility for overseeing servicers to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but Freddie Mac in particular has hesitated to enforce some of its contractual rights related to the foreclosure process, arguing that doing so “may negatively impact our relationships with these seller/servicers, some of which are among our largest sources of mortgage loans.” Treasury bears the ultimate responsibility for preventing such conflicts of interest, and it should ensure that loan servicers are penalized when they fail to complete loan modifications appropriately.

It is too late for Treasury to revamp its foreclosure prevention strategy, but Treasury can still take steps to wring every possible benefit from its programs. Treasury should enable borrowers to apply for loan modifications more easily – for example, by allowing online applications. Treasury should also carefully monitor and, where appropriate, intervene in cases in which borrowers are falling behind on their HAMP-modified mortgages. Preventing redefaults is an extremely powerful way of magnifying HAMP’s impact, as each redefault prevented translates directly into a borrower keeping his home.

Treasury should acknowledge that HAMP will not reach the expected number of homeowners and should provide a meaningful framework for evaluating the program in the future. Treasury continues to state that HAMP will expend $30 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program funding, yet the Panel’s estimate based on Congressional Budget Office figures is that HAMP will likely spend only around $4 billion. Had Treasury acknowledged this reality before its crisis authority expired, it could have reallocated the money to a more effective program. Now, that option is gone. Absent a dramatic and unexpected increase in HAMP enrollment, many billions of dollars set aside for foreclosure mitigation may well be left unused. As a result, an untold number of borrowers may go without help – all because Treasury failed to acknowledge HAMP’s shortcomings in time.

The full report is available at cop.senate.gov.

The Congressional Oversight Panel was created to oversee the expenditure of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds authorized by Congress in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) and to provide recommendations on regulatory reform. The Panel members are former Senator Ted Kaufman; J. Mark McWatters; Richard H. Neiman, Superintendent of Banks for the State of New York; Damon Silvers, Policy Director and Special Counsel for the AFL-CIO; and Kenneth Troske, William B. Sturgill Professor of Economics at the University of Kentucky.

###

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

PA: Homeowners Appeal to Third Circuit in Foreclosure Fraud Class Action Against Countrywide, Wells Fargo and Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg

PA: Homeowners Appeal to Third Circuit in Foreclosure Fraud Class Action Against Countrywide, Wells Fargo and Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg


On December 6, 2010, the homeowners filed a brief with the Third Circuit, maintaining that reversal of the July 14th order is necessary because (1) the lower court abused its discretion by altogether ignoring the substance of the proposed Amended Complaint and (2) the lower court erred as a matter of law in misconstruing federal bankruptcy law as a basis for its dismissal of the earlier Complaint.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 10-3431

DENNIS A. RHODES et al, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

– v.-

ROSEMARY DIAMOND et al,
Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA,

09-cv-1302

APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF
AND APPENDIX VOLUME I
(Pages A1-A13)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………………… 1
STATEMENT OF ISSUES …………………………………………………………………………… 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE …………………………………………………… 2
STATEMENTOFFACTS ……………………………………………………… 4
Appellees’ Foreclosure Practices ……………………………………………………………. .4
Facts Alleged in the PAC ……………………………………………………………………….. 8
Independent Confirmation of Abusive Foreclosure Practices ……………………. 11
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT …………………………………………….. 15
ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………………….. 17
I. THE COURT BELOW ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING
THE HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE PAC ………… 17
II. THE COURT BELOW ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED
THE HOMEOWNERS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ………………………………….. 21
A. Bankruptcy Creditors Have A Duty to Amend Inaccurate Claims ………. 21
B. The U.S. Bankruptcy Code Does Not Preclude FDCPA Lawsuits
Brought to Remedy Institutionalized Debt Collection Abuses …………… 21
CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………… 30
CERTIFICATION REGARDING BAR MEMBERSHIP ……………………….. 31
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE …………………………………………….. 32
CERTIFICATE OF IDENTICALNESS ………………………………………….. 33
CERTIFICATE OF VIRUS CHECK ……………………………………………. 34

Continue below…

BHN LAW FIRM

[ipaper docId=45205187 access_key=key-1cnszvqq1bhrkzn5g3km height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

National Association of Independent Land Title Agents (NAILTA) White Paper on MERS, H.R. 6460

National Association of Independent Land Title Agents (NAILTA) White Paper on MERS, H.R. 6460


Per a tip SFF received: This Bill should boil it down to where the GSE’s should only accept loans where there is a proper Chain of Title recorded in Public Records and a Chain of Indorsements showing a proper Chain of Negotiation to the GSE’s where both chains match from Origination to final purchase by the GSE’s.

The National Association of Independent Land Title Agents (NAILTA) has released a white paper on the recent troubles with the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) mortgage registry and a position statement in favor of the premise behind a bill sponsored by Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) known as H.R. 6460, or the “Transparency and Security Mortgage Registration Act of 2010”.

——————

——————


111TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION

H. R. 6460


To prohibit Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from owning or guaranteeing any mortgage that is assigned to the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or for which MERS is the mortgagee of record.

Continue Below…

[ipaper docId=45004130 access_key=key-nqvdvjithp0iusr9la3 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

AP IMPACT: Caught by mistake in foreclosure web

AP IMPACT: Caught by mistake in foreclosure web


Christopher Marconi was in the shower when he heard a loud banging on his door. By the time he grabbed a towel and hustled to his front step, a U.S. marshal’s sedan was peeling out of his driveway. Nailed to Marconi’s front door was a foreclosure summons from Wells Fargo, naming him as a defendant. But the notice was for a house Marconi had never seen — on a mortgage he never had.

Tom Williams was in his kitchen thumbing through the mail when he opened a letter from GMAC. It informed him that the bank would confiscate his house unless he immediately paid off his mortgage balance of $276,000. But Williams had never missed a mortgage payment. And his loan wasn’t due to mature until 2032.

Warren Nyerges opened his front door to find a scraggly haired summons server standing on his stoop. He plopped a foreclosure notice from Bank of America in Nyerges’ hands. But Nyerges had paid for his house in cash. And he’d never had a checking account, much less a mortgage, with Bank of America.

By now, you may have heard the stories of bank robo-signers powering through hundreds of foreclosure affidavits a day without verifying a single fact. But most of those involved homeowners who had stopped paying their mortgage. They were genuine defaulters. Now a new species of homeowner is getting pushed into foreclosure hell.

People have always loved to complain about their banks. The push-button circus that passes for customer service. The larding on of fees. But the false foreclosure cases are hardly the usual complaints. These homeowners paid their mortgages — or loan modifications — on time. Some even paid off their loans. Worse, those on the receiving end of a bad foreclosure claim tell similar stories of getting bounced from one bank official to the next with no resolution while the foreclosure process continues apace.

Many have to resort to paying a lawyer, even after presenting documentation. They say they have to sue not only to stop the wrongful foreclosure but also to attempt to win back their costs.

There are no official statistics for these homeowners, but lawyers, real estate agents and consumer advocates say their ranks are growing. In November, during foreclosure hearings on Capitol Hill, senator after senator scolded the banks about wrongful foreclosures. They said their offices were deluged with complaints from people who had done everything right but were being treated by banks as if they had done everything wrong. And the Florida attorney general’s office is also investigating the issue as part of its foreclosure probe.

“This is the worst I’ve ever seen it,” says Ira Rheingold, an attorney and executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. Diane Thompson, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center, has defended hundreds of foreclosure cases. “In virtually every case, I believe the homeowner was not in default when you looked at the surrounding facts. It is a widespread problem throughout the country.”

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

NYSC AGREES TO SUBPOENA OF CUSTODIAL RECORDS FOR PENDING CA CASE: MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION v. INDYMAC ABS et al.

NYSC AGREES TO SUBPOENA OF CUSTODIAL RECORDS FOR PENDING CA CASE: MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION v. INDYMAC ABS et al.


In the matter of:
The Application of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan, LLP to subpoena documents
from CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS, THE
DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY
, under
a Commission issued in an action entitled
MBIA INSURANCE CORPORATION, a
New York corporation, Plaintiff v.
INDYMAC ABS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE
2006-H4, a Delaware statutory trust; HOME
BACKED TRUST, SERIES INDS 2007-1, a
New York common law trust; HOME
BACKED TRUST, SERIES INDS 2007-2, a
New York common law trust; CREDIT
SUISSE SECURITIES (USA), L.L.C., a
Delaware limited liability Corporation; UBS
SECURITIES, LLC, a Delaware
corporation; JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., a
Delaware corporation; MICHAEL PERRY,
an individual; A. SCOTT KEYS, an
individual; JILL JACOBSON, an individual;
KEVIN CALLAN, an individual; and JOHN
and JANE DOES 1 – 100, Defendants,
pending in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County, Central District, Case
No. BC422358.

ORDER DIRECTING
PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS
RECORDS FOR USE IN AN
ACTION PENDING
OUTSIDE NEW YORK STATE

[ipaper docId=44664574 access_key=key-1udstfmksoj49d885mbw height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

[NYSC] JUDGE SPINNER LETS U.S. BANK HAVE IT “HAMP FAIL” U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Mathon

[NYSC] JUDGE SPINNER LETS U.S. BANK HAVE IT “HAMP FAIL” U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Mathon


Where exactly are these “trial payments” 🙂


U.S. Bank Natl. Assn.
v.
Mathon

2010 NY Slip Op 52082(U)
Decided on December 1, 2010
Supreme Court, Suffolk County
Spinner, J.

The issue of the claim of the forbearance/modification agreement, however, is an entirely different situation, one that is considerably troubling to this Court. Defendants assert (and Plaintiff does not in any way controvert) that on April 17, 2009, without the benefit of counsel, they executed a three page document entitled “Home Affordable Modification Trial Period Plan” which was propounded to them by Plaintiff. Indeed, a copy of the same is appended as Exhibit C to the Affidavit of Thomas E. Reardon. According to Defendants (and again, not controverted by Plaintiff), they timely remitted to Plaintiff the three payments of $ 1,736.00 required thereunder and in compliance therewith, followed with nine more monthly payments in the same amount. According to Defendants (and once again, not controverted by Plaintiff), they continued to send monthly payments of $ 1,736.00, doing so in compliance with a letter from Plaintiff’s servicer Chase Home Finance LLC dated June 1, 2009 and appended to their Order To Show Cause. In relevant part, this letter states, in bold face type, as follows;

“If you make all [3] trial period payments on time and comply with all applicable program guidelines, you will have qualified for a final modification. However, there may be a period of time between your last trial payment and your first modification payment as we finalize the documents and get them back from you. During that interval, you should make a continuation payment at the trial period amount, and an extra coupon has been provided for that purpose.That payment will be applied as a principal reduction payment on your loan after your final modification is effective.”

It is undisputed that Defendants sent thirteen payments to Chase Home Finance LLC totalling $ 22,568.00 in reliance upon both the aforementioned April 17, 2009 Trial Modification and the subsequent June 1, 2009 letter and further, that the same were accepted by Plaintiff, presumably under the terms and conditions dictated by Plaintiff. According to Defendants, they regularly inquired as to the status of the final modification and were variously informed that all documents had been received, the application was with underwriting and finally, underwriter had approved the final modification. Notwithstanding the continuing stream of payments from Defendants and the verbal representations made to them, Chase Home Finance LLC, by letter dated April 15, 2010 (two days shy of one year following execution of the Trial Modification) notified Defendants that a loan [*3]modification would not be offered to them due to their inability to meet the existing guidelines therefor. The reason stated for the denial was the inability to meet HAMP guidelines by modifying the payments to equal 31% of Defendants’ gross monthly income.

In opposition to the foregoing, the Affidavit of Thomas E. Reardon, Assistant Vice-President of Chase Home Finance LLC (Plaintiff’s servicing agent), plainly acknowledges the foregoing assertions by Defendants but states, in Paragraph 7, that “…Due to a combination of factors, however, including missing documents, the submission of stale financial data and a significant influx of Trial Plan applications, the Mathons’ Trial Plan was not reviewed by the underwriting department until on or about April 2, 2010.” The Affidavit does state that on June 30, 2010 the Mathons applied for a new modification but that they failed to supply all necessary documents for consideration. However, nowhere in Plaintiff’s submissions to this Court is there any substantiation of this claim nor is the issue of Defendants’ payments addressed. Too, there is no proof of any computation or other calculation explaining the basis for denial herein.

In further opposition to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff has submitted the Affidavit of Adam M. Marshall Esq., an associate in the firm of Cullen & Dykman LLP. Mr. Marshall states under oath, in Paragraph 9 thereof, that “Since the Mathons moved by Order to Show Cause to stay the foreclosure on August 12, 2010, further efforts have been made to provide the Mathons with a loan modification based on verifiable income. On October 12, 2010, Plaintiff withdrew its Motion for Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale. In addition, a new application for a loan modification was forwarded to the Mathons. However, the Mathons have abjectly refused to complete the application or supply the financial documents requested therein.” This Affidavit by counsel seems to be somewhat at odds with the averments of Mr. Reardon and is amply rebutted by Defendants’ motion papers. Defendants have appended a plethora of documents dating from April 30, 2010 through July 28, 2010 evidencing their application for a new modification (which appears to be a HAMP modification identical to the one that Plaintiff had just rejected) as well as their cooperation with the demands of Plaintiff regarding the same. Even so, while Defendants were assiduously attempting to re-negotiate a modification, Plaintiff was instructing its counsel to continue prosecution of the foreclosure action. It is painfully obvious to this Court that Defendants relied upon representations made by Plaintiff and acted affirmatively based upon those representations, all to their serious detriment.

There has been no disclosure by Plaintiff to this Court as to whether or not this loan in foreclosure is deemed to be “sub-prime” or “high cost” in nature. Moreover, no mandatory settlement conference has been held in this matter though same is plainly required pursuant to CPLR § 3408.

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=44625358 access_key=key-20mvhocw7eyykamwxetq height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

Countrywide, Bank Of America Agreement and Plan Merger 2008

Countrywide, Bank Of America Agreement and Plan Merger 2008


Note this is incomplete but the basics:

Table Of Contents:

  • Pg. 2. 2nd Supp. Note Deed Poll, Dated 11/072008, To The Note Deed Poll Dated 4/29/05
  • Pg. 10. Bank of America Corporation on 1st July 2008 – Effective date of merger
  • Pg. 15. Countrywide and Bank Of America Agreement And Plan Of Merger
  • Pg. 116. Bank of America Corporation on 7th November 2008 – Debt Assumption
  • Pg. 127. 6th Supp Trust Deed Dated 11/07/08, 11/07/08, Modifying The Prov. Of Trust Deed 5/01/98
  • Pg. 138 3rd Supp. Trust Deed 11/07/08, To The Trust Deed Dated 8/15/05
  • Pg. 148 UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED FINANCIAL INFORMATION
  • Pg. 163. Countrywide Financial Corporation on 30th June 2008 – Consolidated Balance Sheet for
  • Pg. 282. First Supplemental Deed Poll Guarantee and Indemnity

[ipaper docId=44612785 access_key=key-1r5gobfvmuza3pv9k102 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

“GEORGIA FORECLOSURE FRAUD” NEW AG OLENS WANTS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS!

“GEORGIA FORECLOSURE FRAUD” NEW AG OLENS WANTS CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS!


Excerpts from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Newly elected state Attorney General Sam Olens said Wednesday he will push the General Assembly for the authority to launch criminal investigations of improper foreclosures.

[…]

The attorney general has the power to prosecute mortgage fraud, but apparently not foreclosure fraud. Olens said he wants to change that, and he also said he might ask the State Bar of Georgia, which licenses lawyers, to look into allegations of misconduct by real estate attorneys in the mortgage origination as well as foreclosure process.

“We’re still working on our legislative agenda now, and frankly, that’s part of it,” Olens said. A senior leader in the office’s criminal division asked Olens recently to press for jurisdiction to cover foreclosure fraud.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

DJSP, Ent. Receives NASDAQ Letters, Regain Compliance or De-Listed By 5/2011

DJSP, Ent. Receives NASDAQ Letters, Regain Compliance or De-Listed By 5/2011


EXCERPT of FORM 6K FILING:

On November 26, 2010, the Company received a letter from NASDAQ notifying it that for the prior 30 consecutive business days, the Company’s listed securities failed to maintain a minimum market value of  $50 million, consequently, a deficiency exists with regard to this requirement for continued listing pursuant to NASDAQ Listing Rule 5450(b)(2)(A) (the “MVLS Rule”).  NASDAQ further stated that in accordance with NASDAQ Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(C), the Company will be provided 180 calendar days, or until May 25, 2011, to regain compliance with the MVLS Rule.  NASDAQ will deem the Company to have regained compliance if at any time before May 25, 2011 the market value of the Company’s listed securities closes at $15,000,000 or more for a minimum of ten consecutive business days .

These notifications do not impact the listing and trading of the Company’s securities at this time. However, the NASDAQ letters also state that, if the Company does not regain compliance with the MVPHS Rule by May 23, 2011 or the MVLS Rule by May 25, 2011, the Company will receive written notification from NASDAQ that the Company’s securities are subject to delisting. The Company is reviewing its options for regaining compliance with the MVLS Rule and MVPHS Rule and for remedying other future potential non-compliances with Nasdaq continued listing requirements, including the requirement to maintain a minimum bid price of at least $1.00 per share.  There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to regain compliance with the MVLS Rule, MVPHS Rule or other Nasdaq continued listing requirements in a timely fashion, in which case its securities would be delisted from Nasdaq.
© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

WANTED: COUNTRYWIDE’S “I-PORTAL”,”C-SAD” INFORMATION

WANTED: COUNTRYWIDE’S “I-PORTAL”,”C-SAD” INFORMATION


Stop Foreclosure Fraud needs your help America in locating more information on any and all of the following tips received recently… We need to be educated on how it all works!

This is before the new BofA EQUATOR was put into place early 2010.

In no particular order:

  1. Any information on I-PORTAL SYSTEM “Partitions” this has to do with special levels of digitized files and documents. (This system  is where “original” loan files were scanned as soon as they arrived).
  2. Any Information on C-SAD, the database containing securitization information. CSAD database where the loss mitigation personnel would look up who the investor and master servicers were and what the level of delegation CW had for decision making on the modification or short sale requests, the credit file.
  3. The mainframe AS 400 system which was the ancient DOS database where the loan info, tax and insurance info, mortgage insurance info and foreclosure notes were kept.
  4. All “US Fax Numbers” that the borrowers are asked to fax in QWR, Short Sales, Loan Modification Departments BUT are redirected to INDIA.
  5. The Short Sale Process of 11 systems that one has to log into and out of independently.

As always your comments and email tips located on the header are appreciated.

*Keep in mind that the fax numbers go directly to INDIA and your fax is converted into a PDF, labeled and then uploaded into the I-Portal system from INDIA, giving access to CW employees in various locations to these files.

NO PAPER IS BEING SHUFFLED.


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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (7)

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

Archives