Why hasn’t David J. Stern not been disbarred? Suspended?
Is Fraud upon the court 100,000’s of time & to the face of a judge not a crime?
Why would the original judge not sanction anyone?
Will the Supreme Court allow fraud to slap it in its face 2nd time around?
Where has justice gone?
Reuters-
The Florida Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday in a landmark lawsuit that could undo hundreds of thousands of foreclosures and open up banks to severe financial penalties in the state where they face the bulk of their foreclosure-fraud litigation.
Legal experts say the lawsuit is one of the most important foreclosure fraud cases in the country and could help resolve an issue that has vexed Florida’s foreclosure courts for the past five years: Can banks that file fraudulent documents in foreclosure proceedings voluntarily dismiss the cases only to refile them later with different paperwork?
The decision, which may take up to eight months, could influence judges in the other 26 states that require judicial approval for foreclosures.
The case at issue, known as Roman Pino v. Bank of New York Mellon, stems from the so-called robo-signing scandal that emerged in 2010 when it was revealed that banks and their law firms had hired low-wage workers to sign legal documents without checking their accuracy, as is required by law.
If the state Supreme Court rules against the banks, “a broad universe of mortgages could be rendered unenforceable,” said former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey, author of the book, “Foreclosures in Florida.”
The Florida Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Thursday in a lawsuit that could undo hundreds of thousands of foreclosures and open up banks to severe financial liabilities in the state where they face the bulk of their foreclosure-fraud litigation.
The court is deciding whether banks who used fraudulent documents to file foreclosure lawsuits can dismiss the cases and refile them later with different paperwork.
The decision, which may take up to eight months to render, could affect hundreds of thousands of homeowners in Florida, and could also influence judges in the other 26 states that require lawsuits in foreclosures.
Of all the foreclosure filings in those states, sixty three percent, a total of 138,288, are concentrated in five states, according to RealtyTrac, an online foreclosure marketplace. Of those, nearly half are in Florida. In Congressional testimony last year, Bank of America, the U.S.’s largest mortgage servicer, said that 70 percent of its foreclosure-related lawsuits were in Florida.
The case at issue, known as Roman Pino v. Bank of New York Mellon, stems from the so-called robo-signing scandal that emerged in 2010 when it was revealed that banks and their law firms had hired low-wage workers to sign legal documents without checking their accuracy as is required by law.
“This was a case of an intentionally fraudulent document fabricated to use in a court proceeding,” says former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey, author of the book Foreclosures in Florida.
The Oral Arguments in Roman Pino v. Bank of New York will be heard before the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM. In this case the court will be addressing the circumstances under which a voluntary dismissal (a final judgment or other court action) can be set aside long after the case is over, based on underlying fraud on the court.
As reflected above, the Fourth District certified this issue to be one of great public importance, and in doing so, noted that “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents” and that Pino’s requested remedy, if imposed, “may dramatically affect the mortgage foreclosure crisis in this State.” Pino, 57 So. 3d at 954-55.
Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC11-697
ROMAN PINO,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK, etc., et al.,
Respondents.
[December 8, 2011]
PER CURIAM.
The issue we address is whether Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.350 requires this Court to dismiss a case after we have accepted jurisdiction based on a question certified to be one of great public importance and after the petitioner has filed his initial brief on the merits.1 This narrow question arose after the parties to this action filed a joint Stipulated Dismissal, which advised that they had settled this matter and stipulated to the dismissal of the review proceeding pending before this Court. It cannot be questioned that our well-established precedent authorizes this Court to exercise its discretion to deny the requested dismissal of a review proceeding, even where both parties to the action agree to the dismissal in light of an agreed-upon settlement. The question certified to us by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in this case transcends the individual parties to this action because it has the potential to impact the mortgage foreclosure crisis throughout this state and is one on which Florida’s trial courts and litigants need guidance. The legal issue also has implications beyond mortgage foreclosure actions. Because we agree with the Fourth District that this issue is indeed one of great public importance and in need of resolution by this Court, we deny the parties’ request to dismiss this proceeding.
This shouldn’t be so difficult, David J. Stern has TONS of fraudulent documents out there. Pick any County, any documents his firm filed and you’re sure to find fraud. Just read the depositions from his former employees.
“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.
PALM BEACH POST-
An unassuming drywall hanger from Greenacres has banks warning of a “widespread financial crisis” if the Florida Supreme Court favors him in a landmark foreclosure case justices will hear this week.
Plucked out of the 4th District Court of Appeal, Roman Pino v. the Bank of New York is the first significant foreclosure complaint to be heard by the high court since the state’s legendary housing collapse.
It’s particularly unusual because the 41-year-old Pino had already settled the case when the Supreme Court decided in December to take up a legal question it said could affect the mortgage foreclosure crisis statewide.
At issue is whether a bank can escape punishment for filing flawed or fraudulent documents in a case by voluntarily dismissing it. (A voluntary dismissal allows the bank to refile at a later date.)
That’s what Royal Palm Beach-based foreclosure defense attorney Tom Ice said happened when he challenged a document created by the Law Offices of David J. Stern and sought to question employees about its veracity. On the eve of those depositions, the bank moved to dismiss the case, blocking the court’s ability to address any sanctions.
“The objective here was to hide from punishment for the wrongdoing,” Ice said.
Read With Care… because almost all banks/servicers use the same LPS – Fidelity systems. 🙂
6 Q Tell me about the actual act of signing these 7 affidavits. When you received them from the person who 8 distributes the documents, would they come to you in 9 physical form? 10 A Yes. 11 Q Okay. And would there be one or a stack of 12 them, or how would they come to you? 13 A It could be either. 14 Q Okay. Was it more common than not to get more 15 than one? 16 A No. 17 Q Was there a certain time of day those would be 18 delivered to you? 19 A I usually got them in the morning. 20 Q Would the notary be right there with you? 21 A No. 22 Q Where was the notary? 23 A On the same floor, in the same area. 24 Q So the notary would not watch you sign the 25 document?
1 A No.
[…]
20 Q Tell me about the LPS Fidelity system. Is 21 that one system or are those — is that one title for 22 the same system? 23 A Actually, LPS owns or has both systems. They 24 have the Fidelity system and the LPS desktop management 25 system.
1 Q And in your course of sending affidavits 2 sometimes you would consult both of those or one of 3 those? 4 A Yes. Primarily the — our system of record. 5 Q The desktop? 6 A No. 7 Q Or the Fidelity? 8 A The Fidelity. 9 Q What can you tell me about the Fidelity 10 system? Does that have the entire payment history? 11 A Yes.
[…]
10 Q Would Fidelity have — besides the full 11 payment history, what other kinds of things would be on 12 the Fidelity system? 13 A The date the note was signed, the origination 14 balance, the principal balance, the date of default — 15 or actually the contractual due date because it’s not 16 always defaulted. 17 Q Anything else? 18 A In bankruptcy we had to post petition due 19 date; the contractual payment and any pending payment 20 changes; the escrow information. 21 Q What about servicing notes, would that be on 22 the Fidelity system? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Now, besides those, anything else? 25 A Yeah, there’s a lot of information on
1 Fidelity. I wouldn’t be able to name it all. 2 Q You said Fidelity contains the date the note 3 was signed; is that right? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Does it contain actual copies? 6 A Not in Fidelity, no. 7 Q Okay. So, in other words, so we are clear, 8 you wouldn’t click on Fidelity to look at a copy of the 9 note; is that right? 10 A No. We have a different system that does 11 that.
[…]
4 Q Okay. What’s in the LPS desktop management 5 system? 6 A Communication to the law firms.
[…]
19 Q Okay. Besides correspondence and besides the 20 milestones, anything else on the LPS desktop management 21 system? 22 MR. ELLISON: Object to the form. 23 You can answer. 24 MR. ZACKS: What’s wrong with the form? 25 MR. ELLISON: She didn’t say, correspondence.
1 She said, communications to law firms. 2 BY MR. ZACKS: 3 Q You can answer. 4 A Yeah, they have documents in that — either 5 documents from us or we would get documents from them 6 through LPS. 7 Q From? 8 A The law firm. 9 Q And by “law firm,” you’re talking about 10 outside foreclosure counsel; is that right? 11 A Correct. 12 Q Or could it be any other kind of counsel, or 13 bankruptcy counsel? 14 A Yes.
[…]
9 Q On the Fidelity system, you said that would 10 contain all the payment records, right? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Would that contain payment records from 13 previous servicers, if there were any? 14 A I don’t think so. 15 Q Where would those records be? 16 A They are in a separate — they’re stored 17 separately. 18 Q Is it a separate database system? 19 A Yeah. 20 Q Okay. 21 A Yes. 22 Q What’s that? 23 A I think it’s called Doctrak. 24 Q Doctrak? 25 A D-O-C-T-R-A-K.
[…]
1 Q In your course of signing affidavits of 2 indebtedness, did you ever review the Doctrack system? 3 A No. 4 Q Who is in charge of maintaining the Doctrack 5 system? 6 A I don’t know. 7 Q Who is in charge of the standards in audits 8 for the Doctrak system? 9 A I don’t know.
[…]
24 Q Do you receive anything else from Amber, 25 besides the affidavit itself?
1 A Receive any? 2 Q Sure. She drops off an affidavit on your 3 desk, right? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Is there anything else, along with that 6 affidavit, that she would normally drop off for you? 7 A I don’t understand what you’re asking me. I 8 don’t know what — 9 Q Sure. Would she drop off, you know, the 10 origination file attached to the affidavit, or — 11 A No. 12 Q Would there be anything attached to that 13 affidavit? 14 A Sometimes the — no. I would just be 15 speculating. I don’t remember. 16 Q Along with the affidavit, would there be any 17 specific instructions for you to sign or review or 18 anything like that? 19 A No. 20 Q Just the affidavit itself? 21 A Yes.
[…]
10 Q Okay. And did you — and you’ve already said 11 you wouldn’t check to see if Fannie Mae or Freddie owned 12 that loan, right? 13 A No. 14 Q Okay. Would you check to see if anybody else 15 owned that loan? 16 A No. 17 Q Do you know if anyone did? 18 A I don’t know. 19 Q Did you ever verify a complaint that had a 20 count that said a note was lost? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Okay. And did you look for the note yourself? 23 A No. 24 Q Did you talk to anyone about looking for the 25 note?
1 A No. 2 Q What did you do to verify that a note was lost 3 or misplaced? 4 A Not usually anything.
[…]
7 Q You don’t need special permission to see who 8 the owner or investor is, right? 9 A Correct. 10 Q Would you look at any internal servicing 11 records to determine who the owner or investor was prior 12 to signing affidavits of indebtedness? 13 A Not always, no. 14 Q Okay. Ever? 15 A I can’t say.
INTRODUCTION The Court retained this case so that it could give needed guidance to trial courts and other litigants by its answer to a certified question arising from a mortgage foreclosure action. As the Court wrote: The question certified . . . transcends the individual parties to this action because it has the potential to impact the mortgage foreclosure crisis throughout this state and is one on which Florida’s trial courts and litigants need guidance. The legal issue also has implications beyond mortgage foreclosure actions. Pino v. Bank of New York, 36 Fla. L. Weekly S711 (Fla. Dec. 8, 2011). Florida Land Title Association (“FLTA”) and American Land Title Association (“ALTA”) file this brief to address the need for this Court to give guidance to trial courts and litigants on the importance of protecting the rights of third parties that have justifiably relied on the finality of a prior court action when buying, extending financing on, or insuring title to real property.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Court can expressly limit its decision in this case to the setting aside of a voluntary dismissal in a case where no third party interest in real estate is implicated. Should it choose to do so, FLTA and ALTA have no issues to address. However, if the Court decides to write more broadly, we respectfully ask the Court to emphasize the need to protect the rights of affected third parties when collateral attacks are brought against otherwise final court judgments, orders, decrees or proceedings. The residential mortgage foreclosure crisis has caused a host of problems for homeowners, lenders, and Florida’s court system. The Court addressed many of these problems by forming the Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosures in 2009 and by adopting its recommended amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in 2010. However, unlike some other states, the Court has not adequately addressed the protection of third party interests when otherwise final court proceedings are collaterally attacked, especially the interest of those who have purchased foreclosed real estate.
Respectfully, if the Court is to give guidance to trial courts and litigants regarding collateral attacks against foreclosure actions (whether relief is sought under rule 1.540(b) or the use of inherent judicial powers) beyond the narrow facts of this case, it should give guidance on protecting the interests of third parties that purchase, finance and insure title to foreclosed properties. Recognition and protection of these neglected interests is vital to the integrity of our judicial system and to the ultimate resolution of the mortgage foreclosure crisis.
Oh my, look what we have here…big mistake because I don’t think this is going very far….his franchises that is.
Bill Warner Private Investigator-
My source in Fort Lauderdale tells me that attorney David J. Stern has rolled over his $Millions in foreclosure home profits and the cash he got up front from the DJSP Entreprises Inc. FKA Chardan 2008 China Acquisition Corp deal into at least 150 Five Guys Burger and Fries Franchise’s, will that be fries with your meal sir?
It appears that David J. Stern is buying ”Five Guys Burger and Fries Franchise’s” in bulk, Stern is trying to acquire 500 Burger Joints NATIONWIDE…
Folks, please tweet, forward, whatever. This is a huge story that deserves to be given major coverage in MSM. Local judges need to be aware that they are being handed forged documents.
Stern pocketed some $60 million from that deal. The investors got the company and all its documents, internal procedures and everything you would need in order to find out what really happened within the Stern document mill.
A little after 8 AM EST today, a filing went up on the SEC’s Edgar database. It’s a Complaint in lawsuit, dated yesterday.
Action Date: January 4, 2012 Location: FT. Lauderdale, FL
In the lawsuit filed by DJSP Enterprises against David J. Stern and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, there are also allegations involving ProVest, the process server used by Stern and most of the other major foreclosure mills hired by Lender Processing Services in over 20 states.
36. Prior to the Transaction, the Seller Defendants also knowingly and systematically inflated their process of service costs to the Court. Specifically, Seller Defendants engineered a fraudulent scheme whereby they directed their process servicing work to a process servicing company called ProVest. The Seller Defendants caused each file to generate four or five separate fees for service of process regardless of whether service of process on multiple defendants was necessary or appropriate and regardless of whether service of process for multiple defendants could be achieved at the same address.
37. In exchange for receiving these inflated service of process fees, ProVest, in turn, routinely referred back to PTA servicing requests for “skip tracing” to locate defendants for whom ProVest purportedly did not have accurate street address information to effect service of process. ProVest “hired” and paid fees to PTA for “skip tracing” services despite the fact that ProVest had the ability and resources to perform “skip tracing” itself and routinely did so itself.
38. The Seller Defendants’ arrangement with ProVest amounted to a kickback scheme. DS Law padded and inflated its process servicing costs which were billed to its clients and added to the court costs assessed to foreclosure defendants. In exchange for feeding this work to ProVest, PTA earned manufactured “skip tracing” fees which inflated PTA’s revenues and profits and which represented another way in which the Seller Defendants artificially inflated the revenues of the Target Business prior to the Transaction.
Action Date: January 4, 2012 Location: FT. Lauderdale, FL
DJSP Enterprises, the publicly-traded company that was supposed to make millions for investors from the foreclosure services it provided to The Law Offices of David Stern (“the Stern Firm”), sued David J. Stern and the Law Offices of David Stern.
Stern Law mortgage foreclosure caseload rose from 15,000 in 2006 to 70,400 in 2009.
In 2009, Stern Law handled 20% of all foreclosures in Florida.
Stern Law’s clients included all 10 of the top 10, and 17 of the top 20 mortgage servicers in the U.S. including Fannie, Freddie, Citibank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, GMAC and Wells Fargo.
The non-legal, back room servicers related to foreclosures included REO services: property inspection, valuation, eviction, broker assignment – these were performed by DJSP Enterprises – the sole client was Stern Law.
29. The Seller Defendants fraudulently induced Plaintiffs DAL and DJSP into entering into the Transaction by fraudulently and artificially inflating the Target Business’ actual revenues, by intentionally failing to disclose that the Target Business and DS Law were not, in fact, operating in accordance with all applicable laws, and by concealing that DS Law was in jeopardy of losing its largest clients due to DS Law’s unlawful conduct. Indeed, before entering into the Transaction, the Seller Defendants knew that DS Law and the Target Business had been systematically falsifying and/or back-dating pertinent legal documents, submitting such documents to the courts, routinely misplacing and losing original key documents, filing foreclosures with inaccurate and/or incomplete documents, prosecuting foreclosure cases without obtaining proper service of process, and were in jeopardy of losing the Seller Defendants’ largest foreclosure clients due to such conduct.
30. By cutting corners in the foreclosure process without following the rule of law, the Defendants artificially reduced the expenses of the Target Business which falsely inflated the profitability of the Target Business.
31. To summarize, the Seller Defendants failed to disclose to DJSP and DAL that DS Law and the Target Business were systematically operating in an unlawful manner. In addition, the Seller Defendants failed to disclose to DJSP and DAL that the Target Business’ reported revenues were not accurate, inflated, and improperly calculated and that the expenses of the business were also distorted due to the systematic practices designed to “shorten” the legal process. The Seller Defendants falsely led DAL and DJSP to believe that they were acquiring a long-term profitable business that operated in accordance with all applicable laws to induce DAL and DJSP to enter into the Transaction.
33. Prior to the Transaction, the Seller Defendants were at all times well aware that DS Law and the Target Business were intentionally perpetuating a fraud on the courts by, inter alia, systematically filing forged documents, forging signatures on such documents, fraudulently backdating documents, improperly notarizing and witnessing documents, fabricating documents, signing affidavits without reviewing or verifying the information contained therein, prosecuting foreclosure cases without obtaining proper service of process, and filing foreclosures with inaccurate and/or incomplete documents.
34. Indeed, the Seller Defendants directed employees of DS Law and the Target Business to purposefully overlook glaring inaccuracies in foreclosure pleadings and to essentially rubber stamp computer generated documents without reviewing or verifying the accuracy of the documents. New attorneys at DS Law were not only encouraged, but were even ordered to sign legal filings and pleadings without reading them. As a result, false and inaccurate documents were routinely executed and filed with the courts in an effort to hasten foreclosure proceedings and illegally obtain final judgments of foreclosure for the Seller Defendants’ clients.
35. The Seller Defendants even incentivized these unscrupulous and unlawful practices by giving their employees bonuses and extravagant gifts for churning out the highest number of foreclosure cases in the least amount of time. The Seller Defendants encouraged contests between DS Law attorneys to see who could jam a foreclosure case through the courts the fastest.
Q Define “cradle to grave” in the context you said it — meant it when you said it.
A When I speak of cradle to grave, that would be that we provide services that may become necessary on a default of loan on behalf of the client, so it generally come in as a foreclosure. If the foreclosure is interrupted by a bankruptcy, we will handle that bankruptcy. Once the bankruptcy has been concluded and we’re free — sorry — from the automatic stay, we would then continue on with the foreclosure. Once the foreclosure is complete and title invest in the servicer, we would then handle any evictions where necessary. Once the eviction is complete and it becomes a real estate-owned property, we would then open the title work and handle the closing on behalf of the grantor, the bank as the seller, to the grantee.
Q And those systems that were used by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., you developed?
A I — the day one, I developed them; day two, they continued to be expanded and improved upon by people that were smarter than I was in those particular areas.
Q Okay. But would you agree with me certainly until 2006, you were the captain of the ship with regard to your office and how it ran and the systems that were to be used?
A I would agree that I was the captain of the ship. I would strongly disagree that processes were put in — that were put in were put in by me. The development, better practices, things like that, Miriam, Sam, Beverly, when she joined, and Cheryl, did a lot of that. So, there was — in 2000 — even in 2000, there were procedures and policies put in place that they were comfortable in doing and realized that I would have no objection. If I had to deal with every granular change that results from Fannie or Freddie guidelines or a local rule or a judge making some sort of requirement, that by definition would be an impossibility. Hence, development expanding processes and procedures very quickly fell on Miriam, Beverly and — and — and Cheryl. I was there for the day-to-day probably up until 2006. He had my nose and things, but it didn’t take long to realize that. Sometimes you can’t be the rainmaker and be involved in procedure because very quickly, I did not know or have knowledge as to the capabilities of the staff that was in place.
Q Did you ever object to any of the policies or procedures that were put in place by others beside yourself.
A I don’t I don’t recall. Apparently, not very long or hard or I’ll stay with them in there.
Action Date: December 10, 2011 Location: West Palm Beach, FL
In a very unusual move, the FL Supreme Court rejected the settlement in the PINO case last week and will issue a decision about fraudulent mortgage documents.
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals had certified a procedural foreclosure question to the Supreme Court, stating: “This is a question of great public importance” since “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents.”
At the trial court level, PINO’s attorneys had asked the court to sanction BNY Mellon by denying it the equitable right to foreclose the mortgage at all. The district court observed that if this sanction were available after a voluntary dismissal, “it may dramatically affect the mortgage crisis in this state.”
The Fourth District Court of Appeals decision seemed to recognize that very frequently, bank lawyers used dismissals when homeowners raised a question regarding the legitimacy of the documents filed by the banks.
Advocates for homeowners were encouraged by the Supreme Court’s action denying the settlement as the final resolution.
So who exactly is NOT happy?
Perhaps the preparers and signers of the two mortgage assignments in the PINO case.
One of the Assignments was prepared by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, Esq. This is signed by Stern’s office manager, Cheryl Samons who signs as an Asst. Sect. of MERS.
This is dated September 19, 2008 – though not filed until February 18, 2009.
The Lis Pendens (beginning of the foreclosure in judicial states) was dated October 8, 2008.
This is an assignment of the Mortgage and the Note to:
The Bank of New York Mellon F/K/A The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OC8.
For anyone unfamiliar with Cheryl Samons many acts in the Law Offices of David Stern (a law firm that spent a lot of $$ entertaining officials from FANNIE), the sworn statements from paralegals and notaries from the investigation of then Asst. A.G.s June Clarkson & Theresa Edwards (those overly aggressive FORMER prosecutors) are available for review at StopForeclosureFraud.com.
According to these sworn statements, Samons signed thousands of documents each week, allowed other people to sign her name, did not read what she signed, signed other names, etc. She did these things because her boss, David Stern, was very generous (see the articles by Andy Kroll in Mother Jones for more details on this).
The second assignment was notarized July 14, 2009 and filed July 29, 2009.
It seems they forgot all about the first assignment because once again it is an assignment from MERS to the same trust. This Assignment was also prepared by the Law Offices of David Stern. (If the first assignment was effective, of course, MERS had nothing to convey).
The signer this time was Melissa Viveros in Tarrant County, TX.
While she signs as a MERS officer, Viveros in many other reported cases appears as an officer of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, N/K/A BAC Home Loans Servicing.
So, once again, Bank of America (then the parent of BAC Home Loans Servicing) and Bank of New York Mellon have the most to lose in the short run – and in the long run, investors in CWALT and CWABS trusts.
As reflected above, the Fourth District certified this issue to be one of great public importance, and in doing so, noted that “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents” and that Pino’s requested remedy, if imposed, “may dramatically affect the mortgage foreclosure crisis in this State.” Pino, 57 So. 3d at 954-55.
Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC11-697
ROMAN PINO,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK, etc., et al.,
Respondents.
[December 8, 2011]
PER CURIAM.
The issue we address is whether Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.350 requires this Court to dismiss a case after we have accepted jurisdiction based on a question certified to be one of great public importance and after the petitioner has filed his initial brief on the merits.1 This narrow question arose after the parties to this action filed a joint Stipulated Dismissal, which advised that they had settled this matter and stipulated to the dismissal of the review proceeding pending before this Court. It cannot be questioned that our well-established precedent authorizes this Court to exercise its discretion to deny the requested dismissal of a review proceeding, even where both parties to the action agree to the dismissal in light of an agreed-upon settlement. The question certified to us by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in this case transcends the individual parties to this action because it has the potential to impact the mortgage foreclosure crisis throughout this state and is one on which Florida’s trial courts and litigants need guidance. The legal issue also has implications beyond mortgage foreclosure actions. Because we agree with the Fourth District that this issue is indeed one of great public importance and in need of resolution by this Court, we deny the parties’ request to dismiss this proceeding.
The stink is growing around the state’s largest foreclosure mill.
The Steven J. Baum law firm, which last month agreed to pay a $2 million fine to settle a federal probe into bogus foreclosure case filings, has now been barred by federal mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from getting any more referrals of home loan defaults owned by either company.
In addition, the 70-lawyer firm is linked to the first criminal case brought against alleged robo-signers.
The criminal case was brought by the Nevada attorney general against two title officers — Gary Trafford and Gerri Sheppard — charged with forging signatures on 606 foreclosure-related mortgage documents.
Q. At the point in time of this board meeting, though, you were relating to the board that you felt you had a commitment from the Fed and the Treasury to make good on whatever harm is caused by the increased losses at Merrill Lynch; is that right?
A. I had verbal commitments from Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson that they were going to see this through, to fill that hole, and have the market perceive this as a good deal.
MR. CORNGOLD: Isn’t the only way to fill that hole, though, to give you money, not to give you money that you would have to pay back at some interest rate with some potential equity interest, too?
THE WITNESS: No. I think you have to separate the fact that, yes, there is still some short-term paying -it’s more short-term paying now than we would have had had all this not happened, but longer term we still see a strategic benefit. So we saw it as a short term versus a long term impact on the company.
MR. CORNGOLD; When you entered into the initial contract with Merrill Lynch did you get a fairness opinion about the transaction?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. CORNGOLD: From whom?
THE WITNESS; Chris Flowers something.
MR. CORNGOLD: And did you get a fairness opinion from anyone about the transaction that you entered into with the federal government and the Fed?
THE WITNESS: No. MR. CORNGOLD: Did you consider whether you had a legal obligation to do that? THE WITNESS: I would rely on the advice of the general counsel for that.
MR. CORNGOLD: But when you say that, does that mean that you asked and got advice, or that you didn’t ask but relied THE WITNESS: I would rely on somebody bringing that question forth, and nobody did.
Q. Did you ask anyone to look into whether the oral, verbal commitments from the Fed and Treasury were enforceable?
A. No. I was going on the word of two very respected individuals high up in the American government.
Q. Wasn’t Mr. Paulson, by his instruction, really asking Bank of America shareholders to take a good part of the hit of the Merrill losses?
A. What he was doing was trying to stem a financial disaster in the financial markets, from his perspective.
Q. From your perspective, wasn’t that one of the effects of what he was doing?
A. Over the short term, yes, but we still thought we had an entity that filled two big strategic holes for us and over long term would still be an interest to the shareholders.
Q. What do you mean by “short term”?
A. Two to three years.
Q. So isn’t that something that any shareholder at Bank of America who had less than a three-year time horizon would want to know?
A. The situation was that everyone felt like the deal needed to be completed and to be able to say that, or that they would impose a big risk to the financial system if it would not.
MR. LAWSKY: When you say “everyone,” what do you mean?
THE WITNESS: The people that I was talking to, Bernanke and Paulson.
MR. LAWSKY: Had it been up to you would you made the disclosure?
THE WITNESS: It wasn’t up to me.
MR. LAWSKY: Had it been up to you.
THE WITNESS: It wasn’t.
MR. CORNGOLD: Why do you say it wasn’t up to you? Were you instructed not to tell your shareholders what the transaction was going to be?
THE WITNESS: I was instructed that “We do not want a public disclosure.”
MR. CORNGOLD: Who said that to you?
THE WITNESS: Paulson.
MR. CORNGOLD: When did he say that to you?
THE WITNESS; Sometime after I asked Ben Bernanke for something in writing.
Q. When did that occur?
A.Which one?
Q. When did Mr. Paulson state that he did not want a public disclosure?
A. It was sometime late in the year. I think it’s actually in the minutes.
MR. LIMAN:If you have the next set of minutes it might help the witness.
Q. What’s your best recollection of what
Mr. Paulson said to you on that point?
A. That was the conversation that I mentioned that I went to Bernanke to ask the question, and he didn’t call me back but Hank did. The request was for a letter stating what they would do, and he had those two elements in there. But the thing that we’re talking about is that he said “We do not want a public disclosure.”
Q. A public disclosure of what?
A. Of what they were going to be doing for us until it was completed.
This involvesTywanna Thomas, who we all know worked for Lender Processing Services’ DocX.We learned a lot from the deposition of Cheryl Denise Thomasaka Tywanna’s Mother who also worked with her.
My San Antonio-
Ezequiel Martinez, a San Antonio real estate investor who helps homeowners avoid foreclosure, recently found himself in the same predicament as his clients.
Rather than simply fight to stop the foreclosure on his Live Oak investment home, Martinez filed suit against his lender, saying the mortgage should be voided because of phony loan documents and because he doesn’t think the bank can prove it owns the mortgage note.
If Martinez wins the case, he just might be done making mortgage payments on the house at 7502 Forest Fern.
“We’re not trying to get a free house,” he explained. “We’re trying to save the house from foreclosure fraud.”
8 Q. And what was said about Cheryl’s bills being paid for
9 the Law Offices of David Stern?
10 A. That he’s always done it. David Stern has always
11 paid for Cheryl’s expenses.
12 Q. Personal expenses?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you know if he — Well was there rumor — Was
15 there talk, rather, that he paid — that he bought her car?
16 A. No, that’s confirmed. He did buy her a car. I
17 acknowledge that.
18 Q. He did buy her a car?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What kind of car did he buy her?
21 A. It was a BMW SUV.
<SNIP>
Q. Anything that –
4 A. Is it like personal or business or –
5 Q. Personal? Business? Anything at all?
6 A. Personal? The only thing that I was aware of that
7 took place there were the perks that certain employees received
8 from David Stern. If they were either dating him or they were
9 good friends with him, that they would basically do certain
10 things for him for certain files, in the sense of like David
11 Vargas. He would have certain perks from David Stern, like a
12 house, a car, cell phone paid all by David Stern.
13 And that’s all I know.
14 Q. Okay. So do you know of any other perks besides what
15 you said that Cheryl Salmons got? A car you said, for sure.
16 And her personal bills paid.
17 A. Yes. And cell phone.
18 Q. And probably her mortgage?
19 A. Yes. And vacations and gifts, jewelry.
20 Q. Who else would received gifts and jewelry or cars or
21 homes?
22 A. His girlfriend and David Vargas.
23 Q. Who’s his girlfriend?
24 A. At the time it was Christina Dell’Aguila
Palm Beach Post-
A new deposition of Cheryl Samons, the once second-in-command of the Law Offices of David J. Stern, reveals the chaos that occurred last fall as the Florida attorney general’s investigation was announced, the robo-signing scandal broke and the largest foreclosure law firm in Florida began to implode.
The deposition, linked to on a foreclosure blog by defense attorney Michael Alex Wasylik, was taken in a class-action lawsuit filed by former Stern attorneys who allege they were terminated without the 60 days notice required by federal law and under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
Samons was singled out last fall for her role in signing thousands of foreclosure documents that she had no personal knowledge of and for allegedly having her signature forged by employees who were pushed to speed the processing of foreclosure cases.
Although disappointing not to see the final outcome behind the documents, this does not settle well with the FRAUD obviously involved.
“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.
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.
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? …
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.
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.
Recent Comments