Washington State | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "washington state"

[Video] Oral Arguments; Washington Supreme Court, BAIN v. MERS and Selkowitz v. Litton Loan Servicing

[Video] Oral Arguments; Washington Supreme Court, BAIN v. MERS and Selkowitz v. Litton Loan Servicing


Counsels for Kristin Bain & Kevin Selkowitz attorneys Melissa Huelsman and Richard Jones (great voice) did a FANTASTIC, OUTSTANDING JOB!!!

BOMBSHELL: Listen and watch when they ask MERS’ counsel “Who is the holder of the note”? HE DOES NOT KNOW & CANNOT ANSWER!

Oral arguments: Bain v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Sys, et al and Selkowitz v. Little “Litton” Loan Servicing, LP, et al. (May a party be a lawful beneficiary under WA’s Deed of Trust Act if it never held the promissory note secured by the deed of trust?)

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

State Supreme Court to rule on legality of mortgage recording system (MERS)

State Supreme Court to rule on legality of mortgage recording system (MERS)


KOMO NEWS-

For the first time, a local homeowner’s fight to keep a house is headed to the state Supreme Court.

What happens there will effect thousands of people who’ve taken out mortgage loans in the past 10 years. If you own property, you need to know about a system known as MERS.

MERS stands for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. It was created by the real estate finance industry to simplify the process of transferring mortgage loans.

But struggling homeowners complain MERS also conceals the true note holder when your mortgage is sold to investors.

Kristen Bain’s comfortable condo in Tukwila is tied up in the MERS debate. First, she had to sue her mortgage broker and the lender for predatory lending and failure to provide proper documentation as required by law.

[KOMO NEWS]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

WA AG McKenna returns $14K from foreclosure trustee firm

WA AG McKenna returns $14K from foreclosure trustee firm


GOOD FOR YOU!

Now if only if others can follow instead of bending the rules for some in Florida this would be wonderful!

THE COLUMBIAN-

Republican gubernatorial candidate and state Attorney General Rob McKenna has returned nearly $14,000 in donations from people tied to a firm that helps mediate foreclosures.

McKenna’s office had put the company, Northwest Trustee Services, Inc., on notice in 2010 that they could face investigation, but his campaign accepted donations from the attorneys tied to the firm on Sept. 30.

[THE COLUMBIAN]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Amicus Brief of Washington State Attorney General Robert M. McKenna – Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage and Selkowitz v. Litton Loan Servicing LP “MERS”

Amicus Brief of Washington State Attorney General Robert M. McKenna – Bain v. Metropolitan Mortgage and Selkowitz v. Litton Loan Servicing LP “MERS”


SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

KRISTIN BAIN

vs

METROPOLITAN MORTGAGE GROUP INC. et al

[ipaper docId=81662045 access_key=key-24v4kd0j2bq2hhng7wkd height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Bain v. MERS (Wash. Supreme Court) Amicus of Atty Shawn Newman on behalf of Organization United for Reform (OUR) – Washington

Bain v. MERS (Wash. Supreme Court) Amicus of Atty Shawn Newman on behalf of Organization United for Reform (OUR) – Washington


Bain v. Metropolitan is set for hearing on March 15. This is an amicus from attorney Shawn Timothy Newman for Organization United for Reform (OUR) – Washington.

[ipaper docId=81423312 access_key=key-1mn29xvrh9m4blp1cj9v height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

WA SB 6337: An act relating to protecting short sale sellers from payment of forgiven home loan debt if such debt forgiveness is reported to the IRS

WA SB 6337: An act relating to protecting short sale sellers from payment of forgiven home loan debt if such debt forgiveness is reported to the IRS


Title: An act relating to protecting short sale sellers from payment of forgiven home loan debt if
such debt forgiveness is reported to the internal revenue service.

Brief Description: Protecting short sale sellers from payment of forgiven home loan debt if
such debt forgiveness is reported to the internal revenue service.

Sponsors: Senators Frockt, Fain, Haugen and Litzow.

Brief History:

Committee Activity: Financial Institutions, Housing & Insurance: 1/24/12.

 

[ipaper docId=79647844 access_key=key-5a06esia441diz3qqip height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Washington State SB6199 | Heh, Lookie Here (Felony For False Swearing) – Market Ticker

Washington State SB6199 | Heh, Lookie Here (Felony For False Swearing) – Market Ticker


via Market-Ticker

23 (ii) A declaration by the beneficiary made under the penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary is the actual holder of the promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof as required under this subsection. A violation of this subsection (7)(a)(ii) is a class C felony as provided in RCW 28 9A.20.020 and 9A.20.021.

Full Text Below:

[ipaper docId=78164671 access_key=key-pnkcyfnw5zy5fvkgmc2 height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

EMERALD GARDENS CONDO v. U.S. BANK | Washington State Appeals Court “QUIET TITLE BY DEFAULT”

EMERALD GARDENS CONDO v. U.S. BANK | Washington State Appeals Court “QUIET TITLE BY DEFAULT”


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

EMERALD GARDENS
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANK N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF
MASTR ASSET BACKED
SECURITIES TRUST, 2006-AM1,
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AM1,
Respondent.

Leach, A.C.J. — Emerald Greens Condominium Association (Association)
appeals a trial court’s decision setting aside an order of default and vacating a
decree quieting title in real property. Because U.S. Bank failed to appear in the
Association’s quiet title action for reasons other than mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect, and failed to present prima facie evidence of a
defense to the Association’s claim, we reverse and direct the trial court to
reinstate the order of default and decree quieting title in the Association.

FACTS

Elizabeth Swanson secured a purchase money loan from Aames Funding
Corporation, d/b/a Aames Home Loan (Aames), with a deed of trust, recorded in
a first lien position against her condominium unit.

In April 2007, Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC recorded a notice of trustee’s
sale for this property that identified U.S. Bank as the current beneficiary of the
deed of trust. The notice recited that Swanson’s condominium was

subject to that certain Deed of Trust dated 9/9/2005, recorded
10/3/2005, . . . from ELIZABETH SWANSON . . . as Grantor(s), to
KAREN L. GIBBON, PS, as Trustee, to secure an obligation in
favor of AAMES FUNDING CORPORATION DBA AAMES HOME
LOAN, as Beneficiary, . . . the beneficial interest in which was
assigned by AAMES FUNDING CORPORATION DBA AAMES
HOME LOAN to U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the registered
holders of MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust.

But this recital was not true. Instead, on May 25, 2007, Accredited Home
Lenders Inc., successor by merger to Aames, assigned “[a]ll beneficial interest”
in the deed of trust to Ocwen Loan Servicing. Then, on June 1, 2007, Ocwen
assigned its interest to U.S. Bank. These two assignments were recorded with
the Snohomish County Auditor on June 15, 2007.

Earlier, on May 15, the Association filed a complaint against Swanson
and Aames, seeking to foreclose a lien for unpaid condominium assessments on
Swanson’s unit. Three days later, the Association recorded a lis pendens
against the property.

The Association served Aames, but it failed to appear in the action. On
July 6, 2007, the Association obtained entry of an order of default against
Aames. On October 12, 2007, the court entered a “Stipulated/Default Judgment,
Order and Foreclosure Decree.” Swanson stipulated to its entry through
counsel. The decree (1) awarded judgment to the Association and declared its
lien valid and exempt from homestead protection, (2) foreclosed the lien and
directed the sheriff to sell the property if the judgment was not promptly paid,
and (3) declared the rights of Aames and all persons claiming under it to be
subordinate to the Association’s lien and foreclosed those rights, except for any
right of redemption.

The Association purchased the condominium unit at a sheriff’s sale held
in February 2009. After the one-year redemption period expired without
redemption by any party, the Association received a sheriff’s deed conveying the
property to it.

U.S. Bank claims that it first became aware of the lien foreclosure
proceedings in February 2010, after it completed foreclosure of its deed of trust.1
Shortly afterward, U.S. Bank’s attorney Kelly Sutherland sent the Association’s
attorney, Patrick McDonald, a letter, stating, “Pursuant to our telephone
conversation, this office is representing [U.S. Bank,] successor beneficiary
holders of the 1st [Deed of Trust] on . . . the subject loan. My clients are
disputing the priority of the Sheriff’s Deed.” Sutherland also asked McDonald to
“provide . . . [a] breakdown of your client’s total amount of Judgment, including
any attorney fees and advances for taxes and other liens on . . . the subject
loan.” McDonald responded by letter a few days later. He wrote,

As you know, Emerald Gardens Condominium Association . . .
properly served the lender of record and foreclosed the lender’s
interest in the above-referenced condominium unit . . . .
As a result, my client bid the full judgment amount at the
sheriff’s sale, the redemption period expired without redemption by
any party, a sheriff’s deed was issued to the Association, and the
Association now owns the property free and clear. Therefore,
there is no judgment balance upon which to give a payoff as you
request.

Two months later, in an effort to remove any potential cloud on the title,
the Association served U.S. Bank with a summons and complaint to quiet title to
the subject property.2 U.S. Bank, the only defendant in the action, failed to
appear or file an answer within the 20 days allowed by CR 4. The Association
then obtained entry of an order of default and an order and decree quieting title
in its favor.

U.S. Bank moved to set aside the default and vacate the decree under
CR 55 and CR 60. A court commissioner granted the relief requested. The trial
court denied the Association’s motion for revision.
The Association appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a party appeals an order denying revision of a court
commissioner’s decision, this court reviews the superior court’s decision, not the
commissioner’s.3 We review a trial court’s decision on both a motion for default
judgment and a motion to vacate a default judgment for an abuse of discretion.4
Discretion is abused if it is based on untenable grounds or reasons,5 and a
decision is untenable if it rests on an erroneous application of law.6 We review
questions of law de novo.7

ANALYSIS

We must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion when it
denied the Association’s motion for revision. This requires resolution of three
underlying issues: (1) whether U.S. Bank was entitled to notice of the
Association’s motion for default under CR 55(a)(3), (2) whether U.S. Bank
presented substantial evidence of a prima facie defense available to it in the
quiet title action, and (3) whether U.S. Bank’s failure to appear in the quiet title
action was due to surprise or excusable neglect.

A court will set aside a default judgment entered against a party entitled to
notice who did not receive it.8 The Association argues that U.S. Bank was not
entitled to notice of the motion for default because neither U.S. Bank nor
Sutherland appeared in the quiet title action. In response, U.S. Bank asserts
that Sutherland’s prelitigation contacts with McDonald substantially complied
with any appearance requirement. Thus, according to U.S. Bank, it was entitled
to notice of the Association’s motion for default. We agree with the Association.
CR 55(a)(3) requires notice of a motion for default be given to any party
who has appeared in the action. It states,

Any party who has appeared in the action for any purpose shall be
served with a written notice of motion for default and the supporting
affidavit at least 5 days before the hearing on the motion. Any
party who has not appeared before the motion for default and
supporting affidavit are filed is not entitled to a notice of the motion.

Washington courts apply a substantial compliance test to determine whether CR
55(a)(3) requires notice.9

In Morin v. Burris,10 our Supreme Court held that prelitigation contacts
alone are not sufficient to establish substantial compliance with the appearance
requirements of CR 55(a)(3). Instead, those who are properly served with a
summons and complaint must in some way appear and acknowledge the
jurisdiction of the court after they are served and litigation commences.11
Otherwise, “any party to a dispute [could] simply write a letter expressing intent
to contest litigation, then ignore the summons and complaint or other formal
process and wait for the notice of default judgment before deciding whether a
defense is worth pursuing.”12

As Morin makes clear, Sutherland’s prelitigation contact with McDonald
by itself is not sufficient to show substantial compliance with CR 55(a)(3), even
though it expressed an intent to defend. U.S. Bank had no contact with the
Association or its counsel between the time it was served with the summons and
complaint and the order of default entered. U.S. Bank’s failure to appear during
this interval relieved the Association of any obligation to provide the bank with
written notice of a motion for default.

U.S. Bank disagrees. Citing Sacotte Construction, Inc. v. National Fire &
Marine Insurance Co.13 and Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. v. Law
Office of Robert E. Brandt, PLLC,14 the bank claims it substantially complied with
any appearance requirement because McDonald had prior dealings with
Sutherland and knew that Sutherland represented the bank in related matters.15
But neither case supports U.S. Bank’s position. Instead, Sacotte and Old
Republic apply the rule announced in Morin and rely upon contacts made after
the commencement of litigation to establish substantial compliance with
appearance requirements.

In both Sacotte and Old Republic, the defaulted party made an informal
appearance after the plaintiff commenced the action. In Sacotte, the court held
that a telephone call made after litigation had commenced established
substantial compliance with the appearance requirements of CR 55(a)(3)16
Citing Morin, the court stated, “[S]ubstantial compliance can be accomplished
with an informal appearance if the party shows intent to defend and
acknowledges the court’s jurisdiction over the matter after the summons and
complaint are filed.”17 Old Republic is similar. There, the court also held that a
telephone call made after litigation had commenced substantially complied with
the appearance requirements of CR 55(a)(3).18 The court observed that
enforcement of a default judgment would be inequitable where the defendant’s
attorney called the plaintiff’s attorney after the commencement of the legal action
and informed him of his intent to defend.19

Because the bank was not entitled to notice of the motion for default, we
address whether the bank established grounds for vacating the decree under CR
60(b)(1). Generally a default judgment “will [be] liberally set aside . . . pursuant
to CR 55(c) and CR 60 and for equitable reasons in the interests of fairness and
justice.”20 CR 55(c) provides that default judgment may be set aside “in
accordance with rule 60(b).” Grounds for vacating a default judgment under CR
60(b)(1) include “[m]istake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect or
irregularity.” In White v. Holm,21 our Supreme Court announced four factors
which must be shown by a moving party. These factors are whether (1) there is
substantial evidence to support the moving party’s claim of a prima facie
defense; (2) the moving party’s failure to timely appear in the action was
occasioned by mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) the
moving party acted with due diligence after notice of entry of the default
judgment; and (4) vacating the default judgment would result in a substantial
hardship to the nonmoving party.22 Where a party fails to provide evidence of
factors (1) and (2), no equitable basis exists for vacating a judgment.23 A trial
court abuses its discretion when it vacates a judgment without evidence of these
two factors.24

U.S. Bank failed to present substantial evidence of a prima facie defense.
The Association recorded its lis pendens for its original foreclosure action on
May 18, 2007. The record shows that U.S. Bank acquired its beneficial interest
in the deed of trust later, on June 1, 2007. U.S. Bank presented no evidence
that it acquired any interest before that date. A party that acquires an interest in
real property after a lis pendens is recorded has “constructive notice” of the
proceeding and “shall be bound by all proceedings taken after the filing of such
notice to the same extent as if he or she were a party to the action.”25 U.S.
Bank, therefore, had constructive notice of the Association’s foreclosure action,
and it is bound by those proceedings. In that proceeding, the court foreclosed
the interest of the bank’s predecessor in interest, Aames, and all persons
claiming under it, subject only to a right of redemption. Thus, U.S. Bank cannot
show that it has any defense to the Association’s quiet title action.

Also, the record does not support U.S. Bank’s claim that its failure to
appear in the quiet title action was due to surprise or excusable neglect. As
explained above, neither U.S. Bank nor Sutherland had any contact with the
court or the Association between the time the bank was served and default
entered. Moreover, U.S. Bank admitted to the trial court that it did not appear
within 20 days because it “uses numerous outside counsel to handle its matters,
[and] it took several weeks before the quiet title pleadings were properly routed
to Mr. Sutherland’s office.” U.S. Bank cites no authority supporting the
proposition that a large corporation’s failure to timely route pleadings to its
attorney is somehow excusable or otherwise warrants setting aside an order of
default. Implicit in the bank’s argument is a notion that large organizations are
entitled to more time to respond to litigation. This notion finds no support in a
legal system that strives to treat all litigants equally.

CONCLUSION

We reverse and remand to the trial court to reinstate the order of default
and decree quieting title to the Association.

WE CONCUR

1 U.S. Bank’s foreclosure proceedings stopped and started several times
due to agreements with Swanson, Swanson’s bankruptcy filing, and efforts to
obtain relief from an automatic stay.

2 The record shows that the Association effected service on May 17 and
filed its complaint on June 10.

3 In re Marriage of Williams, 156 Wn. App. 22, 27, 232 P.3d 573 (2010).
4 Morin v. Burris, 160 Wn.2d 745, 753, 161 P.3d 956 (2007); Hwang v.
McMahill, 103 Wn. App. 945, 949, 15 P.3d 172 (2000).
5 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 753.
6 State v. Rafay, 167 Wn.2d 644, 655, 222 P.3d 86 (2009) (quoting State
v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654, 71 P.3d 638 (2003)).
7 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 753.

8 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 749.
9 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 749.
10 160 Wn.2d 745, 757, 161 P.3d 956 (2007).
11 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 749.

12 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 757.
13 143 Wn. App. 410, 177 P.3d 1147 (2008).
14 142 Wn. App. 71, 174 P.3d 133 (2007).
15 U.S. Bank alleges that Sutherland represented it in a dispute regarding
the wrongful foreclosure of the property. However, U.S. Bank never filed a
motion to vacate or otherwise challenged the foreclosure decree, which was
adjudicated some three years earlier. Thus, contrary to U.S. Bank’s implication,
no legal action was pending in February 2010.

16 Sacotte, 143 Wn. App. at 416.
17 Sacotte, 143 Wn. App. at 415 (emphasis added).
18 Old Republic, 142 Wn. App. at 73.
19 Old Republic, 142 Wn. App. at 73, 75.

20 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 749.
21 73 Wn.2d 348, 352, 438 P.2d 581 (1968).
22 White, 73 Wn.2d at 352.
23 Little v. King, 160 Wn.2d 696, 706, 161 P.3d 345 (2007).
24 Little, 160 Wn.2d at 706.

25 RCW 4.28.320; see also Snohomish Reg’l Drug Task Force v. 414
Newberg Rd., 151 Wn. App. 743, 752, 214 P.3d 928 (2009) (once a lis pendens
is filed, any party who subsequently acquires an interest in the property does so
subject to the property’s ultimate disposition in the pending suit), review denied,
168 Wn.2d 1019, 228 P.3d 17 (2010).

[ipaper docId=72110439 access_key=key-u6jjvgjiiq0pd08nt8q height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Washington Supreme Court to Decide MERS’s Legality in Washington

Washington Supreme Court to Decide MERS’s Legality in Washington


By | September 2, 2011

MERS, the mortgage industry’s self-serving creation launched without due regard for all 50 states’ laws, faces a big test in Washington state. The Washington Supreme Court will decide whether MERS’s business model of being named beneficiary on deeds of trust (mortgages) is legal. If the Court decides MERS doesn’t work under Washington law, the Court may also address the consequences of MERS’s illegality on foreclosures, and consider whether homeowners have the right to sue MERS.

Last June, but not much noticed at the time, a …

[REALITY CHECK]

[ipaper docId=63801551 access_key=key-vltnwcsnqxdgnwnip5p height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

FRASE v. U.S. BANK | WA STATE Grants TRO “The Declaration of Compliance appears to be dated “12.17.13.”, “Serious questions going to the merits”

FRASE v. U.S. BANK | WA STATE Grants TRO “The Declaration of Compliance appears to be dated “12.17.13.”, “Serious questions going to the merits”


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

MATTHEW L. FRASE,
Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. BANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants

EXCERPT:

Attached to the Notice of Default is a document entitled, in part, “Beneficiary
Declaration of Compliance With (Or Exception From) RCW 61.24 (Section 2) and
Authorization of Agent (For Notice of Default).” (Compl. Ex. G at 72-73 (“Declaration
of Compliance”).) The Declaration of Compliance, executed on January 31, 2011, states
that U.S. Bank is the “current beneficiary” and purports, on U.S. Bank’s behalf, to
authorize “the trustee, the foreclosing agent and/or their authorized agent to sign on
behalf of the beneficiary, the notice of default containing the declaration required
pursuant to 61.24.030.” (Id. at 73.) The Declaration of Compliance appears to be dated
“12.17.13.” (Id.)

Also attached to the Notice of Default is a document entitled “Declaration of the
Beneficiary as to the actual holder of the Promissory Note.” (Compl. Ex. G at 74
(“Declaration of Beneficiary”).) The Declaration of Beneficiary states, “The undersigned
beneficiary declares that they are the owner and actual holder and has possession of the
promissory note or other obligation secured buy [sic] the Deed of Trust[.]” (Id.) The
Declaration of Beneficiary references the Frases’ recorded Deed of Trust and includes the
address of the Property, but it does not include the name of any beneficiary. (Id.) The
Declaration of Beneficiary was signed on February 24, 2011. (Id.)

On March 23, 2011, MERS executed an assignment of its beneficial interest in the
Deed of Trust to U.S. Bank. (Compl. Ex. D (“Assignment”).) The Assignment was
recorded on May 9, 2011. (Id.)

On April 26, 2011, U.S. Bank executed an Appointment of Successor Trustee in
which it appointed LSI as trustee. (Compl. Ex. C.) The Appointment of Successor
Trustee was recorded on May 9, 2011. (Id.)

On May 9, 2011, LSI recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale for the Property.
(Compl. Ex. E (“Notice of Trustee’s Sale”).) The Notice of Trustee’s Sale sets the date
of the sale on August 12, 2011, and states that the Trustee intended to sell the property at
auction unless the Frases took action to cure the default before August 1, 2011. (Id.)
The Notice of Trustee’s Sale states that the total amount in arrears, as of May 2011, was
$20,085.20. (Id.)

[ipaper docId=62621832 access_key=key-1rz8jngmcnw1kwuyl0lf height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

No criminal charges in WaMu failure

No criminal charges in WaMu failure


Keep moving…nothing to read here….just more of the same

SEATTLEPI-

No charges will be filed against the leadership team of Washington Mutual Bank, which failed in 2008 amid a cloud of suspicion that improper lending had been occurring there.

Announcing the decision late Friday, a U.S. Attorney’s Office spokesperson said in a statement that a federal task force examining the WaMu failure did not find evidence of criminal violations.

“Investigators have conducted an extensive investigation that included hundreds of interviews and the review of millions of documents relating to the operations, and the subsequent failure, of Washington Mutual Bank,” the statement read. “Based upon its investigation, the Department of Justice has concluded that the evidence does not meet the exacting standards for criminal charges in connection with the bank’s failure.”

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Washington Attorney General sues ReconTrust for illegal foreclosures

Washington Attorney General sues ReconTrust for illegal foreclosures


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 05, 2011
Washington Attorney General sues ReconTrust for illegal foreclosures

McKenna raps trustee’s claim that it doesn’t have to abide with state law

SEATTLE – Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna today announced that his office is suing ReconTrust Company, a subsidiary of Bank of America, for conducting illegal foreclosures on thousands of Washington homeowners.

“ReconTrust ignored our warnings, repeatedly broke the law and refused to provide information requested during our investigation,” McKenna said. “ReconTrust’s illegal practices make it difficult, if not impossible, for borrowers who might have a shot at saving their homes to stop those foreclosures.”

ReconTrust is a foreclosure trustee that is legally required to act as a neutral party on behalf of both the lender and the borrower while conducting foreclosure proceedings in good faith and in accordance with the law.

The lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court by McKenna and Assistant Attorney General Jim Sugarman, of the office’s Consumer Protection Division, alleges that “ReconTrust has failed to comply with the Washington Deed of Trust Act, RCW 61.24, in each and every foreclosure it has conducted since at least June 12, 2008.” The company is also accused of violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act.

The Attorney General’s Office announced the suit during a news conference held outside a foreclosed home in Seattle. McKenna and Sugarman were joined by two women whose homes were foreclosed by ReconTrust and several private attorneys who are also concerned about ReconTrust’s actions.

“My home is being foreclosed on. The situation has caused great pain for my son and myself,” said Myra Cole, a single mother from Spanaway who struggled to find employment after a layoff. Her loan servicer was reviewing her Spanaway home for a loan modification when ReconTrust sold the house at foreclosure.

“I couldn’t understand how this could have happened,” Cole continued. “I got the run-around. I just can’t believe that the company that’s supposed to be helping me is foreclosing on me. … We are trying to save our homes. We’re doing the steps they tell us. In the end, it’s all for nothing. It’s an injustice.”

Ruby Barrus told a similar story about the home where she and her husband live in Marysville. During a time of financial hardship, their loan servicer promised not to foreclose while they worked out a loan modification.

“Our payments were never late,” Barrus said, adding that they only stopped making payments because the bank indicated they needed to default to qualify for the modification. “We just figured they knew what they were doing because they were our servicer. … Months later, we get a letter from ReconTrust saying they’re our foreclosure attorneys. We had never heard of them.”

Both women are in court battles to keep their homes.

McKenna said an essential requirement of the Deed of Trust statute is that a trustee maintains an office in the state where homeowners can go to ask questions, make last-minute payments and request a foreclosure be postponed for a legitimate reason. But ReconTrust doesn’t have an office in Washington.

“ReconTrust’s claim that the company doesn’t have to follow Washington law and procedures because it is a national bank is wrong,” McKenna added.

The Attorney General’s Office alleges the company:

  • Failed to maintain a physical office with telephone service in Washington.
  • Failed to identify the actual owner of the promissory notes being foreclosed.
  • Provided confusing information regarding how borrowers defaulted and how they can cure that default.
  • Failed to conduct foreclosures in a public place, instead holding them at private sites including an office park in Bellevue.
  • Created or permitted the use of documents that were improperly executed, notarized or sworn to. Sugarman said notices and agreements contained conflicting dates and improper notarizations and ReconTrust employees sometimes signed as officers of other entities.
  • Failed to exercise its duty of good faith toward the borrower by deferring solely to the lender when deciding whether to postpone a foreclosure.

The complaint states that homeowners facing foreclosure are “captive to ReconTrust’s services” and that the company’s failures to abide by the law have concealed material information needed by homeowners to assert rights and defenses, negotiate a loan modification, cure defaults, and postpone or stop a foreclosure sale.

Sugarman said, “It is particularly important right now for trustees to understand and strictly comply with Washington foreclosure law. There have been several changes including a new right for homeowners to request mediation to discuss a possible loan modification or forbearance before the bank pursues foreclosure.”

The complaint asks that the court require ReconTrust to comply with the law and impose civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation, as well as restitution for consumers.

Based on information obtained during its investigation, the Attorney General’s Office estimates that ReconTrust has issued 9,900 foreclosure notices since January 2008 in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties alone.  ReconTrust forecloses across the state.  It’s unknown how many foreclosures may have been prevented had ReconTrust complied with laws.

In May 2010, the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division began investigating reports of lenders and trustee services not properly reviewing foreclosure documents or following other legal procedures. McKenna sent letters in October 2010 and April 2011, outlining concerns and calling on trustees to suspend questionable foreclosures in the state. The office is investigating more than a dozen other trustees for suspected violations.

The office also remains very involved with the multistate investigation into problems in the foreclosure industry.

For more information about these investigations and resources for homeowners, including new mediation rights, visit www.atg.wa.gov/foreclosure.aspx.

Private lawsuits against ReconTrust have been filed in Utah, Nevada, California, Oregon and Arizona concerning its role in foreclosures in those states, as well as by private attorneys in Washington.  The Attorney General of Utah sent a public letter to Bank of America threatening suit if ReconTrust continued to violate Utah foreclosure law.

DOCUMENTS

ReconTrust Complaint

This link lists properties that are listed for sale or have been sold by ReconTrust: http://www.recontrustco.com/upcoming_counties.aspx?state=Washington



Media Contact:

Kristin Alexander, Media Relations Manager,

(206) 464-6432, cell: (206) 437-2654,

kalexander@atg.wa.gov

source: http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=28750

[ipaper docId=61703531 access_key=key-2myrtxu8dr1d5ngpzxp6 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

Former Washington Mutual Officials Near Deal With FDIC Over Bank Losses

Former Washington Mutual Officials Near Deal With FDIC Over Bank Losses


BLOOMBERG-

Former Washington Mutual Inc. (WAMUQ) Chief Executive Officer Kerry Killinger and Chief Operating Officer Stephen Rotella are in lawsuit settlement talks with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., according to a court filing.

Lawyers for Killinger, Rotella and David Schneider, Washington Mutual’s former home-loans president, exchanged term sheets with FDIC attorneys and are “diligently working to resolve their remaining disputes,” according to papers filed yesterday in federal court in Seattle.

“In some instances, the settlement terms must have consent of certain third parties,” lawyers for both sides said.

Continue reading [BLOOMBERG]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

WA State Court Denies MTD “Unfair Deceptive Acts, Fraud, Securitization, Trustee Aiding & Abetting” | VILLALOBOS v. DEUTSCHE BANK, BARCLAYS

WA State Court Denies MTD “Unfair Deceptive Acts, Fraud, Securitization, Trustee Aiding & Abetting” | VILLALOBOS v. DEUTSCHE BANK, BARCLAYS


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

MARCO VILLALOBOS & ANGELA
YBARRA,
a marital community,
Plaintiffs,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, BARCLAYS CAPITAL REAL
ESTATE, INC.
, et al.,
Defendants.

EXCERPTS:

B. Substantive Claims

Plaintiffs’ claims which sound in the Washington State Consumer Protection Act survive. Plaintiffs have successfully alleged that certain named defendants committed unfair deceptive acts and that these acts have injured their property interest in their home. See Guijosa, 32 P.3d at 255 (listing elements). It goes without saying that such acts have the potential to adversely affect the public interest: The banking defendants allegedly securitized more than three billion dollars of mortgages initiated by Defendant WMC Mortgage alone. The allegedly wrongful acts were therefore “part of a pattern or generalized course of conduct,” and had the potential “to affect many different customers.” See Hangman Ridge, 719 P.2d at 537–38.

Plaintiffs claims which sound in the common law of fraud also survive. Plaintiffs allege that certain named defendants misrepresented terms such as the interest rate and term of their mortgage loans. (Second Amended Complaint 13–16 (Dkt. No. 45)). Plaintiffs further allege that defendants fraudulently charged them for brokerage fees to which they were unentitled, and that the defendants listed these fees as “final settlement fees” on federal disclosure forms. (Id. 15). A reasonable person would consider such key terms to be “material,” and a reasonable person would be entitled to rely on the representations of individuals who hold themselves out as mortgage professionals. See Beckendorf, 457 P.2d at 606–07 (listing the elements of fraud).

C. Theories of Liability

However one wishes to describe the allegedly wrongful participation of Defendant Barclays Capital and Defendant Deutsche Bank—whether sounding in civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, or joint venture—the analysis is essentially the same: Plaintiffs have successfully alleged that the banking defendants knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud borrowers. To support these allegations, Plaintiffs rely on a letter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and fraudulent misstatements in the loan documents that the banking defendants received. Because a plaintiff may rely upon circumstantial evidence to support each of the proffered theories of liability, see, e.g., Gilbrook, 177 F.3d at 856 (civil conspiracy), Refrigeration Engineering, 486 P.2d at 311 (joint venture), and because Plaintiffs have submitted circumstantial evidence tending to indicate that the banking defendants knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud, their claims survive.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=56413876 access_key=key-1z7aeu3i1iamu5scg4x0 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

PASSED Washington State HB 1362: Protecting and assisting homeowners from unnecessary foreclosures

PASSED Washington State HB 1362: Protecting and assisting homeowners from unnecessary foreclosures


Homeowners will now have 30 days from the time that they get an initial letter from their lenders to respond and ask for a period of time called “meet and confer.” If they do, they’ll get 60 days to talk with their lender and counselors before the lender can issue a notice of default, followed by a notice of trustee sale.

read more here

History of Bill

as of Thursday, April 14, 2011 1:16 PM

Sponsors: Representatives Orwall, Hope, Rolfes, Moeller, Liias, Probst, Green, Darneille, Frockt, Kirby, Miloscia, Roberts, Hunt, Dickerson, Upthegrove, Fitzgibbon, Kagi, Eddy, Hasegawa, Pettigrew, Ormsby, Sells, Kenney, Cody, Hudgins, Lytton, Moscoso, Ryu, Appleton, Reykdal, Van De Wege, Carlyle, Dunshee, Santos, McCoy, Tharinger, Haigh, Goodman, Jinkins, Jacks, Takko, Sullivan, Blake, Seaquist, Billig, Stanford, Ladenburg, Finn, Pedersen
Companion Bill: SB 5275
2011 REGULAR SESSION
Jan 19 First reading, referred to Judiciary. (View Original Bill)
Jan 26 Public hearing in the House Committee on Judiciary at 8:00 AM. (Committee Materials)
Feb 3 Executive session scheduled, but no action was taken in the House Committee on Judiciary at 10:00 AM. (Committee Materials)
Feb 17 Executive action taken in the House Committee on Judiciary at 10:00 AM. (Committee Materials)
JUDI – Executive action taken by committee.
JUDI – Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass. (View 1st Substitute) (Majority Report)
Referred to Ways & Means.
Feb 23 Public hearing in the House Committee on Ways & Means at 1:30 PM. (Committee Materials)
Feb 25 Executive action taken in the House Committee on Ways & Means at 1:30 PM. (Committee Materials)
WAYS – Executive action taken by committee.
WAYS – Majority; 2nd substitute bill be substituted, do pass. (View 2nd Substitute) (Majority Report)
Minority; do not pass. (Minority Report)
Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.
Mar 1 Placed on second reading by Rules Committee.
Mar 2 2nd substitute bill substituted (WAYS 11). (View 2nd Substitute)
Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading.
Third reading, passed; yeas, 83; nays, 13; absent, 0; excused, 2. (View Roll Calls)
IN THE SENATE
Mar 4 First reading, referred to Financial Institutions, Housing & Insurance.
Mar 16 Public hearing, executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions, and Housing & Insurance at 1:30 PM.
Mar 17 FIHI – Majority; do pass with amendment(s). (Majority Report)
Passed to Rules Committee for second reading.
Mar 18 Placed on second reading by Rules Committee.
Mar 29 Committee amendment adopted with no other amendments.
Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading.
Third reading, passed; yeas, 36; nays, 11; absent, 2; excused, 0. (View Roll Calls)
IN THE HOUSE
Apr 1 House concurred in Senate amendments.
Passed final passage; yeas, 78; nays, 15; absent, 0; excused, 4. (View Roll Calls)
Apr 6 Speaker signed.
IN THE SENATE
Apr 7 President signed.
OTHER THAN LEGISLATIVE ACTION
Apr 8 Delivered to Governor. (View Bill as Passed Legislature)

[ipaper docId=53051356 access_key=key-7sp3tnsasywl2wbz44m height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Washington State Attorney General McKenna Letter To Trustees RE: Potential Unlawful Foreclosure Practices

Washington State Attorney General McKenna Letter To Trustees RE: Potential Unlawful Foreclosure Practices


A homeowner who is unable to find a local address or phone number for their trustee should file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office online at http://atg.wa.gov/FileAComplaint.aspx. However, this will not stop a foreclosure sale.  Homeowners should also contact a housing counselor or an attorney.

Washington is a “non-judicial foreclosure” state, which means that a lender can proceed directly to selling a home at public auction without first filing a lawsuit. This process was created by the state Legislature. Although lenders may foreclose in court in Washington, they almost always choose non-judicial foreclosures.

If a trustee is unwilling to stop a foreclosure, then the homeowner must file a lawsuit under the Deed of Trust Act and obtain a court order before the sale. Bankruptcy may stop or delay a foreclosure but it may also put the homeowner in a worse position. Legal representation is essential to a successful case, McKenna said.

BORROWER RESOURCES:

  • If you believe unlawful activity has occurred in regard to your mortgage, you should speak with an attorney. A homeowner may file a suit to challenge a foreclosure, but they must do so prior to the foreclosure sale.
  • If you are unable to afford a lawyer, you should contact the Washington State Homeownership Information Hotline at 1-877-894-4663 (HOME) for referral to the Home Foreclosure Legal Aid Project. The hotline can also refer to you to a free, state-approved housing counselor.
  • Te Attorney General’s Office cannot stop a foreclosure or provide individuals with legal advice, as the office is barred by law from representing private citizens.
  • Homeowners should read the Washington Foreclosure Prevention Resources Guide, provided by the Seattle-King County Asset Building Collaborative Foreclosure Prevention Team and recommended by the Attorney General’s Office and the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions.
  • Additional resources can be found at www.atg.wa.gov/foreclosure.aspx.

Source: http://atg.wa.gov

[ipaper docId=52463517 access_key=key-28tozjml9i4fdsxkmvj8 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

Congresswoman Herrera Beutler Seeks Answers from FDIC on Clark County Foreclosures

Congresswoman Herrera Beutler Seeks Answers from FDIC on Clark County Foreclosures


Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler today sent a letter to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) seeking answers regarding a troubling pattern of Clark County foreclosures resulting from the failure of the Bank of Clark County.

What has been particularly troublesome to Congresswoman Herrera Beutler is what she learned from several Bank of Clark County borrowers: they made all of their scheduled payments on time, in full.  Why Rialto Capital has chosen to foreclose on borrowers who have honored their loan agreements remains unclear.
[…]
“I’m deeply concerned by what I’ve learned so far about FDIC’s deal with Rialto Capital,” said Herrera Beutler.  “If borrowers who have lived up to the terms of their original loans are facing foreclosure, I want to know why.  It certainly seems like the FDIC has a responsibility and moral obligation to ensure entities like Rialto act in a decent and ethical manner.
.
“The FDIC has not been completely forthright about its decision-making process, even after multiple requests for information by my office.  While Southwest Washington families and businesses suffer the consequences of its decisions, the FDIC may have made it possible for real estate investor Rialto to end up with large tracts of Clark County land at a bargain price by breaking contracts.  That doesn’t seem right.
“I am going to remain vigilant with FDIC and with Rialto until we get answers.”
The text of Congresswoman Herrera Beutler’s letter to the FDIC is below, and attached:

Chairman Sheila C. Bair

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
3501 N. Fairfax Dr.
Arlington, VA 22226

Chairman Bair,

In recent weeks I have been contacted by a number of my constituents with concerns about the closing of the Bank of Clark County in Vancouver, Washington. More specifically, the concern is with the FDIC’s decision to sell many of the bank’s outstanding loans to Rialto Capital Management LLC and the management of those loans by Rialto and the FDIC.

Since the closing of the Bank of Clark County a large number of construction properties have been forced into foreclosure. Many of these foreclosures are due to Rialto Capital’s refusal to work with builders in honoring the existing loan agreement, even when the builders are current in their loan payments. Instead, Rialto moves to simply collect on collateral.

In order to understand the FDIC’s role in these procedures I respectfully request that you answer the following questions:

To my knowledge when the FDIC sells a loan package it retains a certain percentage of the package in order to ensure a return on investment. What oversight does the FDIC perform on Rialto Capitol and its management of the loans?

Numerous builders with whom my office has spoken had not missed a single payment on their loans when Rialto Capital took over. What consideration, if any, is given to the lendee’s payment record when deciding to terminate loans?

As a holder of a percentage of the loan package, does the FDIC require Rialto to honor the conditions of previous contracts made and carried out in good faith? What steps has the FDIC taken to ensure that any ensuing foreclosures are not directly attributable to changes in contract conditions made without the consent of the customer by Rialto?

How many construction loans did Rialto Capitol take over from the Bank of Clark County? Of those contracts how many have Rialto and the FDIC continued to honor?

Rialto Capitol calls itself a real estate investment management company. It is my understanding that typically other banks buy these loans. Why is the FDIC selling bank loans to non-banks?

I realize the FDIC closed the Bank of Clark County due to poor performance and bad loan approvals played a role in that. However, many of the people Rialto and the FDIC have decided to foreclose on made sound loan decisions, made their payments on time, and through no fault of their own still lost their loans. In some cases those loans were worth millions of dollars, and in many cases the loss of loans cost people their livelihood.

I do not know what Rialto ultimately intends to do with the large tracts of land it would hold as a result of these foreclosures, but it is clear the company purchased these loans with no intention of working with the citizens of Southwest Washington. Surely the FDIC did not close the Bank of Clark County in order to give real estate investors the opportunity to obtain land for pennies on the dollar by breaking contracts signed and honored by local builders.

The FDIC has a responsibility and moral obligation to ensure the companies that obtain loans as the result of a bank closure act in an ethical and decent manner toward their customers. I strongly urge you to take a hand in this matter and review with great diligence the actions of Rialto Capital.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a response. Please contact Chad Ramey in my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 225-3536 for further detail or clarifications.

Sincerely,

Jaime Herrera Beutler

Member of Congress

Source: http://herrerabeutler.house.gov

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

WA State Judge Puts Hold on SJ “so-called beneficiaries like MERS” Pending Consumer Protection Act Outcome BAIN v. ONEWEST

WA State Judge Puts Hold on SJ “so-called beneficiaries like MERS” Pending Consumer Protection Act Outcome BAIN v. ONEWEST


KRISTEN BAIN, Plaintiff,
v.
ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B; DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC; REGIONAL TRUSTEE SERVICES CORPORATION; Defendants.

Case No. C09-0149-JCC.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle.

March 15, 2011.

Excerpt:

F. Consumer Protection Act

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”). To state a claim under the CPA, Plaintiff must show (1) an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) in trade or commerce, (3) that impacts the public interest, (4) which causes injury to the plaintiff in his or her business or property, and (5) which injury is causally linked to the unfair or deceptive act. Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Corp., 969 P.2d 486, 492 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

MERS asserts that Plaintiff has not shown an unfair or deceptive practice on its part, has not shown how any act of MERS impacts the public interest, and presents nothing showing injuries caused by an unfair or deceptive practice by MERS. The Court disagrees. Like her other claims arising under the Deed of Trust Act, Plaintiff’s CPA claims depend on whether MERS may be the beneficiary (or nominee of the beneficiary) under Washington state law. MERS’s attempt to serve as the beneficiary may have been improper under state law and it may have led to widespread confusion regarding home ownership, payment delivery, and negotiable positions. If MERS violated state law, its conduct may very well be classified as “unfair” under the CPA. There is no doubt that MERS’s conduct impacts the public interest. See Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 719 P.2d 531, 537-38 (Wash. 1986) (listing factors for determining public interest); Peterson, supra, at 1362 (“Although MERS is a young company, 60 million mortgage loans are registered on its system.”); R. K. Arnold, Yes, There Is Life on MERS, 11 Prob. & Prop. 32, 33 (1997) (“Some have called MERS the most significant event for the mortgage industry since the formation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Others have compared it to the creation of uniform mortgage instruments, which have become standard throughout the residential mortgage industry. This suggests that the journey to MERS will have a tremendous effect on the mortgage industry.”). And the harm Plaintiff may have suffered because of MERS’s conduct may include expending resources to avert an unlawful foreclosure and preventing Plaintiff from identifying the real beneficiary and negotiating a new arrangement to avoid foreclosure.

The same reasoning applies to Regional, who also argued that Plaintiff cannot show an unfair or deceptive practice or show an impact on the public interest. Regional asserts that it acted appropriately because it was candid and forthcoming about its identity and its authority to conduct the foreclosure. That Regional was candid about its role is not dispositive. See Carlile v. Harbour Homes, Inc., 194 P.3d 280, 289 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (“An unfair or deceptive act or practice need not be intended to deceive, it need only have the capacity to deceive a substantial portion of the public.”). Moreover, just as MERS has its hands in countless home loans affecting the general public, so too does Regional play a key role in numerous foreclosure actions affecting the general public. MERS and Regional ultimately may bear no liability under the CPA, but this Court will await the state-court analysis before ruling on the parties’ motions for summary judgment.[5]

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff admits that she has been delinquent in her mortgage payments. A ruling favorable to Plaintiff in this case and others like it cannot and should not create a windfall for all homeowners to avoid upholding their end of the mortgage bargain—paying for their homes. But a homeowner’s failure to make payments cannot grant lenders, trustees, and so-called beneficiaries like MERS license to ignore state law and foreclose using any means necessary. Whether these and similar defendants complied with Washington state law remains unclear.

[ipaper docId=51273820 access_key=key-1pq85htk7uwo9kifkkge height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

WaMu execs Kerry Killinger and Steve Rotella respond to FDIC lawsuit. Killinger calls it “political theater:”

WaMu execs Kerry Killinger and Steve Rotella respond to FDIC lawsuit. Killinger calls it “political theater:”


From the Puget Sound Biz Journal:

“The factual allegations are fiction. The legal conclusions are political theater. Trial in a courtroom that honors the rule of law — and not the will of Washington D.C. — will confirm Kerry Killinger’s management, diligence and commitment to Washington Mutual responsibly and consistently served the interests of its depositors, customers and shareholders.”

Killinger added: “Washington Mutual’s management structure was a model of corporate governance.”

Read more: WaMu execs: FDIC suit is “political theater” | Puget Sound Business Journal

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

COMPLAINT | F.D.I.C. Sues WAMU Execs. and Wives For $900 Million

COMPLAINT | F.D.I.C. Sues WAMU Execs. and Wives For $900 Million


Via: Brian Davies

THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, as RECEIVER of
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK
,
Plaintiff,

v.

KERRY K. KILLINGER, STEPHEN J.
ROTELLA, DAVID C. SCHNEIDER,
LINDA C. KILLINGER, and ESTHER T.
ROTELLA
,
Defendants.

[ipaper docId=50971713 access_key=key-20ki1w716u5b98o9s0jl height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Bill SB 5275 in WA Legislature to Eliminate “Produce the Note” Foreclosure Protection

Bill SB 5275 in WA Legislature to Eliminate “Produce the Note” Foreclosure Protection


Updated March 4, 2011

I was contacted by a woman in Washington informing us that we were off the mark with this post. The way we posted fell a bit short and was slightly off the mark. It seems this bill was already voted through. Here’s the update and correction to this piece:

The “declaration” portion of this foreclosure bill trying to pass in the Washington State legislature is already law. This is what we, in Washington, are currently fighting. The bill, SB 5275, is a so-so bill with this “declaration” embedded in it. What the law (with its current language) does is bring the parties to the mediation table. This mediation process gives the homeowner an additional 90 days. What it DOESN’T do, is bring the CORRECT parties to the mediation table, as the banks can still hide behind this “declaration” in claiming ownership of the note, by putting a robo-signed pen-to-paper.

There are people in Washington, who are fighting within the legislature to get an amendment proposed. They are trying to get language similar to Arizona’s SB 1259, allowing only for a “clear chain of title” to prove ownership of the note. What a “clear chain of title” will do, it will bring the CORRECT PARTIES TO THE MEDIATION TABLE.

All you Washingtonians, please write your Senators and your Representatives asking for this amendment bringing a “clear chain of title” to this bill, SB 5275. If we can get this amendment to the floor of the House, we may still have a chance in Washington to bring the banks to their knees, as we all know they are unable to provide a “clear chain of title.”

Also ask your legislator to think about NEXT legislative session to put an end to the RCW 61.24.030 (7)(a), which states that the servicer only need provide a “declaration” to reside with the trustee to prove ownership of the note. The servicers are able to robo-sign these declarations and not have to provide any more proof of ownership of the note. THIS IS WHAT IS REALLY BAD LAW. The legislators need to know that what they did LAST session, has made Washington the worst state in the nation to try to fight these criminal servicers.

Thank you to Richard Zombeck @ ShameTheBanks.org for his help on clarifying this update for us. Don’t be silent… share your thoughts and story with ShameThe Banks. Together we can and are making a difference.

Original Post below..

This bill (SB 5275) is scheduled for a hearing today (scroll down for details). It must be stopped. We cannot allow the banks to take what they don’t own. Please call and/or email these senators (AND reps regarding the companion bill HB 1362) to politely but firmly express your opposition to giving the banks a freebie. Remind these people who they work for (US, not the banks). –Scott

Senate Bill Co-sponsors list:
maralyn.chase@leg.wa.gov; steve.conway@leg.wa.gov; karen.fraser@leg.wa.gov; jim.hargrove@leg.wa.gov; nick.harper@leg.wa.gov; marymargaret.haugen@leg.wa.gov; steve.hobbs@leg.wa.gov; karen.keiser@leg.wa.gov; derek.kilmer@leg.wa.gov; adam.kline@leg.wa.gov; jeanne.kohl-welles@leg.wa.gov; rosemary.mcauliffe@leg.wa.gov; edward.murray@leg.wa.gov; sharon.nelson@leg.wa.gov; margarita.prentice@leg.wa.gov; kevin.ranker@leg.wa.gov; phil.rockefeller@leg.wa.gov; paull.shin@leg.wa.gov; dan.swecker@leg.wa.gov; scott.white@leg.wa.gov;

Full Senate list:
Michael.baumgartner@leg.wa.gov; randi.becker@leg.wa.gov; don.benton@leg.wa.gov; jean.berkey@leg.wa.gov; lisa.brown@leg.wa.gov; michael.carrell@leg.wa.gov; jerome.delvin@leg.wa.gov; maralyn.chase@leg.wa.gov; steve.conway@leg.wa.gov; jerome.delvin@leg.wa.gov; tracey.eide@leg.wa.gov; doug.ericksen@leg.wa.gov; joe.fain@leg.wa.gov; karen.fraser@leg.wa.gov; jim.hargrove@leg.wa.gov; nick.harper@leg.wa.gov; brian.hatfield@leg.wa.gov; marymargaret.haugen@leg.wa.gov; mike.hewitt@leg.wa.gov; andy.hill@leg.wa.gov; steve.hobbs@leg.wa.gov; janea.holmquist@leg.wa.gov; jim.honeyford@leg.wa.gov; jim.kastama@leg.wa.gov; karen.keiser@leg.wa.gov; derek.kilmer@leg.wa.gov; curtis.king@leg.wa.gov; adam.kline@leg.wa.gov; jeanne.kohl-welles@leg.wa.gov; steve.litzow@leg.wa.gov; rosemary.mcauliffe@leg.wa.gov; bob.mccaslin@leg.wa.gov; bob.morton@leg.wa.gov; edward.murray@leg.wa.gov; sharon.nelson@leg.wa.gov; linda.parlette@leg.wa.gov; cheryl.pflug@leg.wa.gov; margarita.prentice@leg.wa.gov; craig.pridemore@leg.wa.gov; kevin.ranker@leg.wa.gov; debbie.regala@leg.wa.gov; pam.roach@leg.wa.gov; phil.rockefeller@leg.wa.gov; mark.schoesler@leg.wa.gov; timothy.sheldon@leg.wa.gov; paull.shin@leg.wa.gov; val.stevens@leg.wa.gov; dan.swecker@leg.wa.gov; rodney.tom@leg.wa.gov; scott.white@leg.wa.gov; joseph.zarelli@leg.wa.gov; marty.brown@gov.wa.gov; jim.justin@gov.wa.gov;

House List:
john.ahern@leg.wa.gov; gary.alexander@leg.wa.gov; glenn.anderson@leg.wa.gov; jan.angel@leg.wa.gov; sherry.appleton@leg.wa.gov; mike.armstrong@leg.wa.gov; katrina.asay@leg.wa.gov; barbara.bailey@leg.wa.gov; andy.billig@leg.wa.gov; brian.blake@leg.wa.gov; vincent.buys@leg.wa.gov; reuven.Carlyle@leg.wa.gov; bruce.chandler@leg.wa.gov; frank.chopp@leg.wa.gov; judy.clibborn@leg.wa.gov; eileen.cody@leg.wa.gov; cary.condotta@leg.wa.gov; larry.crouse@leg.wa.gov; cathy.dahlquist@leg.wa.gov; bruce.dammeier@leg.wa.gov; j.darneille@leg.wa.gov; richard.debolt@leg.wa.gov; marylou.dickerson@leg.wa.gov; hans.dunshee@leg.wa.gov; deborah.eddy@leg.wa.gov; susan.fagan@leg.wa.gov; fred.finn@leg.wa.gov; david.frockt@leg.wa.gov; roger.goodman@leg.wa.gov; tami.green@leg.wa.gov; kathy.haigh@leg.wa.gov; larry.haler@leg.wa.gov; mark.hargrove@leg.wa.gov; paul.harris@leg.wa.gov; bob.hasegawa@leg.wa.gov; bill.hinkle@leg.wa.gov; mike.hope@leg.wa.gov; zack.hudgins@leg.wa.gov; sam.hunt@leg.wa.gov; ross.hunter@leg.wa.gov; christopher.hurst@leg.wa.gov; jim.jacks@leg.wa.gov; laurie.jinkins@leg.wa.gov; norm.johnson@leg.wa.gov; ruth.kagi@leg.wa.gov; troy.kelley@leg.wa.gov; phyllis.kenney@leg.wa.gov; steve.kirby@leg.wa.gov; brad.klippert@leg.wa.gov; joel.kretz@leg.wa.gov; dan.kristiansen@leg.wa.gov; connie.ladenburg@leg.wa.gov; marko.liias@leg.wa.gov; kristine.lytton@leg.wa.gov; marcie.maxwell@leg.wa.gov; john.mccoy@leg.wa.gov; jim.mccune@leg.wa.gov; mark.miloscia@leg.wa.gov; jim.moeller@leg.wa.gov; jeff.morris@leg.wa.gov; luis.moscoso@leg.wa.gov; terry.nealey@leg.wa.gov; ed.orcutt@leg.wa.gov; timm.ormsby@leg.wa.gov; tina.orwall@leg.wa.gov; jason.overstreet@leg.wa.gov; kevin.parker@leg.wa.gov; kirk.pearson@leg.wa.gov; jamie.pedersen@leg.wa.gov; eric.pettigrew@leg.wa.gov; tim.probst@leg.wa.gov; chris.reykdal@leg.wa.gov; ann.rivers@leg.wa.gov; maryhelen.roberts@leg.wa.gov; jay.rodne@leg.wa.gov; christine.rolfes@leg.wa.gov; charles.ross@leg.wa.gov; cindy.ryu@leg.wa.gov; sharontomiko.santos@leg.wa.gov; joe.schmick@leg.wa.gov; larry.seaquist@leg.wa.gov; mike.sells@leg.wa.gov; matt.shea@leg.wa.gov; shelly.short@leg.wa.gov; norma.smith@leg.wa.gov; larry.springer@leg.wa.gov; derek.stanford@leg.wa.gov; pat.sullivan@leg.wa.gov; dean.takko@leg.wa.gov; david.taylor@leg.wa.gov; steve.tharinger@leg.wa.gov; dave.upthegrove@leg.wa.gov; kevin.vandewege@leg.wa.gov; maureen.walsh@leg.wa.gov; judy.warnick@leg.wa.gov; hans.zeiger@leg.wa.gov;

SB 5275 – 2011-12
Addressing homeowner foreclosures.
Revised for 1st Substitute: Protecting and assisting homeowners from unnecessary foreclosures.

The above underlined description of this foreclosure bill recently dropped by stealth in the Washington State legislature is an Orwellian lie; it exists to protect the banks of the New World Order-controlled Federal Reserve System, which our treasonous legislature has shown repeatedly that it serves. Amidst all of this bill’s seemingly warm and fuzzy, even lofty pronouncements on mediation and fairness, the following chilling provision stands out; please read it carefully to grasp the magnitude of its treason against the people of Washington State — and of the United States, if this abusive bill is allowed to pass and set a legislative precedent:
“7 (a) That, for residential real estate property, before the notice of trustee’s sale is recorded, transmitted, or served, the trustee shall have proof that the beneficiary (bank) is the owner of the promissory note or obligation secured by the deed of trust. A declaration by the beneficiary (bank) made under penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary (bank) is the actual holder of the promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof as required under this subsection.”

Go to documents…
History of Bill
as of Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:56 PM

Sponsors:
Senators Kline, Haugen, Kohl-Welles, Hargrove, Rockefeller, Nelson, Ranker, Keiser, Swecker, White, Conway, Hobbs, Chase, Harper, Kilmer, Prentice, Shin, Murray, Fraser, McAuliffe

Companion Bill:
HB 1362
2011 REGULAR SESSION

Jan 19
First reading, referred to Financial Institutions, Housing & Insurance. (View Original Bill)

Jan 26
Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Housing & Insurance at 1:30 PM. (Committee Materials)

Feb 16
Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Housing & Insurance at 1:30 PM. (Committee Materials)

Feb 17
FIHI – Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass. (View 1st Substitute) (Majority Report)

And refer to Ways & Means.

Feb 24
Scheduled for public hearing in the Senate Committee on Ways & Means at 1:30 PM. (Subject to change) (Committee Materials)

Go to history…
Available Documents
Bill Documents
Bill Digests
Bill Reports
Original Bill
Substitute Bill (FIHI 11)

Bill Digest
Substitute Bill Digest

Senate Bill Report (Orig.)
Senate Bill Report

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5275-S.pdf

[ipaper docId=49818854 access_key=key-257fq53w4yivpxsg87z0 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

WA STATE | In Re: JACOBSON “No Real Party In Interest, No Standing” RELIEF FROM STAY DENIED

WA STATE | In Re: JACOBSON “No Real Party In Interest, No Standing” RELIEF FROM STAY DENIED


Via: BankClassActions

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

FOR PUBLICATION
In re:
PETER A. JACOBSON and
MARIA E. JACOBSON,

Debtors.

No. 08-45120

DECISION ON RELIEF FROM STAY

Excerpts:

Before the court is a motion for relief from the automatic stay of § 362(a)2 to enforce a deed of trust on the Debtors’ residence. As it was neither brought in the name of the real party in interest, nor by anyone with standing, the motion for relief from stay will be DENIED.

<SNIP>

Assuming the exhibits to the motion are authentic and are the same as those intended to have been attached to the declaration, the note is indorsed in blank. Without more, that and possession (rather than mere custody) suggests that Wells Fargo is the holder of the note. RCW 62A.3-20114 and 3-30115. Nothing in the record establishes on whose behalf (if other than its own) Wells Fargo Document Custody possesses the note; that (and verification of current possession and present ability to produce the original, if required) would have to come from Wells Fargo.

Nor does anything in the record establish UBS AG’s authority to enforce the Debtors’ note, for whomever holds it; and thus to foreclose the deed of trust. The declaration states that UBS AG is “servicing agent,” a term with no uniform meaning, and no definition cited. At a minimum, there must be an unambiguous representation or declaration setting forth the servicer’s authority from the present holder of the note to collect on the note and enforce the deed of trust. If questioned, the servicer must be able to produce and authenticate that authority.

UBS AG has not shown that it has standing to bring the motion for relief from stay or authority to act for whomever does.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=47440265 access_key=key-209iz6903h14x57ulgjv height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

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

Archives