By DICK HOGAN • dhogan@news-press.com • January 19, 2011
1:10 A.M. — Banks in recent weeks have been dropping hundreds of their Southwest Florida foreclosure lawsuits instead of facing defendants at trial, according to local attorneys and court records.
Opinions varied sharply on whether that means banks are just taking a breather before refiling with stronger evidence – or giving up for good on hopelessly flawed cases.
Some foreclosures at large law firms were never actually read by the attorneys who filed them here and elsewhere, and some of the mortgages that ended up in mortgage-backed securities sold to investors were never legally transferred by the banks, defense attorneys have alleged.
COMMITTEE MEMBER: Can you explain what you are in
4 relation to that?
5 MR. HULTMAN: We’re the beneficiary, but we’re an
6 agent of the lender. So instead of having two — one party be
7 both the payee on the note and the beneficiary in deed of
8 trust, we’re the beneficiary as their agent. In other words,
9 we’re holding title to the mortgage lien on their behalf.
10 COMMITTEE MEMBER: Through this process called
11 nominee?
12 MR. HULTMAN: Well, nominee is just another word for
13 agent.
Continue below…
After you read the transcript, you might be interested in reading the post below
For the Plaintiff: Frenkel, Lambert, Weiss, Weisman & Gordon, LLP, by Kevin M. Butler, Esq., 20 West Main St., Bay Shore, New York 11706
For the Defendant: Bachu & Associates, by Darmin T. Bachu, Esq., 127-21 Liberty Ave., Richmond Hill, New York 11419
Charles J. Markey, J.
Excerpt:
Just recently, Massachusetts’s highest court, its Supreme Judicial Court, in U.S. Bank National Association v Ibanez, ___ NE2d ____, 2011 WL 2011 WL 38071 (Jan. 7, 2011) [6-0 decision, with majority and concurring opinions] unanimously held that two banks, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo, failed to prove that they owned the mortgages when they foreclosed on the homes. See, id. The fact that the homeowners owed a lot of money on the mortgages was conceded in the Court’s ruling that the banks did not properly prove ownership.
[…]
Chief Judge Lippman has stated that the New York court system should not stand by idly, during a tough economic crisis, where the integrity of the determination of home ownership is at stake. See discussion in Washington Mutual Bank v Phillip, 20 Misc 3d [*3] 127[A], 2010 WL 4813782, 2010 NY Slip Op 52034[U] [Sup Ct Kings County 2010] [Schack, J.].
The practices of the plaintiff in this case, in not carefully evaluating the merits of each mortgage foreclosure case individually, has been criticized by the courts in: Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v Harris, 2008 WL 620756, 2008 NY Slip Op 30308[U] [Sup Ct Kings County 2008]; Deutsche Bank v Maraj, 18 Misc 3d 1123(A), 2008 WL 253926, 2008 NY Slip Op 50176 [Sup Ct Kings County 2008]; Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v Lewis, 14 Misc 3d 1201(A), 2006 WL 3593431, 2006 NY Slip Op 52368[U] [Sup Ct Suffolk County 2006], all of those decisions denying the plaintiff’s motion for relief without prejudice upon the submission of proper papers. See also discussion in Onewest Bank, F.S.B. v Drayton, 29 Misc 3d 1021 [Sup Ct Kings County 2010].
A Utah court case in which the owner of a Draper townhouse got clear title to the property, even though he still owed $132,000 on it, raises new legal and financial questions about a property-records database created by mortgage bankers.
The award of a title free of liens means that whoever owns the promissory note on the Draper property — likely a group of faraway investors — no longer has the right to foreclose to collect on a delinquent loan. Indeed, the townhouse owner has sold the property and kept the money. Those who own the promissory note probably don’t even know what occurred.
Last year, the owner of the Draper property contacted attorney Walter T. Keane to help him deal with lenders, though Keane won’t say what the problem was and the owner declined an interview request.
The lawsuit over the title to the townhouse named Garbett Mortgage and Citibank FSB as the holders of promissory notes as recorded on trust deeds filed with the recorder’s office. Integrated Title Services was listed as trustee of the Garbett Mortgage trust deed, while First American Title was the trustee of the CitiBank trust deed.
But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.
Under the state’s quiet title laws, Keane said he did not have to name MERS or serve it legal papers in the lawsuit because it was not the legal owner of title to the property. Those were title companies. In addition, attorneys contend, MERS cannot be the “beneficiary” or holder of the promissory note because it readily has admitted it has no financial interest in any notes or mortgages.
Right now Virginia has one of the fastest foreclosure processes in the country. As detailed in this Washington Post article by David Hilzenrath, there are several bills currently debated in the Virginia legislature that would slow the process and cause big changes in the way foreclosures are handled in that state.
The first proposed change would require judicial approval before a lender can seize a home. This would serve to ensure the veracity of the documentation that is required in the foreclosure process. Flawed documentation has proven to be an issue in foreclosures across the country time and time again.
The next piece of legislation would force banks to give borrowers longer advance notice before they are able to auction a home. Under the changes, homeowners would have 30-45 days warning that their home was to be sold rather than the two weeks that is currently required.
The last proposed bill is particularly interesting, because it would cause seismic shifts in mortgage lending in Virginia. The law would require lenders to keep records on real estate transactions in local records offices (which is the way real estate transfers were done for hundreds of years). This would make it harder, although not impossible, to securitize Virginia mortgages. It would, however, effectively doom the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) in the State of Virginia.
“Not only do banks and mortgage lenders oppose the bill, a Reston-based corporation known as MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) is battling it.”
Va. bills slow foreclosures
Updated: Monday, 17 Jan 2011, 7:59 PM EST
Published : Monday, 17 Jan 2011, 7:59 PM EST
BOB LEWIS, AP Political Writer
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – Virginia House and Senate bills are taking aim at “drive-by foreclosures” by big banks without judicial review and aggravated by incomplete records.
Witnesses at a hearing on some of the legislation Monday told chilling, tearful tales of giant banks foreclosing on their homes, then had to deal with conflicting statements by an unconcerned bureaucracy when they tried to contact their lenders and reason with them.
The legislation is in the works because of the flood of foreclosures that resulted from the 2008 mortgage lending industry collapse.
The bills would slow the state’s swift foreclosure pace. They would increase the time for required foreclosure notice from two weeks to 30 or 45 days. That would give borrowers time to locate records and hire attorneys to challenge foreclosures if necessary.
Link to bills introduced to the 2011 Virginia legislative session –
keyword search: Foreclosure; Deed of Trust; Assignment –
Published: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, January 17, 2011 at 10:52 p.m.
.
( page all of 5 )
Florida courthouses are rife with evidence of errors and fabrications made by attorneys handling foreclosure cases, and yet so far no lawyers have been disciplined.
With pressure mounting to police its own members, the Florida Bar established a special category of complaints listed as “foreclosure fraud.”
But in 20 complaints investigated in that category, the Bar has not found cause to discipline anyone — even lawyers who admitted to breaking ethical rules.
Some observers say that early track record of ignoring misdeeds by its members raises questions about whether the system of self-policing for lawyers can handle the depth of wrongdoing in the foreclosure crisis.
The complaints have been filed by judges, lawyers, homeowners and the Florida Bar itself, and reflect the issues seen in courtrooms almost daily for the past two years, including forged signatures and backdated documents used to improperly seize homes in foreclosures.
JAMES KEITH HOOTEN, et al. GERRY RENEE HOOTEN, Plaintiffs,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant.
Cause No. 1:09cv491-LG-RHW.
United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division.
January 11, 2011.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
LOUIS GUIROLA Jr., District Judge.
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment [30]. Plaintiffs James Keith and Gerry Renee Hooten initiated this action against their mortgage holder after their home was lost in a tax sale. Ocwen argues (1) it owed no contractual duty to pay the past due taxes, (2) the Statute of Frauds bars any oral modifications, (3) the Hootens released Ocwen from all claims, (4) and the taxes were not escrowed. The Court has considered the parties’ submissions[1] and the relevant legal authority. The motion is denied.
updated 1/17/2011 8:12:27 AM ET 2011-01-17T13:12:27
.
One of the nation’s biggest banks — JP Morgan Chase — admits it has overcharged several thousand military families for their mortgages, including families of troops fighting in Afghanistan. The bank also tells NBC News that it improperly foreclosed on more than a dozen military families.
The admissions are an outgrowth of a lawsuit filed by Marine Capt. Jonathan Rowles. Rowles is the backseat pilot of an F/A 18 Delta fighter jet and has served the nation as a Marine for five years. He and his wife, Julia, say they’ve been battling Chase almost that long.
LONDON (Reuters) – A former Swiss private banker handed over data on hundreds of offshore bank account holders to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a news conference on Monday.
Rudolf Elmer once headed the office of Julius Baer in the Cayman Islands until he was fired by the bank in 2002. He is scheduled to go on trial in Switzerland on Wednesday for breaching bank secrecy.
Elmer handed Assange the data at a news conference at a media club in London. The two yellow and blue discs contain information on 2,000 banking clients who have parked money offshore.
“He (Elmer) is clearly a bona fide whistleblower… We have some kind of duty to support him in that matter,” said Assange, who is on bail in Britain and fighting extradition to Sweden where he faces questioning over alleged sex crimes.
Posts by David Dayen Sunday January 16, 2011 7:00 am
In a major ruling Friday, a coalition of nonprofit defense lawyers and consumer protection advocates in Maryland successfully got over 10,000 foreclosure cases managed by GMAC Mortgage tossed out, because affidavits in the cases were signed by Jeffrey Stephan, the infamous GMAC “robo-signer” who attested to the authenticity of foreclosure documents without any knowledge about them, as well as signing other false statements.
The University of Maryland Consumer Protection Clinic and Civil Justice, Inc., a nonprofit, filed the class action lawsuit, arguing that any case using Jeffrey Stephan as a signer was illegitimate and must be dismissed. In court Friday, GMAC agreed to dismiss every case in Maryland relying on a Stephan affidavit. They can refile foreclosure actions on the close to 10,000 homes, but only at their own expense, and subject to new Maryland regulations which require mandatory mediation between borrower and lender before moving to foreclosure. Civil Justice and the Consumer Protection Clinic also want any cases with affidavits from Xee Moua of Wells Fargo, who has also admitted to robo-signing, thrown out, but that case has not yet been settled.
This was not the plan of GMAC and other banks caught using robo-signers last year. They hoped to undergo a pause in proceedings, run a quick “double-check” and then issue substitute documents in the same cases. That would have been a much more rapid solution for the banks and would have resulted in many more foreclosures. Now GMAC has to go back and basically file the entire case all over again, meaning they have to give notice of foreclosure to the borrower, engage the borrower in modification options, and basically run through the whole process from the beginning. They cannot use the shortcut solution, thanks to the class action suit filed. GMAC’s dismissal of every foreclosure in Maryland shows their doubts they would have won the class action.
LASALLE BANK, N.A; CENLAR FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK FSB; FEIN, SUCH, KAHN AND SHEPARD, PC;
No. 09-1466.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Argued September 14, 2010.
Filed: January 12, 2011.
Lewis G. Adler (Argued), Woodbury, N.J. 08096, Roger C. Mattson, Woodbury, N.J. 08096, Attorneys for Appellant.
Andrew C. Sayles (Argued) Gregory E. Peterson, Connell Foley, Roseland, N.J. 08068, Attorneys for Appellee Fein, Such, Kahn and Shepard, P.C.
Daniel C. Green, Vedder Price, New York, N.Y. 10019, Chad A. Schiefelbein (Argued), Vedder Price, Chicago, IL 60601, Attorneys for Appellee LaSalle Bank.
Gregory A. Lomax, Christopher L. Soriano, Morgan J. Zucker, Duane Morris, Cherry Hill, N.J. 08003, Attorneys for Appellee Cenlar Federal Savings Bank.
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY, and SMITH Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
This appeal presents the question whether a communication from a debt collector to a consumer’s attorney is actionable under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1).
LAST WEEK’S Supreme Judicial Court decision, in which the court upended a pair of Springfield foreclosures and upbraided Wells Fargo and US Bank for maintaining sloppy records is great news for homeowners facing foreclosure. Mortgage-servicing banks, which were in the habit of trading mortgages around like cheap baseball cards, will be forced to slow the pace of foreclosures even more, and carefully verify that they actually own the mortgages on the properties they want to foreclose on. But the decision brings uncertainty to buyers of foreclosed properties — buyers who might not have clear title to their homes anymore.
The SJC decision in Ibanez vs. US Bancorpjustifiably beat up on a pair of banks that couldn’t prove they owned mortgages they foreclosed on. The reverberations should be especially strong for mortgage investors and big banks.
Investors who bought up bonds backed by huge pools of mortgages have already been pressuring banks to buy back pools of bad mortgages that they sold before the housing bubble collapsed. These cases only cover a relatively small universe of poorly underwritten loans, but billions of dollars are at stake. Investors burned by mortgage bets have been trying to line up a much more expansive set of lawsuits challenging not the mortgages themselves, but the way big banks handled them after they were sold. The Ibanez decision gives serious weight to those investors, who are eying massive potential payouts.
Jose Pagliery Daily Business Review January 13, 2011
Representatives from six major banks that skipped a hearing in a Miami condo association receivership case could face the wrath of Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey today if they fail to show up a second time.
The judge already has declared lenders that own or are foreclosing on units at Bird Grove Condo are on the hook for $105,999 in expenses for the court-appointed receiver for the association. She also held the six in contempt of court.
Bailey last month granted a request by the receiver, Miami attorney Lisa Lehner, to be paid for pulling the building — an asset for the foreclosing banks — back from the brink of condemnation.
When Lehner was appointed in March, garbage hadn’t been collected for weeks, electricity was about to be cut off, the building had no insurance, and an elevator was broken. She turned it around in months.
“They have property and collateral that if I walk away from turn into nothing,” Lehner said. “Here I am, sitting as their property manager, working for free after practicing law for 28 years. It’s just not fair.”
Lehner’s demand for $5,579 in expenses per unit went uncontested at a Dec. 1 show cause hearing where Bank of America was the only lender to send a representative. Missing were Flagstar Bank, GMAC, PNC Bank, SunTrust Bank, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo.
In November, banks owned two units and were foreclosing on another 17 units in the 39-unit building at 2734 Bird Ave. between a gas station and a gallery. A one-bedroom, one-bath unit is listed for sale for $50,000. Bank of America filed nine foreclosure cases, followed by GMAC with five.
The six lenders were ordered to send non-attorney representatives to today’s hearing, when Bailey will discuss whether the banks also should be required to pay the receiver’s upcoming maintenance fees. Bailey’s order threatened to have bankers arrested if they didn’t show, and she warned, “You may be held in jail up to 48 hours before a hearing is held.”
4 Q. You contend that Exhibit 1 is the document
5 that authorizes you to sign on behalf of Countrywide Home
6 Loans Servicing LP?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. How so?
9 A. Countrywide Financial Corporation
10 actually — let me correct myself.
11 The plaintiff, as listed in this particular
12 case, is owned by Countrywide Financial Corporation.
13 It’s one of their entities.
14 Q. Okay. And how do you come to that
15 information?
16 A. Because I know it. I’ve been doing it for
17 a long time. I’ve — I don’t remember at what point in
18 time I found out that knowledge, but I’ve had it.
19 Q. Okay. Now, is Countrywide Home Loans
20 Servicing LP, to your knowledge, a separate corporate
21 entity from Countrywide Financial Corporation?
22 A. I don’t know.
<SNIP>
1 Q. And was that the situation back in December
2 of 2008 when you executed the assignment?
3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. At that time, who was the owner of
5 the beneficial interest in the mortgage?
6 A. The beneficial interest in the note was
7 held by Fannie Mae. The interest in the mortgage was as
8 to, arguably, the interest in the mortgage was both
9 entities, the plaintiff and the Fannie Mae. 10 Q. Do you have any documents establishing your
11 authority to execute any assignments on behalf of Fannie
12 Mae?
13 A. Did I bring them? What? Say that again.
14 Sorry. 15 Q. Do you have any documents indicating your
16 authority to execute assignments on behalf of Fannie Mae?
17 A. I don’t know. 18 Q. Fannie Mae — excuse me.
19 The mortgage is to secure the note, right?
20 A. The mortgage follows the note, yes. 21 Q. Okay. And if Fannie Mae has the note, they
22 have to transfer or assign their interest in that note —
23 MR. ROSENQUEST: Object to form.
24 BY MR. FLANAGAN: 25 Q. — to someone else.
<SNIP>
20 Q. Okay. Does the name R.K. Arnold mean
21 anything to you?
22 A. No. 23 Q. Do you know Mr. Arnold, who is the
24 president of MERS?
25 A. No. 1 Q. You never heard of him?
2 A. No. 3 Q. If he stated that in order to be a
4 certifying officer and sign an assignment on behalf of
5 MERS somebody needed to pass and complete an examination,
6 is that something that is familiar to you?
7 A. It’s not familiar to me, no. I don’t know. 8 Q. Okay. That was not something that you had
9 to do.
10 A. I did not do that. 11 Q. Okay. And if he’s saying that, if that was
12 a rule or a qualification, that was something that was
13 not made known to you.
Before you go to the deposition, take a look at R. K. Arnold’s reply to one of Senator Brown’s questions on the hearing for “Problems in Mortgage Servicing From Modification to Foreclosure” on November 15, 2010.
Saxena White P.A. Files Securities Fraud Class Action Against Lender Processing Services, Inc.
Boca Raton, January 12, 2011
Boca Raton, FL, January 12, 2011: In recent months, various government investigations and media reports on mortgage service companies have exposed an industry that increasingly relied on deceptive and fraudulent business practices, including the use of so-called “robo-signers” that falsified mortgage ownership documents. Lender Processing Services, Inc. (“LPS” or the “Company”), a mortgage servicer based in Jacksonville, Florida, is one of the companies facing government scrutiny.
In connection with the Florida Attorney General’s investigation into the Company, former Florida AG Bill McCollum has indicated that LPS and other similar companies have produced “numerous documents in foreclosure cases that appear to be fabricated.” As a result of the rampant use of these and other unscrupulous business practices, investors have suffered millions of dollars in losses.
Saxena White P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit for an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all investors who purchased LPS securities during the period between July 29, 2009 and October 4, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: (i) that the Company had engaged in improper and deceptive business practices; (ii) that a subsidiary of LPS, Docx, had been falsifying mortgage documents through the use of “robo-signers”; (iii) that the Company had engaged in improper fee sharing arrangements with foreclosure law firms, including the use of undisclosed contractual arrangements for impermissible legal fee splitting, which are camouflaged as various types of fees; and (iv) that as a result of the Company’s deceptive business practices, LPS reported materially false and misleading financial results.
On October 4, 2010, after continued media reports and various government investigations calling into question LPS’s default-related services that it provides to mortgage lenders, the market price of LPS stock fell $2.72, or 8.6% per share, to close at $28.76 per share. The price of LPS stock fell another $1.45, or 5.04%, on October 5, 2010, to close at $27.31 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action at www.saxenawhite.com. If you purchased LPS stock between July 29, 2009 and October 4, 2010, you may contact Joe White or Greg Stone at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests:
Joseph E. White, III Greg Stone
jwhite@saxenawhite.com gstone@saxenawhite.com
Saxena White P.A.
2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 394-3399
Fax: (561) 394-3382 www.saxenawhite.com
If you purchased LPS shares during the Class Period and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than January 24, 2011. You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member.
Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton, Boston and Montana, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States.
Now, Judge Arthur M. Schack of Brooklyn has taken things a step further. Since the banks in cases before him have yet to begin complying with the new court rules, he has started throwing out foreclosure cases. But the question isn’t whether the banks will now choose to start complying with the rule: The question is: Will they even be able to?
“You Have to Obey Court Orders”
The first case Judge Schack tossed wasCitibank, N.A. v. Murillo, which he dismissed with prejudice on Jan. 7, as the blog StopForeclosureFraud reported. The attorneys for Citibank (C) in that case were from the Steven Baum law firm, a foreclosure mill that has been sanctioned for its involvement in frivolous cases. If the Baum firm couldn’t file a timely affirmation in the Murillo case, how many of its other cases will it be able to file affirmations in?
Professor of Economics and Research Director of the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability, University of Missouri–Kansas City
Posted: January 12, 2011 10:30 AM
In a ruling that could be historic, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled against two fraudster banks, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo, who illegally foreclosed on homes. In short, the two banks stole homes to which they had no legal claim.
This rattled stock markets, causing the broad-based KBW Bank Index to fall by 2.2%, with Wells Fargo’s stock prices falling by 3.4% as markets began to recognize that “business as usual” theft of American homes by banksters will be subject to greater scrutiny. Tellingly, the banks have been arguing that they are following industry practice. The ruling in Massachusetts (one of the most respected Supreme Courts in the US) affirms that industry practice is fraudulent. Perhaps as many as 66 million mortgages (those tainted by improper industry recording procedures) could be affected by the ruling.
As I have been arguing in a series of pieces (see here and here and here), in their haste to commit lender fraud, the banks that securitized mortgages also perpetrated tax fraud and securities fraud. The inevitable outcome of those frauds is foreclosure fraud. As Lynn Szymoniak and Ray Brown have written, 2010 became the year in which “‘foreclosure fraud’ emerged in case law’ — defined as ‘fraud by mortgage companies, mortgage servicing companies, and banks servicing as trustees for securitized trusts.” Foreclosure fraud is not a matter of some pesky little paperwork problems. It is the designated solution to paper-over the lending and securities and tax frauds that the banksters used to bubble-up and then collapse the US real estate sector. To put it simply, the Court found that the practices followed by the industry have made legal foreclosure impossible.
PACHECO v. EMC Mortgage Corp & The Bear Stearns Companies LLC [Read Complaint Below]
SEATTLE, January 10, 2011 (GlobeNewswire) – Attorney Advertising. Keller Rohrback L.L.P. (www.krclassaction.com) announces that a class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on behalf of all mortgagors in the State of Washington whose home mortgage loans are serviced by EMC Mortgage Corporation and who (a) have attempted to obtain modifications of their loan terms from EMC; and (b) have made payments pursuant to a “Repayment Agreement,” a Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) trial modification plan, or any other temporary modification plan.
The complaint alleges, among other things that the Defendants: engaged in bad faith as to home mortgage loan modification negotiations; led mortgagors to reasonably believe and rely on Defendants’ representations that they would permanently modify their mortgage loans upon successful completion of “Repayment Agreements” or other trial programs; charged unreasonable, unlawful, or excessive fees; failed to properly disclose and/or concealed fees and other charges; failed to provide to mortgagors a proper or comprehensible accounting of fees, payments, credits, arrearages, and amounts owed; improperly or under-applied mortgage payments to accounts; and breached “Repayment Agreements” or other trial modification program contracts or promises. The complaint has been filed pursuant to the Washington Consumer Protection Act and contains additional claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.
Keller Rohrback is also investigating the following mortgage loan servicers regarding mortgage loan modifications in Washington and elsewhere:
American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
Aurora Loan Services, LLC
Citimortgage, Inc.
GMAC Mortgage, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase Bank NA
Litton Loan Servicing LP
Nationstar Mortgage LLC
OneWest Bank
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.
If your home mortgage loan is serviced by EMC Mortgage Corporation or any of the above-listed servicers and you have questions regarding these matters, please contact paralegal Nick Wallace or attorneys Gretchen Obrist or Lynn Sarko at 800.776.6044 or via email at info@kellerrohrback.com.
For additional information regarding the litigation, please click here.
Keller Rohrback, with offices in Seattle, Phoenix, Santa Barbara and New York, is committed to helping individuals protect their investments. Keller Rohrback has successfully provided class action representation for over a decade. Its litigators have obtained judgments and settlements on behalf of clients in excess of seven billion dollars.
Attorney Advertising. Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome.
Alter Ego – Piercing the Corporate Veil of DJSP BVI
99. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, repeat and reallege
the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.
100. As alleged above, at all relevant times herein, DJSP BVI, by its complete exercise of
dominion and control, is the alter ego of DJSP FL, DAL Group and its operating subsidiaries
DJS Processing, Professional Title, and Default Servicing, which constitute a single employer.
Indeed, as set forth above, there is a high interdependency of operations; there is commonality
between management, directors and officers; there is a consolidation of financial, strategic, legal
and human resources operations; and, at all relevant times, DJSP BVI has used and continued to
use DAL Group and its operating subsidiaries and the assets of these entities for its own
purposes.
COUNT II
Alter Ego – Stern
103. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, repeat and reallege
the allegations in paragraphs one through eighty-five (1-85) as if fully restated herein.
104. As alleged above, at all relevant times herein Stern, by his complete exercise of dominion
and control over said entities, is the alter ego of DJSPA, DJSP BVI, DJSP FL, DAL Group and
its operating subsidiaries DJS Processing, Professional Title, and Default Servicing. The
foregoing entities combine to constitute a single employer, all under the direction and control of
Stern personally. Indeed, as set forth above, there is a high interdependency of operations; there
is commonality between management, directors and officers; there is a consolidation of financial,
strategic, legal and human resources operations; and, at all relevant times, Stern has used and
continued to use DJSPA, DJSP BVI, DJSP FL, DAL Group and its operating subsidiaries and the
assets of these entities for his own purposes.
Citibank, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2007-SD3, ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-SD3, Plaintiff,
against
Santiago Murillo, et. al., Defendants
16214/08
Plaintiff: Megan B. Szeliga, Esq. and Jenneifer M. MCann, Esq., Steven J. Baum, P.C., Amherst, NY
Defendant: Paul E. Kerson, Esq., Leavitt, Kerson and Duane, Forest Hills, NY
Arthur M. Schack, J.
Excerpts:
The failure of plaintiff’s counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C., to comply with two court orders, my November 4, 2010 order and Chief Administrative Judge Pfau’s October 20, 2010 order, demonstrates delinquent conduct by Steven J. Baum, P.C. This mandates the dismissal with prejudice of the instant action. Failure to comply with court-ordered time frames must be taken seriously. It cannot be ignored. There are consequences for ignoring court orders. Recently, on December 16, 2010, the Court of Appeals, in Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp. (___NY3d ___, 2010 NY Slip Op 09198), instructed, at *5:
<SNIP>
Conclusion
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that the instant action, Index Number 16214/08, is dismissed with
prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that the Notice of Pendency in this action, filed with the Kings
County Clerk on June 5, 2008, by plaintiff, CITIBANK, N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR
CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES TRUST 2007-SD3, ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-SD3 to foreclose on a mortgage for real property located at 41 Hill Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4165, Lot 40, County of Kings), is cancelled and discharged.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
ENTER
________________________________
HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACK
J. S. C.
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 09-2182
SAUL H. CATALAN and MIA MORRIS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. GMAC MORTGAGE CORP.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 05 C 6920—George W. Lindberg, Judge.
ARGUED FEBRUARY 12, 2010—DECIDEDJANUARY 10, 2011
Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Circuit
Judge, and SPRINGMANN, District Judge..
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Saul H. Catalan and Mia Morris sued defendants RBC Mortgage Company and GMAC Mortgage Company under the federal RealEstate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., and under Illinois law for gross negligence, breach of contract, and willful and wanton negligence. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ gross negligence claim as merely duplicating the willful and wanton negligence claim. The court granted summary judgment to GMAC Mortgage on the plaintiffs’ RESPA, breach of contract, and remaining negligence claims. The plaintiffs appeal those decisions. We reverse the grant of summary judgment for GMAC Mortgage on the plaintiffs’ RESPA and breach of contract claims, and we affirm summary judgment on their negligence claims.1
Recent Comments