Signatures on documents used in foreclosure cases under review
The Sun News-
Anthony Wise has been selling real estate in the Myrtle Beach area for nearly three decades, but he had never heard of Linda Green until after his home went into foreclosure.
Now, just like hundreds of thousands of people nationwide, Wise is finding that the biggest investment he will ever make – his home – is closely tied to Green … or someone pretending to be her.
Green was a shipping clerk for an automobile parts company before taking a job in the signature room at a mortgage document company called DocX in Alpharetta, Ga., according to news reports.
[…]
Richard Lovelace, a Conway lawyer who specializes in real estate and banking law, said the banks who used DocX – or similar document mills – have put themselves at risk if homeowners can prove the paperwork is fraudulent.
That is true even if a home has already been lost to foreclosure.
Now, why didn’t they sell them back to the families at these prices?
Jacksonville.com–
On March 8, a San Diego company purchased a group of foreclosed Jacksonville homes from government-backed Fannie Mae, getting two for $200 each and another three for $1,000, $2,500 and $3,500.
Last fall, Dallas-based Harbour Portfolio VI purchased at least six foreclosed Jacksonville houses, also all on the same day. The price for two was as low as $2,400. One of the six, at 3046 Columbus Ave. on Jacksonville’s Northside, which sold for $14,700, stood vacant and wide open March 30. The knob on its front door had been jimmied off.
David Cruz Jr. got what he believed was a great offer in a foreclosure lawsuit filed against him by giant mortgage lender Fannie Mae.
If Cruz deeded the modest Fort Myers investment house back to Fannie Mae, the government-backed company would release him from the loan’s $123,750 note: the obligation underlying his mortgage.
He deeded the house back to Fannie Mae, but court records show he didn’t get what he bargained for.
Bank tells Surprise couple they’re in foreclosure on home they sold in short sale nine months ago.
AZCENTRAL-
A Surprise couple sold their home in a short sale, and then were shocked when the bank told them the house was in foreclosure for an unpaid balance of just one dollar.
Like many other homeowners, Jose and Marcy Romero were upside down on their home. They felt the best decision was to put it up for a short sale. They owed $200,000, but it sold for $84,000. Marcy said, “(We) put it up on the market. Five minutes later it sold.”
“The whole foreclosure crisis is predicated on fraudulent practices,” Fluker told Wayne County Commissioners. “Why is this county and our sheriff allowing evictions to proceed based on fraud?”
Michigan Citizen-
DETROIT — Wayne County Commissioners heard stirring testimony June 13 from dozens of area residents fighting to remain in their homes.
Their pleas were bolstered by attorneys and experts familiar with the depth of devastation wrought by the ongoing foreclosure crisis. The broad coalition turned out for the public meeting held at the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center and in support of the Homeowner Protection and Neighborhood Preservation Act.
The act, proposed by Commissioner Martha Scott in April, seeks an immediate moratorium on all foreclosures in Wayne County for one year.
State lawmakers hope changes to a successful foreclosure mediation program will grant homeowners struggling to hold on to their property more time and greater piece of mind.
Under the new proposal, which needs to by signed by the governor, lenders cannot proceed with any legal action for eight months.
“A lot of people were able to work things out within three months,” said state Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, who helped enact the original mediation effort in 2008.
Rumor has it, Mr. Home has trademarked both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac names in AZ ??
AZCENTRAL-
A Tucson mayoral candidate from a fringe political party has seized dozens of foreclosed homes in metro Phoenix, changing the locks, kicking out real-estate agents and posting “Do Not Trespass” signs.
Marshall Home, who claims many foreclosures are illegal, has filed documents in the past two weeks with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office showing he has supposedly taken ownership of at least 21 homes belonging to government-owned mortgage giant Fannie Mae. But none of the documents shows any money has changed hands, and Fannie Mae says it has not sold the houses.
[…]
“Lenders are gangsters, and they can’t prove they own these homes. So they have no right to foreclose,” said the 80-year-old self-professed billionaire from his real-estate and political office in Tucson on Tuesday. “I plan to continue to take homes from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I would buy them, but those groups can’t produce the notes showing they are the rightful owners to sell or foreclose on them.”
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.
AKRON, Ohio – The Cuyahoga County judge charged in the county corruption investigation for allegedly fixing a foreclosure case has been found guilty on three of the five charges he was facing.
The federal jury returned the verdict against Judge Steven Terry shortly before 2 p.m. Monday in Akron.
Terry, who was facing five charges, was found guilty of counts one, three and four – which were related to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and mail fraud. Our reporter in the courtroom said Terry remained calm as the verdict was read.
On March 29, 2011, the PEB released for public comment its Draft Report on UCC Rules Applicable to the Assignment of Mortgage Notes and to the Ownership and Enforcement of Those Notes and the Mortgages Securing Them. The PEB is now reviewing the comments received by the submission deadline of May 28, 2011.
From: John A. Sebert, Chair, Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial Code (PEB)
Summary
The Uniform Commercial Code provides four sets of rules that determine matters that are important in the context of enforcement of mortgage notes and the mortgages that secure them:
First, in the case of a mortgage note that is a negotiable instrument, Article 3 of the UCC determines the identity of the person who is entitled to enforce the note and to whom the maker owes its payment obligation; payment to the person entitled to enforce the note discharges the maker’s obligation, but failure to pay that party when the note is due constitutes dishonor.
Second, for both negotiable and non-negotiable mortgage notes, Article 9 of the UCC determines whether a transferee of the note from its owner has obtained an attached property right in the note.
Third, Article 9 of the UCC provides that a transferee of a mortgage note whose property right in the note has attached also automatically has an attached property right in the mortgage that secures the note.
Finally, Article 9 of the UCC provides a mechanism by which the owner of a note and the mortgage securing it may, upon default of the maker of the note, record its interest in the mortgage in the realty records in order to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure.
Seven states have enacted the 2010 Amendments to Article 9 of the UCC
June 15, 2011 – Seven states – Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Texas, and Washington – are the first states to adopt important amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9. The 2010 Amendments are designed to go into effect simultaneously on July 1, 2013; many more states are expected to enact the amendments next year.
By the conduct set forth above, respondent violated the following R. Regulating Fla. Bar:
A. Rule 3-4.2 [Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct as adopted by the rules governing The Florida Bar is a cause for discipline.];
B. Rule 4-3.4(c) [A lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation
under the rules of a tribunal except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists.]; and
C. Rule 4-8.4(a) [A lawyer shall not violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another.].
MURRIETA, Calif. (KABC) — A family is being told the house they thought they bought in Murrieta actually belongs to someone else. The family says they can’t stop making their mortgage payments.
“Even though you’ve made your payments in full every month, you could get a knock at the door saying get out,” said would-be homeowner Charlie Zahari. “If you look at it, we’re renters in a house we can’t move out of.”
That was hardly the feeling last summer where there was all the euphoria of buying their first home.
They custom painted the girls’ bedrooms and sodded the backyard.
(Reuters) – U.S. regulators could file civil fraud charges against some credit-rating agencies for their role in developing mortgage-bond deals that helped bring about the financial crisis, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.
The Journal said the Securities and Exchange Commission was reviewing the conduct of companies including McGraw Hill’s Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service owned by Moody’s Corp on at least two mortgage-bond deals.
Which brings us to BONY v. Faulk. In this case, the foreclosure filing included a 3 page note. The note lacked endorsements connecting the originator to BONY as trustee for the foreclosing securitziation trust. This set up a motion to dismiss on the grounds that BONY didn’t have any right to do anything–it had no connection with the note.
But wait! Suddenly BONY’s attorney tells the court that she is in possession of the fourth page of the note, which includes a blank endorsement. Puhlease… What a ridiculous deus ex machina ending. Are we do believe that this attorney filed 3 pages of the note, but not the 4th? If so, I sure hope she’s not billing for that screw up.
But here’s what perplexes me. Suppose that an allonge is produced. How are we going to know when that allonge was created or that it even relates to the note in question? (Just so everyone’s clear–if the endorsement were created later, then BONY as trustee for CWABS 2006-13 trust had no standing at the time the action was filed because the trust didn’t own the note at that time.) How do we know that this attorney isn’t engaged in fraud on the court (and a host of other violations of state and federal law)?
And this isn’t even getting into the question of whether the PSA at issue requires specific endorsements, not endorsements in blank. As it turns out that’s a problem in this particular case. Here’s the PSA for CWABS 2006-13 trust. Section 2.01(g)(1) provides that the Depositor deliver to the trustee:
the original Mortgage Note, endorsed by manual of facsimile signature in blank in the following form: “Pay to the order of _______ without recourse”, with all intervening endorsements that show a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the Person endorsing the Mortgage Note…
“Now allonges. An allonge isn’t a delicious throat-soothing lozenge from Switzerland. It’s a piece of paper that goes a-long with the note. The allonge is basically an overflow sheet for extra endorsements”
Prof. Adam Levitin:
I have generally been willing to give mortgage servicers, servicer support shops (like LPS), and foreclosure attorneys the benefit of the doubt when it comes to documentation irregularities (to put it mildly) in foreclosures. My working assumption up to this point has been that the documentation problems have been a function of corner cutting with securitization based on the assumptions that (1) the loans would perform better than they did and (2) those that defaulted would result in default judgments in foreclosure, so no one would ever notice the problems. I’ve also assumed that lack of capacity has played a critical role in problems in the default management chain–the system is held together by Scotch tape at this point. In other words, the problems in the system weren’t caused by malice.
Who Else Relied on Mortgage Assignments From Lender Processing Services to Foreclose?
In the past few weeks, Fraud Digest has reported on NovaStar, Bear Stearns and WaMu Trusts. These trusts almost always do not have the critical loan documents needed to foreclose so they turned to Lender Processing Services to manufacture mortgage assignments for them.
Like these trusts, Maiden Lane Asset-Backed Securities Trust 2008-1 (“Maiden Lane”) most often uses Mortgage Assignments from LPS to foreclose.
Maiden Lane is “a special purpose vehicle consolidated by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.” Maiden Lane was put together by some of the best and the brightest in banking – but when it came to seeing that the mortgage files contained the critical documents, Maiden Lane was no better than Countrywide or WaMu or Long Beach.
And to facilitate foreclosures, Maiden Lane uses Mortgage Assignments – that also purport to assign the NOTE – from Lender Processing Services. These Assignments were most often made in 2009 – and filed in 2009 and 2010.
Here is a partial list of Mortgage Assignments to Maiden Lane ABS Trust 2008-1. Note in particular the number of MERS titles claimed by LPS employees Greg Allen and Liquenda Allotey.
From Hillsborough County, Florida Official Records:
Instrument#: 2010265459
Assignor: MERS as nominee for Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corp., by Greg Allen, VP
Date of Assignment: 7-20-2009
Instrument #: 2010072578
Assignor: MERS as nominee for Solstice Capital Group, Inc., by Liquenda Allotey, VP
Date of Assignment: 7-20-2009
Instrument #: 2009383278
Assignor: MERS as nominee for Bravo Credit, by Greg Allen, VP
Date of Assignment: 11-2-2009
Instrument #: 2009316873
Assignor: MERS as nominee for GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., by Christine Allen, VP
Date of Assignment: 9-14-2009
Instrument #: 2009314046
Assignor: MERS as nominee for Bayrock Mortgage Corp. by Liquenda Allotey, VP and Greg Allen, VP
Date of Assignment: 9-16-2009
Instrument #: 2009043801
Assignor: MERS as nominee for GreenPoint Mortgage Funding by Greg Allen, VP and John Cody, VP
Date of Assignment: 1-13-2009
Instrument #: 2009017120
Assignor: MERS as nominee for Bravo Credit by Christine Anderson, VP and Greg Allen, VP
Date of Assignment: 12-9-2008
From Lee County, Florida Official Records:
Instrument #: 2009000111365
Assignor: MERS, by Liquenda Allotey, VP
Date of Assignment: 4-20-2009
Instrument #: 2009000033548
Assignor: MERS as nominee for Amerimortgage Bankers, LLC by Greg Allen, VP
Date of Assignment: 1-12-2009
From Palm Beach County, Florida Official Records:
Instrument #: 20080419438
Assignor: MERS as nominee for First Guaranty Financial Corp., d/b/a Phoenix Funding by Liquenda Allotey, VP and Mathew Casey, VP
Date of Assignment: 10-15-2008
Instrument #: 20080435965
Assignor: MERS as nominee for Geneva Mortgage Corp. by Liquenda Allotey, Assistant Secretary and Christine Anderson, VP
Date of Assignment: 11-11-2008
Instrument #: 20090055586
Assignor: MERS as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc. by Liquenda Allotey, VP and Greg Allen, VP
Date of Assignment: 1-20-2009
Instrument #: 20090076228
Assignor: MERS as nominee for AMPRO Mortgage by Liquenda Allotey, VP and Greg Allen, VP
Date of Assignment: 2-3-2009
Instrument #: 20090096176
Assignor: MERS as nominee for Equifirst Corp. by Liquenda Allotey, VP and Greg Allen, VP
Date of Assignment: 2-24-2009
From Martin County, Florida Official Records:
Instrument #2132924
Assignor: MERS as nominee for GE MoneyBank by Greg Allen, VP
Date of Assignment: 2-4-2009
From Broward County, Florida Official Records:
Instrument #108479192
Assignor: MERS as nominee for Bravo Credit by Greg Allen, VP
Date of Assignment: 2-6-2009
Instrument #108878042
Assignor: MERS as nominee for Hometown Mortgage Services, Inc. by Greg Allen, VP
and Liquenda Allotey, VP
Date of Assignment: 9-9-2009
Instrument # 108819366
Assignor: MERS as nominee for Home Loan Center, Inc. d/b/a Lendingtree Loans by Greg Allen, VP and Liquenda Allotey, VP
Date of Assignment: 8-24-2009
FULTON COUNTY, Ga. — Fulton County’s clerk of court said homeowners from across the country have filed complaints questioning the credentials of notaries who signed their mortgage documents.
Cathelene “Tina” Robinson said she’s already revoked certifications from several of the notaries involved.
“As a notary, your job is to prevent fraud,” said Robinson, who commissions all of Fulton County’s notaries.
One of the striking things, as the mortgage crisis has ground on, is how persistent and to some degree effective the industry incumbents have been in influencing news stories. One can argue they’ve been more successful than the TBTF banks, perhaps because if you can tank the global economy, keep your job, and still continue to pay yourself egregious bonuses, you don’t need to stoop to throttling every bit of negative coverage. The fact that near-urban legends like strategic defaults are trumpeted in the media as if they are a meaningful phenomenon, or that defenses of securitization practices by firms like K&L Gates, which have liability on their legal opinions, dominated the coverage on that issue for quite some time until more and more court decisions showed their analysis to be sorely wanting, illustrates how much spin there is in what purports to be news.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS PURCHASER OF THE LOANS AND OTHER ASSETS OF WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FORMERLY KNOWN AS WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA (THE “SAVINGS BANK”) FROM THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, ACTING AS RECEIVER FOR THE SAVINGS BANK AND PURSUANT TO ITS
AUTHORITY UNDER THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT, 12 U.S.C. 9 1821(D),
-versus-
FREDERICK W. BUTLER,
EXCERPTS:
FURTHER, why an Order should not be entered that plaintiff pursued the Prosecution of this foreclosure action, and participated and engaged in actions,Constituting Settlement Conferences Before the Court in this Matter, when plaintiff had full knowledge, and plaintiffs counsel knew or should have known, that plaintiff had received payment on May 22,20 10 for the amount specified in paragraph SIXTH of its complaint dated on or about January 19,2010, as due and owing (that is, $434,382.89);
FURTHER, why an Order should not be entered that plaintiff and plaintiffs’ Counsels made material misrepresentations to the Court, on April 14,201 1 and May 2, 2011, for example, thereby engaging in misconduct before the Court;
[…]
FURTHER, why plaintiffs counsels, the law offices of Steven J. Baum, and their co counsel Cullen & Dykman LLP, should not be sanctioned pursuant to New York Judiciary Law 487 for misstatements and misrepresentations made to the Court on May 2, 2011, to defendant during the course of 11 settlement conferences over 12 months, and to defendant’s counsel and the Court with respect to the fact and procedural history of this case;
FURTHER, why Judgment should not be entered pursuant to CPLR 32111(a)(l), 321 l(a)(3), 321 l(a)(7) and 321 l(a)(8) dismissing this foreclosure action with prejudice;
FURTHER, why judgment should not be entered imposing sanctions against Plaintiff on the basis that plaintiffs affidavit of facts- namely its verified summons and complaint — contained material misrepresentations about its legal capacity to sue, about which plaintiff had full knowledge from commencement of this;
3 We note that Turner’s argument that Deutsche Bank possessed unclean hands is an equitable defense to the merits of this lawsuit. This is an issue for the chancery court to consider on remand.
ANGELA L. TURNER
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY
Excerpts:
¶1. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company initiated a foreclosure action in the Warren County Chancery Court and attempted to serve Angela Turner by publication. But before doing so, it neither certified Turner was a non-resident of Mississippi nor alleged she could not be located in the state after a diligent inquiry. Because we find service of process did not strictly comply with the governing rules, we reverse the chancellor’s refusal to set aside the default judgment she entered on behalf of Deutsche Bank when Turner did not respond. We remand the case for further proceedings.
[…]
¶11. Although Deutsche Bank published a summons in the newspaper for three consecutive weeks and filed proof of the publication, Deutsche Bank did not comply with Rule 4(c)(4)(A). It is undisputed that Deutsche Bank never filed a sworn petition or affidavit attesting that Turner was a nonresident or could not be found in Mississippi after a diligent inquiry. Therefore, it follows that Deutsche Bank did not comply with any of the remaining requirements for information that must be included in the petition or affidavit.
¶12. “The rules on service of process are to be strictly construed. If they have not been complied with, the court is without jurisdiction unless the defendant appears of his own volition.” Kolikas v. Kolikas, 821 So. 2d 874, 878 (16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (internal citation omitted). Actual notice does not cure defective process. See, e.g., Mosby v. Gandy, 375 So. 2d 1024, 1027 (Miss. 1979). “Even if a defendant is aware of a suit, the failure to comply with rules for the service of process, coupled with the failure of the defendant voluntarily to appear, prevents a judgment from being entered against him.” Sanghi, 759 So. 2d at 1257 (33).
[…]
¶20. Because service of process in this case failed to comply with Rule 4(c), we find the default judgment entered against Turner is void. Caldwell, 533 So. 2d at 417-18 (finding judgment void for defective process by publication). Thus, the chancery court erred in refusing to set the void judgment aside under Rule 60(b). We reverse and remand for further proceedings in which Deutsche Bank will have the opportunity to serve Turner with process.3
Bank of America said today it mistakenly sent nearly 5,000 Oregonians letters claiming they owe property taxes and might be risking foreclosure when they, in fact, don’t.
Washington County Department of Assessment and Taxationdirector Rich Hobernicht estimates his office has received 1,000 calls since Monday from homeowners who received letters from BAC Tax Services Corp, an arm of the bank’s BAC Home Loan Servicing division.
Recent Comments