H. Michael Muñiz of Kahane & Associates, P.A., Plantation, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the final judgment of foreclosure because the plaintiff failed to prove that an undated indorsement in blank was placed on an allonge prior to filing the original complaint.

CitiMortgage, Inc., filed a foreclosure action against Appellant. Attached to the complaint was a copy of the promissory note, which contained a stamp on the signature page indicating that an allonge was attached. However, no copy of the allonge was included with the complaint. An amended complaint was later filed, substituting Fannie Mae as the named plaintiff and including a copy of the allonge, which contained an undated indorsement in blank. At trial, Fannie Mae’s sole witness testified that he did not know when the allonge was created, nor was he aware of when CitiMortgage became the note’s holder.

The sufficiency of the evidence proving standing to bring a foreclosure action is reviewed de novo. Sosa v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 153 So. 3d 950, 951 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). It is well settled that a plaintiff in a foreclosure case must demonstrate it had standing at the time the complaint was filed. McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). When a note is indorsed in blank, it becomes bearer paper and is “negotiated by transfer of possession alone.” Calvo v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 181 So. 3d 562, 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting § 673.2051(2), Fla. Stat. (2014)). If a plaintiff’s standing derives from its status as a holder, based on an indorsement in blank, the plaintiff must establish that it had possession of the indorsed original note at the time the complaint was filed. Id. An undated indorsement introduced after the complaint was filed, is insufficient, without further evidence, to prove standing at the time the complaint was filed. Id.; see also Balch v. LaSalle Bank N.A., 171 So. 3d 207, 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (finding plaintiff failed to prove standing where there was no evidence indicating when the indorsement was placed onto the note).

Because Fannie Mae did not prove that CitiMortgage was the note’s holder at the commencement of the action, Fannie Mae failed to establish CitiMortgage’s standing to foreclose when the complaint was filed. Therefore, we reverse the final judgment of foreclosure and remand for entry of an order of involuntary dismissal of the action. See Calvo, 181 So. 3d at 564.

STEVENSON, GROSS and FORST, JJ., concur.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Donna L. Eng, Michael K. Winston and Dean A. Morande of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MAY, J.

The borrowers appeal a final judgment of foreclosure. They argue the trial court erred in entering the judgment because U.S. Bank (“bank”) failed to prove standing. We agree and reverse.

The borrowers executed a note and mortgage with Pinnacle Financial Corporation (“Pinnacle”). The borrowers defaulted on February 1, 2009. On May 11, 2009, the bank filed a foreclosure complaint seeking reformation of the warranty deed and mortgage, foreclosure, and reestablishment of the lost note. Its amended complaint dropped the count to reestablish the note, and had a copy of the note attached to it containing an undated special endorsement from Pinnacle to Impac Funding Corporation (“Impac”).

The loan number on the note was 11251***. An addendum contained an undated special endorsement allonge from Impac to the bank. The allonge had loan number 11035*****.

The third amended complaint re-alleged the reformation counts and foreclosure count. But the complaint now alleged that the bank was “the holder of the Mortgage Note and Mortgage.” The borrowers filed an answer and raised affirmative defenses. The case proceeded to trial.

At trial, the bank introduced exhibit 3, a three-page untitled document containing many numbers and abbreviations. It contained a loan number of 12181*****, an old loan number of 72537***, and a new servicer loan number of 72015*****. It indicated the borrowers’ name as Elman. The third page contained an investor loan number of 14720*** and named the investor as “EMC PMSR BSABS 2006-IM1.”

On cross-examination, the bank’s witness could not identify the date the allonge was affixed to the original note. She acknowledged that the loan number on the allonge was not the same as the number on the original note. The borrowers’ counsel highlighted page thirty-three of a notes log that was admitted into evidence, which stated, “04/28/06 Y90/018 Z24/001 I Y SALE TO EMC PMSR BSABS 2006-IM1.” The witness testified the log was part of the loan transfer history and indicated that the loan was sold to EMC. The log does not mention the bank.

The witness testified that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) was the servicer on the loan. After reviewing exhibit 3, however, the witness testified that it did not mention the bank and the EMC abbreviation did not stand for the bank. She did not know what EMC stood for.

On redirect, the witness explained that the pooling and servicing agreement (“PSA”) was between EMC Mortgage Corporation as purchaser and Wells Fargo as company. It was dated November 1, 2005, but was unexecuted, and did not include a mortgage loan schedule indicating the borrowers’ loan was part of the trust.

The witness then testified that the Assignment Assumption Agreement was dated April 25, 2006. It included EMC, the bank as trustee, and Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo agreed to service the loans and EMC assigned its rights to the bank. However, this agreement was also unexecuted.

When the trial court expressed concern about the loan numbers not matching, the witness testified that the loan number was from Pinnacle and each servicer had its own loan number. The witness was unsure if the allonge was associated with the note and mortgage. She testified that the different numbers did not affect the mortgage because once a loan was boarded, Wells Fargo verified all parties to the loan.

Several months later, the trial court entered a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of the bank. From this judgment, the borrowers appeal.

The borrowers argue there was no evidence proving the bank had standing to file the foreclosure complaint. They argue the bank lacked possession of the note because Wells Fargo had possession, and the evidence showed EMC was the note owner. They also argue the evidence failed to prove when the endorsements or the allonge were created or affixed.

The bank responds that the evidence proved it was in constructive possession of the note through Wells Fargo before it filed the complaint. The borrowers reply that the bank was required to have possession of the note to be considered the holder and Wells Fargo had possession of the note when the bank filed the complaint. Specifically, exhibit 3 proved EMC was the investor and the bank had no standing to foreclose.

We have de novo review. Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., LLLP, 125 So. 3d 965, 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

“[S]tanding may be established from the plaintiff’s status as the note holder, regardless of any recorded assignments.” McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citation omitted). “If the note does not name the plaintiff as the payee, the note must bear a special endorsement in favor of the plaintiff or a blank endorsement.” Id. “A plaintiff alleging standing as a holder must prove it is a holder of the note and mortgage both as of the time of trial and also that [it] had standing as of the time the foreclosure complaint was filed.” Kiefert v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 153 So. 3d 351, 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (emphasis added). “Such a plaintiff must prove not only physical possession of the original note but also, if the plaintiff is not the named payee, possession of the original note endorsed in favor of the plaintiff or in blank (which makes it bearer paper).” Id. at 353.

Because the bank was not the original named payee, it had to prove not only a blank or special endorsement in its favor, but also that the endorsement was placed on the note before it filed the original complaint. When the bank filed the original complaint, it included a lost note count and did not attach a copy of the note. The amended complaint attached a copy of the note, which contained an endorsement from Pinnacle to Impac and an allonge endorsed from Impac to the bank. But both the endorsement and allonge were undated. It was therefore essential that the bank prove the endorsement occurred and the allonge was affixed prior to filing the original complaint. See Russell v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 163 So. 3d 639, 642 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). This, it failed to do.

The bank’s witness testified that Wells Fargo possessed^[1] the allonge and original note when the complaint was filed. However, exhibit 3, upon which the witness relied, refuted her testimony. Exhibit 3 contained no indication that the bank, or anyone else, possessed the original note with the affixed specially endorsed allonge before the complaint was filed. And, on cross-examination, the witness testified that she did not know the date the allonge was affixed to the original note. The evidence showed that EMC purchased the loan in 2006, and there was no evidence to show that EMC transferred the note and mortgage to the bank or Wells Fargo at any point because the PSA and Assignment Assumption Agreement were both unexecuted. Simply put, the bank failed to prove the allonge was specially endorsed in its favor and affixed to the original note prior to filing its complaint. It failed to prove standing.

We therefore reverse and remand the case for entry of judgment for the borrowers. See Murray v. HSBC Bank USA, 157 So. 3d 355, 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Reversed and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

[1] The bank argues it constructively possessed the note through Wells Fargo. See Caraccia v. U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D476, D477 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 24, 2016) (finding proof of an agency relationship existed between the lender and servicer and stating that under those circumstances “the element of possession can be met through either actual or constructive possession”). However, the witness’s testimony was not supported by any of the documentation she relied upon. Even if the bank proved the element of possession through constructive possession, it still failed to prove that the allonge was endorsed and affixed to the original note prior to the filing of the original complaint. Balch v. LaSalle Bank N.A., 171 So. 3d 207, 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

• Español

source: http://www.ag.ny.gov/

Inquisitr-

EVERY SUNDAY 3:00 PM HAWAII 6:00 PM PACIFIC 9:00 PM EASTERN ON KHVH-AM (830 ON THE DIAL) AND ON iHEART RADIO

Robert C. Schermer, of Greene Hamrick Quinlan & Schermer, P.A., Bradenton, for Appellee, Green Planet Servicing, LLC.

No Appearance for other Appellees.

COHEN, J.

Appellant, Angela Cassell (“Cassell”), appeals the trial court’s final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of Green Planet Servicing, LLC, n/k/a Planet Home Lending, LLC (“Green Planet”), on a complaint that was originally filed by GMAC Mortgage, LLC (“GMAC”). Cassell argues, inter alia, that the documents Green Planet relied upon at trial to show default as well as Green Planet and GMAC’s compliance with the mortgage’s notice requirements were inadmissible hearsay. We agree and reverse.

At trial, Green Planet presented the testimony of its own records custodian to establish a foundation for the entry of Green Planet’s records. The records that Green Planet sought to enter into evidence included the payment history on the loan and a copy of a notice of default it had received from GMAC. Cassell objected on the basis that the records were inadmissible hearsay. Green Planet sought to admit the records under the business records exception to the rule excluding hearsay.

This Court has previously determined that, in a foreclosure proceeding, a witness can only authenticate another entity’s records if the witness can “demonstrate familiarity with the record-keeping system of [the] business that prepared the document and knowledge of how the data was uploaded into the system.” Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Berdecia, 169 So. 3d 209, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing Burdeshaw v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 148 So. 3d 819, 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)).

The witness in this case initially testified that she obtained her knowledge of GMAC’s records from “[g]oing through the service history of the loan” and by reviewing the records themselves. When asked directly if she had any personal knowledge of the policies and procedures used by the entities that created the payment history and notice letters, she repeatedly testified that she did not. Green Planet was required to provide evidence that the records were reliable and accurate. See WAMCO XXVIII, Ltd. v. Integrated Elec. Env’ts, Inc., 903 So. 2d 230, 233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The witness’s review of the payment history and notice letter themselves, along with other documents that were never entered at trial, could not form the basis for the determination that the records were trustworthy. See Gonzalez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 180 So. 3d 1106, 1108-09 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Schmidt v. Deutsche Bank, 170 So. 3d 938, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Green Planet failed to lay the proper foundation to enter the payment history and notice letter as business records; therefore, these documents should not have been admitted over Cassell’s hearsay objection. Without that evidence, Green Planet could not establish either Cassell’s default or its own compliance with the mortgage’s notice requirements. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of foreclosure and remand for a new trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT

MICHAEL SORRELL,
Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Trustee for Structured Asset Securities
Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2006-BC5,
Appellee.

Opinion filed April 6, 2016.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco
County; Wayne L. Cobb, Senior Judge.

Jason J. Ricardo of Ricardo & Wasylik, PL,
Dade City, for Appellant.

Dean A. Morande and Michael K. Winston of
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., West Palm
Beach, for Appellee.

VILLANTI, Chief Judge.

Case No. 2D14-3883

Michael Sorrell appeals the final judgment of foreclosure entered against
him and in favor of U.S. Bank National Association after a bench trial. Because U.S.
Bank failed to prove that it had standing to foreclose at the inception of the case, we
must reverse.

The record on appeal shows that Sorrell signed a promissory note in favor
of BNC Mortgage, Inc., on August 11, 2006, and he secured the note with a mortgage,
also in favor of BNC Mortgage, on his home in Wesley Chapel. The mortgage indicated
that MERS would be acting as the nominee of the lender.

On May 19, 2008, U.S. Bank filed a two-count foreclosure complaint
against Sorrell. Count one was for foreclosure of the mortgage; count two was for
reestablishment of a lost note. In its complaint, U.S. Bank alleged that it was the owner
and holder of the note and mortgage, and it attached copies of a mortgage and note to
its complaint. However, the mortgage showed that it was in favor of BNC Mortgage,
and the copy of the unindorsed note showed that it was payable to BNC Mortgage.
Further, the note attached to the complaint did not include an allonge. Therefore, as of
the date the original complaint was filed, no document of record connected U.S. Bank to
its allegations that it owned and held the note and mortgage.

On January 12, 2009, U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint, dropping
the lost note count. Attached to the amended complaint was an assignment of the
mortgage from MERS to U.S. Bank, which was signed on November 24, 2008, and
recorded on December 2, 2008. However, no documents relating to the note were
attached to the amended complaint. Sorrell filed an answer and affirmative defenses to
the amended complaint, in which he alleged in part that U.S. Bank did not have
standing because it did not own or hold the note when it filed the original complaint.

On April 22, 2009, U.S. Bank filed a notice of filing the original note and
mortgage and a copy of the assignment of the mortgage. In the stack of filed
documents on the page after the original note was an undated allonge signed by Jamie

– 2

Langford on behalf of BNC Mortgage. The undated allonge is partially typed and
partially handwritten. It was undisputed at trial that the allonge was not “affixed” to the
note but rather was a separate document filed in the court file. The allonge does not
identify what relationship Jamie Langford had to BNC Mortgage.

At the bench trial on the amended complaint, U.S. Bank offered the
testimony of Kim Daye, a loan verification specialist for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A, which
was the servicer for Sorrell’s loan beginning on December 1, 2006. Daye identified the
original mortgage, the original note, and the undated allonge as business records of
Wells Fargo. He testified that the “transfer” of the note and mortgage to Wells Fargo for
servicing occurred on December 1, 2006; however, he admitted that he had no
knowledge of the transaction outside of what was reflected in the documents
themselves and that none of the documents established the date that U.S. Bank
actually acquired the note and mortgage. More importantly, Daye admitted that he had
no documents or other evidence to establish that U.S. Bank owned or held the note and
mortgage as of May 19, 2008—the date the original complaint was filed—and there
were no documents to show when the allonge was created and signed or when (or if) it
was attached to the note.

At the close of U.S. Bank’s case, Sorrell argued that U.S. Bank was not
entitled to judgment in its favor because it had not proven that it owned and held the
note and mortgage on the date the original complaint was filed. The trial court denied
Sorrell’s motion for involuntary dismissal and entered the final judgment of foreclosure in
favor of U.S. Bank. This appeal ensued.

– 3

In light of the wealth of current case law on this issue, it should no longer
be a surprise to a foreclosure plaintiff that it must prove that it had standing to foreclose
on the date the original complaint was filed. See, e.g., Corrigan v. Bank of Am., N.A.,
41 Fla. L. Weekly D345 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb. 5, 2016) (en banc); Tomlinson v. GMAC
Mortg., LLC, 173 So. 3d 1121, 1122 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (quoting Focht v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., 124 So. 3d 308, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)); Vidal v. Liquidation Props., Inc.,
104 So. 3d 1274, 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank
Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). To have standing to foreclose,
the plaintiff must own or hold the note at issue. See May v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 150 So.
3d 247, 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Khan v. Bank of Am., N.A., 58 So. 3d 927, 928 (Fla.
5th DCA 2011). Standing to foreclose by one other than the original lender can be
established through evidence of an assignment or equitable transfer of the note and
mortgage completed before the complaint is filed. See Focht, 124 So. 3d at 310;
Joseph v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 155 So. 3d 444, 446-47 (Fla. 4th DCA
2015). Standing cannot be established by simply filing a note with an undated
indorsement or allonge months after the original complaint was filed. See Focht, 124
So. 3d at 310; Cutler v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 109 So. 3d 224, 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
(noting that if the bank could not establish that the undated allonge took effect prior to
the complaint being filed, then it would not have standing to bring the foreclosure
action). And attempting to bedazzle the trial court with documents establishing all sorts
of facts unrelated to standing at the inception of the case will not carry the day.

To prove standing when in possession of only an undated indorsement or
allonge, the plaintiff must introduce other admissible evidence to prove that it had the

– 4

right to enforce the note on the date the complaint was filed. See Focht, 124 So. 3d at
310-11; Feltus v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 80 So. 3d 375, 377 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
(stating that to have standing, the bank would have to prove that the indorsement in
blank was effectuated before the complaint was filed). This evidence could include
testimony from a competent witness. See Stone v. BankUnited, 115 So. 3d 411, 413
(Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Lamb v. NationStar Mortg., LLC, 174 So. 3d 1039, 1041 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2015); Ham v. NationStar Mortg., LLC, 164 So. 3d 714, 719 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
(“It is possible for a witness to provide sufficient testimony to prove standing where the
documentary evidence is insufficient.”); Sosa v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 153 So. 3d 950,
951 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (noting that a plaintiff seeking to foreclose can establish
standing through documents, an affidavit of ownership, or through the testimony of a
witness with knowledge). But such evidence does not include testimony from a witness
whose knowledge arises solely from the legally insufficient documents.

For example, in Tomlinson, GMAC filed its foreclosure complaint in 2007
and alleged that it was the owner and holder of the note and mortgage. 173 So. 3d at
1121. In February 2009, GMAC filed the original note and mortgage. Id. at 1122. The
note contained a blank indorsement from the original lender to GMAC, but this
indorsement was undated. Id. GMAC also filed the recorded assignment of the
mortgage from MERS to GMAC, but the assignment was dated several months after the
complaint was filed. Id. At the bench trial, GMAC introduced the testimony of a senior
litigation analyst, who testified that GMAC was the owner of the note, but she could not
testify as to when GMAC came into possession of the note indorsed in blank. Id. In
addition, none of the business records established when GMAC came into possession

– 5

of the note indorsed in blank. Id. This court held that GMAC had failed to present
evidence to establish that it held the note when it filed the complaint, and therefore we
reversed the final judgment of foreclosure. Id. at 1123; see also Farkas v. U.S. Bank,
Nat’l Ass’n, 165 So. 3d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing final judgment of foreclosure
when the bank’s only evidence to show that it held the note was an undated blank
indorsement on the note, the assignment of the mortgage occurred after the complaint
was filed, and no one testified to when the indorsement was placed on the note). As
these two cases demonstrate, testimony based on nothing but assumptions arising from
documents that are otherwise legally insufficient to prove standing is likewise insufficient
to prove standing.

Here, as in Tomlinson and Farkas, neither the documentary evidence nor
the live testimony established that U.S. Bank owned or held the indorsed note with the
allonge when it filed the original foreclosure complaint. The original note, which was
filed almost a year after the original complaint was filed, was indorsed in blank, but the
indorsement was undated. The undated allonge was not attached to the original note,
and it was also not filed until almost a year after the complaint was filed. U.S. Bank’s
only witness could not testify as to when U.S. Bank came into ownership or possession
of the note or the allonge, and none of the documents introduced into evidence
established the date that the indorsed note and allonge were received by U.S. Bank.1

1While not dispositive of the issue, we note that the assignment of the
mortgage was signed and recorded six months after the original complaint was filed.
While the assignment of mortgage would not be sufficient in an of itself to establish that

U.S. Bank had standing (the mortgage follows the note; not the other way around), the
fact that the mortgage was not assigned until long after the complaint was filed leads us
to question whether the undated allonge likewise postdated the complaint.
– 6

While U.S. Bank’s documents were sufficient to establish its standing as of the date the
originals were filed, establishing standing as of a date long after the original complaint
was filed will not suffice to prove standing at the time the original complaint was filed.
Therefore, because U.S. Bank’s evidence was legally insufficient to prove that it had
standing when it filed the complaint, we must reverse the final judgment of foreclosure
in favor of U.S. Bank and remand for dismissal. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420(b); May, 150
So. 3d at 249.

Reversed and remanded for dismissal.

WALLACE and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.

– 7

DBR-

A purchase and assumption agreement was not enough to prove JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.’s legal standing in a foreclosure case before the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

The bank filed suit as successor to defunct Washington Mutual Bank against homeowners Ottoniel and Luz Cruz, alleging it was the owner of a real estate debt that changed hands at least five times.

JPMorgan Chase purchased the debt in September 2008 from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. when WAMU was in receivership, but that deal was one in a string of transfers.

The Detroit News-

Wayne County is spending up to $18.6 million warning property owners they face tax foreclosure, but lawsuits allege the office is doing such a poor job that some owners aren’t aware they’ve lost homes until it’s too late.

The county foreclosed on Bernice and Ron King’s Westland home last year over a $3,000 unpaid tax bill. The couple said they didn’t realize they were in danger of losing their home until days before it was sold at auction, after a neighbor saw a man taking pictures in the driveway.

They’ve fought their foreclosure in court, arguing they didn’t get foreclosure notices and were making payments. Now, the couple faces possible eviction from the winning auction bidder.

[THE DETROIT NEWS]

Email shows Clinton State Dept pushing Panama pact amid warnings it would help the rich hide money

Email shows Clinton State Dept pushing Panama pact amid warnings it would help the rich hide money #PanamaPapers pic.twitter.com/OA3Z22Jgjq

— David Sirota (@davidsirota) April 4, 2016

IBTIMES-

The Panama FTA pushed for by Obama and Clinton, watchdog groups said, effectively barred the United States from cracking down on questionable activities. Instead of requiring concessions of the Panamanian government on banking rules and regulations, combating tax haven abuse in Panama could violate the agreement. Should the U.S. embark on such an endeavor, it could be exposed to fines from international authorities.

“The FTA would undermine existing U.S. policy tools against tax haven activity,” warned consumer watchdog group Public Citizen at the time, saying the agreement would encourage corporations to thwart any U.S. efforts to combat financial secrecy. The group also noted that U.S. government contractors, as well as major financial firms supported by taxpayer bailouts, stood to gain from the trade deal’s provisions that could make it harder to crack down on financial secrecy.

[IB TIMES]

Hillary Image: Reuters Stephen Lam

As Clinton pushed Panama deal amid warnings, Sanders opposed it citing tax haven/secrecy https://t.co/rPSbnNqQtY pic.twitter.com/EMiMTW5UQV

— David Sirota (@davidsirota) April 4, 2016

AND how much was LPS’s cut to her???

Orlando Sentinel-

Imagine you were mugged.

You think you know who did it. So you tell your local prosecutor.

But then something weird happens.

Three days after the prosecutor vows to get to the bottom of things, the accused mugger gives that prosecutor $25,000 in campaign donations.

Suddenly, the prosecutor has no interest in your case.

If such a thing happened, there would be universal outrage.

Well, you should be furious. Because that’s pretty much happened with your attorney general.

[ORLANDO SENTINEL]

The Guardian-

The Panama Papers are an unprecedented leak of 11.5m files from the database of the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm, Mossack Fonseca. The records were obtained from an anonymous source by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, which shared them with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The ICIJ then shared them with a large network of international partners, including the Guardian and the BBC.

What do they reveal?

The documents show the myriad ways in which the rich can exploit secretive offshore tax regimes. Twelve national leaders are among 143 politicians, their families and close associates from around the world known to have been using offshore tax havens.

A $2bn trail leads all the way to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president’s best friend – a cellist called Sergei Roldugin – is at the centre of a scheme in which money from Russian state banks is hidden offshore. Some of it ends up in a ski resort where in 2013 Putin’s daughter Katerina got married.

[THE GUARDIAN]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

Observer-Reporter-

Recorder of Deeds Debbie Bardella on Thursday brought a class-action suit in Washington County Court against an electronic registration firm and several lending institutions, claiming they failed to timely record mortgages during intermediary steps of forming mortgage-backed securities, creating “gaps in the record of ownership of title on Pennsylvania properties” and causing counties to lose millions of dollars in recording fees.

Many “promissory notes on properties in Washington County and throughout Pennsylvania have been sold and assigned on multiple occasions, but there is no recording” of promissory notes in the public record as they progress through these various steps, Bardella’s attorney, D. Aaron Rihn of Pittsburgh, asserts in the complaint.

To the extent that the lenders record mortgage assignments at all in connection with their transfers of promissory notes, “they usually do so only well after the 90-day deadline imposed” by state law to file a document known as a “satisfaction” or to facilitate foreclosure proceedings because of default.

“In such cases, the mortgage assignment is often recorded many years after the recording deadline has passed,” the suit claims.

[OBSERVER-REPORTER]

We ALL know how this too shall end…

Reuters-

The state of California sued Morgan Stanley on Friday, accusing the bank of hiding the risks of complex mortgage debt and other securities it sold, causing big losses for the state’s public pension funds, CalPERS and CalSTRS.

Kamala Harris, the state attorney general, said Morgan Stanley concealed or downplayed the risks of toxic residential mortgage-backed securities and “structured investment vehicles” it marketed from 2004 to 2007, sometimes encouraging credit rating agencies to award unjustifiably high ratings.

She said the bank’s conduct reflected “a culture of greed and deception” that fueled the 2008 financial crisis and caused the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and California State Teachers Retirement System to lose hundreds of millions of dollars.

 [REUTERS]

EVERY SUNDAY 3:00 PM HAWAII 6:00 PM PACIFIC 9:00 PM EASTERN ON KHVH-AM (830 ON THE DIAL) AND ON iHEART RADIO