DinSFLA

This is what we have been saying from day 1. By using MERS they have split the Note and Mortgage= “Bifurcate”.

By not assigning from the Originator to the Sponsor this is where lies the problem. Instead they transferred the notes to the Trusts in ___________________________ name? Which leaves this a Bearer instrument.

So by maintaining the notes in a bearer name, each step must have been documented and assigned according to the PSA. If these were securitized, question is did the true sale ever happen? Bottom Line.

Delivery & Acceptance Must Happen

Nearly all Pooling and Servicing Agreements require that On the Closing Date, the Purchaser will assign to the Trustee pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement all of its right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans and its rights under this Agreement (to the extent set forth in Section 15), and the Trustee shall succeed to such right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans and the Purchaser’s rights under this Agreement (to the extent set forth in Section 15). Also, an Assignment of Mortgage must accompany each note and this almost never happens.

We believe nearly every single loan transferred was transferred to the Trust in blank name. That is to say the actual loans were apparently not, as of either the cut-off or closing dates, assigned to the Trust as required by the PSA.

Quite the can of worms. Anyone who says that the banks will fix all this in a few months is seriously delusional.

I am not a pro, finance guru and that is why there is a comment section below. But I do have common sense and I smell scam.

Vanilla, chocolate, strawberry …each state is different. Eliminate Electronic Recordings PERIOD!

One of the best videos I have seen on this crisis.

RELATED LINKS:

SECURITIZATION 101

.

MERS 101

.

.

.

.

.

Christopher Lewis Peterson

University of Utah – S.J. Quinney College of Law
Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Journal, Forthcoming

Abstract:

Hundreds of thousands of home foreclosure lawsuits have focused judicial scrutiny on the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”). This Article updates and expands upon an earlier piece by exploring the implications of state Supreme Court decisions holding that MERS is not a mortgagee in security agreements that list it as such. In particular this Article looks at: (1) the consequences on land title records of recording mortgages in the name of a purported mortgagee that is not actually mortgagee as a matter of law; (2) whether a security agreement that fails to name an actual mortgagee can successfully convey a property interest; and (3) whether county governments may be entitled to reimbursement of recording fees avoided through the use of false statements associated with the MERS system. This Article concludes with a discussion of steps needed to rebuild trustworthy real property ownership records.

[ipaper docId=39287904 access_key=key-t9fm5292wmd8fg9fz88 height=600 width=600 /]

Today the Florida Attorney General issued Subpoenas Duces Tecum’s to both Lender Processing Services Inc. and to a subsidiary DOCX. This involves employees past or present, the four foreclosure firms currently being investigated.

Both Assistant AG’s “McCollum’s Angels” June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards are doing an outstanding job!

.

.

[click image for ]

AG_Subpoena_DT-to-Docx_

AG_Subpoena_LPS

STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

______________________________________
ECONOMIC CRIMES
INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

“You,” “Your” or “DOC X” as used herein means DOCX, L.L.c. and any ofthe respondents, their agents and employees or any “affiliate” of the aforementioned entities, as that term is herein defined. Your agents include but are not limited to your officers, directors, attorneys, accountants, CPA’s, advertising consultants, or advertising account representatives. Any document in the possession ofyou, your affiliates, your agents or your employees is deemed to be within your possession or control. You have the affirmative duty to contact your agents, affiliates and employees and to obtain documentation from them, if such documentation is responsive to this subpoena.

B. Unless otherwise indicated, documents to be produced pursuant to this subpoena should include all original documents prepared, sent, dated, received, in effect, or which otherwise came into existence at any time. If your “original” is a photocopy, then the photocopy would be and should be produced as the original.

C. This subpoena duces tecum calls for the production of all responsive documents in your possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location ofsaid documents.

D. “And” and “or” are used as terms of inclusion, not exclusion.

E. The documents to be produced pursuant to each request should be segregated and specifically identified to indicate clearly the particular numbered request to which they are responsIve.

F. In the event that you seek to withhold any document on the basis that is properly entitled to some privilege or limitation, please provide the following information:

1. A list identifying each document for which you believe a limitation exists;

2. The name of each author, writer, sender or initiator of such document or thing, if any;

3. The name of each recipient, addressee or party for whom such document or thing was intended, ifany;

4. The date of such document, if any, or an estimate thereof so indicated if no date appears on the document;

5. The general subject matter as described in such document, or, if no such description appears, then such other description sufficient to identify said document; and

6. The claimed grounds for withholding the document, including, but not limited to, the nature of any claimed privilege and grounds in support thereof.

G. For each request, or part thereof, which is not fully responded to pursuant to a privilege, the nature of the privilege and grounds in support thereof should be fully stated.

H. If you possess, control or have custody of no documents responsive to any of the numbered requests set forth below, state this fact in your response to said request.

1. For purposes of responding to this subpoena, the term “document” shall mean all writings or stored data or information ofany kind, in any form, including the originals and all nonidentical copies, whether different from the originals by reason of any notation(s) made on such copies or otherwise, including, without limitation: correspondence, notes, letters, telegrams, minutes, certificates, diplomas, contracts, franchise agreements and other agreements, brochures, pamphlets, forms, scripts, reports, studies, statistics, inter-office and intra-office communications, training materials, analyses, memoranda, statements, summaries, graphs, charts, tests, plans, arrangements, tabulations, bulletins, newsletters, advertisements, computer printouts, teletype, telefax, microfilm, e-mail, electronically stored data, price books and lists, invoices, receipts, inventories, regularly kept summaries or compilations of business records, notations of any type of conversations, meetings, telephone or other communications, audio and videotapes; electronic, mechanical or electrical records or representations of any kind (including without limitation tapes, cassettes, discs, magnetic tapes, hard drives and recordings to include each document translated, if necessary, through detection devices into reasonably usable form).

1. For purposes of responding to this subpoena, the term “affiliate” shall mean: a corporation, partnership, business trust, joint venture or other artificial entity which effectively controls, or is effectively controlled by you, or which is related to you as a parent or subsidiary or sibling entity. “Affiliate” shall also mean any entity in which there is a mutual identity of any officer or director. “Effectively controls” shall mean having the status of owner, investor (if 5% or more of voting stock), partner, member, officer, director, shareholder, manager, settlor, trustee, beneficiary or ultimate equitable owner as defined in Section 607.0505(11)(e), Florida Statutes.

K. The term “Florida affiliates” shall mean those of your affiliates which do business in Florida or which are licensed to do business in Florida.

L. If production of documents or other items required by this subpoena would be, in whole or in part, unduly burdensome, or if the response to an individual request for production may be aided by clarification of the request, contact the Assistant Attorney General who issued this subpoena to discuss possible amendments or modifications of the subpoena, within five (5) days of receipt ofsame.

M. Documents maintained in electronic form must be produced in their native electronic form with all metadata intact. Data must be produced in the data format in which it is typically used and maintained. Moreover, to the extent that a responsive Document has been electronically scanned (for any purpose), that Document must be produced in an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) format and an opportunity provided to review the original Document. In addition, documents that have been electronically scanned must be in black and white and should be produced in a Group IV TIFF Format (TIF image format), with a Summation format load file (dii extension). DII Coded data should be received in a (Comma-Separated Values) CSV format with a pipe (I) used for multivalue fields. Images should be single page TIFFs, meaning one TIFF file for each page of the Document, not one .tifffor each Document. Ifthere is no text for a text file, the following should be inserted in that text file: “Page Intentionally Left Blank.”

Moreover, this Subpoena requires all objective coding for the production, to the extent it exists. For electronic mail systems using Microsoft Outlook or LotusNotes, provide all responsive emails and, if applicable, email attachments and any related Documents, in their native file format (i.e., .pst for Outlook personal folder, .nsf for LotusNotes). For all other email systems, provide all responsive emails and, if applicable, email attachments and any related Documents in OCR and TIFF formats as described above.

P. The relevant time period for the present request shall be from January 1, 2006 to present unless otherwise specifically stated. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to produce at said time and place all documents, as defined above, relating to the following subjects:

1. Copies ofall “Network Agreements” between DOCX and any law firm with offices located in the State of Florida.

2. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Linda Green to sign documents in the following capacities:

a. Vice President of Loan Documentation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. successor by merger to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; ;

b. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.;

c. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing as successor-in-interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;

d. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for American Brokers Conduit;

e. Vice President & Asst. Secretary, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as servicer for Ameriquest Mortgage Corporation;

f. Vice President, Option One Mortgage Corporation;

g. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for HLB Mortgage;

h. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.;

1. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for Family Lending Services, Inc.;

J. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as Successor -ininterest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;

k. Vice President, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC by Citi Residential Lending, Inc., attorney-in-fact;

1. . Vice President, Sand Canyon Corporation f/kJal Option One Mortgage Corporation;

m. Vice President, Amtrust Funsing (sic) Services, Inc., by American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as Attorney-in -fact;

n. Vice President, Seattle Mortgage Company.

3. Copies of every document signed in any capacity by Linda Green.

4. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Korell Harp to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

5. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Jessica Ohde to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

6. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Pat Kingston to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

7. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Christina Huang to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

8. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Tywanna Thomas to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.

9. All policy and procedure manuals and/or training materials regarding the methods and timing that DOCX uses, including without limitation relating to the drafting and/or execution of foreclosure and mortgage related documents, including but not limited to Assignments of Mortgage, Satisfactions ofMortgage and Affidavits ofany and all kind.

10. A list ofall employees, dates ofhire and termination, and their duties, including whether or not they provide any notary services for DOCX.

11. All documents in your possession regarding any contracts with Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. and The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., including contracts regarding payments to or from any of those entities.

12. Documents relating to the relationship between DOCX and NewTrac and/or NewInvoice, including but not limited to, documents relating to the types ofdocuments that are or can be generated or are requested to be generated.

13. Any price lists published in any manner to prospective customers, whether by printed or electronic means.

14. All communications between DOCX and Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. or The Law Offices ofMarshall C. Watson, P.A. relating to procedures, policies, instructions or performance ofthe creation, backdating, modification, amendment, or other alteration ofany real property-related transactional document or records, including assignments, satisfactions ofmortgage, affidavits, notes, allonges, or other documents filed in any court.

15. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. or The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P .A.

16. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and any title company, recording service, process server, or any other entity that provides payments to DOCX in connection with any services rendered in connection with any residential foreclosure.

17. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and any title company, recording service, process server, or any other entity to whom DOCX provides payment(s) in connection with any services rendered in connection with any residential foreclosure.

WITNESS the FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 13th day of October, 2010.

June M. Clarkson
Assistant Attorney General
Florida Bar Number: 785709
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 110 S.E. 6th Street, 10th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: 954-712-4600
Facsimile: 954-712-4658

Theresa B. Edwards
Assistant Attorney General
Florida Bar Number: 252794

NOTE: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing a special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact George Rudd, Assistant Attorney General at (954) 712-4600 no later than seven days prior to the proceedings. Ifhearing impaired, contact the Florida Relay Service 1-800-955-8771 (TDD); or 1-800-955-8770 (Voice), for assistance.

AUTHORITY

Florida Statute 501.206

501.206 Investigative powers of enforcing authority.(

1) If, by his own inquiry or as a result ofcomplaints, the enforcing authority has reason to believe that a person has engaged in, or is engaging in, an act or practice that violates this part, he may administer oaths and affinnations, subpoena witnesses or matter, and collect evidence. Within 5 days excluding weekends and legal holidays, after the service ofa subpoena or at any time before the return date specified therein, whichever is longer, the party served may file in the circuit court in the county in which he resides or in which he transacts business and serve upon the enforcing authority a petition for an order modifying or setting aside the subpoena. The petitioner may raise any objection or privilege which would be available under this chapter or upon service of such subpoena in a civil action. The subpoena shall infonn the party served of his rights under this subsection.

(2) If matter that the enforcing authority seeks to obtain by subpoena is located outside the state, the person subpoenaed may make it available to the enforcing authority or his representative to examine the matter at the place where it is located. The enforcing authority may designate representatives, including officials ofthe state in which the matter is located, to inspect the matter on his behalf, and he may respond to similar requests from officials ofother states.

(3) Upon failure ofa person without lawful excuse to obey a subpoena and upon reasonable notice to all persons affected, the enforcing authority may apply to the circuit court for an order compelling compliance.

(4) The enforcing authority may request that the individual who refuses to comply with a subpoena on the ground that testimony or matter may incriminate him be ordered by the court to provide the testimony or matter. Except in a prosecution for perjury, an individual who complies with a court order to provide testimony or matter after asserting a privilege against selfincrimination to which he is entitled by law shall not have the testimony or matter so provided, or evidence derived there from, received against him in any criminal investigation proceeding.

(5) Any person upon whom a subpoena is served pursuant to this section shall comply with the tenns thereof unless otherwise provided by order of the court. Any person who fails to appear with the intent to avoid, evade, or prevent compliance in whole or in part with any investigation under this part or who removes, destroys, or by any other means falsifies any documentary material in the possession, custody, or control of any person subject to any such subpoena, or knowingly conceals any relevant infonnation with the intent to avoid, evade, or prevent compliance shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.

Affidavit of Service Attached

RELATED LINK:

LPS 101

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION

NATACHE D. RINEGARD-GUIRMA, Civil Case No. 10-1065-PK

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO LA SALLE BANK
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE UNDER
THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT
DATED AS OF AUGUST 1, 2006, GSAMP TRUST
2006-HE5, MERS, LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP,
and the ORIGINAL AND PURPORTED SUCCESSOR
TRUSTEES, LSI TITLE COMPANY OF OREGON, LLC,
AND QUALITY LOAN SERVICING CORPORATION
OF WASHINGTON,

Excerpts:

On April 15, 2008, at 4:56 a.m., Marti Noriega, acting as Vice President for “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc as nominee in favor of Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc.” signed an assignment of the Deed of Trust to LaSalle Bank National Association, as trustee under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2006, GSAMP Trust 2006-HE5 (“LaSalle Bank National Association”). The assignment was recorded on April 29, 2008. On April 21, 2008, LaSalle Bank National Association, acting through Litton Loan Servicing LP as attorney in fact, appointed LSI Title Company of Oregon, LLC as successor trustee.

The Court, however, is aware of contrary authority. In In re Allman, a case from the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon, the court described MERS as “more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer.” Bankr. No. 08-31282-elp7, 2010 WL 3366405, at *10 (Bankr. D. Or. Aug. 24, 2010) (quoting Landmark Nat’l Bank, 289 Kan. at 539). The court considered the meaning of “beneficiary” under Oregon’s trust deed statute as “the person named or otherwise designated in a trust deed as the person for whose benefit the trust deed is given . . . .” ORS 86.705(1). The court then concluded, after examining language of the trust deed that is almost identical to the language contained in the Deed of Trust here, that MERS was not “in any real sense of the word, particularly as defined in ORS 86.705(1), the beneficiary of the trust deed.” Id. Instead, MERS was a nominee and the trust deed was for the benefit of the lender.

Additionally, other courts have held that MERS does not have authority to transfer the note,
even though it has authority to transfer the trust deed. Those courts have noted that when the note and deed of trust are split, the transfer of the deed of trust is ineffective. Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619, 623-24 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (in spite of deed language purporting to transfer the promissory note, MERS never held the note and the lender never gave

MERS the authority to transfer the note; thus MERS’ transfer of the deed of trust, separate from the note, was ineffective and the successor lender lacked a legally cognizable interest in the property); Saxon Mortg. Serv., Inc. v. Hillery, No. C-08-4357 EMC, 2008 WL 5170180, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2008) (same as Bellistri); In re Wilhelm, 407 B.R. 392 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009) (successor lender had no standing to seek relief from bankruptcy stay and move forward with foreclosure because MERS had no authority to transfer the note).

Oregon cases support the notion that the security, here the Deed of Trust, is “merely an incident to the debt.” West v. White, 307 Or. 296, 300, 766 P.2d 383 (1988); see also U.S. Nat’l Bank of Portland v. Holton, 99 Or. 419, 428, 195 P. 823 (1921) (“The assignment of a mortgage, independent of the debt which it is given to secure, is an unmeaning ceremony.”). Federal courts are bound by pronouncements of the state’s highest court on applicable state law. If the state’s highest court has not decided an issue, and there is no relevant precedent from an intermediate appellate court, the federal court is to predict how the state high court would resolve it. “In assessing how a state’s highest court would resolve a state law question– absent controlling state authority–federal courts look to existing state law without predicting potential changes in that law.” Ticknor v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., 265 F.3d 931, 939 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Ryman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 505 F.3d 993, 994 (9th Cir. 2007).

Absent a decision from the Oregon Supreme Court or the Oregon Court of Appeals, and absent further briefing from the parties on this specific issue, I am at least initially persuaded that Rinegard-Guirma has a likelihood of success on the merits.

As for irreparable harm, loss of a home is a grievous injury.

[…]

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Rinegard-Guirma’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (#18) is GRANTED. The defendants are enjoined from foreclosing Rinegard-Guirma’s property described as: Lot 2, Block 16, Highland Park, in the City of Portland,County of Multnomah and State of Oregon, Assessor’s Parcel Number R180361, commonly known as 5731 NE 10th Ave., Portland, OR 97211 until the claims against MERS are resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 6th day of October, 2010.
/s/ Garr M. King
Garr M. King
United States District Judge

OREGON DISTRICT COURT ISSUES A TRO AGAINST MERS, BofA and LITTON

[ipaper docId=38984650 access_key=key-1vnd15rz286mn2jjeltw height=600 width=600 /]

California Democratic Congressional Delegation Urges Bank Investigations

 [ipaper docId=38782438 access_key=key-1krlshwit8iqdv96ypqi height=600 width=600 /]

Excerpt:

In addition to renewing it’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Entry of Protective Order pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 26 (c). This motion is likewise denied.

Rule 26(c) provides that “for good cause shown” a court may enter a protective order “which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense….” M.R.Civ. P. 26(c). Plaintiff seeks a protective order prohibiting the dissemination of discovery materials obtained in this case.” Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order at 7. As grounds for it’s motion, Plaintiff points to the embarrassment GMAC and it’s employees have suffered, and will continue to suffer, from the posting of excerpts from Stephan’s deposition transcript on an Internet blog. The court is not persuaded that the Plaintiff has shown the requisite “ good cause” to justify entry of a protective order in this case. See e.g. Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d 775, 789 (1^st Cir. 1988) (agreeing with Second Circuit in noting that “the party seeking a protective order has burden of  showing that good cause is not shown, the discovery materials in question should not receive judicial protection and therefore would be open to the public for inspection”) (citation omitted).

Stephan’s deposition was taken in advance a legitimate purpose, and the testimony elicited has directed probative value to dispute. Attorney Cox did not himself take action other that to share the deposition transcript with an attorney in Florida. That the testimony reveals corporate practices that GMAC finds embarrassing in not enough to justify issuance of a protective order. Further, Plaintiff has failed to establish that GMAC has been harmed specifically as a result of the dissemination of the June 7, 2010 deposition transcript, given that similarly embarrassing deposition from December 10, 2009 Florida deposition also appears on the Internet, and will remain even were this Court to grant Plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to satisfy it’s burden of persuasion under Rule 26(c), it’s Motion for Entry of Protective Order is denied.

[ipaper docId=38686209 access_key=key-1r8729c9qjfdkt6gvvoi height=600 width=600 /]

Written on June 22, 2010 by admin

State your full name and current position.
Provide us with your definition of a document custodian.
What is your exact job title?
What are your responsibilities?
Where are you employed?
Where does your company store original documents?
How are they stored?
If you outsource this storage, who is the outsource provider?
How do you confirm delivery to the outsource provider?
How do you retrieve original documents?
How long do you save original documents?
Do you have a written original document destruction policy?
Please explain it and produce a copy of the policy.
Do you retain images of original of all documents?
How are they retained?
Where are they retained?
How long are they retained?
What type of computer system is used for the image retention?
Do you have a Records Compliance or Management Department?
Explain how it works, who is employed there, and where it is located.
Describe all information that you store electronically.
Do you have an ESI manager?
Who, where does he or she work, what does he or she do?
What is your policy on the retention of electronically stored documents?
Do you have a written policy for ESI documents?
Do you have any automated archiving systems?
If yes, then explain how they work and how documents are achieved.
Where are the archived documents stored?
How do you save data to a file that has already been achieved?
State the name of the director or manager of your document archiving operation.
How do you store data acquired through mergers or acquisitions?
How do you retrieve historical data from the archives?
Explain the process in detail.
Do you have an organizational-wide data map or inventory of all electronically stored data?
Can you produce a copy of that map?
Do you have any litigation ready data files?
Where are they stored?
How are they created?
Who is in charge of creating these files?
Why are they created?
Is there such a file in this case?
Where is the data stored?
Do you have any electronic data stored on tapes?
Describe the data and the type of tapes?
Where are these tapes stored?
Do you maintain a disaster recovery location?
Where is it?
Do you store electronic data at this location?
How is it stored?
How long is it stored?
What types of servers are used to store the data at this location?
How long is the data stored?
Do you have a data destruction policy at the disaster location?
Please explain and produce all written protocols.
Explain how you retrieve data from the disaster location?
Explain the time and expenses involved in securing date from the disaster recovery location?
State if any data related to this case has been destroyed?
Describe the data in detail and when and under what circumstances it was destroyed.
Have you seen any notice in this case to preserve all of the ESI?
When, where and how did you see it?
Has any data related to this case been destroyed since you saw it?
Who is your Media Destruction Manager?
Where is this person located?
What are the responsibilities of this person?
Explain all of the steps your company has taken in this case to preserve ESI evidence?
Have you created a data file of ESI for this case?
When was it created?
Name all parties involved in the creation?
Where is that data filed now?
Explain all of the steps that were taken to create the ESI file for this case.
Are there any ESI that you could not find or include in the file?
If so, please explain.
If any of the data still exists, have you or anyone in your company investigated the restoration of any deleted or damaged data?
When, who did this and what did they do?
If not, then why not?
With respect to the ESI file that has been created for this case, have the documents been scrubbed for metadata?
If yes, then when, who ordered, and why?
Who was involved in the scrubbing?
Was a scrubbed metadata file created?
Who created the file and who has custody of the file?
Do you backup your data every day?
How and where is the backup data?
Who is in charge of your backup operations?
What data is backed up?
Do you back up programs and systems or just the data?
What is the difference between your backup data system and your archived data storage system?
How long is backup data retained?
What is the format for the media in the ESI file created for this case?
Did you ever stop backing up or archiving data in this case in anticipation of litigation?
If so, when, why, and who ordered such actions?
When was a litigation hold placed on the destruction of any of the ESI data related to this case?
Who issued the hold and how was it implemented?
Do you have any type of dormant document liability policy?
If so, then please explain in detail how it works?
Has any of the ESI data in this case been destroyed or deleted pursuant to a dormant document liability policy?
If so, can you identify who took such action, when it was taken, who ordered it taken, and why it was taken?
Name all parties who have access to any of the data related to this case.
Explain all security features employed by your company to prohibit the unauthorized access to any of your ESI data?
Do you keep any type of catalogue of information on tapes or other media related to historical ESI?
If so, please explain how this system works?
Where are the catalogues filed and how are they maintained?
State the names of all of the servers and the location of all such servers that contained any ESI data related to this case.
State your current policy on saving company email.
State your current archiving and backup programs with respect to email.
State all of your email format types, date ranges for retention of email, and the names of all custodians.
Please identify all types of files used by your company, the capacity of such files, the creation dates and how those dates are preserved, the modification dates and how they are recorded, and the maximum size of each file.
Does your company employ a de-duplication policy as to ESI data?
If so, please explain how it works?
Has any data in this case been subject to destruction pursuant to any such policy?
If so, identify all such ESI data.
Do any lawyers representing you in this case have access to any of your data files?
IF so, please explain the extent of such access, how it is tracked, and purpose of the same?
Have you migrated any ESI data in this case from older, disparate media sources into modern managed tools?
If so, explain in detail the older data systems, how the migration occurred, and explain the new storage media used?
Name all of the parties on the data migration team or group.
Do you have a Legal Records Management Team?
Name all of the Team members and the location?
Was the Team involved in this case?
If yes, then explain in detail the extent of their involvement.
Do you use a third-party IT vendor for ESI data capture, storage and archiving?
If so, who and how long have they been used?
Who is the on-site representative for your ESI vendor?
Does your backup vendor use DLT4, LT01 or 4MM tapes?
What type of backup software does the vendor use?
Do they use Backup Exec, NetBackup, Legato Net Worker, Trivoli Storage Manager, ArcServe, CommVault Galaxy or HP Omniback?
Describe all messaging systems used by your company.
Do you use Lotus Notes?
Do you use Novell GroupWise or any others?
How is the messaging data saved, backed up and archived?
Do you convert the messages media to any other type of media for storage?
If so, describe the media and how this is accomplished and by whom?
Explain all due diligence programs and procedures used to verify the integrity of your data?
Explain all due diligence programs and procedures used to secure and safeguard your data.
Do you maintain custody logs on the transfer of any ESI data?
What type of logs?
Who maintains and where are they located?
Do you have a “Best Practices” guide for of the operations described herein?
Can you produce it?

Source: Max Gardner Boot Camp Blog

Aptitude Solutions’ ShowCase & OnCore Acclaim Software to Provide Greater Efficiency and
Secure Access to Courts & Land Records Information

This is IMPORTANT!!! They may go under similar names.

07/16/2010 – Lake County, Florida Clerk of the Circuit Court Signs with Aptitude Solutions for Court Case Management and Land Records Software – Read Story

07/15/2010 – Arapahoe County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder Implements Aptitude Solutions’ Land Fraud Registration and Notification System – Read Story

07/1/2010 – Webb County, Texas, County Clerk’s Office Signs with Aptitude Solutions’ for Oncore Acclaim Land Records Software System – Read Story

05/03/2010 – San Diego County Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk to Implement LPS Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Acclaim Recording System – Read Story

04/29/2010 – Palm Beach County Clerk and Comptroller to Implement LPS Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Acclaim Recording System – Read Story

02/22/2010 – Arapahoe County, Colorado, Implements Aptitude Solutions’ Software Suite, including the OnCore Recording Platform, For Greater Efficiency and Records Access – Read Story

02/11/2010 – Johnston County, N.C. Register of Deeds uses Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording Software for Electronic Recording of Survey Maps – Read Story

01/25/2010 – Broward County, Florida, Implements Aptitude Solutions’ Automated Indexing Optical Character Recognition Technology with OnCore – Read Story

01/25/2010 – Larimer County, Colorado, Implements Aptitude Solutions’ Automated Indexing Optical Character Recognition Technology with OnCore – Read Story

01/25/2010 – Johnston County, N.C. Register of Deeds Implements Aptitude Solutions’ Automated Redaction Software for Protecting Sensitive Information in Public Records – Read Story

01/04/2010 – Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Implements Aptitude Solutions Automated Redaction Software for Protecting Sensitive Information in Public Records – Read Story

11/20/2009 – Cherokee County Clerk of Superior Court Signs Contract with Aptitude Solutions for Court Case Management Software – Read Story

11/12/2009 – Tipton County, Indiana, Signs with Aptitude Solutions to Implement the OnCore Recording Platform & Automated Redaction System – Read Story

10/26/2009 – Arapahoe County, Colorado, Signs with Aptitude Solutions to Implement the OnCore Recording Platform for Greater Efficiency and Access – Read Story

09/01/2009 – Union County, Florida, Upgrades OnCore to Aptitude Solutions’ New Acclaim System for Official Records Recording – Read Story

08/24/2009 – Douglas County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder Implements Aptitude Solutions OnCore Recording and Indexing Platform – Read Story

08/03/2009 – Lender Processing Services’ Aptitude Solutions Announces OnCore Software Implementation in Largest County in Nevada – Read Story

06/22/2009 – Palm Beach County Clerk & Comptroller to Implement Lender Processing Services Aptitude Solutions’ Court Case Management System – Read Story

06/08/2009 – Nevada County, California, Implements Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording Platform For Greater Efficiency and Access – Read Story

05/01/2009 – Erie County Ohio Recorder’s Office Live with Aptitude Solutions OnCore Recording System – Read Story

05/01/2009 – Douglas County, Washington Auditor Recording Office Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

05/01/2009 – Aptitude Solutions Announces New Representative in Indiana – Read Story

05/01/2009 – Broward County Florida Recording Office to Implement Aptitude Solutions’ Automated Indexing – Read Story

02/17/2009 – Lender Processing Services’ Aptitude Solutions Selected To Implement Automated Land Records System for Nevada’s Largest County – Read Story

01/01/2009 – Land Fraud Notification and Identity Theft Prevention by Aptitude Solutions – Read Story

01/01/2009 – Davidson County, North Carolina Register of Deeds Now eRecording – Read Story

01/01/2009 – Aptitude Solutions County Recording and Indexing Solutions Provider Approved by the State of North Carolina – Read Story

01/01/2009 – Erie County, Ohio Recorder’s Office to Implement Aptitude Solutions OnCore Recording System – Read Story

01/01/2009 – Douglas County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder Selects Aptitude Solutions for Recording and Indexing Platform – Read Story

01/01/2009 – Aptitude Solutions Announces New Sales Representative in the State of Texas – Read Story

01/01/2009 – Aptitude Solutions Announces New Sales Representative in the State of Georgia – Read Story

11/20/2008 – Nevada County, California Clerk – Recorder’s Office Signs with Aptitude Solutions for OnCore Recording System – Read Story

10/09/2008 – Rockingham County, North Carolina Register of Deeds Complete Historical Digitization and Preservation – Read Story

10/07/2008 – Aptitude Solutions Selected for Clark County, Nevada Recorder’s Office Software RFP – Read Story

10/02/2008 – Skamania County, Washington Auditors’ Office Live with Automated Indexing – Read Story

09/29/2008 – Bradford County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Tribute Tax Deed System – Read Story

09/29/2008 – Franklin County, Washington Auditors’ Office Live with Automated Indexing – Read Story

09/22/2008 – Clarendon County, South Carolina Register of Deeds Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore – Read Story

09/22/2008 – Pulaski County, Arkansas Circuit Clerk Live with Automated Indexing and Redaction – Read Story

09/18/2008 – Walton County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Electronic Recording – Read Story

09/17/2008 – Levy County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Automated Indexing and Redaction Systems – Read Story

09/02/2008 – Tulsa County, Oklahoma Goes Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

08/11/2008 – Chelan County, Washington Auditor Recording Office Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

08/08/2008 – Aptitude Solutions Electronic Recording Certified by State of California ERDS – Read Story

07/17/2008 – Santa Rosa County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Electronic Recording – Read Story

07/07/2008 – Hillsborough County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Automated Indexing and Redaction Systems – Read Story

06/10/2008 – Collier County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Aptitude Solutions Showcase CMS – Read Story

04/21/2008 – Tulsa County, Oklahoma Upon being awarded the bid on April 14th, Tulsa County Clerk officially signs contracts with Aptitude Solutions to provide OnCore, aiIndex, and aiRedact – Read Story

04/16/2008 – Johnston County, North Carolina Register of Deeds Receives eRecording Award – Read Story

04/06/2008 – Davidson County, North Carolina Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

03/31/2008 – Chelan County, Washington Clerk Signs with Aptitude Solutions to implement OnCore Recording System

03/31/2008 – Clarendon County, South Carolina Clerk Signs with Aptitude Solutions to implement OnCore Recording System – Read Story

03/31/2008 – Nassau County, Florida Live with Aptitude Solutions’ Tribute

03/31/2008 – Skamania County, Washington Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System

03/31/2008 – Putnam County, Ohio Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System

03/31/2008 – Duval County, Florida Clerk of Court Civil Departments Go Live with Aptitude Solutions’ ShowCase System on Schedule – Read Story

03/05/2008 – Franklin County, Washington Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

02/26/2008 – Hillsborough County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Electronic Recording – Read Story

01/01/2008 – Pinellas County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Automated Indexing and Redaction Systems – Read Story

12/04/2007 – Escambia County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Tribute Tax Deed System – Read Story

11/05/2007 – Pulaski County, Arkansas Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

11/01/2007 – Escambia County, Florida Clerk of the Circuit Court Live with Automated Indexing and Redaction – Read Story

10/29/2007 – Simplifile and Aptitude Solutions enter into Strategic eRecordings Alliance – Read Story

10/28/2007 – Pickens County, South Carolina Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

10/18/2007 – Collier County, Florida Clerk of Court Selects Aptitude Solutions Showcase Court System – Read Story

10/18/2007 – Duval County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with ShowCase Felony and Juvenile – Read Story

10/16/2007 – Franklin County, Washington Auditor to Implement Aptitude Solutions OnCore Recording System and Automated Indexing – Read Story

10/01/2007 – Manatee County, Florida Clerk of the Circuit Court Live with Automated Redaction – Read Story

09/24/2007 – Pulaski County, Arkansas Clerk Signs with Aptitude Solutions – Read Story

08/30/2007 – Hillsborough County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Tribute Tax Deed System – Read Story

08/27/2007 – Glynn County Georgia Clerk of Superior Court Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

08/20/2007 – Putnam County, Ohio Recorder to implement Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

08/20/2007 – Pickens County, South Carolina to implement Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

08/20/2007 – Rockingham County, North Carolina Register of Deeds Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

08/06/2007 – Grand County, Colorado Clerk & Recorder Go Live with Aptitude
Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

08/06/2007 – Mesa County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder Live with Automated Indexing – Read Story

08/06/2007 – Montrose County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

08/06/2007 – Pitkin County, Clerk and Recorder Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

08/01/2007 – Broward County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Automated Redaction – Read Story

08/01/2007 – Baker County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Automated Redaction and Automated Indexing – Read Story

08/01/2007 – Gilchrist County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Automated Redaction – Read Story

08/01/2007 – Johnston County, North Carolina Register of Deeds Goes Live with Aptitude Solutions’ Automated Indexing Technology – Read Story

07/17/2007 – Duval County, Clerk of Court Live with Showcase Court Case Management System – Read Story

07/03/2007 – Brevard County, Clerk of Court Live with Tribute Tax Deed System – Read Story

05/29/2007 – Levy County, Florida Clerk of the Circuit Court to implement Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

05/04/2007 – Horry County, South Carolina Register of Deeds Implements Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

03/01/2007 – Rockingham County, North Carolina Register of Deeds to implement Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story

11/13/2006 – Hillsborough County Clerk of Court Implements Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Official Records System – Read Story

11/13/2006 – Brevard County Clerk of Court Implements Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Official Records System – Read Story

[ipaper docId=38589532 access_key=key-h7uy9ikaxa7o93h3w63 height=600 width=600 /]

More of MESCORPS “Shareholders”. Make sure you catch their “old evidence” below…and have a barf bag because this is going to make you sick!

.

By ABIGAIL FIELD Posted 6:29 PM 10/01/10

Documents submitted to a court are supposed to be true as submitted. As an attorney, If I file a document with a court in which I swore I personally verified that the information contained within the document is true, and I didn’t actually do that, I’d get in real trouble. It’s simple: That’s fraud in the eyes of the court.

GMAC, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America recently admitted that their employees routinely sign thousands of documents without verifying what they’re signing. Those documents are then submitted to courts as if the documents were true, to enable the banks to foreclose on delinquent properties. Wells Fargo and CitiMortgage told the New York Times their employees do not engage in similar practices. Yet new evidence shows they do.

Confusion at Wells Fargo
Herman John Kennerty of Wells Fargo has given a deposition describing the department he oversees for Wells Fargo. It’s a department dedicated to simply signing documents. Kennerty testified that he signs 50 to 150 documents a day, verifying only the date on each. What else might he want to verify? Well, in one document he signed, he supposedly transferred the mortgage from Washington Mutual Bank FA to Wells Fargo on July 12, 2010. But that’s impossible, since Washington Mutual Bank FA changed its name in 2004, and by any name WaMu ceased to exist in 2008, when the FDIC took it over. Making the document even less comprehensible, the debtor had declared bankruptcy a month earlier, according to Linda Tirelli, who represented the debtor. Why would Wells Fargo want a mortgage from someone in bankruptcy? Finally, Tirelli pointed out that the papers Wells Fargo filed included a different transfer of the mortgage dated three days before the debtor took out the loan. The documents are a mess, yet Kennerty signed them regardless.

Legal Nonsense at CitiMortgage
Similarly, one M. Matthews signed a number of documents that CitiMortgage has used to try to foreclose on properties. While Matthews may or may not sign hundreds of documents a day — I have not yet found a deposition in which he swears that he does — he certainly does not verify the contents of the documents he’s signing. For example, he signed a document supposedly transferring a mortgage from Lehman Brothers to Citi in 2009. It’s hard to see how that’s possible, since Lehman had already ceased to exist. When confronted with its nonsensical filing, Citigroup decided not to foreclose. Instead, it gave the homeowner a meaningful mortgage modification–$15,000 principal reduction, plus a 30 year fixed mortgage at 3%. Tirelli, who represented the debtor in that case too, notes that she sees bad documents in the vast majority of cases, and she keeps files of “robosigned” documents.

It’s true that in both the WaMu and Lehman Brothers documents, the signers were officially representing an entity called MERS and acting as the “nominee” of WaMu and the “nominee” of Lehman Brothers. But that doesn’t change the fraudulent nature of the documents as filed. MERS can’t continue to be the nominee of an entity that doesn’t exist. Moreover, MERS can’t assign something it doesn’t have, and MERS itself will admit it doesn’t own the underlying note or mortgage.

Possible Sanctions for JPMorgan Chase
Wells Fargo and CitiMortgage aren’t the only big banks to misrepresent their practices in the media; JPMorgan Chase told the New York Times that it had not withdrawn any documents in a pending case. However, Chase has in fact withdrawn robosigned documents in a case Tirelli is currently defending. Chase now faces possible sanctions in the case.

Why are the big, sophisticated banks submitting such problematic documents to the courts? The key reason is that sometimes when a bank wants to foreclose, it has to prove it actually has the right to foreclose — that it owns the note and accompanying mortgage. Unfortunately for the banks, the securitization of mortgages and the changes in property ownership documentation that accompanied it make it hard for the banks to establish clean chains of title and produce original documents. Hard, that is, in an environment where a massive number of foreclosures must be started and completed in a timely manner.

See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/amvWqK

.

RELATED:

HEY NY TIMES…’NO PROOF’ JEFFREY STEPHAN HAS AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AFFIDAVIT FOR WELLS FARGO

.

Homeowner fights foreclosure in lawsuit claiming documents are fraudulent

THE ACTUAL DEPOSITION IN THIS CASE CITMORTGAGE v. BROWN

DEPOSITION OF NOTARY SHANNON SMITH OF THIS CASE

[ipaper docId=34340050 access_key=key-1eb2fh5kgjs1rbxhfwhq height=600 width=600 /]

MORE ON THIS CASE & FIRM BELOW

_________________

Take Two: *New* Full Deposition of Law Office of David J. Stern’s Cheryl Samons

_________________

Law Offices of David J. Stern, MERS | Assignment of Mortgage NOT EXECUTED but RECORDED

_________________

Cheryl Samons | No Signature, No Notary, 1 Witness…No Problem!

_________________

STERN’S CHERYL SAMONS| SHANNON SMITH Assignment Of Mortgage| NOTARY FRAUD!

_________________________________________________

MAESTRO PLEASE…AND THE WINNER OF THE “MOST JOB TITLES” CONTEST IS…

JOHN KENNERTY, a/k/a HERMAN JOHN KENNERTY

JOHN KENNERTY a/k/a Herman John Kennerty has been employed for many years in the Ft. Mill, SC offices of America’s Servicing Company, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. He signed many different job titles on mortgage-related documents, often using different titles on the same day. He often signs as an officer of MERS (“Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.”) On many Mortgage Assignments signed by Kennerty, Wells Fargo, or the trust serviced by ASC, is shown as acquiring the mortgage weeks or even months AFTER the foreclosure action is filed.

Titles attributed to John Kennerty include the following:

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for 1st Continental Mortgage Corp.;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for American Brokers Conduit;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for American Enterprise Bank of Florida;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for American Home Mortgage;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Amnet Mortgage, Inc. d/b/a American Mortgage Network of Florida;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Bayside Mortgage Services, Inc.;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for CT Mortgage, Inc.;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for First Magnus Financial Corporation, an Arizona Corp.;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for First National Bank of AZ;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Fremont Investment & Loan;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Group One Mortgage, Inc.;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Guaranty Bank;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Homebuyers Financial, LLC;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for IndyMac Bank, FSB, a Federally Chartered Savings Bank (in June 2010);

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Irwin Mortgage Corporation;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Ivanhoe Financial, Inc., a Delaware Corp.;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Mortgage Network, Inc.;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Ohio Savings Bank;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Paramount Financial, Inc.;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Pinnacle Direct Funding Corp.;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for RBC Mortgage Company;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Seacoast National Bank;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Shelter Mortgage Company, LLC;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Stuart Mortgage Corp.;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Suntrust Mortgage;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Transaland Financial Corp.;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Universal American Mortgage Co., LLC;

Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Wachovia Mortgage Corp.;

Vice President of Loan Documentation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.;

Vice President of Loan Documentation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. f/k/a Norwest Mortgage, Inc.

This is what this site is about…”ClOUDED TITLES”! This quote below should have added that it was in 65 Million mortgages not in some. I hope you all read my NO. THERE’S NO LIFE AT MERS…I highly recommend it because it came the heart.

In some cases, mortgages were conveyed using the Reston, Virginia-based Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, designed to cover transfers among system members. Promissory notes also often were endorsed as payable to the bearer to avoid the need for multiple transfers. Both practices have been challenged in court.

Foreclosure Errors Cloud Homeownership With `Blighted Titles’

By Kathleen M. Howley – Oct 1, 2010 12:00 AM ET

U.S. courts are clogged with a record number of foreclosures. Next, they may be jammed with suits contesting property rights as procedural mistakes in those cases cloud titles establishing ownership.

“Defective documentation has created millions of blighted titles that will plague the nation for the next decade,” said Richard Kessler, an attorney in Sarasota, Florida, who conducted a study that found errors in about three-fourths of court filings related to home repossessions.

Attorneys general in at least six states are investigating borrowers’ claims that some of the nation’s largest home lenders and loan servicers are making misstatements in foreclosures. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is asking judges to postpone foreclosure rulings, while Ally Financial Inc. said Sept. 21 its GMAC Mortgage unit would halt evictions. The companies said employees may have completed affidavits without confirming their accuracy.

Such mistakes may allow former owners to challenge the repossession of homes long after the properties are resold, according to Kessler. Ownership questions may not arise until a home is under contract and the potential purchaser applies for title insurance or even decades later as one deed researcher catches errors overlooked by another. A so-called defective title means the person who paid for and moved into a house may not be the legal owner.

‘Nightmare Scenario’

“It’s a nightmare scenario,” said John Vogel, a professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. “There are lots of land mines related to title issues that may come to light long after we think we’ve solved the housing problem.”

Almost one-fourth of U.S. home sales in the second quarter involved properties in some stage of mortgage distress, RealtyTrac Inc. said yesterday. In August, lenders took possession of record 95,364 homes and issued foreclosure filings to 338,836 homeowners, or one out of every 381 U.S. households, according to the Irvine, California-based data seller.

The biggest deficiency in foreclosure suits is missing or improperly handled documents, Kessler found in his study of court filings in Florida’s Sarasota County. When home loans are granted, borrowers sign a promissory note outlining payment obligations and a separate mortgage that puts an encumbrance on the property in the lender’s name. If mortgages are resold, both documents must be properly conveyed to prevent competing claims.

Mortgage Bonds

Most of the document errors involved mortgages that had been bundled into securities sold to investors, Kessler said. At the end of the U.S. real estate boom in 2005 and 2006, about 70 percent of the $6.1 trillion in mortgage lending was packaged into bonds, according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association in New York.

Continue reading…BLOOMBERG

.

The recent announcements by J.P. Morgan Chase and Ally Financial that they were freezing some foreclosures because of paperwork irregularities raises a key question: How many more mortgage companies employed “robo-signers?”

In a sworn deposition in July, Erica Johnson-Seck, an Austin, Tex.,-based vice president for bankruptcy and foreclosure for OneWest Bank, said she and her team of seven others sign 6,000 documents a week or about 24,000 a month without reading all of them.

Johnson-Seck estimated that she spent no more than 30 seconds to sign each document.

She explained that while she does not check everything, she does check some information, “which is why I said 30 seconds instead of two seconds.”

Continue reading…WASHINGTON POST

.

“Unfortunately, concerns have been raised that Ally’s practices are not an anomaly in this industry, and that these bad practices are used by numerous other companies as well,”

[ipaper docId=38491690 access_key=key-2olponz6eirce0cjis4j height=600 width=600 /]

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – An outcry over questionable foreclosures by GMAC Mortgage and other lenders is likely to hit some states more than others because of major differences in real estate law across the nation.

But ramifications for federal taxpayers and investors will depend on the costs of clearing up the problem, the latest fallout from the bursting of the U.S. real estate bubble.

GMAC Mortgage announced last week that it had suspended evictions and post-foreclosure closings in 23 states due to concerns over paperwork. In order for a lender to foreclose on a property, it must prove that it actually checked the borrower’s loan agreements, and that the homeowner defaulted.

But the unit of Ally Financial, which is 56.3 percent owned by the U.S. government after a $17 billion bailout, said employees preparing foreclosures had submitted affidavits to judges containing information they did not personally verify.

“It’s a real mess,” said Justice Arthur Schack, a jurist on foreclosure issues who sits on the New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn.

GMAC’s announcement has raised doubts about whether some people lost their homes without good reason. Attorneys general in several states, including California, Colorado, Illinois and Ohio, are investigating.

“The law demands that lenders prove their case in foreclosure actions,” Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said last week.

But Ally characterizes the problem as merely technical, arguing that the underlying facts in each foreclosure are accurate.

“We are confident that the processing errors did not result in any inappropriate foreclosures,” it said in a statement last week.

GMAC landed in its predicament after one of its employees testified in a December 2009 deposition that he signed off on tens of thousands of affidavits containing information he did not verify.

The company said it has “substantially increased” the number of employees to verify documents, provided additional training, and suspended evictions out of an “abundance of caution.”

Ally isn’t the only firm under the microscope.

JPMorgan Chase & Co is delaying its current foreclosure proceedings and has begun to systematically re-examine related documents after discovering that some employees may have signed affidavits in some cases without personally reviewing the files.

Lawyers in Florida are questioning JPMorgan’s practices after discovering one of its executives did not check the details of its claims against a homeowner.

The executive said she had been part of an eight-person team that signs 18,000 documents a

Continue reading… REUTERS

.

OLD REPUBLIC TITLE:

The Company will not insure title to any property which has been foreclosed by Ally Financial, Ally Bank or GMAC until further notice.

Short and sweet.

Source: MARKET TICKER

The Honorable Judge
County Court of Common Pleas

Re: Foreclosure Affidavits

Dear Judge XXXXX, I write you, and the other presiding and administrative judges of the Ohio Courts of Common Pleas, to draw your attention to an issue that may be of interest to you.

As you are aware, when a plaintiff in a foreclosure case moves for default or summary judgment, it will attach an affidavit from the lender or mortgage servicer attesting to the ownership and default status of loan. During the last week, questions have arisen about the validity of the foreclosure affidavits filed by a large servicer, GMAC Mortgage. GMAC (also operating as “Ally Financial”) issued a press release on September 20, 2010 announcing that it had directed certain of its vendors to suspend evictions and REO closings because of “a potential issue that was raised in a number of existing foreclosures challenging the internal procedure we used for executing one or more judicially required forms.”

A number of media outlets, including The Washington Post and The New York Times, reported on this statement. The news articles suggest that GMAC’s actions are related to a Florida deposition and a Maine deposition given by one of its employees, Jeffrey Stephan. Mr. Stephan signed thousands of foreclosure affidavits for GMAC, but in his depositions stated that he does not have knowledge of how the information in the affidavit is determined (Deposition of Jeffrey Stephan, June 7, 2010, p 30), does not know how the accuracy of the information is verified (Id.), does not review the exhibits attached to the affidavit (Id., p 54), does not read every paragraph of the affidavit (Id. p 61), and does not have the affidavit notarized in his presence (Id., p 56).

The depositions were not taken by my office, so I do not opine on their accuracy, but I wanted to draw your attention to this issue. At least one court has found that filing affidavits that falsely claim personal knowledge is a violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act when filed in connection with consumer transactions. Midland Funding, LLC v. Brent, 644 F. Supp. 2d 961, 977 (N.D. Ohio, 2009).

More broadly, I urge you as administrators to share this letter with your colleagues and urge them to exercise caution when approving any foreclosure orders involving GMAC. Further, I encourage you to consider whether additional administrative procedures need to be established to protect homeowners who are facing the threat of foreclosure. Issues similar to those surrounding GMAC have arisen in Ohio. For example, my office filed an amicus brief in an appellate case where a foreclosure affidavit averred that it was executed in Florida but the jurat and notarization stated that it was executed in New Jersey. The 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking the faulty affidavit. HSBC Bank USA v. Thompson, 2010-Ohio-4158.

Please feel free to contact me or my Consumer Protection Section Chief, Susan Choe, at 614.466.1305, if we can be of any assistance regarding this letter.

Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard Cordray
Ohio Attorney General

CC:
Sarah Lynn, Deputy Chief Counsel, Ohio Attorney General
Susan Choe, Consumer Protection Section Chief, Ohio Attorney General

[ipaper docId=38440652 access_key=key-6qk0oxuezmg7toyjlbw height=600 width=600 /]

Mortgage Fraud

Chase Home Finance, LLC
Whitney Cook
Beth Cottrell
Margaret Dalton
JPMorgan Chase
Lender Processing Services
Long Beach Mortgage
Stacy Spohn
Christina Trowbridge
Washington Mutual Bank

Action Date: September 30, 2010
Location: New York, NY

On September 29, 2010, financial giant JP Morgan Chase announced it was suspending 56,000 foreclosures because its documents may have been “submitted without proper review.” To assist JPMorgan Chase, Fraud Digest suggests that it dismiss those actions where the Affidavits or Mortgage Assignments were signed by the following robo-signers: Beth Cottrell, Whitney Cook, Christina Trowbridge and Stacy Spohn from the Chase Home Finance office in Franklin County, OH; Margaret Dalton and Barbara Hindman from the Jacksonville, FL office of JPMorgan Chase; and any of the Lender Processing Services robo-signers from the Dakota County, MN office including Christina Allen, Liquenda Allotey, Christine Anderson, Alfonzo Greene, Laura Hescott, Bethany Hood, Cecelia Knox, Topako Love, Jodi Sobotta, Eric Tate, Amy Weis and Rick Wilken. In particular, JP Morgan Chase should look at those cases where the bank has supposedly assigned mortgages to WaMu, WMALT, Long Beach Mortgage Company and NovaStar trusts years after the closing dates of these trusts. The number of questionable or fraudulent documents is likely to be much closer to 560,000 than to 56,000, and that will only be a good beginning.

Sample Of The Work

[ipaper docId=38430629 access_key=key-g6cuuygszzcvosanu4s height=600 width=600 /]

It was a very sad day for Floridians yesterday when the Florida Supreme Court issued a statement that it does not have authority to intercede while a fraud investigation is pending. Although we may not agree with the decision, we must respect procedures that must be followed.

Florida, do not quit what you are doing because there are many states that we must continue to focus on. Judges need to put themselves in the homeowners situation and understand we cannot make these fraudulent documents up. These documents are sworn statements, under perjury of law and notarized. As officers of the court they must be held accountable. No ifs, ands, buts or suppose here. These are not errors.

Rest assured that The Florida Bar still has many pending investigations with these foreclosure firms and they have authority overseeing the misconduct of their members.

I am your voice, America. I share your fears, read your concerns and do try my best to reach out to you.

DinSFLA

.

[GUEST POST]

Is It Time to File Quiet Title Actions on Foreclosed Homes?

THIS IS NOT Intended to Be Construed or Relied upon as COMPETENT LEGAL ADVICE—it is an academic paper discussing various perceptions of evolving potential facts and law, which may differ state by state and within jurisdictions within states. Readers are urged to obtain competent legal representation to review their facts.

In the past, foreclosed homeowners and their attorneys have discussed the utility of filing quiet title actions where homes have been seized and deficiency judgments entered by various foreclosure claimants that purport to unknowingly rely on faulty documentation. There are dangers. A buyer that has acquired a foreclosed home—or the foreclosing entity itself—may bring an action against a dispossessed person seeking redress. A pro se plaintiff or an attorney that represents the wronged homeowner may be subject to sanctions for raising a spurious or improperly supported claim. Today facts appear to put a defense attorney at risk of malpractice if he does not preserve his clients’ interest—even post foreclosure—unless he apprises the client of the opportunity to regain title to the family home. Courts have notice of these defects by reason of withdrawals of support documents—beyond GMAC.

Recent disclosures and admissions by document creation groups, together with widespread newspaper reported facts open avenues to additional discovery and formulation of academic legal opinion. These will open the door for claims to set aside erroneous judgments and/or pursue damages against those servicers, Indenture Trustees and document preparers that either knowingly, negligently, or acted with willful disregard to perpetrate fraud on the courts and the hapless home-owners. Mortgage-backed securities investors may also find an interest in these activities. Failed documentation may disguise outright fraud. Attestations and sworn affidavits serve a fundamental purpose—prevention of fraud. These are not mere technicalities as propounded by some industry apologists.  Certainly, homeowners with continuing duties of enforced silence may have opportunity to re-open their settlements in light of these possible fraudulent impositions and inducements.

There are at least two sets of circumstances raised to date whereby potentially void or voidable documents have been used to push homeowners into the streets and into bankruptcy;

• Complaints in foreclosure supported by assignments of mortgage from purported representatives of MERS to various entities
• Motions for Summary Judgment supported by Affidavits of Claimants—most notably GMAC’s Jeffrey Stephan

On September 23, 2010 the Washington Post added to the furor surrounding the (majority) federal government owned [ALLY] GMAC’s revelations from earlier this week. GMAC used affidavits executed by an employee, Jeffrey Stephan, who admitted in deposition testimony in December 2009 and June 2010, that he did not actually verify the mortgage foreclosure information to which he was testifying in connection with the foreclosures of two families.

In addition, he admitted signing these “affidavits,” and passing them for later notarization in bulk, a violation of proper notary procedure. Mr. Stephan signed off on 10,000 mortgage documents per month according to his June deposition and the Post article. GMAC, in this instance, took the honest and safe course of “temporarily suspending” some foreclosure-related activities in 23 states – as reported by several large newspapers, including the New York Times, Bloomberg and The Washington Post. The “temporary suspension” allows for evaluation of the impacts of this admitted breakdown in the system, rather than blatantly defrauding foreclosure courts in judicial foreclosure states.  The New York Times on the 22^nd speculated that: [GMAC] “actions suggest concern about potential liability in evicting families and selling houses to which it does not have clear title.” [Emphasis added]  The same article notes that; “The lender said it was also reviewing completed foreclosures where the same unnamed procedure might have been used.” [Emphasis Added]. The step referred to in these articles, preparation and filing of an affidavit in support of a Motion for Summary Judgment—along with the Motion itself –occur well into the foreclosure process.

However, there is another critical document created and filed by a claimant with the foreclosure court at the beginning of foreclosure. This document, the Assignment of Mortgage, is supposed to support the claimant’s right or legal “standing” to press the Complaint in Foreclosure. The Complaint is the basis for the foreclosure and creation of a “deficiency judgment” – the amount left owing by the homeowner after the claimant sells the house for less than the amount owed and includes added fees and charges. The claimant uses the deficiency judgment to seize the homeowner assets and future paychecks. In most instances the assignment is the only document before the court that associates the claimant with the borrower. The complaint and supporting assignment frequently surprise and confuse the homeowner by naming an entity or sham “trust” that the homeowner has never heard of before.

The Assignment of Mortgage is significantly more important than the affidavit in support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, if for no other reason sheer numbers.  Typically most homeowners have undergone a psychological bruising and beating from the loan servicer by the time the actual Complaint in Foreclosure is filed. Often the family has lost the pay of one, if not both, wage earners and seeks some relief from one of the high cost, predatory loans created 2003-2007. Unfortunately the servicer typically refuses to discuss modification or any relief unless the homeowner has fallen behind in payments. The servicers may rely on terms limiting its authority within the securitization documents in respect of this hard-nose approach.

The hard-nose response gives the servicer cover for actions or abuses that often characterize its subsequent conduct. At that point, the servicer transfers the loan to the default department or outsources to a “default management” operation. This is an aggrandized term for collection agency. The “department” or collection agency often calls the family up to six or more times a day demanding money—rarely the same caller twice. Typically, this will throw the family into confusion and despair. Pleas for relief fall on deaf ears unless the family meets demands to “make up late payments and added fees.”  It’s just the beginning of a process that has the effect, if not the purpose, of destroying the family’s morale. The servicer may follow up with notices tacked on the homeowner’s door, a barrage of ominous if not outright threatening letters and other actions aimed at driving the homeowner to abandon the home and neglect a legal defense.

If the homeowner is either naïve enough to believe that the touted voluntary [for servicers] relief programs actually operate, or desperate to keep a roof over the family’s head, the loan modification dance begins. Under the guise of compliance with HAMP, the collection agency demands an array of homeowner financial and employment information. Irrespective of the use that the homeowner desires for that information, it will be of great help to the collection agency to locate assets and paychecks down the road to collect the looming deficiency. But today the information rarely satisfies the servicer in respect of moving towards a modification. The demanded documents are often purportedly “lost” by the servicer, or deemed inadequate—anything to drag out the nightmare and break the family’s spirits. After submitting and resubmitting documents, explanations, and hours on the telephone day after day, week after week, any false hopes that are raised are destroyed by a denial. Homeowners often will be told to try again-with the same results.

After about 3-4 months, perhaps even while the family thinks that a modification is soon to be forthcoming, the ax falls instead. An assignment is “created” and the Complaint is filed. Usually the family gives up without opposition at this point. The servicer may go so far as to place a note on the door offering to further discuss modification leaving a phone number. When the number is called by the confounded homeowner, the servicer representative may explain: “we didn’t really mean that; we just wanted to see if you have left yet!”

In some cases born of desperation, the struggling family may contact an attorney who demands $1000-$5000 just to open the case. The family has 30 days to raise the money to cause someone to simply look at the demands in the Complaint and the Assignment. In the vast majority of cases still remaining, the family gives up now, abandons the property, and no response is ever filed to the Complaint—a default judgment is entered in favor of the claimant. Most often, the family is not even aware that the demands seek more than just the home. That realization may take years to occur—when another collector knocks on the door demanding the long-forgotten deficiency. The process is aimed at breaking the family’s will, at winnowing out the homeowners. The servicer wants the home!

The articles printed prior to Sep 23, 2010 in connection with GMAC’s “unnamed procedure” did not focus upon the issue of potential forgery or related systemic fraud on the courts in connection with preparation of Assignments of Mortgage. By way of background, by reference to numerous anecdotes, it appears that often a claimant in possession of a list of homeowner loans in default provides superficial information to a default services company in respect of the borrower and property. One of the largest default service providers, by its own admission, is two-year old publicly traded Lender Processing Services (“LPS”), a spin-off from FINS. “Approximately 50 percent of all U.S. mortgages by dollar volume are serviced using LPS’ Mortgage Servicing Package (MSP)” The lender, a servicer or Indenture Trustee contracts with LPS for creation and delivery of an Assignment of Mortgage to the requesting entity. (see exhibit at end) This document is often sent directly by LPS through the mail to County Recorders to be file-stamped and recorded in the county property records.  These steps lend false authenticity to the piece of paper. By the time the targeted family sees the Complaint and attached Assignment, the assignment has been file-stamped by their local County Recorder, the Clerk of Courts and probably was attached to a subpoena “served” upon them by their County Sherriff. The family is thoroughly intimidated by the Assignment of Mortgage, which has been used to convert the family’s local authorities into apparent agents and enforcers of the distant claimant. The assignment is a powerful weapon in the war of intimidation.

The Washington Post, September 23, 2010, correlated the GMAC admitted breakdown in verification of loan files and notarization process with the assignment creation process operated by LPS. LPS’ document creation division in Alpharetta, Georgia operating under LPS’ DOCX trademark, churned out thousands of assignments. The Post identified one prolific signatory, Linda Green. The article set out in its body several examples of Ms. Green’s signature—which differ dramatically one to another. The Post stated the likely observation that the signatures were made by other LPS employees in addition to Ms Green.  She is but one example at one LPS office: there are others with similar handiwork including Tywanna Thomas and Korrel Harp at that office. Mr. Harp has the added dubious distinction of having been jailed for and plead guilty to “Knowingly Possessing False Identification” relating to an arrest in Oklahoma in 2008.   At the age of 24, Mr. Harp was signing as Vice-President of Mortgage Electronic Services Inc., aka MERS. MERS has been nominal owner of 65 million home mortgages—and receives mortgage title to 60% of all new mortgages.

As a VP of MERS the 24 year-old Harp, like Ms. Green and Thomas, purportedly possessed the power to transfer mortgages with questionable oversight to LPS’ clients—perhaps others?  Based on the signatures of Harp, Green, Thomas— and other varied, yet purportedly notarized signatures, Courts across the country have foreclosed on homes and granted deficiency judgments.  One of the in house LPS notaries was only 18 years old at the time she notarized signature for Harp, Thomas and others at DOCX. Michelle Kersch, a senior vice president for Lender Processing Services, made limited explanations by email in the Post article but did not elaborate “due to the pending criminal investigation”.

Like GMACs Stephan, LPS’ stamp and sign department was a high volume operation. Powers of attorney were not consistently attached to the crucial assignments—if at all.

In the case of Linda Green, there was no power of attorney to represent MERS on an original “assignment of mortgage dated October 17, 2008 and filed on October 13, 2009”. This technicality was disclosed in a corrective filing of assignment by Florida foreclosure firm Shapiro and Fishman dated August 11, 2010 in Lee County, Florida in support of a foreclosure by servicer AHMSI. The POA status of other prolific signers such as Harp seems equally uncertain—but as Harp has emphatically stated “I’m sure everything is legal.” There seems to be little observable difference between the conduct of GMAC’s Stephan and the LPS’ high volume signers—but for the possible failure of the LPS signers to have representative capacity to sign at all.

LPS has also made admissions that GMAC seems to echo in terms of problematic “processes”. In the company’s 2009 Annual Report on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, published in March 2010, under “regulatory matters”–“Recently, during an internal review of the business processes used by our document solutions subsidiary, we identified a business process that caused an error in the notarization of certain documents, some of which were used in foreclosure proceedings in various jurisdictions around the country.”

Subsequently, April 3, 2010, the Wall St. Journal published an article regarding the issues with LPS and notary deficiencies; “US Probes Foreclosure-Data Provider”.  Foreclosure activists in Florida did not let the admission pass. These persons identified and brought to light signed and notarized Assignments that actually conveyed mortgages to named entities, “Bogus Assignee” and “Bad Bene”. These clearly established undeniable proof that LPS’ internal controls were compromised and virtually any name could be inserted as a claimant in a foreclosure action.

LPS’ CEO Jeffrey Carbiener authored a Letter to the Editor of the Florida Times-Union responding to an article published May 14, 2010 referring to “bad bene” and “bogus assignee”. In his open letter admissions in the press Carbiener asserted that the bogus names were “placeholders” put in the signed and notarized assignment documents “…until the missing information [claimant name] was provided…” Carbiener noted that the forms, as well as the data inserted, were based on instructions from clients with the “placeholders” used until more data is provided.  This amounts to a Nuremberg Defense.

The Carbiener comments attempt to place the onus of error in naming mortgage claimants on his clients—but for the obvious so-called placeholders. However, Carbiener’s comments have great significance beyond LPS role. This explanation is an admission that assignments were prepared in blank based on client information. According to Carbiener, it would appear that the named claimant was subsequently determined by the client and inserted. This process allows substantial opportunity for abuse, suggesting that a servicer determined that a loan was in default, and then someone engaged in a separate process to identify a claimant to whom the proceeds of foreclosure would be awarded.

The difficulties, or opportunities, for a servicer and his client Indenture Trustees to shift the benefits among potential investor beneficiaries are more apparent when one reviews the SEC filings of now bankrupt mortgage note originators such as American Home Mortgage group (“AHM”) and Option One.

Both originated loans that were supposedly stuffed into trusts. On paper the trusts supposedly issued mortgage-backed securities to trusting investors. However, purported trust-sponsors AHM and Option One and the Indenture Trustees were at best haphazard in meeting basic commitments and representations that were plainly stated in the securitization documents they themselves filed. The trust documents clearly state that the lists of loans included in the trusts were filed with the SEC and the appropriate Secretary of State (UCC). The securitization documents provided detailed descriptions of the information to be included in the filed list. This information was sufficient that a homeowner could determine if the trust owned his/her loan and was the proper party to receive his payments. Investors in the trust MBS could look to the list to determine the principal amount of the loans that “backed” the investment, as well as loan to value ratios and other relevant information that would indicate the value of the loans—and provide information adequate to determine if the same loan was placed in multiple trusts. However, for AHM, 7 of the 12 investment trusts filed with SEC lacked the lists.  The schedule stated, “manually filed”, but the manual filing was not made in many instances. The actual manual filings made are identified on the SEC dockets for the trusts as “SE” for “scanned exhibit.” Under the “SE” docket entry, the list would be found in specificity.  One such example of a trust with a proper loan list was American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2005-2.

In motion practice in connection with a homeowner’s motion to dismiss a naked claim by one of Korrel Harp’s or Linda Green’s appointed mortgage assignment beneficiary trusts, one could note that the trust lacked a loan list and ownership of the loan could not be independently verified by reference to government records as intended. In so doing, it was possible to refer the court to the properly filed loan lists to note the clear distinction and value of the list. It was possible to prove that the lists were not intentionally missing due to some overriding concern for homeowner privacy—a common speculation. It was also useful to prove that missing loan lists were not customary “industry practice”. The filed list was a government record freely accessible to the public online. That changed between July 21, 2010 and September 02, 2010. Loan lists that had been on file and available for investors and homeowners to view online on the SE site were unceremoniously deleted. The lists are no longer freely accessible. A demand is now necessary under Freedom of Information Act—the proper loan lists can no longer be referenced in motions to dismiss. The effect was equivalent to, if not the same as, intentional destruction of evidence by the SEC. It is of interest that on the same day as the Washington Post detailed the LPS similarity to GMAC in terms of uncertain document authenticity, the WSJ also ran a front-page article detailing questionable actions taken in recent months by SEC. Washington Post, September 22, 2010, SEC Blasted on Goldman.

In summary, SEC failed to require actual filing of loan lists by the trust sponsors and the Indenture Trustees. This failing has lead to LPS and GMAC transfers of claims to unverifiable beneficiaries. This the Times suggests, creates a cloud on the title of the new home buyers of foreclosed properties. Then to complete the injury and remove opportunity for homeowners to defend unsupported claims, SEC destroys evidence that could be useful to homeowners being foreclosed and investors seeking to prove fraud. The mortgage fiasco has roots in SEC failure to regulate and its continuation and concealment of potential fraud is an abuse of discretion by SEC, which is supposed to support disclosure of information—not hide it.

Excerpted from: DOCX eAssign^TM brochure (no longer found online)

eAssign utilizes the industry’s most robust property records database and data capture capabilities to significantly reduce timelines and costs for lienholders when creating (emphasis added) and recording lien assignment documents.

This article was contributed by an anonymous supporter of StopForeclosureFraud.com

© 2010 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved. www.StopForeclosureFraud.com

Related links:

LPS 101

MERS 101

NO. THERE IS NO LIFE AT MERS

Was Kristine Wilson another “robo-signer”?

Attorneys for homeowners in Florida say Ally Financial’s GMAC mortgage unit has begun to withdraw affidavits submitted in support of foreclosures that were signed by a second employee. Like Jeffrey Stephan–the document processor who admitted in sworn testimony that he signed 10,000 documents a month without reviewing them–Kristine Wilson signed as a “limited signing officer” for GMAC.

In a request to withdraw an affidavit listing debts owed by a homeowner that was signed by Wilson in a Palm Beach County Circuit Court case, lawyers for GMAC say that “information in the affidavit may not have been properly verified.”

Continue reading…WASHINGTON POST

.

U.S. State Officials Investigate After GMAC Halts Evictions

September 25, 2010, 12:01 AM EDT

By Dakin Campbell

Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) — Attorneys general in three U.S. states are investigating foreclosures at Ally Financial Inc.’s GMAC Mortgage unit after the lender said it would halt some evictions following a discovery of faulty documentation.

Texas, Iowa and Illinois have started investigations into mortgage practices at Ally, while California, which isn’t affected by GMAC’s action, ordered the company to stop foreclosures unless it can prove compliance with state law, according to statements. Ally said it has issued a “more robust policy” on processing foreclosures, increased staff to handle documents and instituted more training for employees.

“Preserving the integrity of the foreclosure process is of the utmost importance,” Ally said yesterday in a statement. “While we are exercising an abundance of caution in the review process, we are confident that the processing errors did not result in any inappropriate foreclosures.”

Continue reading…BUSINESS WEEK

.

September 24, 2010

Chicago ­ Attorney General Lisa Madigan today issued a letter to the mortgage lender Ally (formerly GMAC) demanding a meeting to address concerns that the company has violated the state’s Consumer Fraud Act in its pursuit of Illinois homeowners in foreclosure. Madigan’s letter responds to reports raising serious questions about the accuracy of documents the lender files in foreclosure lawsuits.

An Ally employee testified in a Florida court case that he routinely signed affidavits for foreclosure lawsuits and submitted them to Ally’s attorneys without reviewing the homeowners’ loan documents. These affidavits were then filed with the court as evidence of Ally’s right to foreclose on the homes. The employee testified that he signed at least 10,000 affidavits a month without reviewing the underlying paperwork, and thus had no way of knowing whether the information in the affidavits was actually true.

“Families’ homes are at stake here,” Madigan said. “If I determine that Ally is rubber-stamping affidavits and filing them with our courts as evidence, I will take appropriate action. The law demands that lenders prove their case in foreclosure actions, and Illinois homeowners demand the same.”

Following these revelations, Ally announced this week that it is suspending foreclosure lawsuits in 23 states, including Illinois.

Madigan also requested that Ally immediately provide her office with details on the impact of Ally’s conduct on Illinois homeowners, including the number of Illinois homeowners affected by the suspension of foreclosures; the names of the Illinois law firms that Ally retains to pursue foreclosure actions; information about how these firms will implement and monitor the suspension of foreclosure lawsuits in Illinois; and the length of the suspension.

GMAC ranked fourth among U.S. home mortgage lenders in the first six months of this year, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, an industry newsletter.

California Demands Halt To Foreclosures By Mortgage Giant

By Dale Kasler
dkasler@sacbee.com

California officials today demanded that Ally Financial Inc. stop foreclosing on homes in the state, citing reports indicating the big mortgage lender is violating the law.

The cease-and-desist letter, issued by Attorney General Jerry Brown, came as officials in several other states began investigating Ally’s operations.

The controversy stems from a Florida court case in which an Ally official reportedly testified that he signed thousands of documents in foreclosure cases without even reviewing the homeowners’ loan documents.

Continue Reading…THE SACRAMENTO BEE

.

I guess WELLS FARGOT…

This statement from Wells Fargo appears on NY TIMES 10/1/2010:

A Wells Fargo spokeswoman said “the affidavits we sign are accurate.”

SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK
I.A.S. PART XXXVI SUFFOLK COUNTY

PRESENT:
HON, PAUL J. BAISLEY, JR., J.S.C.

INDEX NO.: 16038/2008
MOTION DATE: 11/24/2008
Plaintiff, MOTION NO.: 001 MI)

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY:
STEVEN J. BAUM, P.C.
P.O. Box 1291
Buffalo, New York 14240- 1291

Wells Fargo v. Oleg Dmitriev

Plaintiffs application is defective because there is no “affidavit made by the party” of “the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due” as required by CPLR §3215(f). The proffered “affidavit of merit and amount due” of Jeffrey Stephan identifies him as “the Limited Signing Officer of GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, servicer,” but no proof of Mr. Stephan’s authority to execute such affidavit on behalf of plaintiff is offered. The proffered affidavit does not otherwise comply with the requirements of CPLR $2309(c) for an out-of-state affidavit. In addition, the facts and dates recited in the affidavit regarding the consolidated mortgage and consolidated note that are the subject of this floreclosure action are at variance with the underlying documents.

In light of the foregoing, the motion for an order of reference is denied, without prejudice to renewal on proper papers.

Proposed order of reference marked “not signed.”
Dated: March 16, 2009

Paul J. Baisley, JR
J.S.C.
–

[ipaper docId=37975402 access_key=key-281pa58f9x2mia6kmvxp height=600 width=600 /]