Judge: I went through the material that you attached and I was very confused about IndyMac’s role and how we ended up with a foreclosure deed that didn’t reflect IndyMac’s role…can you explain?
Attorney Sheridan for the Kevlik’s replies… There’s nothing in the record that explains MERS’ role! […] No power to assign… What happened to OneWest bank???
Orlans Moran, PLLC, of Boston, Massachusetts (John T. Precobb on the brief and orally), for the plaintiff.
William C. Sheridan, of Londonderry, on the brief and orally, for the defendants.
CONBOY, J.
The defendants, James Kevlik, Catherine Kevlik, and Patricia Durgin, appeal an order of the Derry District Court (Coughlin, J.) denying their motion to dismiss and granting judgment to the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its action for possession of real estate located in Chester. See RSA 540:12 (2007). We reverse.
The following facts are supported by the record or are undisputed. Through its attorney, the plaintiff filed a landlord and tenant writ, alleging that: (1) the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property; (2) the defendants had been provided with an eviction notice; and (3) the defendants had refused to deliver the property. In the eviction notice, attached to its writ, the plaintiff alleged that it was the current owner of the property “as a result of the foreclosure of a [m]ortgage, which foreclosure sale was held at the [p]roperty on June 12, 2009.” On the day of the merits hearing, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss asserting that a foreclosure sale had never taken place.
At the merits hearing, the Kevliks appeared without counsel. Defendant Durgin did not appear. The plaintiff’s attorney appeared without his client and proffered copies of the landlord and tenant writ with an “affidavit of ownership,” a foreclosure deed with an attached statutory affidavit, and a mortgage assignment, all of which the trial court allowed into evidence over the defendants’ objection. The assignment, dated on January 25, 2009, indicates a transfer of a mortgage executed by defendant Patricia Durgin from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (as nominee of SouthStar Funding, LLC) to IndyMac Bank F.S.B. The July 20, 2009 foreclosure deed purports to describe a sale of the property from One West Bank, F.S.B., to the plaintiff at a June 12, 2009 foreclosure auction.
At the hearing, the plaintiff’s attorney admitted that the foreclosure and assignment documents were not certified and that he could not attest to their authenticity. Plaintiff’s attorney acknowledged that his firm had not handled the foreclosure sale and that he did not know what the mortgage payments had been. Until the hearing, he was not aware that the Kevliks were related to Patricia Durgin, the mortgagor, and did not know what, if any, rental agreement they had. When asked by the trial court to name a reasonable rent for the property, plaintiff’s attorney suggested five hundred dollars per month. When questioned further on that point by the trial court, he admitted he was “not from this area.”
The Kevliks argued that they had videotape evidence that no foreclosure sale had occurred. The trial court, however, refused to consider this evidence, characterizing the defendants’ argument as contesting title to the property. The trial court told the Kevliks that they would have to pay “recognizance” to the plaintiff of $348.84 per week pending their entry of an action in superior court.
The Kevliks told the trial court they did not wish to pursue the matter in superior court, but requested a continuance in order to consult with counsel. Plaintiff’s attorney did not oppose this request, stating that, “in the interest of fairness, they should have an attorney here.” However, the trial court denied the motion to continue as well as the motion to dismiss, and took the matter under advisement. Subsequently, the trial court ordered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. In its order, the trial court also stated that, “One week after the [h]earing on the [m]erits . . .[,] the tenants paid $348.84 into the Court and the Court accepted the payment. However, the Court accepted said payment with regards to an appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court regarding the Landlord/Tenant action and not a plea of title transfer to the Superior Court.”
The defendants moved for reconsideration, again asserting that a foreclosure sale had not, in fact, taken place. They explained that the auctioneer arrived thirty minutes late for the scheduled sale, sat in his car for five minutes, and then drove away. No buyer or anyone else appeared. The defendants argued that the plaintiff could not have purchased the mortgage at the foreclosure sale and therefore did not have standing to evict the defendants. The court denied this motion.
On appeal, the defendants argue that the plaintiff failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that it was the owner of the property, and, thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment. Specifically, the defendants maintain that the documents submitted by the plaintiff’s attorney were insufficient to establish ownership because the evidence was based on “incompetent and unauthenticated hearsay.” Further, the defendants assert, the trial court should have permitted them to challenge the plaintiff’s “offer[s] of proof.”
The issue before us presents a question of statutory interpretation. We are the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole. Kenison v. Dubois, 152 N.H. 448, 451 (2005). We first examine the language of the statute, and, where possible, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used. Id. We review the trial court’s interpretation of a statute de novo. Id.
RSA 540:17 (2007) provides:
If the defendant shall plead a plea which may bring in question the title to the demanded premises he shall forthwith recognize to the plaintiff, with sufficient sureties, in such sum as the court shall order, to enter his action in the superior court for the county at the next return day, and to prosecute his action in said court, and to pay all rent then due or which shall become due pending the action, and the damages and costs which may be awarded against him.
Although the statute requires title issues to be resolved in superior court, it does not relieve a possessory plaintiff of the obligation to establish ownership of the subject property. Possessory actions are authorized by RSA 540:12, which provides that, “[t]he owner, lessor, or purchaser at a mortgage foreclosure sale of any [property] may recover possession thereof from a lessee, occupant, mortgagor, or other person in possession . . . after notice in writing to quit the same . . . .” In Liam Hooksett, LLC v. Boynton, 157 N.H. 625 (2008), we addressed the required ownership element of a possessory action brought pursuant to RSA 540:12. In that case, the defendants asserted that an individual other than the plaintiff actually owned the property. Liam Hooksett, 157 N.H. at 627. At the hearing, the plaintiff’s manager appeared on its behalf, but she did not testify that the plaintiff was the owner of the property. Id. at 628. Rather, she presented to the court an “Affidavit of Ownership/Tenancy” that purported to “certify” that the plaintiff was the owner, but the document was not notarized, signed under oath, or admitted into evidence. Id. On that record, we agreed that the plaintiff had not carried its burden to demonstrate that it was the actual owner of the property. Id. “The plaintiff filed a writ seeking possession of the property. Thus, to prevail in this action, the plaintiff was required to prove that it was the `owner, lessor, or purchaser at a mortgage foreclosure sale’ of the property.” Id. The same is true here.
Here, the plaintiff’s attorney presented, as proof of ownership, uncertified copies of a foreclosure deed and affidavit and a mortgage assignment. He did not, however, have first-hand knowledge as to the authenticity of the documents and presented no other proof of their authenticity. The rules of evidence provide that a copy of a public record is admissible only when it is either: (1) certified as correct by a custodian or other authorized person; or (2) accompanied by the testimony of a witness who has compared it to the original and found it to be correct. See N.H. R. Ev. 902(4), 1005. Because the plaintiff satisfied neither requirement, the trial court erred in admitting and relying upon these documents.
Plaintiff’s attorney also submitted a copy of the landlord and tenant writ and attachments, including an “affidavit of ownership.” This “affidavit” stated that plaintiff’s attorney was “certifying” that the plaintiff was the owner of the subject property, but the purported affidavit was not notarized or signed under oath. Further, the initials next to the name on the signature line indicate that it was actually signed by another individual, “C.M.S.” Thus, it was error for the trial court to admit and rely on that document. See Liam Hooksett, 157 N.H. at 628.
On this record, we conclude that the plaintiff has not carried its burden to show ownership of the property. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s decision to grant judgment to the plaintiff.
We note the limited nature of our holdings herein. Had the plaintiff proffered authenticated documents, with supporting testimony if necessary, regarding the foreclosure sale, or other proof of its ownership of the property, the trial court could have properly ruled on the issue of the plaintiff’s entitlement to possession because the defendants stated they did not wish to file a title action in superior court. The defendants would not have been able to pursue their challenge to the plaintiff’s title in the district court. See Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Cataldo, 161 N.H. 135 (2010).
Reversed.
DALIANIS, C.J., and DUGGAN, HICKS and LYNN, JJ., concurred.
The alleged splitting of attorney fees between foreclosure law firms and third-party mortgage servicing providers is the subject of another lawsuit, bringing the number of cases filed on this issue to five within the past seven months, said Nick Wooten, an Alabama-based plaintiff’s attorney involved in all of the cases.
By mid-May, Wooten said he expects to file 10 to 12 additional cases, making similar allegations about what he claims are illegal, split-attorney fee arrangements between mortgage servicing outsourcers and law firms. The cases are concentrated in the Northern District of Mississippi, the Southern District of Alabama and the Northern District of Florida-Pensacola division.
The latest filing is in bankruptcy court in the Northern District of Florida, In re Harris, and involves both LPS (the parent company and its subsidiary LPS Default Solutions) and major Florida foreclosure mill Ben-Ezra & Katz. The bankruptcy clients of Ben Ezra are the group that the litigation seeks to have certified as a class. Note that the usual remedy for the sharing of impermissible legal fees is disgorgment. In addition, the suit lists ten causes of actions, of which the fee sharing is only one.
AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REVIEW
La Villita Motor Inns, J.V., Executive Motels of San Antonio, Inc., and S.A. Sunvest
Hotels, Inc.
Appellant,
v.
Orix Capital Markets, LLC, Bank of America, N.A. LNR Partners, Inc., Capmark
Finance, Inc., Nicholas M. Pyka as Trustee, Michael N. Blue as Trustee, and Greta E.
Goldsby as Trustee,
Appellees.
Excerpt:
INTRODUCTION
This case involves a controversy about mortgage servicing. Mortgage servicing is the administration of mortgage loans—the collection of payments and management of defaults—on behalf of third parties. Mortgage servicing is an essential component of mortgage securitization, which is the predominant method for financing commercial mortgages in major metropolitan markets and for financing residential mortgages nationwide.
The absolute beauty of this all, is when one of the greatest gets the word out.
Understand that us bloggers don’t have the means both in funding nor in the capacity of such a global platform, but what us bloggers do have most importantly, a POWERFUL VOICE, your voice to manage to get the word out.
Make no mistake, no coincidence…In many opinions, insiders are tipped before anything major will break and why timing is EVERYTHING.
“ONE too many times, this court has been witness to the shoddy practices and sloppy accountings of the mortgage service industry. With each revelation, one hopes that the bottom of the barrel has been reached and that the industry will self correct. Sadly, this does not appear to be reality.”
The fraud perpetrated on the Court, Debtors, and trustee would be shocking if this Court had less experience concerning the conduct of mortgage servicers.
(Reuters) – A federal bankruptcy judge in New Orleans said she will impose sanctions on Lender Processing Services, after concluding that the mortgage servicing company deliberately committed fraud on the court in a foreclosure case, by giving false testimony and submitting a “sham” affidavit.
The fraud perpetrated on the Court, Debtors, and trustee would be shocking if this Court had less experience concerning the conduct of mortgage servicers.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
IN RE:
RON WILSON, SR.
LARHONDA WILSON
DEBTORS
Excerpt:
III. Conclusion The fraud perpetrated on the Court, Debtors, and trustee would be shocking if this Court had less experience concerning the conduct of mortgage servicers. One too many times, this Court has been witness to the shoddy practices and sloppy accountings of the mortgage service industry. With each revelation, one hopes that the bottom of the barrel has been reached and that the industry will self correct. Sadly, this does not appear to be reality. This case is one example of why their conduct comes at a high cost to the system and debtors.
The hearing on the Motion for Sanctions provides yet another piece to in the puzzle of loan administration. In Jones v. Wells Fargo,104 this Court discovered that a highly automated software package owned by LPS and identified as MSP administered loans for servicers and note holders but was programed to apply payments contrary to the terms of the notes and mortgages. In In re Stewart,105 additional information was acquired regarding postpetition administration under the same program, revealing errors in the methodology for fees and costs posted to a debtor’s account. In re Fitch,106 delved into the administration of escrow accounts for insurance and taxes. In this case, the process utilized for default affidavits has been examined. Although it has been four (4) years since Jones, serious problems persist in mortgage loan administration. But for the dogged determination of the UST’s office and debtors’ counsel, these issues would not come to light and countless debtors would suffer. For their efforts this Court is indebted.
For the reasons assigned above, the Motion for Sanctions is granted as to liability of LPS.
The Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing on sanctions to be imposed.
In re: RON WILSON, SR. LARHONDA WILSON, Chapter 13, Debtors.
Case No. 07-11862.
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Louisiana.
April 6, 2011.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ELIZABETH W. MAGNER, Bankruptcy Judge
On December 1, 2010, the Motion for Sanctions[1] filed by the United States Trustee (UST) came before the Court. At the beginning of the hearing, a request to bifurcate the issues presented was granted. Hearing on the sanctions to be awarded was deferred to a separate hearing, pending determination of liability for sanctionable conduct. After trial on the merits, the Court ordered that simultaneous briefs be submitted no later than February 1, 2011. Upon the filing of briefs, the matter was taken under advisement.
I. Procedural History and Facts Leading to Expanded Order to Show Cause
Option One Mortgage Corporation (“Option One”) holds a mortgage on Ron and LaRhonda Wilson’s (“Debtors”) home payable in monthly installments. On September 29, 2007, Debtors filed a voluntary petition under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. At the time of their bankruptcy filing, Debtors were in default on the mortgage, and a prepetition arrearage was owed. Debtors’ plan of reorganization provided for monthly payments to the trustee for satisfaction of the prepetition arrearage, and Debtors’ direct payment of monthly postpetition mortgage installments to Option One. The plan was confirmed on December 21, 2007.[2]
Option One filed a Motion for Relief From Stay on January 7, 2008 (“First Motion”).[3] The First Motion alleged that Debtors had failed to make the monthly postpetition installment payments for November 2007 through January 2008. The First Motion requested relief from the automatic stay to enforce payment of the debt in a foreclosure action. On February 4, 2008, Debtors responded averring they were current and that Option One had failed to credit several postpetition payments to their account.[4]
Because Option One failed to supply evidence of default, the First Motion was denied without prejudice.[5] Option One filed a new Motion for Relief From Stay on March 10, 2008 (“Second Motion”).[6] The Second Motion alleged that Debtors were in default for “over four (4) months now. . .” Option One also stated that “Due to the Debtors’ failure to maintain the monthly [postpetition] payments, there exists the possibility that real estate taxes may go unpaid or insurance on the property may lapse because of the shortage in the Debtors’ escrow account.”
The Second Motion was supported by an affidavit of Dory Goebel, Assistant Secretary for Option One. In the affidavit, Ms. Goebel averred under oath that Option One was the holder of the secured claim in Debtors’ case. To support her affidavit, Ms. Goebel attached a copy of a note and mortgage executed by Debtors and an endorsement to Option One by America’s Mortgage Resource, the original payee on the note.
Ms Goebel affirmed:
Appearer has reviewed and is familiar with the mortgage loan account of RON WILSON, Sr. And LA RHONDA WILSON (“Mortgagor”) represented by the afore described note and mortgage and the records and data complications [sic] pertaining thereto, which business records reflect acts, events or condition made at or near the time by Dory Goebel, or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge thereof and which records and data complications [sic] are made and kept as a regular practice of the regularly conducted business activities of OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION.
Ms. Goebel then declared that the balance due on the note was $176,063.27 and that Debtors were in default under their plan for failure to pay the monthly installments accruing from November 1, 2007, through February 1, 2008. Ms. Goebel represented that the last payment on the note was applied to the October 1, 2007 installment.
Debtors opposed the Second Motion alleging that all postpetition installments were paid by money order, cashier’s, or personal check and that all payments by cashier’s or personal check were delivered by certified mail.[7] At the initial hearing on the Second Motion on April 8, 2008, Debtors offered into evidence proof of payment for installments made on the Option One note. Debtors’ evidence included:
1. October 2007 payment — confirmation by Western Union that a money order was delivered to Option One on October 20, 2007, in the amount of $1546.64 and receipt was acknowledged by Option One on October 27, 2007.
2. November 2007 payment — confirmation by Western Union that a money order was delivered to Option One on November 30, 2007, in the amount of $1546.64 and receipt was acknowledged by Option One on November 30, 2007.
3. December 2008 payment-copy of a certified mail receipt showing delivery to Option One on January 2, 2008. Debtors alleged tender of a cashier’s check #XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX for $1546.84.
4. January 2008 payment-a copies of a cashier’s check for $1000.00 and two money orders for $546.84 and $312.00 both dated January 25, 2008; certified mail receipts evidencing delivery to and acknowledging receipt by Option One on January 31, 2008.
5. February 2008 payment — copies of a cashier’s check for $1546.84 and a personal check for $78.00; as well as a receipt for certified mail delivery on February 28, 2008, and acknowledging receipt by Option One on March 3, 2008.
6. March 2008 payment — copies of two cashier’s checks for $1546.84 and $78.00; as well as a receipt for certified mail delivery on March 28, 2008, and confirmation of delivery to Option One by the United States Postal Service on March 31, 2008.[8]
Both the First and Second Motions were filed by Mr. Clay Writz of the Boles Law Firm (“Boles”) representing Option One. However, Mr. Timothy Farrelly of Nicaud, Sunseri, & Fradella appeared on behalf of Option One at the hearing on the Second Motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court continued the matter until April 22, 2008, in order to allow Option One the opportunity to trace the alleged payments and provide an accounting of the loan’s payment history from petition date through April 2008.
On April 22, 2008, the continued hearing on the Second Motion was held. Mr. Farrelly again appeared on behalf of Option One. At the hearing, Debtors’ counsel represented that Mr. Wirtz had contacted him at 5:30 p.m. the night before requesting a continuance due to a conflict in another court. Mr. Wirtz stated that he had not reviewed the prior evidence and was not prepared to address the issues raised by Debtors in their Opposition. Option One did acknowledge, through a pleading filed by Mr. Wirtz the night before the hearing, the receipt of three (3) additional and previously undisclosed payments:
1. Payment dated October 22, 2007, in the amount of $1546.84 applied to the installment due October 1, 2007;
2. Payment dated December 3, 2007, in the amount of $1546.84 applied to the installment due November 1, 2007; and
3. Payments of $1546.84 and $78.00 dated April 2, 2008, applied to installment due December 1, 2007.
The pleading was not the accounting ordered by the Court, but instead a chart reflecting the receipt and application of three (3) payments postpetition. The pleading again asserted that the funds delivered were insufficient to satisfy the amounts due and reasserted Option One’s request for relief.[9]
Since Debtors’ evidence indicated 1) additional payments not acknowledged by Option One; 2) Option One had failed to supply the ordered accounting or address the additional payments made by Debtors; and 3) Mr. Farrelly lacked any knowledge regarding the loan, the Court determined that Option One’s response was insufficient and issued show cause orders for Mr. Wirtz, Dory Goebel, and Option One.[10] The merits of the Second Motion were again continued to afford Option One and Ms. Goebel the opportunity to respond to the allegations raised by the Opposition and subsequent admission by Option One that three (3) unaccounted for payments were not included in its motion.[11]
On June 26, 2008, a third hearing on the Second Motion and the initial hearing on the show cause orders was conducted. Mr. Wirtz appeared at the hearing, but Ms. Goebel was not present. Mr. Wirtz admitted that Debtors were in fact current on their loan. Mr. Wirtz also admitted receipt of $7,513.53 in funds on Debtors’ account and stipulated that Debtors were current through and including May 2008. Mr. Wirtz admitted that between the filing of the First and Second Motions, Option One located one (1) payment which was applied to the October 2007 installment.
Regarding the show cause order, Mr. Writz represented that his contact was Fidelity National Foreclosure Solutions, n/k/a Lender Processing Services (“LPS”) and that all information regarding payments, defaults, or inquires were taken by him from a LPS website or LPS personnel.[12]
Mr. Wirtz represented that additional unapplied payments were only discovered when they arrived at his office.[13]Specifically, he stated that payments were delivered on February 18, 2008, in the amount of $1,858.84; March 7, 2008, in the amount of $1,624.17; May 12, 2008, in the amount of $1,624.84; and May 22, 2008, in the amount of $1,524.84. Because payments were received by Mr. Wirtz on February 18 and March 7 and prior to the filing of the Second Motion, Mr. Wirtz was sanctioned for his failure to disclose this fact in the Second Motion or correct the representations made in his pleadings.
Nevertheless, based on the information available to Mr. Writz when the Second Motion was filed, it appeared that the payments received from Option One were insufficient to alert Mr. Wirtz that the loan was entirely current. As a result, the Court ordered further investigation into the receipt and application of payments by Option One in a continued effort to uncover the cause of the erroneous filing. The Court jointly sanctioned Option One and Ms. Goebel $5,000.00 for failure to appear and $5,000.00 for filing a false affidavit.[14] Option One was also ordered to pay $900.00 in attorney’s fees to Debtors’ counsel. The Court sanctioned Mr. Wirtz $1,000.00 for failing to amend the Second Motion and Default Affidavit once he obtained information which revealed that they were false.[15] The Court continued the hearing on the show cause order against Ms. Goebel and Option One to August 21, 2008.[16] Based on Mr. Wirtz’s representations, an additional show cause order was issued for LPS.[17]
On July 9, 2008, LPS voluntarily intervened “to clarify its role in this matter and to address any misconceptions or misunderstandings which may have been left with the Court regarding that role.”[18] On August 21, 2008, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Orders to Show Cause. Participating at the hearing were representatives and counsel for Boles, LPS, Option One, the UST and Debtors.
Mr. Michael Cash, representing LPS, explained LPS’ role in the administration of Debtors’ loan:
Fidelity does work for Option One, and basically Fidelity’s role is almost as a conduit and storage of information and data. Option One will send their information to Fidelity, and then attorneys such as Clay [Wirtz] can access that information.[19]
***
. . . [B]asically Fidelity became—if you think if it almost as a library, various clients could put their information in that library. The attorneys would go to the library, check out the information, and that’s how things would happen. One of the services that we provided, and no longer do, but one that we did is executing affidavits such as the one in this case.[20]
***
Ms. Goebel is an employee of Fidelity. The various clients in this case, including Option One, would sign a corporate resolution, and I have a copy of a corporate resolution, that would give her limited authority as a vice president for particular purposes. And in this case one of the purposes was executing the affidavit.[21]
***
Court: . . . if Fidelity is merely storing information . . . why wouldn’t Option One sign the affidavit?
Cash: . . a number of clients sign their own, Your Honor. Sometimes they would want us to, simply because we have people like Ms. Goebel who handle the accounts on a daily basis, who review the material, who have access to the material, and it was simply one less thing that the client had to do, that we would do.[22]
***
Cash: . . . and when Ms. Goebel would execute the affidavit she would have access to the same information as someone at Option One. She would go into their system, look at what has been posted, what hasn’t been posted. And I think what happened here was just a series of miscommunications . . .[23]
***
Cash: . . . And I think that the simple explanation here, . . . and I think it’s one that’s clearly human error that can happen, is there was a payment sent. There was an error made where that payment was sent, because this was in bankruptcy. . . . that payment was sent to the Boles Firm, rather than being posted. And that was basically, I think, someone in Mr. Wirtz’s office had instructed Option One, “Send us the checks and we will send them back,” or “we will take care of that.”[24]
Mr. Cash then offered the testimony of Ms. Goebel who is both an employee of LPS and was an authorized signer of default affidavits for Option One. Ms. Goebel testified as to the process by which a default affidavit is executed. In particular, Ms. Goebel explained:
To execute such an affidavit, once I receive the affidavit, I will review the information that is in the affidavit with Option One’s system. So, I will validate the information based on their system and the information that is there.[25]
At the August 21, 2008, hearing, Ms. Goebel represented that from her desk she would log into Option One’s computer system and verify the information in the affidavit. She also represented that she had access to Option One’s entire record of the loan.[26] She stated that she verified this information with LPS’ own system which reflected the communications between Option One’s law firm and Option One.[27] Ms. Goebel represented that LPS only maintained a “library” of information that Option One supplied.[28]
She confirmed that she reviewed a debtors’ entire loan history prior to executing the affidavit[29] and would also review communications between counsel and LPS in connection with the signing of the affidavit. She, however, would not review communications between counsel and Option One.[30]
Ms. Goebel explained that LPS had no way to verify unposted payments.[31] She stated emphatically that after reviewing Debtors’ file, she found no communications between LPS and Boles about any additional payments tendered after the filing of the motions.[32] Ms Goebel also testified that after reviewing Debtors’ loan file before testifying, she saw no communications between LPS and Option One.[33] She asserted that it was Option One’s responsibility to notify counsel should a change in circumstance warrant the withdrawal of a motion for relief[34] and that LPS never stopped legal actions once it referred a loan to counsel.[35]
The testimony presented by Option One, however, did not agree with Mr. Cash or Ms. Goebel’s representations. Mr. Arthur Simmons of American Home Mortgage, formerly Option One, testified for Option One. Mr. Simmons was the person tasked with the day to day administration of Debtors’ loan once their bankruptcy was filed.
Mr. Simmons testified that once a borrower filed for bankruptcy, LPS opened a bankruptcy workstation or subprogram to administer the loan. Option One was given notice that this had occurred.[36]
Once a bankruptcy workstation is opened, Option One would take no action unless requested by LPS, who was described as actually administering the loan.[37] As previously explained in In reStewart,[38] LPS markets to loan servicing companies and note holders a very sophisticated loan management program commonly referred to in the industry as “MSP.” MSP interfaces with a client’s computer system collecting information and monitoring a loan’s status. When certain events occur, the program is designed to take action without human intervention. For example, when a loan reflects past due payments for a specified period of time, generally forty-five (45) days, MPS will generate a demand or default letter to the borrower. The timing or triggers for various loan administrative actions are set by the lender or servicer but executed by MSP as overseen by LPS.[39]
When a bankruptcy is filed, the bankruptcy workstation is activated and provides a set of additional parameters, tasks and actions that can be performed by the program or those that use it in a bankruptcy. For example, when a loan is sixty (60) days postpetition delinquent, the system will notify of this event and typically trigger a referral to counsel for the filing of a motion for relief.[40]
Mr. Simmons represented that LPS manages all tasks required during the administration of a loan during bankruptcy. If counsel needs instruction, LPS is contacted and only if LPS cannot solve counsel’s problem, is Option One involved.[41]
Although Debtors’ filed for bankruptcy relief on September 29, 2007, the bankruptcy workstation was not activated by LPS until November. Because LPS delayed setting up the workstation, Debtors’ first postpetition payment, made in October 2007, was not posted to the October installment but to June 2007, the earliest outstanding prepetition installment. As a result, the system showed October 2007 installment as past due.[42]
When Debtors’ file was reviewed by LPS for referral to counsel, the postpetition due date was not accurate because it did not reflect the October payment.[43] To avoid this type of problem, Option One had procedures in place for LPS to follow if activation of a bankruptcy workstation was delayed. In such a case, LPS was directed to search for payments that might have been delivered after the bankruptcy filing date but prior to activation of the workstation. If any were found, LPS was to apply the payments to postpetition installments correcting the posting error. Mr. Simmons testified that LPS had the ability to adjust the application of payment in this circumstance and it was their responsibility to do so.[44]
Mr. Simmons also testified that Option One’s computer system generated reports when a debtor was 45 to 60 days postpetition past due.[45] In this case, a delinquency report was generated in December, when the incorrect posting for October led the computer to read a 60 day postpetition delinquency.
LPS maintained an on site employee at Option One who reviewed the post bankruptcy delinquency reports. That employee reviewed the list, then entered a request on LPS’ system for a motion for relief referral.[46]
If a payment was received after a file had been referred to counsel for action (i.e. the filing of a motion for relief from stay), Option One’s policy was to request that LPS contact counsel for instruction. If LPS could not satisfy counsel’s request, only then would LPS contact Option One. Although direct communications between counsel and Option One were not prohibited, they were rare because it was LPS’ responsibility to manage the loan. This case appears to have followed the normal chain of administration because there was no evidence that Boles had any, or attempted any, direct communications with Option One.[47]
When Option One received the payment for December 2007, LPS sent an inquiry to Boles for instructions. Boles replied that Option One should send the payment to it.[48] Option One contacted LPS for instructions on each payment as it was received from December through March.[49] As each postpetition payment arrived from Debtors, Option One communicated with LPS, LPS with Boles, and then LPS reported back to Option One the instruction received.[50] As a result, Debtors’ postpetition payments for December 2007 through March 2008 were not posted, but instead were reflected on a cash log that was not available to either Mr. Wirtz or LPS.[51] However, LPS knew of the payments because it was communicating directly with Mr. Wirtz and Option One on the issue.[52]
All Motions for Relief from Stay or Affidavits of Default are submitted by counsel directly to LPS. Option One neither proof reads nor reviews these documents.[53] If an Opposition is filed, Option One does not read it. Instead, Option One employs LPS for the purpose of handling any issues pertaining to the loan or Motion for Relief. LPS contacts Option One only if it cannot handle a matter.[54]
In this case, LPS contacted Option One about Debtors’ claim of missing payments. Option One replied that the payments were with Mr. Wirtz.[55]
The UST made an appearance for the purpose of assisting the Court in its investigation.[56] The obvious conflict between the testimony of Mr. Simmons and Ms. Goebel and representations by counsel for LPS led the Court to accept the UST’s offer for assistance. As a result of the foregoing, the Court continued the hearing on August 21, 2008, without date to allow formal discovery.[57]
From July 9, 2008, through December 2010, the parties conducted contentious discovery. Ten (10) motions to quash, compel, clarify, reconsider orders, stay proceedings, request protective orders; and appeal interlocutory orders were considered along with responses, oppositions and replies to each. On May 21, 2010, the UST filed a Motion for Sanctions against LPS and Boles.[58]
On December 1, 2010, trial on the merits of the UST’s intervening Motion for Sanctions[59] against LPS was heard.
II. Law and Discussion
Q: Mr. Simmons, what was the amount due on the . . . Wilson account on February, 28th, 2008? . . .
A: Actually, the loan was current, if in fact we would have accounted for all the monies received. . . .
Q: What about on March 10, 2008? What was the amount due on the mortgage loan at that date?
A: Again, the loan would have been current. . . . .[60]
Debtors filed bankruptcy on September 29, 2007. Notification of that fact was mailed to Option One on October 6, 2007.[61] LPS encoded the bankruptcy filing on November 21, 2008. The process was completed on November 23, 2008.[62]
Debtors sent their first postpetition mortgage payment of $1,546.84 via Western Union on October 21, 2007. Because LPS failed to alert its system that a bankruptcy had been filed, this payment was applied to Debtors’ earliest past due prepetition installment, June 2007.
Debtors forwarded another $1,546.84 payment to Option One on November 30, 2007. That payment was intended to satisfy the postpetition installment due November 1, 2007. Instead, Option One applied the payment to the October 1, 2007, installment, the date showing due on the system.[63]
On December 21, 2007, LPS entered a referral to Boles requesting a Motion for Relief from Stay based on two (2) past due postpetition payments (November 1 and December 1, 2007).[64] The First Motion was filed by Boles on January 7, 2008.[65] In the interim, LPS received notification that a payment of $1,546.84, one (1) monthly installment, had been made by Debtors.[66] LPS requested posting instructions from Boles, who directed LPS to send the payment to the firm.[67]
On January 25, 2008, Debtors sent $1,858.84 to Option One. That payment was received on January 31, 2008. Again, LPS was notified by Option One of the payment, and on February 1, 2008, LPS requested posting instructions from Boles.[68] Boles responded three (3) days later directing LPS to send the payment to it.[69] On February 4, 2008, Boles advised LPS that the First Motion would go to hearing on February 12, 2008. Boles cited “Judge delay” as the reason, but in reality, Debtors opposed the First Motion.[70] In the Opposition, Debtors alleged that all payments had been made on the loan postpetition, challenging the allegations of Option One’s First Motion that the loan was postpetition delinquent for November 1, 2007, and all installments thereafter.
Putting aside the posting issue created by LPS’s failure to properly account for Debtors’ bankruptcy filing, the allegations of the First Motion also failed to acknowledge Option One’s receipt of $1,546.84 on January 2, 2008.[71]
LPS was also alerted by Boles on February 6, 2008, of Debtors’ Opposition. Boles requested a “pencil post” of the loan.[72] Boles’ understanding of a “pencil post” was a manual accounting of a loan payment history used to verify the status reflected by the computer file. In reality, LPS only manually reviews what is already on the computer system and recopies it onto a spread sheet.
Evidently in performing the “pencil post,” LPS discovered the misapplied October payment and requested correction on February 11, 2008. The manual adjustment also corrected the application of the two (2) Western Union payments received postpetition. However, no mention was made of the two (2) additional unposted payments discussed in the preceding communications between LPS, Option One, and Boles. On February 15, 2009, LPS sent a message to Boles that according to Option One, its cash log reflected forwarded payments to Boles in an amount sufficient to bring the loan current. However, LPS instructed Boles that if in fact the funds Boles held were insufficient to bring the loan current, Boles should consider the loan past due as of December 1, 2007.[73]
In response to LPS’ message on February 15, 2008, Boles acknowledged receipt of $1,858.84 in funds. Assuming they were applied to the December 2007 installment, payments for January and February 2008 were still due.[74][75] On February 27, 2008, Debtors’ account was adjusted to show a past due date of December 1, 2007.[76][77] Therefore, as of February 15, Boles had not received enough funds to bring the loan current and communicated this fact to LPS. No further investigation or response was made as to the whereabouts of the missing January 2008 payment. On February 27, 2008, Boles forwarded an affidavit to Ms. Goebel at LPS for execution in connection with the Second Motion. The affidavit alleged Debtors were past due as of November 2007, which was in conflict with the allegations contained in the Second Motion which now reflested a past due date as of December 1, 2007.
As part of its default services, LPS executed Affidavits of Default in support of Motions for Relief from Stay. LPS testified that it was just one of the services that LPS provided to clients.[78] The affidavit is typical. It purports to be executed under oath before a notary and two (2) witnesses.
It provides the name and title of the affiant and represents that the affiant has personal knowledge of the facts contained in the affidavit.[79] In fact, it is a sham.
When an affidavit is received by LPS, an employee prints the document and delivers it to one of twenty-eight (28) LPS employees authorized by Option One to execute the document on its behalf.[80] By corporate resolution, Option One grants these individuals “officer” status, but limits their authority to the signing of default affidavits. These “officers” execute 1,000 documents per day for Option One and other clients similar to the one used in this case.[81] In fact, Ms. Goebel is an employee of LPS with little or no connection to Option One. Each day Ms. Goebel receives approximately thirty (30) documents to sign.[82] The process of signing default affidavits is rote and elementary.
As Ms. Goebel is also a manager of a work unit at LPS, she allocates two (2) hours per day for document execution and estimates that it takes her five (5) to ten (10) minutes to sign each affidavit she receives.[83] Before signing an affidavit, Ms. Goebel follows the procedures directed by LPS. She checks three (3) computer screens that provide the amount of the installment payment, the total balance due on the loan, and the due date for the earliest past due installment.[84][85] She matches this information with that contained in the affidavit. If it is correct, she signs the document and forwards it to a notary for execution.
Although the affidavit in this case purported to verify that Option One was the holder of the note owed by Debtors through an assignment, Ms. Goebel does not personally know this to be a fact and made no effort to verify her assertion.[86] Similarly, the affidavit identifies the mortgage and note as exhibits to the affidavit, but Ms. Goebel neither checks the attachments nor verifies that they are correct. In fact, the affidavits she signs never have any attachments when forwarded to her for execution, and she never adds any.[87]
Although the affidavit represents that it was executed in the presence of a notary and witnesses under oath, no oath is ever administered, and the signatures of the affiant, notary, and witnesses are separately affixed and outside the presence of each other.[88] Ms. Goebel has no personal knowledge regarding the loan file save for the three (3) or four (4) facts read off a computer screen that she neither generates nor understands.[89] She does not review any other information pertaining to the loan file, even information available to her.[90] LPS admitted that Ms. Goebel followed its procedures and that those procedures were used in all cases.[91]
Ms. Goebel’s training on the seriousness of her task was sorely lacking. She could not remember who “trained” her when she was promoted in 2007 to a document execution position.[92] She could not remember the extent or nature of her training.[93] She did surmise that written procedures were given to her and then she began “signing.”[94] She described her task as “clerical”[95] and repeatedly expressed the belief that the affidavits were counsel’s affidavits, and therefore, she relied upon counsel regarding their accuracy.[96] In this admission, the real problem surfaces.
Default affidavits are a lender’s representation as to the status of a loan. They are routinely accepted in both state and federal courts in lieu of live testimony. They are an accommodation to the lending community based on a belief by the courts that the facts they present are virtually unassailable. The submission of evidence by affidavit allows lenders to save countless hours and expense establishing a borrower’s default without the need for testimony from a lending representative. While they can be refuted by a borrower, too often, a debtor’s offer of alternative and conflicting facts is dismissed by those who believe that a lender’s word is more credible than that of a debtor. The deference afforded the lending community has resulted in an abuse of trust.
The abuse begins with a title. In this case, Ms. Goebel was cloaked with the position of “Assistant Secretary,” in a purposeful attempt to convey an experience level and importance beyond her actual abilities. Ms. Goebel is an earnest young woman, but with no training or experience in banking or lending. By her own account, she has rocketed through the LPS hierarchy receiving promotions at a pace of one (1) promotion per six (6) to eight (8) month period.[97] Her ability to slavishly adhere to LPS’ procedures has not only been rewarded, but has assured the development of her tunnel vision. Ms. Goebel does not understand the importance of her duties, and LPS failed to provide her with the tools to question the information to which she attests.
For example, the following exchange occurred between the Court and Ms. Goebel:
Q: . . . if you look at paragraph 2 at the bottom there is “see attached copy of the Notice, Exhibit A, certified copy of the mortgage is Exhibit B, and copy of the assignments is Exhibit C.” Is your testimony that those documents were not attached to the affidavit when you signed it. .?
A: Typically, those exhibits would not be attached.
Q: . . So, . . . counsel would attach those after you signed..?
A: … we relied on the attorney. We believed the information that they were giving us and what they were going to attach, because this is their affidavit. It would be accurate.[98]
***
Q: . . . Did you check any screen to see if in fact there was a note, there was a mortgage, there were assignments?
A: That would be the responsibility of the attorney.
Q: . . so you didn’t verify that information at all?
A: No…[99]
***
Q: … And you don’t sign it [the affidavit] in the presence of the notary or the witnesses?
A: That’s correct.[100]
***
Q: You weren’t put under oath by a notary before you signed the Affidavit of Debt?
A: No.
Q: And you didn’t really have personal knowledge of the contents [of the affidavit] because you just said the information involving the existence of the mortgage and the note and so on you relied on the Boles Law Firm to have that information correct.
A: Right. As I stated earlier, it was the Boles Law Firm. Option One had hired them to kind of handle this work and had asked LPS to help clerically sign these. We relied on the Boles Law Firm.
Q: So you considered this a clerical function?
A: Part of our administrative services with LPS.
Q: But you just used the word “clerical.”
A; Well, it’s signing a document, more you know administrative work, clerical work, yes.[101]
***
Q: Ms Goebel…Have you ever refused to sign an affidavit for a reason other than the note payment amount was incorrect, the due date on the affidavit was incorrect, the number of installment payments that were past due was incorrect, or …that you were not a [authorized] signatory…?
A: Not to my recollection, no.
Q: .. So if, … you had know[n] that there were three payments that were not posted on this account . . . that were in the possession of either Option One or the law firm, would you have still signed the affidavit?
A: In my opinion, yes. I was getting an affidavit from a law firm that I trusted. They’re the legal experts on the matter and Option One is in charge of their cash posting. I’m not the decision maker of, you know, should they proceed. The attorney would have that knowledge.[102]
It is evident that the training provided Ms. Goebel by LPS was insufficient and negligent. LPS was the first line of communication with counsel. The evidence was clear that Option One was contacted only if LPS employees could not satisfy counsel’s requests. Counsel did not communicate directly with Option One, and although Option One controlled the physical posting of payments, LPS managed the communications between Option One and its counsel regarding them. In this case, LPS had personal knowledge of four (4) critical facts. First, that as of February 15, 2008, Option One had received two (2) payments from Debtors in amounts sufficient to satisfy the installments due for December and January. Second, counsel had directed that the payments be sent to it rather than posted. Third, Option One alerted LPS in February that the amounts forwarded were sufficient to bring the loan current. Fourth, counsel reported to LPS that they had only received $1,846.84, a fact LPS neglected to forward to Option One. As a result of this knowledge, LPS should have known that a payment was unaccounted for between Option One and Boles. An inquiry to either might have brought the problem to light. Instead, LPS ignored the facts.
Ms. Goebel presented another opportunity for LPS to get it right. If she had reviewed the file and familiarized herself with the communications between the parties, she might have also noticed that the December payment was forwarded to Boles, but evidently not received. She certainly would have noted the receipt of an additional payment by Boles but not posted and the inconsistency in due dates contained in the Second Motion and affidavit. However, Ms. Goebel was trained to rotely check three (3) finite pieces of information. She candidly admitted that even if she had known of the unposted payments, she would have signed the affidavit without questioning its content because it was counsel’s.[103]
Of course, the affidavit is anything but counsel’s. It is the sworn statement of the loan’s status by the holder of the note. It is evident that LPS blindly relied on counsel to account for the loan and all material representations. In short, the affidavit was nothing other than a farce and hardly the evidence required to support relief. The facts supporting a default are the lender’s to prove, not counsel’s. In this case the lender and LPS cloaked Ms. Goebel with a title that implied knowledge and gravity. LPS could have identified Ms. Goebel as a document execution clerk but it didn’t. The reason is evident, LPS wanted to perpetrate the illusion that she was both Option One’s employee and a person with personal and detailed knowledge of the loan. Neither was the case.
III. Conclusion
The fraud perpetrated on the Court, Debtors, and trustee would be shocking if this Court had less experience concerning the conduct of mortgage servicers. One too many times, this Court has been witness to the shoddy practices and sloppy accountings of the mortgage service industry. With each revelation, one hopes that the bottom of the barrel has been reached and that the industry will self correct. Sadly, this does not appear to be reality. This case is one example of why their conduct comes at a high cost to the system and debtors.
The hearing on the Motion for Sanctions provides yet another piece to in the puzzle of loan administration. In Jones v. Wells Fargo,[104] this Court discovered that a highly automated software package owned by LPS and identified as MSP administered loans for servicers and note holders but was programed to apply payments contrary to the terms of the notes and mortgages. In In re Stewart,[105] additional information was acquired regarding postpetition administration under the same program, revealing errors in the methodology for fees and costs posted to a debtor’s account. In re Fitch,[106] delved into the administration of escrow accounts for insurance and taxes. In this case, the process utilized for default affidavits has been examined. Although it has been four (4) years since Jones, serious problems persist in mortgage loan administration. But for the dogged determination of the UST’s office and debtors’ counsel, these issues would not come to light and countless debtors would suffer. For their efforts this Court is indebted.
For the reasons assigned above, the Motion for Sanctions is granted as to liability of LPS. The Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing on sanctions to be imposed.
[1] P-219.
[2] P-13.
[3] P-15.
[4] P-17.
[5] P-18. Pursuant to the local procedures of the Court, Motions for Relief must be accompanied by an affidavit of default by the mover attesting to the facts relevant to the motion and supporting the relief requested. The affidavit is taken into evidence in lieu of testimony if the matter is otherwise uncontested and if the court determines that it establishes a basis for granting relief.
[6] P-20.
[7] P-24.
[8] P-25.
[9] P-28.
[10] P-30.
[11] Id.
[12] 6/26/08 TT 25:15-30:25.
[13] 6/26/08 TT 31:22-32:23.
[14] P-46.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] P-45.
[18] P-43. On July 11, 2008, the Court entered an additional Order to Show Cause against LPS directing its presence to explain its calculation of the amounts due on the Wilson loan. P-45.
[58] On October 27, 2010, this Court approved a Stipulation between the UST and Boles. P-275.
[59] P-219.
[60] 8/21/08 TT 234:5-10; 18-20.
[61] P-7.
[62] Exh 5, nos. 353, 349.
[63] LPS did not manually adjust Debtors’ account for the October 2007 payment until February 2008. Exh. 5, no. 265. As a result, Debtors’ account showed past due for October until the adjustment was made.
[64] Exh. 5, no. 311. The referral of a file to counsel in actuality opens an internal monitoring process for a requested action or “issue.” The referral is sent via internal transmission, similar to email. When the Boles firm opens the request, the computer notes the receipt of the referral by date and time, i.e. Exh. 5, no. 306. The issue will remain open until the task is completed at which time the computer will note the time and date of completion and close the request. Through the use of the “issue” process, those managing a file can see the status of a task and its anticipated date of completion.
[65] P-15.
[66] Exh 5, no.305. The payment was intended to satisfy Debtors’ December installment. It was dated December 27 and received by Option One on January 2.
[67] Exh.5, nos. 305, 301, 299.
[68] Exh.5, nos. 290, 289, 287, 286.
[69] Exh. 5, no. 281.
[70] Exh. 5, no. 272, Response to Option One’s Motion to Lift, filed February 4, 2008, P-17.
[71] The funds were received and counsel was notified of receipt four (4) days prior to the filing of the First Motion. While the First Motion was pending, Debtors forwarded and counsel was notified of an additional $1,858.84 in payments.
[72] Exh. 5, no. 270.
[73] Exh. 5, no.253.
[74] February’s installment was due on the 1st of the month and past due on the 15th.
[75] Exh.5, no.234. Evidently, the payment acknowledged by Option One on January 3, 2007, for $1,546.68 was not forwarded to Boles as requested. See, Exh. 5 no. 305, 301, 299. If it had been, Boles would have had both the December and January installments in its possession making the loan only due for February. As it was, the one (1) payment held by Boles brought Debtors within 45 days of current. It should also be noted that Debtors were not only making payments on a monthly basis, but were also forwarding payment of late charges with each installment.
The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Benefit of the Certificateholders, CWABS, Inc., Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-2, Plaintiff,
against
Sameeh Alderazi, Bank of America, NA, New York City Environmental Control Board, new York City Parking Violations Bureau, New York City Transit Adjudication Bureau, and “John Doe No.1” through “John Doe #10”, Defendants.
21739/2008
Plaintiff Attorney
Hiscock & Barclay
1100 M & T Center
3 Fountain Plaza
Buffalo, New York 14203-1486
Charles C. Martorana, Esq.
Plaintiff Former Attorney –
Frenkel, Lambert, Weiss, Weisman & Gordon, LLP
20 West Main Street
Bayshore, New York 11706 (631) 969-3100
Todd Falasco, Esq.
Wayne P. Saitta, J.
The Plaintiff renews its motion for an appointment of a referee in the underlying foreclosure action.
Upon reading the Notice of Motion and Affirmation of Charles C. Martorana Esq., of counsel to Hiscock and Barclay, LLP attorneys for Plaintiff, dated September 28 2010, and the exhibits annexed thereto; the Affirmation of Charles C. Martorana Esq., dated January 7, 2011; the Affirmation of Todd Falasco Esq., of counsel to Frenkel, Lambert, Weiss, Weisman, & Gordon, LLP,. Former attorneys for Plaintiff and the exhibits annexed thereto; the Affidavit of Jonathan Hyman sworn to February 10, 2011, and the exhibits annexed thereto; and upon all the proceedings heretofore had herein, and after hearing oral argument by Plaintiff’s counsel on March 3, 2011, and after due deliberation thereon, the motion is denied for the reasons set forth below.
The underlying action is a residential foreclosure action on a property located at 639 East 91st St. In Brooklyn. Plaintiff’s original application for the appointment of a referee to compute was denied by order of this court dated April 19, 2010. The Court denied the application because the Plaintiff, could not demonstrate that the original mortgagee, Countrywide Home Loans Inc., (doing business as America’s Wholesale Lender), had authorized the assignment of the mortgage to the Plaintiff.
The assignment to Plaintiff was executed by Mortgage Electronic Reporting System (MERS) as nominee for America’s Wholesale Lender.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines a nominee as “[a] person designated to act in place of another, usually in a very limited way”.
In its Memoranda to its original motion , Plaintiff quoted the Court in Schuh Trading Co., v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 95 F.2d 404, 411 (7th Cir. 1938), which defined a nominee as follows:
The word nominee ordinarily indicates one designated to act for another as his representative in a rather limited sense. It is used sometimes to signify an agent or trustee. It has no connotation, however, other than that of acting for another, or as the grantee of another.. Id. ( Emphasis added).
An assignment by an agent without authority from the principal is a nullity. Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that Countrywide had authorized MERS to assign its mortgage to Plaintiff. The Court denied the application with leave to renew upon a showing that Countrywide had authorized MERS to assign its mortgage to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has again moved for an order of reference, and submitted in addition to the MERS assignment, what it purports to be an endorsed note and a corporate resolution of MERS showing that MERS had appointed all officers of Countrywide Financial Corporation as assistant secretaries and vice presidents of MERS.
This present motion must fail for the same reason as the prior motion as Plaintiff has failed to provide documentation from the lender that it authorized the assignment.
[*2]The Endorsed Note Plaintiff submits an affidavit from Sharon Mason, a vice president of BAC Home Loan Servicing LP (BAC), a servicer of the loan, in which she asserts, based upon Plaintiff’s, books and records, that at the time the action was commenced the original note bearing the endorsement of Countrywide was in Plaintiff’s possession.
Plaintiff also submits an affidavit from Jonathan Hyman, an officer of BAC, based on BAC’s records. Hyman asserts in his affidavit that the mortgage was assigned to Bank of New York and that “the original note was delivered and endorsed to the plaintiff with endorsement in the name of the plaintiff.” Hyman appends to his affidavit a copy of what purports to be an endorsed note.
The note contains a stamped endorsement which states, “Pay to the Order of * * without recourse Countrywide Home Loans Inc., A New York Corporation Doing Business As America’s Wholesale Lender By: Michele Sjolander Executive Vice President”. Under the stamp is handwritten ” * * The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Benefit of the Certificate, CWABS, Inc. Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-2″. The endorsement is undated.
However, the note that was appended to the summons and complaint filed in court on July 25, 2008 does not bear any endorsement. Plaintiff has offered no explanation, from anyone with knowledge, as to why, had the note had been endorsed and in its possession when it commenced the suit, that the note filed when the suit was commenced did not bear an endorsement.
Significantly, counsel for Plaintiff stated in oral argument before the Court on March 3 2011 that “There is nobody left to speak at to Countrywide”.
The affidavits of Hyman and Mason, which were based on the books and records of the plaintiff and BAC, are insufficient to establish ownership of the note in light of the fact that the note originally submitted bore no endorsement, and the fact that purported endorsement is undated. The affidavits are based on books and records, not on personal knowledge. Yet the affiants did not produce any of the records on which they based their assertion that Plaintiff possessed an endorsed note at the time the action was commenced.
The Mortgage Assignment
In his affidavit Hyman also asserts that, Keri Selman, the person who signed the assignment, served as an officer of both Countrywide and MERS. He appended a copy of a MERS corporate resolution which appointed all officers of Countrywide Financial Corporation as assistant secretaries and vice presidents of MERS.
Even putting aside the fact that there is no evidence that Countrywide Financial Corporation and Countrywide Home Loans Inc., are the same entity, the fact that MERS authorized Countrywide officers to act on its behalf, is not evidence of the converse. It is no evidence that Countrywide authorized MERS officers to act as officers of Countrywide. Further, the fact that Selman may have been an officer of both Countrywide and MERS does not alter the fact that she executed the assignment on behalf of MERS.
The face of the assignment indicates that MERS is assigning the mortgage as nominee of America’s Wholesale Lender (a trade name of Countrywide), and more [*3]importantly that Selman executed the assignment as assistant vice president of MERS.
Hyman’s assertion that the assignment incorrectly lists Selman’s title as assistant vice president of MERS, instead of assistant secretary and vice president of MERS, is of no relevance other than to demonstrate the casual and cavalier manner in which these transactions have been conducted.
While Hyman further asserts in his affidavit that Selman “under her authority as an Assistant Secretary and Vice president of MERS, expedited the Assignment of Mortgage process on behalf of MERS, with the approval and for the benefit of Countrywide,” he provides no evidence that Countrywide in fact approved or authorized the assignment.
Similarly, William C. Hultman, Secretary and Treasurer of MERS, states in a conclusory fashion in paragraph 8 of his affidavit that Countrywide “instructed MERS to assign the Mortgage to Bank of New York” without offering the basis for that assertion, other than it role as nominee.
Plaintiff claims, that by the terms of the mortgage MERS as nominee, was granted the right “(A) to exercise any or all of those rights, including, but not limited to the right to foreclose and sell the Property, and (B) to take any action required of the Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument.” However, this language is found on page two of the mortgage under the section “BORROWER’S TRANSFER TO LENDER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY” and therefore is facially an acknowledgment by the borrower. The fact that the borrower acknowledged and consented to MERS acting as nominee of the lender has no bearing on what specific powers and authority the lender granted MERS as nominee. The problem is not whether the borrower can object to the assignees’ standing, but whether the original lender, who is not before the Court, actually transferred its rights to the Plaintiff.
Furthermore, while the mortgage grants some rights to MERS it does not grant MERS the specific right to assign the mortgage. The only specific rights enumerated in the mortgage are the right to foreclose and sell the Property. The general language “to take any action required of the Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument” is not sufficient to give the nominee authority to alienate or assign a mortgage without getting the mortgagee’s explicit authority for the particular assignment.
The MERS Agreement
Plaintiff also argues that the agreement between MERs and its members grants MERS the authority to assign the mortgages of its members. However a reading of the MERS agreement reveals only that MERS can execute assignments on behalf of its members when directed to do so by the member or its servicer.
Plaintiff cites Rules of MERS membership, Rule 2 section 5. However what that rule requires is that a member to warrant to MERS that the mortgage either names MERS as mortgagee or that they prepare an assignment of mortgage naming MERs as mortgagee.
In this case MERS was named in paragraph (c) of the mortgage as Mortgagee of record for the purpose of recording the mortgage. Being the mortgagee of record for the [*4]purpose of recording the mortgage does not confer the right to assign the mortgage absent an instruction to do so from the lender. Paragraph 2 of the MERS terms and conditions provide that “MERS shall serve as mortgagee of record with respect to all such mortgage loans solely as a nominee in an administrative capacity”, and that “MERS agrees not to assert any rights (other than rights specified in the governing documents) with respect to such mortgage loans or mortgaged properties”. Assigning or alienating a mortgage without an explicit instruction from a lender to do so, is not acting in an administrative capacity.
Further, paragraph 6 of the terms and conditions provides that, “the MERS system is not a vehicle for creating or transferring beneficial interests in mortgage loans.” (emphasis added)
Lastly, Section 6 of the MERS agreement provides that MERS shall comply with the instructions from the holder of the notes and that in the absence of instructions from the holder may rely on instructions from the servicer with respect to transfers of beneficial ownership.
What the MERS agreements and terms and conditions provide, is that MERS may execute an assignment when instructed to do so by the lender or its servicer. This is nothing
more than saying that if granted authority by the lender, or its agent, to assign a mortgage, MERs can assign the mortgage on behalf of the lender.
To read the MERS agreement as granting MERS authority to assign any of the mortgages of its thousands of members, on its own volition, without the instruction or consent of the member would lead to a nonsensical result.
Plaintiff has failed to meet the very basic requirement that proof of an agent’s authority must be shown from the mouth of the principal not from the agent. Lexow & Jenkins, P.C. v. Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp., 122 AD2d 25, 504 N.Y.S.2d 192 (2nd Dept 1986), Siegel v. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Long Island, Inc., 108 AD2d 218, 488 N.Y.S.2d 744 (2nd Dept 1985).
As Plaintiff has not shown that it owned the note and mortgage, it has no standing to maintain this foreclosure action. Therefore the renewed motion for an order of reference must be denied and the action dismissed.
The Court has raised the standing issue sua sponte because, in this case, it goes to the integrity of the entire proceeding. For the court to allow a purported assignee to foreclose, in the absence of some proof that the original lender authorized the assignment of the mortgage to them, would cast doubt upon the validity of the title of any subsequent purchasers, should the original lender or successor challenge the assignment at a future date.
WHEREFORE it is hereby Ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for an Order of Reference is denied and the action is dismissed. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
Abigail Field’s latest article is a must read. Forget the energizer bunny, this just keeps going and going…it does not stop.
from DailyFinance
When an LPS client has a mortgage that goes into default, Lofton explains, LPS starts managing the loan. In order to do that, the appropriate LPS employees are given login information for the bank’s database. As a security measure, each login is unique. That login grants access to the bank’s entire database of current and defaulted loans, so that the employee can address whatever problem exists. For example, if a payment that should have been applied to a defaulted mortgage was accidentally credited to a current mortgage, the LPS employee needs access to the current mortgage to fix the error.
When an employee can’t fix or reconcile data in an account, she is supposed to enlist the help of her supervisor, and if needed, her supervisor’s supervisor. Each manager also has unique login information, and each bank apparently has additional security protocols that LPS employees are supposed to follow. If the employees and supervisors were following the rules, all would be relatively well. But according to Lofton, they were not:
“…109. …most of the [LPS] Associate Team members had gained unauthorized access to the logins and passwords of their team associates and supervisors for all of the bank servicers’ computers.
110. With this unauthorized access to the Bank’s computers, the [LPS] associates could go into the banks computer files and manipulate the data….
112. I was particularly concerned that during “crunch” times …Team Associates were cutting corners….
116. When an employee cut corners, the employee left out one or more steps that should have been performed and had to make something up.
117. The problem caused by cutting corners might not come to light until six months down the road when an attorney asks questions about the billing record.”
In re: KATHLEEN THOMAS, Chapter 7, Debtor.
KATHLEEN THOMAS, Plaintiff
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB and ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION, Defendants.
Case No. 10-40549-MSH, Adv. Pro. No. 10-04086.
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts, Central Division.
February 9, 2011.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON THE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION OF ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION, THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB AND THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OF FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB AND CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
MELVIN S. HOFFMAN, Bankruptcy Judge.
Before me is a motion of defendant Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corporation (“Allied”) to compel arbitration, a motion of defendant Flagstar Bank, FSB (“Flagstar”) to dismiss this adversary proceeding pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P 7012 and a motion of Flagstar and CitiMortgage, Inc. (“CitiMortgage”) for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012. Because the motions involve the same facts and underlying transaction, I will address them together.
Background
In 2006, the plaintiff, who is the debtor in the main bankruptcy case, engaged Allied to assist her in refinancing the mortgage on her home. On April 26, 2006, the plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement in which she agreed that any disputes with Allied would be resolved through arbitration. The refinancing transaction occurred on May 8, 2006, at which time the plaintiff executed a promissory note payable to Allied in the amount of $153,000, and a mortgage to secure her obligations under the note. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), acting solely as a nominee for Allied and its successors and assigns, was named as mortgagee. The note was subsequently indorsed to defendant Flagstar. Flagstar and CitiMortgage claim that Flagstar indorsed the note in blank by way of an allonge and sold the plaintiff’s loan to CitiMortgage. CitiMortgage attached a copy of the note to its motion for judgment on the pleadings to support this claim.[1] The last page of the note is blank except for the following legend:
PAY TO THE ORDER OF WITHOUT RECOURSE FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB
There are two entirely illegible signatures under this legend. On August 3, 2009, MERS executed an instrument entitled “Assignment of Mortgage” which purported, inter alia, to assign to CitiMortgage the “mortgage and the note and claim secured thereby.”
The plaintiff eventually fell behind in her mortgage payments and CitiMortgage began foreclosure proceedings. On February 2, 2010, the plaintiff filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532, in this court. On February 12, 2010, CitiMortgage filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code in order to proceed to foreclose its mortgage on the plaintiff’s property. At a hearing on the motion for relief, I ordered the plaintiff to make adequate protection payments of $925 per month to CitiMortgage and upon the plaintiff’s filing of her complaint, consolidated the motion for relief with this adversary proceeding.
The plaintiff alleges that the May 8, 2006 loan transaction violated the Massachusetts Predatory Home Loan Practices Act, Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 183C (“Chapter 183C”). The plaintiff also alleges that the promissory note was never properly negotiated to CitiMortgage and that CitiMortgage may not assert a secured claim in her bankruptcy case.
On July 1, 2010, Flagstar filed a motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding. On July 2, 2010, Allied filed a motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss, arguing that pursuant to the arbitration agreement signed by the plaintiff, she is required to submit to arbitration with respect to her claims against Allied. On October 4, 2010, CitiMortgage filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On October 7, 2010, I held a hearing on Flagstar’s motion to dismiss and Allied’s motion to compel arbitration. On December 1, 2010, I held a hearing on CitiMortgage’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Flagstar subsequently moved to join CitiMortgage’s motion and on December 23, 2010, I entered an order allowing Flagstar to do so.
Analysis
Allied’s Motion to Compel Arbitration
Allied argues that the arbitration agreement of April 20, 2006 obligates the plaintiff to submit her claims against Allied to binding arbitration and, therefore, seeks dismissal and an order compelling arbitration. Through the affidavit of Joseph James, Allied’s senior counsel, Allied submitted a copy of the agreement on which it relies. The plaintiff has contested the enforceability of the agreement. The agreement is signed by the plaintiff only and not by Allied. In fact, there is no reference to Allied by name anywhere in the agreement. Rather than identifying Allied by name, the agreement consistently refers to the plaintiff’s counterparty obscurely using the pronouns “we”, “our” and “us.” The second paragraph of the agreement states that “[t]his Agreement is effective and binding on both you and your heirs, successors and assigns and us when it is signed by both parties.”
While the law in Massachusetts may permit the enforcement of an arbitration agreement that is not signed by both parties, such would not be the case when the express language of the agreement requires the signature of both parties. In All State Home Mortgage, Inc. v. Daniel, 187 Md. App. 166, 977 A.2d 438 (2009), the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland addressed this issue with respect to a form of agreement nearly identical to the one in the present case. The court held that while a signature may not always be required for an arbitration agreement to be enforceable, an arbitration agreement that specifically provided for it to be “effective and binding to [sic] you and your heirs, successors and assigns and us when both parties sign it” established that execution by both parties was a condition precedent to enforcement of the contract. Id. at 171. Because the language of the arbitration agreement was unambiguous and because it was not signed by the lender, the court refused to enforce it. Id. at 183. Massachusetts contract law appears to be no different than Maryland’s in this regard. See Tilo Roofing Co. v. Pellerin, 331 Mass. 743, 7456, 122 N.E.2d 460, 462 (1954) (holding that if a condition precedent to the enforcement of a contract is “shown not to have been performed, the writing does not become a binding obligation.”). The arbitration agreement between the plaintiff and Allied is explicit—both parties must sign before the agreement is “effective and binding.” Because Allied did not sign the agreement, it never became binding on the parties and is unenforceable.
In its motion, Flagstar seeks dismissal of Count I (violation of Chapter 183C) and Count II (determination of extent of mortgage lien due to Chapter 183C violation) of the plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that Chapter 183C is preempted by federal law because Flagstar is a federal savings bank. Flagstar notes that the Home Owners’ Loan Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 1461-70 (2009) (“HOLA”), authorized the Office of Thrift Supervision (“OTS”) (formerly the Federal Home Loan Bank Board) to promulgate regulations providing “for the organization, incorporation, examination, operation, and regulation” of federal savings associations and federal savings banks (collectively referred to as “federal thrifts”) such as Flagstar. Id. § 1464(a).
The OTS received broad rulemaking authority to preempt state laws that would otherwise govern the banking activities of federal thrifts. Id. § 1465; Fidelity Fed. Say. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (1982). Accordingly the OTS promulgated a regulation, 12 C.F.R. § 560.2, occupying the field in connection with the lending operations of federal thrifts. This regulation expressly preempts state laws like Chapter 183C which regulate loan-related fees.[2] The OTS has issued interpretive letters concluding that the anti-predatory lending laws of New York, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Georgia are preempted by the federal scheme,[3] and courts have generally adopted the preemption approach. See, e.g., Jarbo v. BAC Home Loan Servicing, 2010 WL 5173825, (E.D. Mich.); Coppes v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 2010 WL 4483817 (E.D. Cal.). It is clear, therefore, that federal thrifts are not subject to Chapter 183C with respect to loans they originate.
The calculus changes, however, when a federal thrift does not originate a loan but merely acquires it from a non-federal thrift lender. If a non-federal thrift lender could “cleanse” a predatory loan by selling it to a federal thrift, a vital component of many states’ consumer protection regimes would be undermined. The OTS could not have intended this result when it promulgated its preemption regulation. See, e.g. Viereck v. Peoples Sav. & Loan Ass’n., 343 N.W.2d 30 (Minn. 1984) (preemption does not apply when a federal thrift purchases a loan from an institution not subject to preemption); Garrison v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of S.C., 402 S.E.2d 25 (Va. 1991) (a federal thrift, as assignee of mortgage company which originated loan, is not entitled to preemption even though loan was one of large pool sold to it).
So if Flagstar were the originator of the plaintiff’s loan, then federal preemption would dispossess the plaintiff from her Chapter 183C claims against it, but if Flagstar were an assignee who purchased the loan, then the plaintiff’s state law claims against Flagstar survive preemption.
The loan documents attached to the plaintiff’s complaint indicate that Allied, not Flagstar, was the lender in this transaction. In its motion to dismiss Flagstar supports this characterization stating that there “are no allegations that Flagstar originated the loan.” Mot. to Dismiss at 4. Surprisingly, however, at one of the hearings on defendants’ motions, Flagstar’s counsel seemed to take a contrary position. He indicated that the loan had been “table-funded,” meaning that Allied was the lender in name only, but really acted as the broker in the transaction on behalf of Flagstar, who actually funded the loan. Loans which are table-funded by federal thrifts would be subject to the federal preemption scheme of HOLA. See, e.g., Comptroller of the Currency, Interpretive Letter # 1002 (May 13, 2004) (finding that a national bank would be considered the lender, and not subject to state anti-predatory lending laws, in a loan transaction table-funded by the national bank with a non-national bank broker listed as the lender).[4] Flagstar’s curious inconsistencies notwithstanding, my field of vision with respect to a motion to dismiss is confined to the pleadings and the attachments thereto. Reviewing these in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, I conclude that the plaintiff has stated a claim that Flagstar was an assignee of the plaintiff’s lender, Allied. Therefore, Chapter 183C is not preempted with respect to this transaction and I must deny Flagstar’s motion to dismiss Counts I and II of the complaint.
CitiMortgage and Flagstar’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Having declined to grant Flagstar’s motion to dismiss on preemption grounds, I turn to the motion for judgment on the pleadings.[5] The standard in deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is similar to that applied to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Gray v. Evercore Restructuring L.L.C., 544 F.3d 320, 324 (1st Cir. 2008) (noting that the standard is the same for Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(c) motions).
Counts I and II of the Complaint
Chapter 183C, §§ 2 and 3 categorize certain consumer home mortgage loans as high cost home mortgage loans (“high cost loans”) and render them unenforceable unless an approved housing agency certifies to the lender or broker that the borrower received pre-closing counseling on the advisability of the transaction. The plaintiff alleges that her loan is unenforceable because it is a high cost loan made in the absence of the required counseling.
The defendants do not dispute the fact that the plaintiff received no counseling. Rather, the dispute is over whether the loan is a high cost loan. The plaintiff argues that her mortgage loan meets the definition of a high cost loan because the “points and fees” associated with the loan, as defined by Chapter 183C, § 2,[6] net of up to two bona fide discount points, exceeded five percent of the total loan amount. To support this allegation, the plaintiff included in her complaint a list of charges from the loan settlement statement that she argues qualify as points and fees. The total of these charges is $10,446.44, which exceeds five percent of the $153,000 loan. CitiMortgage and Flagstar argue that many of these charges do not qualify as points and fees, and the ones that do total significantly less than $7650, which is five percent of the loan amount.[7]
There is no dispute that $4879 of charges constitute points and fees under the statute. If the pleadings support a minimum of $2772 in additional points and fees then the plaintiff will have stated a claim which survives the defendants’ motion.
Line 802 of the settlement statement reflects a charge in the amount of $2255.22 described as “Loan Discount to Allied Home Mortgage Capital Corp.” All compensation to a lender or mortgage broker, “including a broker that originates a home loan in its own name in a table funded transaction,” is included in the definition of points and fees under the statute, with the exception of up to two “bona fide discount points.” Chapter 183C, § 2. The defendants argue that the $2255.22 loan discount charge, which amounts to 1.474% of the loan, or 1.474 discount points, falls within the exception. The plaintiff argues that whether these discount points are bona fide is a question of fact that may not be decided as part of a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
To be a bona fide discount point, a charge must be “(1) knowingly paid by the borrower; (2) paid for the express purpose of lowering the benchmark [interest] rate; and (3) in fact reduc[es] the interest rate or time-price differential applicable to the loan from an interest rate which does not exceed the benchmark rate.” Chapter 183C, § 2. Nothing in the record indicates whether the plaintiff was aware of the loan discount charge, whether she knowingly paid the fee for the purpose of getting a discounted interest rate, or, most significantly, whether the interest rate reflected in the note was in fact discounted from the benchmark rate in effect at the time. For the purpose of the motion for judgment on the pleadings, therefore, I must find that the loan discount fee is not excluded from the points and fees used in determining whether the loan is a high cost loan.
Line 1107 reflects a $460 charge described as “Attorney’s fees to Viera & DiGianfilippo, Ltd.” While Chapter 183C, § 2 provides that certain fees commonly charged by closing attorneys, defined as “real-estate related fees” by 12 C.F.R. § 226.4(c)(7) and 209 Mass. Code Regs. § 32.04(3)(g), are not counted as points and fees, legal fees generally are included in the definition of points and fees. Cf. Official Staff Interpretations to 12 C.F.R. § 226.4(c)(7), 12 C.F.R. Pt. 226, Supp. I (explaining that for the purpose of calculating a loan’s finance charge under the federal Truth in Lending Act, if a settlement statement includes a single line item representing attorney’s fees where only a portion of the services rendered were real-estate related fees as defined by § 226.4(c)(7), the portion of the fees not covered by § 226.4(c)(7) must be included in the finance charge.). In addition to the $460 attorney’s fee, the settlement statement includes charges for “Document preparation” and “Title examination,” both of which are clearly real-estate related fees that are excluded from the points and fees calculation. The fact that these charges have been listed separately on the settlement statement is evidence that the generic attorney’s fee charge is not a real-estate related fee. The defendants argue unconvincingly that because attorneys are officers of the court, their fees fall under the statutory exclusion for “fees paid to or to be paid to a public official for determining the existence of or for perfecting, releasing or satisfying a security interest.” 12 C.F.R. § 226.4(e)(1). While attorneys are officers of the court, they are not public officials nor are the fees paid to them for legal services merely for perfecting, releasing or satisfying a security interest. Thus I find that the entire $460 charge for attorney’s fees constitutes points and fees.
Line 1205 of the settlement statement includes a $65 charge to “Record Municipal Lien Certif[icate] to Commonwealth of MA.” The complaint alleges that no municipal lien certificate was ever recorded with respect to this transaction. Thus, at this stage of the proceeding, this charge too must be included in points and fees.
The sum of the loan discount charge, the attorney’s fees and lien certificate recording fee is $2780.22. Adding this to the undisputed charges of $4879 brings the total points and fees to $7659.22, which is more than five percent of the total loan amount. Thus, I need not determine whether any of the remaining charges alleged by the plaintiff qualify as points and fees. The plaintiff has stated a prima facie claim that her loan is a high cost loan made in violation of Chapter 183C, and, therefore, I must deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to Counts I and II of the complaint.
Count III of the Complaint
In Count III of the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that her promissory note payable to Allied was never properly transferred to CitiMortgage, and as a result, CitiMortgage has no valid secured claim against her bankruptcy estate. The allegation is based on the fact that the copy of the note attached to CitiMortgage’s motion for relief from stay in the main bankruptcy case includes no indorsement transferring the note CitiMortgage. CitiMortgage attached a different version of the note to its motion for judgment on the pleadings, which includes an additional page containing the “pay to the order” language quoted at the outset of this memorandum. CitiMortgage and Flagstar claim that the last page is an “allonge” by which Flagstar indorsed the note in blank and then transferred the note to CitiMortgage, giving CitiMortgage the right to enforce it. The Plaintiff argues that the existence of this second copy of the note raises the question as to whether the allonge effectively transferred Flagstar’s rights in the note to CitiMortgage.
Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, the Massachusetts version of the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), for a negotiable instrument to be transferred by indorsement, the indorsement must be on the instrument itself. UCC § 3-204(a). A “paper affixed to the instrument” is considered to be part of the instrument for purposes of § 3-204(a). Id.affixed to a promissory note. See, e.g., In re Shapoval, 2010 WL 4811786, *2 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2010). If the purported allonge signed by Flagstar is not affixed to the note, then despite having possession of the note, CitiMortgage lacks the status of “holder” as defined by UCC § 1-201(20).[8] Given that CitiMortgage has produced two different copies of the note—one with and one without the purported allonge—the plaintiff argues that there is a question of fact as to whether the allonge is affixed to the note, and therefore whether CitiMortgage has a valid claim in her bankruptcy case. To be effective, therefore, an allonge must be
Even if it is not the “holder” of the note, however, CitiMortgage may be entitled to enforce the note. UCC § 3-203(2) provides that the transfer of a negotiable instrument, “whether or not the transfer is a negotiation, vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument.” The official commentary to this section explains that while the transferee of an instrument may enforce the instrument without being its holder, the transferee, unlike a holder, is not entitled to the presumption of the right of enforcement, and must prove the transaction through which the instrument was acquired. UCC § 3-203, § 2, cmt. 1 (1999).[9]
In its answer, CitiMortgage asserts that it has physical possession of the note indorsed in blank by Flagstar. If the allonge is not effective because it was not affixed to the note, CitiMortgage must then prove the transaction through which it acquired the note from Flagstar. It did not plead any facts about this transaction in its answer, however. With no allegation in the pleadings to support how CitiMortgage acquired the note, I must rely on the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations that the note was not properly transferred to CitiMortgage.[10]
Furthermore, CitiMortgage may not rely on the recorded assignment of the plaintiff’s mortgage from MERS to CitiMortgage as evidence that the note was transferred to it. While the assignment purports to assign both the mortgage and the note, MERS, which is a registry system that tracks the beneficial ownership and servicing of mortgages, was never the holder of the note, and therefore lacked the right to assign it. While MERS was the mortgagee of record, it was acting only as nominee for Allied, its successors and assigns. MERS is never the owner of the obligation secured by the mortgage for which it is the mortgagee of record. See, e.g., Landmark Nat. Bank v. Kesler, 289 Kan. 528, 536, 216 P.3d 158, 164 (2009) (providing a profile of MERS).
The plaintiff’s claim that CitiMortgage lacks a valid secured claim, therefore, survives the motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, I will deny the motion to compel arbitration, the motion to dismiss and the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Separate orders shall enter.
[1] This copy differs from the copy attached to CitiMortgage’s motion for relief from stay. See discussion below.
[2] The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111-203 (2010) considerably reduced the degree to which HOLA and its regulations may preempt state consumer financial protection laws. See Dodd-Frank §§ 1044, 1046 (providing that HOLA preemption no longer occupies the field of banking regulation, and limiting preemption to specific conflicts between state and federal law). Because the plaintiff’s loan was consummated before Dodd-Frank was enacted, the new preemption standard is inapplicable to this case.
[3]See generally Legal Opinions, Office of Thrift Supervision, available at http://www.ots.treas.gov/?p=LegalOpinions.
[4] National banks are established by the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 21-216d (2009), which has a similar preemption regime to that of HOLA, which applies to federal thrifts. See, e.g., Aguayo v. U.S. Bank, 658 F.Supp.2d 1226, 1234 (S.D. Cal. 2009) (quoting the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s view that the similarity between the preemption regimes of the National Bank Act and HOLA “warrants similar conclusions about the applicability of state laws to the conduct of the Federally authorized activities of both types of entities.” 69 Fed. Reg. at 1912 n. 62). In light of the OTS’ policy of maximizing the preemptive effect of its regulations, it follows that the OTS, like the Comptroller of the Currency, would conclude that a federal thrift in a table-funded transaction is considered to be the lender for purposes of preemption analysis.
[5] In doing so, I will address Flagstar’s arguments from its motion to dismiss with respect to Count III of the complaint together with those of CitiMortgage.
“Points and fees”, (i) items required to be disclosed pursuant to sections 226.4 (a) and 226.4 (b) of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations or 209 CMR 32.04(1) and 209 CMR 32.04(2) of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, as amended from time to time, except interest or the time-price differential; (ii) charges for items listed under sections 226.4 (c) (7) of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations or 209 CMR 32.04(3)(g) of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, as amended from time to time, but only if the lender receives direct or indirect compensation in connection with the charge, otherwise, the charges are not included within the meaning of the term “points and fees”; (iii) the maximum prepayment fees and penalties that may be charged or collected under the terms of the loan documents; (iv) all prepayment fees of [sic] penalties that are incurred by the borrower if the loan refinances a previous loan made or currently held by the same lender; (v) all compensation paid directly or indirectly to a mortgage broker, including a broker that originates a home loan in its own name in a table-funded transaction, not otherwise included in clauses (i) or (ii); (vi) the cost of all premiums financed by the creditor, directly or indirectly for any credit life, credit disability, credit unemployment or credit property insurance, or any other life or health insurance, or any payments financed by the creditor directly or indirectly for any debt cancellation or suspension agreement or contract, except that insurance premiums or debt cancellation or suspension fees calculated and paid on a monthly basis shall not be considered financed by the creditor. Points and fees shall not include the following: (1) taxes, filing fees, recording and other charges and fees paid to or to be paid to a public official for determining the existence of or for perfecting, releasing or satisfying a security interest; and, (2) fees paid to a person other than a lender or to the mortgage broker for the following: fees for flood certification; fees for pest infestation; fees for flood determination; appraisal fees; fees for inspections performed before closing; credit reports; surveys; notary fees; escrow charges so long as not otherwise included under clause (i); title insurance premiums; and fire insurance and flood insurance premiums, if the conditions in sections 226.4 (d) (2) of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations or 209 CMR 32.04(4)(b) of the Code of Massachusetts Regulations, as amended from time to time, are met. For open-end loans, the points and fees shall be calculated by adding the total points and fees known at or before closing, including the maximum prepayment penalties that may be charged or collected under the terms of the loan documents, plus the minimum additional fees the borrower would be required to pay to draw down an amount equal to the total credit line.
[7] In her complaint, the plaintiff incorrectly calculated that five percent of the loan amount is $7950.
[8] The “holder” of a negotiable instrument is “the person in possession if the instrument is payable to bearer or, in the case of an instrument payable to an identified person, if the identified person is in possession. UCC § 1-201(20).
Subsection (b) states that transfer vests in the transferee any right of the transferor to enforce the instrument “including any right as a holder in due course.” If the transferee is not a holder because the transferor did not indorse, the transferee is nevertheless a person entitled to enforce the instrument under Section 3-301 if the transferor was a holder at the time of transfer. Although the transferee is not a holder, under subsection (b) the transferee obtained the rights of the transferor as holder. Because the transferee’s rights are derivative of the transferor’s rights, those rights must be proved. Because the transferee is not a holder, there is no presumption under Section 3-308 that the transferee, by producing the instrument, is entitled to payment. The instrument, by its terms, is not payable to the transferee and the transferee must account for possession of the unindorsed instrument by proving the transaction through which the transferee acquired. it. Proof of a transfer to the transferee by a holder is proof that the transferee has acquired the rights of a holder. At that point the transferee is entitled to the presumption under Section 3-308.
[10] Flagstar filed the affidavit of Sharon Morgan, its assistant vice president, in support of its motion to dismiss. In the affidavit, Ms. Morgan claims that the plaintiff’s loan was sold to CitiMortgage on September 16, 2006. I note that Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d), made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012, provides that when matters outside the pleadings are presented to the court, and not excluded, a motion for judgment on the pleadings is to be treated as a motion for summary judgment. CitiMortgage waived this right, however, at the hearing on the motion for judgment on the pleadings by declining my offer to treat the motion as one for summary judgment. Given that I am limited on a motion for judgment on the pleadings to reviewing the pleadings and documents attached thereto, I have not considered Ms. Morgan’s affidavit in this analysis.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Rock County:
JAMES WELKER, Judge. Reversed.
Before Vergeront, P.J., Lundsten and Blanchard, JJ.
¶1 LUNDSTEN, J. This appeal involves a foreclosure action initiated
by Aurora Loan Services against David and Nancy Carlsen. Following a court
trial, the circuit court granted judgment of foreclosure in favor of Aurora, finding
that Aurora is the holder of the note and owner of the mortgage and that the
Carlsens were in default. We conclude that the circuit court’s finding that Aurora
was the holder of the note, a finding essential to the judgment, is not supported by
admissible evidence. We therefore reverse the judgment.
Background
¶2 Aurora Loan Services brought a foreclosure suit against David and
Nancy Carlsen, alleging that Aurora was the holder of a note and owner of a
mortgage signed by the Carlsens encumbering the Carlsens’ property. The
Carlsens denied several allegations in the complaint and, especially pertinent here,
denied that Aurora was the holder of the note. Aurora moved for summary
judgment, but that motion was denied.
¶3 A trial to the court was held on June 9, 2010. Aurora called one of
its employees, Kelly Conner, as its only witness. Aurora attempted to elicit
testimony from Conner establishing a foundation for the admission of several
documents purportedly showing that Aurora was the holder of a note that
obligated the Carlsens to make payments and that the Carlsens were in default. It
is sufficient here to say that the Carlsens’ attorney repeatedly objected to questions
and answers based on a lack of personal knowledge and lack of foundation, and
that the circuit court, for the most part, sustained the objections. Aurora’s counsel
did not move for admission of any of the documents into evidence. After the
evidentiary portion of the trial, and after hearing argument, the circuit court made
findings of fact and entered a foreclosure judgment in favor of Aurora. The
Carlsens appeal. Additional facts will be presented below as necessary.
Discussion
¶4 It is undisputed that, at the foreclosure trial, Aurora had the burden
of proving, among other things, that Aurora was the current “holder” of a note
obligating the Carlsens to make payments to Aurora. Because Aurora was not the
original note holder, Aurora needed to prove that it was the current holder, which
meant proving that it had been assigned the note. There appear to be other failures
of proof, but in this opinion we focus our attention solely on whether Aurora
presented evidence supporting the circuit court’s findings that “the business
records of Aurora Loan Services show … a chain of assignment of that … note”
and that “Aurora is the holder of the note.”
¶5 As to assignment of the note, the Carlsens’ argument is simple: the
circuit court’s findings are clearly erroneous because there was no admissible
evidence supporting a finding that Aurora had been assigned the note. The
Carlsens contend that, during the evidentiary portion of the trial, the circuit court
properly sustained objections to Aurora’s assignment evidence, but the court then
appears to have relied on mere argument of Aurora’s counsel to make factual
findings on that topic. We agree.
¶6 We focus our attention on a document purporting to be an
assignment of the note and mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems to Aurora. At trial, this document was marked as Exhibit D. Although
Aurora’s counsel seemed to suggest at one point that certain documents, perhaps
including Exhibit D, were certified, the circuit court determined that the
documents were not certified. Under WIS. STAT. § 889.17,1 certified copies of
certain documents are admissible in evidence based on the certification alone.
Aurora does not contend that Exhibit D is admissible on this basis.
¶7 Aurora argues that Conner’s testimony is sufficient to support the
circuit court’s finding that Aurora had been assigned the note. Our review of her
testimony, however, reveals that Conner lacked the personal knowledge needed to
authenticate Exhibit D. See WIS. STAT. § 909.01 (documents must be
authenticated to be admissible, and this requirement is satisfied “by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent
claims”). Relevant here, Conner made general assertions covering several
documents. Conner either affirmatively testified or agreed to leading questions
with respect to the following:
· She works for Aurora.
· She “handle[s] legal files” and she “attend[s] trials.”
· “Aurora provided those documents that are in [her] possession.”
· She “reviewed the subject file” in preparing for the hearing.
· She declined to agree that she is the “custodian of records for
Aurora.”
· She “look[s] at documentation … [does] not physically handle
original notes and documents, but [she does] acquire
documentation.”
· “Aurora [is] the custodian of records for this loan.”
· She is “familiar with records that are prepared in the ordinary course
of business.”
· She has “authority from Aurora to testify as to the documents, of
[Aurora’s] records.”
As it specifically pertains to Exhibit D, the document purporting to evidence the
assignment of the note and mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems to Aurora, Conner testified:
· Aurora has “possession of Exhibit D.”
· Exhibit D is “an assignment of mortgage.”
With respect to possession of Exhibit D, Conner did not assert that Exhibit D was
an original or that Aurora had possession of the original document. For that
matter, Conner did not provide a basis for a finding that any original document she
might have previously viewed was what it purported to be.2
¶8 Thus, Conner did no more than identify herself as an Aurora employee who was familiar with some unspecified Aurora documents, who had
reviewed some Aurora documents, and who had brought some documents,
including Exhibit D, to court. Although Conner was able to say that Exhibit D, on
its face, was an assignment, she had no apparent personal knowledge giving her a
basis to authenticate that document. See WIS. STAT. § 909.01.
¶9 Aurora points to various provisions in WIS. STAT. chs. 401 and 403,
such as those relating to the definition of a “holder” (WIS. STAT.
§ 401.201(2)(km)), to a person entitled to enforce negotiable instruments (WIS.
STAT. § 403.301), and to the assignment of negotiable instruments (WIS. STAT.
§§ 403.203, 403.204, and 403.205). This part of Aurora’s argument addresses the
underlying substantive law regarding persons entitled to enforce negotiable
instruments, such as the type of note at issue here, but it says nothing about
Aurora’s proof problems. That is, Aurora’s discussion of the underlying law does
not demonstrate why Exhibit D was admissible to prove that Aurora had been
assigned the note and was, under the substantive law Aurora discusses, a party
entitled to enforce the note.
¶10 Similarly, Aurora discusses the relationship between a note and a
mortgage and, in particular, the equitable assignment doctrine. But here again
Aurora’s discussion fails to come to grips with Aurora’s failure to authenticate
Exhibit D, the document purporting to be an assignment of the note to Aurora.
Aurora points to testimony in which Conner asserted that Aurora acquired and
possessed Exhibit D, but possession of Exhibit D is meaningless without
authentication of the exhibit.
¶11 Aurora argues that we may look at the “record as a whole,”
including summary judgment materials, to sustain the circuit court’s factual
findings. Thus, for example, Aurora asks us to consider an affidavit filed with its
summary judgment motion. In that affidavit, an Aurora senior vice-president
avers that the note was assigned to Aurora, that the assignment was recorded with
the Rock County Register of Deeds, and that Aurora is the holder of the note. This
argument is meritless. Aurora was obliged to present its evidence at trial. It could
not rely on the “record as a whole” and, in particular, it could not rely on summary
judgment materials that were not introduced at trial. See Holzinger v. Prudential
Ins. Co., 222 Wis. 456, 461, 269 N.W. 306 (1936). For that matter, even if Aurora
had, at trial, proffered the affidavit of its senior vice-president, the affidavit would
have been inadmissible hearsay. See WIS. STAT. § 908.01(3) (“‘Hearsay’ is a
statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or
hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”).
¶12 In sum, Aurora failed to authenticate Exhibit D, the document
purporting to be an assignment of the note. Thus, regardless of other alleged proof
problems relating to that note and the Carlsens’ alleged default, the circuit court’s
finding that Aurora was the holder of the note is clearly erroneous—no admissible
evidence supports that finding. Aurora failed to prove its case, and it was not
entitled to a judgment of foreclosure.
By the Court.—Judgment reversed.
Not recommended for publication in the official reports.
_______________________________________
1All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2009-10 version unless otherwise noted.
2 Our summary of Conner’s testimony omits several assertions Conner made that were
stricken by the circuit court. Similarly, we have not included examples of the circuit court
repeatedly sustaining hearsay and foundation objections. For example, the court repeatedly
sustained objections to Aurora’s attempts to have Conner testify that Aurora “owns” the note.
Aurora does not and could not reasonably argue that the Carlsens have not preserved their
authentication objections. The Carlsens’ attorney repeatedly and vigorously objected on hearsay,
foundation, and authentication grounds. The record clearly reflects that the Carlsens were
objecting to the admission of all of Aurora’s proffered documents on the ground that Conner
lacked sufficient knowledge to lay a foundation for admission.
NYCTL 2009-A TRUST AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS COLLATERAL AGENT AND CUSTODIAN FOR THE NYCTL 2009-A TRUST, Plaintiffs,
v.
273 BRIGHTON BEACH AVE. REALTY CO., ET AL., Defendants.
8124/10.
Supreme Court, Kings County.
Decided March 15, 2011.
Leonid Krechmer, Esq., Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf LLP, NY NY, Plaintiff.
The defendant did not answer, Defendant.
ARTHUR M. SCHACK, J.
In this action to foreclose on a tax lien for the premises located at 273 Brighton Beach Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 8672, Lot 31, County of Kings), plaintiffs,
NYCTL 2009-A TRUST AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS COLLATERAL AGENT AND CUSTODIAN FOR THE NYCTL 2009-A TRUST (THE TRUST), previously moved for an order to appoint a referee to compute and amend the caption. In my December 7, 2010 decision and order, I denied the motion without prejudice, because the affidavit submitted in support of the motion, upon the default of defendants, was not executed by an officer of THE TRUST or someone with a power of attorney from THE TRUST. I granted leave to plaintiffs to renew their motion, within sixty (60) days of the December 7, 2010 decision and order, upon plaintiffs’ presentation to the Court of its compliance with the statutory requirements of CPLR § 3215 (f), with “an affidavit of facts” executed by someone who is an officer of THE TRUST or someone who has a valid power of attorney from THE TRUST.
Plaintiffs moved in a timely manner, on December 29, 2010, and renewed their motion for the appointment of a referee and to amend the caption. However, plaintiffs failed to comply with my December 7, 2010 decision and order. Therefore, the Court grants plaintiffs one final opportunity to comply, within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, by presenting the Court with “an affidavit of facts” executed by someone who is an officer of THE TRUST or someone who has a valid power of attorney from THE TRUST. A repeated failure to comply with this court order will mandate the dismissal of the instant action with prejudice.
Background
THE TRUST purchased certain tax liens from the City of New York on August 18, 2009. These liens, including the tax lien for the premises known as 273 Brighton Beach Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 8672, Lot 31, County of Kings), were recorded in the Kings County Office of the City Register, New York City Department of Finance, on August 25, 2009, at City Register File Number (CRFN) XXXXXXXXXXXXX.
Plaintiffs’ original moving papers for an order to appoint a referee to compute and amend the caption failed to present an “affidavit made by the party,”pursuant to CPLR § 3215 (f). Instead the previous motion contained an affidavit of merit by Marc Marino, who stated “I am the Authorized Signatory of Mooring Tax Asset Group, LLC, servicing agent for plaintiffs in the within action.” For reasons unknown to the Court, plaintiffs failed to provide any power of attorney authorizing Mooring Tax Asset Group, LLC to go forward with the instant foreclosure action. Therefore, in my December 7, 2010 decision and order, I denied without prejudice the original motion, for the appointment of a referee to compute and to amend the caption. I granted plaintiffs leave to comply with CPLR § 3215 (f) by providing an “affidavit made by the party,” whether by an officer of THE TRUST or someone with a valid power of attorney from THE TRUST, within sixty (60) days from my December 7, 2010 decision and order.
In the instant renewed motion, “[i]n an effort to comply with said [December 7, 2010] Decision and Order, Plaintiffs submit with the instant application the Affidavit of Marc Marino sworn to on December 21, 2010, and a relevant except from the Servicing Agreement, certified pursuant to CPLR § 2105 (Exhibit “E”) [¶ 11 of affirmation in support of motion].” Further, plaintiffs’ counsel alleges that this “establishes . . . Plaintiffs’ compliance with CPLR § 3215 (f), including Marc Marino’s personal knowledge of the facts and his authority to seek the relief requested herein.” Despite the arguments presented by plaintiffs’ counsel, it is clear that plaintiffs’ counsel failed to comply with my December 7, 2010 decision and order. Plaintiff’s submission is not in compliance with the requirements of CPLR § 3215 (f).
Discussion
CPLR § 3215 (f) states:
On any application for judgment by default, the applicant shall file proof of service of the summons and the complaint, or a summons and notice served pursuant to subdivision (b) of rule 305 or subdivision (a) of rule 316 of this chapter, and proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due by affidavit made by the party. . . Where a verified complaint has been served, it may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim and the amount due; in such case, an affidavit as to the default shall be made by the party or the party’s attorney. [Emphasis added].
Plaintiffs continue to fail to submit “proof of the facts” in “an affidavit made by the party.” The renewed “affidavit of facts” was submitted by Marc Marino, “the Authorized Signatory of Mooring Tax Asset Group, LLC, servicing agent for plaintiffs in the within action.” Further, plaintiffs’ counsel provided the Court with snippets of the July 1, 2009 Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement between NYCTL 2009-A TRUST, Issuer, MOORING TAX ASSET GROUP, LLC, Servicer and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Paying Agent and Collateral Agent and Custodian, consisting of the cover paper, pages 16, 17, 18 and three signature pages. In my December 7, 2010 decision and order I stated that:
Mr. Marino must have, as plaintiffs’ agent, a valid power of attorney for that express purpose. Additionally, if a power of attorney is presented to this Court and it refers to servicing agreements, the Court needs a properly offered copy of the servicing agreements, to determine if the servicing agent may proceed on behalf of plaintiffs.
While it appears in the snippets, on page 17, that the Servicer might have authority to prepare affidavits in support of a foreclosure action, the Court, in following the requirements of CPLR § 3215 (f), needs an affidavit by an officer of THE TRUST or someone with a valid power of attorney from THE TRUST.
General Obligations Law § 5 — 1501 (10) defines “power of attorney” as “a written document by which a principal with capacity designates an agent to act on his or her behalf.” The selected portions presented of the July 1, 2009 Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement are not a power of attorney. Further, the Court wonders why plaintiffs’ counsel did not present the entire servicing agreement for review. Is there classified information in the document? Moreover, unlike a power of attorney, the parties executing the July 1, 2009 Amended and Restated Servicing Agreement did not sign under penalty of perjury before a notary public. One signatory, Jacqueline Kuhn, Assistant Treasurer, signed the document for THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as Paying Agent and Collateral Agent and Custodian, and then acknowledged and agreed to the agreement for THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as Indenture Trustee. It is comforting to know that Ms. Kuhn agreed with herself.
Therefore, the instant renewed motion for an order to appoint a referee to compute and amend the caption is denied without prejudice. The Court will grant THE TRUST a final opportunity for the appointment of a referee to compute and to amend the caption by its timely submission of an affidavit by either an officer of THE TRUST, or someone with a valid power of attorney from THE TRUST, possessing personal knowledge of the facts.
Plaintiffs’ counsel is reminded of the recent December 16, 2010 Court of Appeals decision, in Gibbs v St. Barnabas Hosp. (16 NY3d 74), which instructed, at *5:
As this Court has repeatedly emphasized, our court system is dependent on all parties engaged in litigation abiding by the rules of proper practice (see e.g. Brill v City of New York, 2 NY3d 748 [2004]; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]). The failure to comply with deadlines not only impairs the efficient functioning of the courts and the adjudication of claims, but it places jurists unnecessarily in the position of having to order enforcement remedies to respond to the delinquent conduct of members of the bar, often to the detriment of the litigants they represent. Chronic noncompliance with deadlines breeds disrespect for the dictates of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and a culture in which cases can linger for years without resolution.
Furthermore, those lawyers who engage their best efforts to comply with practice rules are also effectively penalized because they must somehow explain to their clients why they cannot secure timely responses from recalcitrant adversaries, which leads to the erosion of their attorney-client relationships as well. For these reasons, it is important to adhere to the position we declared a decade ago that “[i]f the credibility of court orders and the integrity of our judicial system are to be maintained, a litigant cannot ignore court orders with impunity [Emphasis added].” (Kihl, 94 NY2d at 123).
ORDERED, that the renewed motion of plaintiffs NYCTL 2009-A TRUST AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS COLLATERAL AGENT AND CUSTODIAN FOR THE NYCTL 2009-A TRUST, for an order appointing a referee to compute and amend the caption in a tax lien foreclosure action for the premises located at 273 Brighton Beach Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 8672, Lot 31, County of Kings) is denied without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that leave is granted to plaintiffs NYCTL 2009-A TRUST AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS COLLATERAL AGENT AND CUSTODIAN FOR THE NYCTL 2009-A TRUST, to renew its application, within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, for an order appointing a referee to compute and amend the caption in a tax lien foreclosure action for the premises located at 273 Brighton Beach Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 8672, Lot 31, County of Kings), upon presentation to the Court of its compliance with the statutory requirements of CPLR § 3215 (f), with an affidavit of facts by someone with authority to execute such an affidavit; and it is further
ORDERED, the failure of plaintiffs NYCTL 2009-A TRUST AND THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS COLLATERAL AGENT AND CUSTODIAN FOR THE NYCTL 2009-A TRUST, to comply with the requirements of the preceding paragraph will result in the dismissal with prejudice of the instant tax lien foreclosure action for the premises located at 273 Brighton Beach Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 8672, Lot 31, County of Kings).
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-1, Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH M. SCOLARO, et al., Appellants.
C.A. No. 25084.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit County.
March 16, 2011.
CARR, Judge.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Joseph Scolaro, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court reverses.
I.
{¶ 2} On July 18, 2008, LaSalle Bank National Association (hereinafter referred to as “LaSalle”), the original plaintiff, brought this action against Scolaro seeking money judgment against Scolaro based on a January 10, 2007 promissory note in the amount of $225,250.00 plus interest at a rate of 9.60 percent per year from February 1, 2008, plus court costs, advances, and other charges allowed by law. LaSalle also sought to foreclose upon Scolaro’s property based on the mortgage dated January 10, 2007. LaSalle also sued Judy E. Scolaro and the unknown spouse of Joseph Scolaro.
{¶ 3} The parties subsequently participated in resolution and settlement conferences. On April 16, 2009, Joseph Scolaro filed an answer in which he asserted multiple affirmative defenses. The affirmative defenses alleged LaSalle was not the proper party plaintiff, that LaSalle lacked standing, and that LaSalle failed to give proper and requisite notice to Scolaro prior to initiating foreclosure. On April 29, 2009, LaSalle filed a motion to substitute Bank of America, National Association (hereinafter referred to as “Bank of America”) as the plaintiff. This motion was granted by the trial court on April 30, 2009. On June 22, 2009, Bank of America filed a motion for summary judgment, along with an affidavit in support. On August 20, 2009, after being granted an extension of time, Joseph Scolaro filed a brief in opposition with supporting affidavit, as well as his own motion for summary judgment. On September 30, 2009, Bank of America filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and a response to Joseph Scolaro’s motion for summary judgment. On that same day, Bank of America filed a motion for default judgment against Judy E. Scolaro and the unknown spouse of Joseph Scolaro.
{¶ 4} On October 9, 2009, the trial court entered a default judgment against Judy E. Scolaro and the unknown spouse. Also on October 9, 2009, the trial court granted summary judgment against Joseph Scolaro, finding that the substituted plaintiff, Bank of America, had filed a motion for summary judgment and Joseph Scolaro had filed no opposition to the motion. On November 6, 2009, Scolaro filed a notice of appeal.
{¶ 5} On January 28, 2010, Bank of America moved to stay the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court to correct what it described as a “clerical error” in the judgment entry from which the appeal was taken. Bank of America also requested leave to file a motion with the trial court to correct the omission of the motion for summary judgment from the record. On February 8, 2010, Scolaro responded in opposition, asking this Court to deny the portion of Bank of America’s motion requesting a remand to correct a clerical error in the judgment entry. Scolaro argued that the trial court’s finding that he had not filed a response to the motion for summary judgment was not a clerical error and, thus, could not be cured upon the filing of a Civ.R. 60(A) motion. On February 19, 2010, this Court granted the motion to stay the appellate proceedings and ordered the matter “remanded to the trial court for 30 days to rule on Bank of America’s anticipated Civ.R. 60(A) motion.” This Court’s journal entry specifically noted that the “stay and remand [would] automatically expire 30 days from the journalization of [the] order” and required that Bank of America move this Court to continue the stay if the trial court needed additional time to rule on the motion.
{¶ 6} On February 26, 2010, Bank of America filed with the trial court a “motion for an amended and restated judgment nunc pro tunc and revised transcript to correct clerical errors.” In its motion, Bank of America invoked Civ.R. 60(A) and requested that the trial court correct its statement in the October 9, 2009 journal entry that Scolaro had not filed an opposition in response to Bank of America’s motion for summary judgment. Bank of America also requested that the trial court correct the record which failed to reflect that Bank of America had filed a motion for summary judgment on June 22, 2009. Also filed on February 26, 2010, was the affidavit of Attorney April Brown, co-counsel for Bank of America. In the affidavit, Attorney Brown acknowledged that she had prepared a draft of the order granting summary judgment for the convenience of the trial court. Attorney Brown averred that in preparing this entry, she worked from a Summit County form she had previously used. Attorney Brown averred that she accidentally failed to delete the erroneous sentence from the foundational form which stated, “There has been no opposition filed in response to the *** Motion for Summary Judgment.” Attorney Brown averred that “[t]he inclusion of this sentence was accidental, and it did not reflect the procedural history of the case now before this Court.” On March 15, 2010, Joseph Scolaro filed a brief in opposition to Bank of America’s motion. In his brief, Scolaro argued that the aforementioned error in the judgment entry was not mistake or omission which was mechanical in nature and could not be corrected pursuant to Civ.R. 60(A). Scolaro also requested in his motion that the trial court vacate the order for sale of his property which has been issued on October 23, 2009.
{¶ 7} On March 19, 2010, Bank of America filed a motion to continue the stay with this Court. On March 22, 2010, the trial court issued an entry captioned “nunc pro tunc amended and restated judgment and decree in foreclosure and reformation of mortgage and deed.” In the nunc pro tunc entry, the trial court noted that Scolaro had filed an answer to the complaint as well as a memorandum and affidavit in opposition to Bank of America’s motion for summary judgment. The entry stated that “[a]fter due consideration of the submissions of the parties, the Court further finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that Bank of America is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.”
{¶ 8} On March 29, 2010, Bank of America filed with this Court a notice of correction of record and motion to lift stay. On April 6, 2010, this Court issued a journal entry granting Bank of America’s motion and allowing twenty days for Scolaro to either file a new merit brief or a notice of reliance upon his prior brief. On April 26, 2010, Scolaro filed a notice that he intended to rely on his prior brief.
{¶ 9} On appeal, Scolaro raises two assignments of error.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS IT FAILED TO CONSIDER JOSEPH SCOLARO’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INCORRECTLY FOUND THAT NO RESPONSE HAD BEEN FILED EVEN THOUGH A TIMELY RESPONSE AND AFFIDAVIT HAD BEEN FILED.”
{¶ 10} In his first assignment of error, Scolaro argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Bank of America because it failed to consider Scolaro’s response to the motion and found that no response had been filed. This Court agrees.
{¶ 11} This Court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105. This Court applies the same standard as the trial court, viewing the facts in the case in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and resolving any doubt in favor of the non-moving party. Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co. (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 7, 12.
{¶ 12} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is proper if:
“(1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party.” Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327.
{¶ 13} To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the party moving for summary judgment must be able to point to evidentiary materials that show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293. Once a moving party satisfies its burden of supporting its motion for summary judgment with sufficient and acceptable evidence pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), Civ.R. 56(E) provides that the non-moving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the moving party’s pleadings. Rather, the non-moving party has a reciprocal burden of responding by setting forth specific facts, demonstrating that a “genuine triable issue” exists to be litigated for trial. State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 449.
{¶ 14} It is axiomatic that the non-moving party’s reciprocal burden does not arise until after the moving party has met its initial evidentiary burden. To do so, the moving party must set forth evidence of the limited types enumerated in Civ.R. 56(C), specifically, “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact[.]” Civ.R. 56(C) further provides that “[n]o evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule.”
{¶ 15} On February 26, 2011, Bank of America filed a motion for an amended judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(A). In its motion, Bank of America noted the trial court’s original judgment entry incorrectly stated that Scolaro had not filed a brief in opposition to Bank of America’s motion for summary judgment. Bank of America characterized this error as a “misstatement” and argued that the “[t]he Judgment and Decree was not entered until several weeks after Bank of America filed its Reply to Scolaro’s Memorandum in Opposition to Bank of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment, thus affording this Court ample time to review and evaluate the parties’ arguments.” In an affidavit which was filed simultaneously to the Civ.R. 60(A) motion, counsel for Bank of America, April Brown, averred that she had prepared a draft of the judgment entry, but failed to delete the erroneous sentence.
{¶ 16} Civ.R. 60(A) states:
“Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.”
Within the context of Civ.R. 60(A), a “clerical mistake” is “a type of mistake or omission mechanical in nature which is apparent on the record and which does not involve a legal decision or judgment by an attorney.” Paris v. Georgetown Homes, Inc. (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 501, 503, quoting Dentsply Internatl., Inc. v. Kostas (1985), 26 Ohio App.3d 116, 118. The Tenth District has stated, “The decision whether a submitted entry accurately reflects a decision rendered by the court involves the exercise of discretion by the court, and therefore is not subject to correction under Civ.R. 60(A).” Dokari Invests., LLC v. DFG2, LLC, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-664, 2009-Ohio-1048, at ¶ 16.
{¶ 17} In this case, the trial court’s actions on remand went beyond the scope of merely correcting a clerical mistake in its original judgment entry. As noted above, once a moving party satisfies its burden of supporting its motion for summary judgment with sufficient and acceptable evidence, the non-moving party has a reciprocal burden of responding by setting forth specific facts to demonstrate that a “genuine triable issue” exists to be litigated for trial. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d at 449. Under this standard, the trial court’s erroneous finding in its October 9, 2009 judgment entry that Scolaro had not filed a response to Bank of America’s motion for summary judgment was not merely a mechanical error. Rather, it was a significant finding that was relevant in resolving the legal issue before the court. “A trial court may or may not sign prepared entries at its discretion.” State v. Sapp, 5th Dist. No. 07CA11, 2008-Ohio-5083, at ¶ 27. In exercising its discretion to sign the October 9, 2009 judgment entry, the trial court confirmed that the content of the entry accurately reflected the basis for its ruling. It follows that the erroneous finding that Scolaro had not filed a response to the motion for summary judgment was not subject to correction under Civ.R. 60(A). See Dokari at ¶ 16. By requesting that the trial court issue “an amended and restated judgment nunc pro tunc,” Bank of America was, in effect, asking the trial court to reconsider a final order. It is well-settled that “motions for reconsideration of a final judgment in the trial court are a nullity.” Price v. Carter Lumber Co., 9th Dist. No. 24991, 2010-Ohio-4328, at ¶ 11, quoting Pitts v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 378, paragraph one of the syllabus. This Court has stated that “any order granting such a motion is likewise a nullity.” State v. Keith, 9th Dist. No. 08CA009362, 2009-Ohio-76, at ¶ 8. Therefore, as the trial court’s judgment entry issued on March 22, 2010 was a nullity, this Court must look to the trial court’s October 9, 2009 judgment entry in reviewing Scolaro’s first assignment of error.
{¶ 18} Turning to the merits of Scolaro’s assignment of error, this Court concludes that the trial court’s judgment must be reversed. As discussed above, the trial court found that Bank of America’s motion for summary judgment was unopposed. The record indicates that Scolaro filed a brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, along with an affidavit in support, as well as a cross-motion for summary judgment, on August 20, 2009. Subsequently, on September 30, 2009, Bank of America filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and a response to Joseph Scolaro’s motion for summary judgment. On remand, the trial court must make substantive determinations on the competing motions for summary judgment giving consideration to all relevant submissions by the parties.
{¶ 19} Scolaro’s first assignment of error is sustained.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
“THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS THERE WERE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT AND THE SUBSTITUTED PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.”
{¶ 20} In his second assignment of error, Scolaro argues the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Bank of America because there were genuine issues of material fact. Because our resolution of the first assignment of error is dispositive of this appeal, this Court declines to address the Scolaro’s second assignment of error as it is rendered moot. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
III.
{¶ 21} Scolaro’s first assignment of error is sustained. Scolaro’s second assignment of error is rendered moot. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellee.
COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
DATED AND FILED
March 10, 2011
STATE OF WISCONSIN
PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION
v.
ROBERT L. KOLODZIEJ AND DEBRA SNOBL, AS CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OFMARCELLA L. KOLODZIEJ,
DECEASED
Excerpts:
¶21 Because the assignment of the mortgage is neither authenticated by averments in an affidavit that would suffice at trial nor self-authenticated by means of a certified copy, it cannot be considered in determining whether PHH made a prima facie case for summary judgment.4
<SNIP>
¶28 Because PHH’s submissions do not provide authentication for the mortgage assignment and for the endorsed note, its submissions do not make a prima facie showing that it is the holder of the mortgage and note. The court therefore erred in granting summary judgment in PHH’s favor. This conclusion makes it unnecessary to address the Estate’s argument that, even assuming these documents were authenticated, PHH still did not make a prima facie case for foreclosure.7
I was contacted by a woman in Washington informing us that we were off the mark with this post. The way we posted fell a bit short and was slightly off the mark. It seems this bill was already voted through. Here’s the update and correction to this piece:
The “declaration” portion of this foreclosure bill trying to pass in the Washington State legislature is already law. This is what we, in Washington, are currently fighting. The bill, SB 5275, is a so-so bill with this “declaration” embedded in it. What the law (with its current language) does is bring the parties to the mediation table. This mediation process gives the homeowner an additional 90 days. What it DOESN’T do, is bring the CORRECT parties to the mediation table, as the banks can still hide behind this “declaration” in claiming ownership of the note, by putting a robo-signed pen-to-paper.
There are people in Washington, who are fighting within the legislature to get an amendment proposed. They are trying to get language similar to Arizona’s SB 1259, allowing only for a “clear chain of title” to prove ownership of the note. What a “clear chain of title” will do, it will bring the CORRECT PARTIES TO THE MEDIATION TABLE.
All you Washingtonians, please write your Senators and your Representatives asking for this amendment bringing a “clear chain of title” to this bill, SB 5275. If we can get this amendment to the floor of the House, we may still have a chance in Washington to bring the banks to their knees, as we all know they are unable to provide a “clear chain of title.”
Also ask your legislator to think about NEXT legislative session to put an end to the RCW 61.24.030 (7)(a), which states that the servicer only need provide a “declaration” to reside with the trustee to prove ownership of the note. The servicers are able to robo-sign these declarations and not have to provide any more proof of ownership of the note. THIS IS WHAT IS REALLY BAD LAW. The legislators need to know that what they did LAST session, has made Washington the worst state in the nation to try to fight these criminal servicers.
Thank you to Richard Zombeck @ ShameTheBanks.org for his help on clarifying this update for us. Don’t be silent… share your thoughts and story with ShameThe Banks. Together we can and are making a difference.
Original Post below..
This bill (SB 5275) is scheduled for a hearing today (scroll down for details). It must be stopped. We cannot allow the banks to take what they don’t own. Please call and/or email these senators (AND reps regarding the companion bill HB 1362) to politely but firmly express your opposition to giving the banks a freebie. Remind these people who they work for (US, not the banks). –Scott
SB 5275 – 2011-12
Addressing homeowner foreclosures.
Revised for 1st Substitute: Protecting and assisting homeowners from unnecessary foreclosures.
The above underlined description of this foreclosure bill recently dropped by stealth in the Washington State legislature is an Orwellian lie; it exists to protect the banks of the New World Order-controlled Federal Reserve System, which our treasonous legislature has shown repeatedly that it serves. Amidst all of this bill’s seemingly warm and fuzzy, even lofty pronouncements on mediation and fairness, the following chilling provision stands out; please read it carefully to grasp the magnitude of its treason against the people of Washington State — and of the United States, if this abusive bill is allowed to pass and set a legislative precedent:
“7 (a) That, for residential real estate property, before the notice of trustee’s sale is recorded, transmitted, or served, the trustee shall have proof that the beneficiary (bank) is the owner of the promissory note or obligation secured by the deed of trust. A declaration by the beneficiary (bank) made under penalty of perjury stating that the beneficiary (bank) is the actual holder of the promissory note or other obligation secured by the deed of trust shall be sufficient proof as required under this subsection.”
Go to documents…
History of Bill
as of Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:56 PM
Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates
Attorneys for Plaintiff
26 Harvester Avenue
Batavia, New York 14020
Lydia Bozymowski
Defendant Pro Se
8 Hofstra Drive
Greenlawn, New York 11740-1908
Peter H. Mayer, J.
Upon the reading and filing of the following papers in this matter: (1) Notice of Motion by the plaintiff, dated May 21, 2010, and supporting papers; and (2) prior Order of this Court, dated November 1, 2010; and now
UPON DUE DELIBERATION AND CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT of the foregoing papers, the motion is decided as follows: it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s application (seq. #001) in this foreclosure action is hereby denied for the reasons set forth herein; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiff shall appear for a hearing on May 13, 2011, 10:00 a.m., at which time the Court will conduct an inquiry of the plaintiff’s witnesses concerning the information and documents submitted by the plaintiff in connection with this foreclosure action, and will determine what, if any, sanction to impose upon the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff’s attorney; and it is further
ORDERED that at the time of the hearing, the plaintiff shall produce the following witnesses to provide testimony under oath in response to all inquiries by the Court: (1) Margaret Burke Tarab, Esq., the attorney from plaintiff’s counsel’s firm who executed the December 13, 2010 attorney affirmation, which is purportedly compliant with the October 20, 2010 Order of the Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York; (2) Karen Griffith, Vice President of plaintiff Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, the individual who executed the February 2, 2010 affidavit in support of plaintiff’s application for an order of reference; and (3) Robert D. Repass, plaintiff’s Senior Vice President, identified in Ms. Tarab’s December 13, 2010 affirmation as the plaintiff’s representative with whom she communicated for purposes of executing her said affirmation; and it is further
ORDERED that at the time of the hearing, the plaintiff shall produce for Court inspection all of the documents and records reviewed by plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiff’s other representatives for purposes of submitting its application for an order of reference, including but not limited to the original note and mortgage, and all documents demonstrating exactly when the plaintiff acquired possession of the note and ownership of the mortgage in this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff shall promptly serve, via first class mail, a copy of this Order upon the homeowner-defendant(s) at all known addresses, as well as upon all appearing parties (or upon their attorney[s] if represented by counsel), and shall promptly thereafter file the affidavit(s) of such service with the County Clerk; and it is further
ORDERED that failure to comply with any of the directives set forth herein shall result in [*2]the Court issuing any sanction the Court deems appropriate under the CPLR and/or Court Rules, including but not limited to waiver of any interest, attorneys fees and costs to which the plaintiff claims entitlement, as well as dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.
In this foreclosure action, the plaintiff filed a summons and complaint on January 12, 2010. The complaint essentially alleges that the defendant-homeowner, Lydia Bozymowski, defaulted in payments with regard to the subject mortgage, dated April 22, 2004, in the principal amount of $225,000.00, for the premises located at 8 Hofstra Drive, Greenlawn, New York 11740. The original lender, Florida Bank, N.A. d/b/a Florida Bank Mortgage (“Florida Bank”), is alleged to have had the mortgage assigned to the plaintiff, Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC (“Bayview Loan”), by assignment dated November 25, 2009. The assignment was purportedly executed by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for Florida Bank. In its application (001), the plaintiff requested a default order of reference and amendment of the caption to remove the “Doe” defendants as parties.
By Order dated November 1, 2010, this Court referred the plaintiff’s application to a conference with the Court on December 15, 2010. As part of that Order, the plaintiff’s counsel was instructed to review the pending application prior to the conference “to determine whether or not such application is fully compliant with all foreclosure-related statutes, case law and Court Rules.” If so, counsel was to then “execute and submit to the Court at the conference the requisite attorney affirmation mandated by the October 20, 2010 Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York.” With regard to such attorney affirmation, this Court’s November 1, 2010 Order stated that, “[i]f plaintiff’s counsel is unable for personal or professional reasons to execute the necessary affirmation, the pending application may be withdrawn without prejudice and with leave to resubmit upon proper papers, including the mandatory attorney affirmation.” The November 1, 2010 Order also warned counsel that “with regard to any scheduled court conferences or future applications, if the Court determines that such conferences have been attended, or such applications have been submitted, without proper regard for the applicable statutes, case law and Court Rules, or without regard for the required proofs delineated herein, the Court may, in its discretion, strike the non-compliant party’s pleadings or deny such applications with prejudice and/or impose sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1, and may deny those costs and attorneys fees attendant with the filing of such future applications.”
On December 15, 2010, a conference was held and plaintiff’s counsel submitted an attorney affirmation. Initially, the Court notes the plaintiff’s failure to submit proof of compliance with RPAPL §1304. For those actions commenced on or after September 1, 2008 and prior to January 14, 2010, RPAPL §1304 requires that, with regard to a “high-cost home loan” (as defined in Banking Law §6-l), or a “subprime home loan” or a “non-traditional home loan” (as defined in RPAPL §1304), at least 90 days before a lender or mortgage loan servicer commences a foreclosure action against the borrower, the lender or mortgage loan servicer must give the borrower a specific, statutorily prescribed notice. In essence, the notice warns the borrower that he or she may lose his or her home because of the loan default, and provides [*3]information regarding available assistance for homeowners who are facing financial difficulty. The specific language and type-size requirements of the notice are set forth in RPAPL §1304(1).
Pursuant to RPAPL §1304(2), the requisite 90-day notice must be “sent by the lender or mortgage loan servicer to the borrower, by registered or certified mail and also by first-class mail to the last known address of the borrower, and if different, to the residence which is the subject of the mortgage. Notice is considered given as of the date it is mailed.” The notice must also contain a list of at least five housing counseling agencies approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, or those designated by the Division of Housing and Community Renewal, that serve the region where the borrower resides, as well as the counseling agencies’ last known addresses and telephone numbers.
This action was commenced on January 12, 2010. Therefore, barring any statutorily stated exceptions, if the subject loan being foreclosed upon qualifies as a “high-cost home loan,” a “subprime home loan,” or “non-traditional home loan,” the pre-commencement notice requirements of RPAPL §1304 will apply. Plaintiff, however, has failed to submit evidentiary proof, including an affidavit from one with personal knowledge, as to whether or not this action involves such a loan and, if so, proof of compliance with the applicable pre-commencement requirements of RPAPL §1304 or, in the alternative, an affidavit sufficient to show why such requirements do not apply. Such failure requires denial of plaintiff’s application for an order of reference. The boilerplate language in paragraph 4(c) of the complaint regarding compliance with RPAPL §1304 “if the underlying mortgage qualifies,” is ambiguous and is, therefore, insufficient to affirmatively show such compliance, particularly where, as here, the complaint is not verified by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff has also failed to submit a properly sworn affidavit in support of the requested relief. In this regard, CPLR §2309(b) requires that an “oath or affirmation shall be administered in a form calculated to awaken the conscience and impress the mind of the person taking it in accordance with his religious or ethical beliefs.” Accordingly, for affidavits to have sufficient validity, a notary public witnessing signatures must take the oaths of the signatories or obtain statements from them as to the truth of the statements to which they subscribe their names (see, Matter of Helfand v Meisser, 22 NY2d 762, 292 NYS2d 467 [1968]; Matter of Imre v Johnson, 54 AD3d 427, 863 NYS2d 473 [2d Dept 2008]; Matter of Leahy v O’Rourke, 307 AD2d 1008, 763 NYS2d 508 [2d Dept 2003]).
In support of its application for an order of reference, the plaintiff submits an affidavit from Karen Griffith, Vice President of plaintiff Bayview Loan; however, there is no showing that the notary who witnessed Ms. Griffith’s signature took an oath from Ms. Griffith, and no statement by Ms. Griffith attesting to the truth of the statements contained in her affidavit. Instead, there is a statement disguised to appear as a proper oath. Rather than swearing to the truth of the statements contained in her affidavit, Ms. Griffith merely attests in paragraph 12 to the truth of the contents of “the [plaintiff’s] complaint” (emphasis added). Such statement is insufficient to satisfy the form of oath required by CPLR §2309(b) with regard to Ms. Griffith’s [*4]affidavit. This is particularly pertinent here because additional submissions by the plaintiff raise questions as to the reliability of Ms. Griffith’s affidavit, as well as the plaintiff’s standing to bring this action.
A plaintiff has standing to maintain the action only where the plaintiff is the proper assignee of the mortgage and the underlying note at the time the foreclosure action was commenced (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 890 NYS2d 578 [2d Dept 2009]; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone, 303 AD2d 546, 755 NYS2d 730 [2d Dept 2003]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 887 NYS2d 615 [2d Dept 2009]; First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, 234 AD2d 414, 651 N.Y.S.2d 121 [2d Dept 1996]). It remains settled that foreclosure of a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it and absent transfer of the debt, the assignment of the mortgage is a nullity (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, supra; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92 [2d Dept 1988]). Furthermore, a plaintiff has no foundation in law or fact to foreclose upon a mortgage in which the plaintiff has no legal or equitable interest (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, supra; Katz v East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243, 672 NYS2d 308 [1st Dept 1998]). Either a written assignment of the underlying note or the physical delivery of the note prior to the commencement of the foreclosure action is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and the mortgage passes with the debt as an inseparable incident (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, supra).
To support its contention that Bayview had proper standing to commence this action, Ms. Griffith’s alleges in paragraph 6 of her affidavit that “[t]he loan was acquired by and in the possession of the Plaintiff on April 22, 2004″ (emphasis added). Notably, this is the same date the mortgage documents were executed by the defendant-borrower to the original lender, Florida Bank. Even if this nebulous statement by Ms. Griffith were construed to mean that Bayview was in possession of the “note and mortgage” on April 22, 2004, such statement fails to show that the plaintiff was the holder of the note and mortgage when the action was commenced, nearly six years later (see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, supra; Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Youkelsone, supra; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, supra; First Trust Natl. Assn. v Meisels, supra). On the one hand, Ms. Griffith alleges in paragraph 6 of her affidavit that the loan was in the possession of the plaintiff on April 22, 2004. On the other hand, in the same paragraph of her affidavit she states that the mortgage “instruments were assigned to [the Plaintiff] by [assignment] dated November 25, 2009.” Compounding this confusion is the handwritten statement on the assignment, asserting that it was “effective as of: 7/1/09.”
Despite these inconsistent statements of fact in support of ownership, there is an additional submission that suggests the true owner is or may be CitiMortgage, Inc. (“CitiMortgage”), a non-party to this action. In this regard, affixed to the last page of the note is an undated indorsement from Florida Bank to CitiMortgage. This indorsement, which was executed by Jacqueline Ring as Florida Bank’s Vice President, specifically states, “WITHOUT RECOURSE PAY TO THE ORDER OF CITIMORTGAGE, INC.” Thus, the plaintiff’s assertion that it possessed “the loan” on the same date it was executed by the borrower, and the inconsistent assertion that plaintiff obtained the mortgage instruments by assignment dated [*5]November 25, 2009, is rebutted by the fact that when the note was indorsed to CitiMortgage, the mortgage passed to CitiMortgage as an inseparable incident (U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752, 890 NYS2d 578 [2d Dept 2009]. Therefore, without the valid transfer of the note to the plaintiff, the assignment of the mortgage to the plaintiff was a nullity (id.; Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92 [2d Dept 1988]). Curiously, evidence of the indorsement to CitiMortgage by Florida Bank was not in the plaintiff’s affidavit or attorney affirmation.
The plaintiff has also failed to comply with this Court’s November 1, 2010 Order regarding submission of an attorney affirmation in the form and with the language required by the October 20, 2010 Administrative Order of Hon. Ann Pfau, New York’s Chief Administrative Judge. As explained in this Court’s November 1, 2010 Order, “[p]ursuant to the Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York, dated and effective October 20, 2010, plaintiff’s counsel in foreclosure actions must file with the court in all such actions an affirmation in a form prescribed by the Order.” It remains clear from the language of Judge Pfau’s October 20, 2010 Order, as well from the language of the official mandatory affirmation and its preamble, that the intent of the new Rule is to assure accountability for and accuracy of all court filings in foreclosure actions.
With the intent of the new Rule in mind, this Court requires that after October 20, 2010, the mandatory affirmation must accompany all applications made at any and all stages of foreclosure proceedings. Obviously, a mere single filing at only one phase of the case would not comport with the intent of Judge Pfau’s Order. Indeed, if compliance were sufficient by filing the requisite affirmation at only one phase, improper or untruthful papers could be filed at other phases with virtual impunity. Therefore, plaintiff’s failure to submit the official mandatory affirmation in the form and with the language prescribed by Judge Pfau’s October 20, 2010 Order must result in denial of the requested relief.
In relevant part, the Court’s November 1, 2010 Order also included, with italicized emphasis, the warning set forth in the last sentence of the preamble paragraph of the official mandatory affirmation, which states: “The wrongful filing and prosecution of foreclosure proceedings which are discovered to suffer from these defects may be cause for disciplinary and other sanctions upon participating counsel” (emphasis added). Despite this language required by the official mandatory affirmation, and despite this Court’s emphasis of that language in its November 1, 2010 Order, the December 13, 2010 affirmation signed by plaintiff’s attorney, Margaret Burke Tarab, Esq., does not include such language. Also, as required by paragraph 3 of the official mandatory affirmation, the plaintiff’s attorney must affirm that “[b]ased upon my communication with [plaintiff’s representative], as well as upon my own inspection of the papers filed with the Court and other diligent inquiry, I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the Summons and Complaint and all other documents filed in support of this action for foreclosure are complete and accurate in all relevant respects . . .” (emphasis added). In counsel’s December 13, 2010 affirmation, the word “diligent” was omitted and replaced with the word “reasonable.” In addition, as required by paragraph 4 of the official mandatory affirmation, the plaintiff’s attorney must acknowledge that he or she understands “that [*6]the Court will rely on this Affirmation in considering the [plaintiff’s] application.” In paragraph 4 of counsel’s affirmation, however, she omitted the specific mandatory language and replaced it with a generic acknowledgment, that “I am aware of my obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200) and 22 NYCRR Part 130.”
Although the Court has heard several attorneys for plaintiff banks informally question Judge Pfau’s authority to have issued the October 20, 2010 Order in the first instance, this Court gives full deference to her Honor’s Order (see NY Const, art VI, § 28). Counsel for plaintiff banks have also claimed that the attorney affirmation required by Judge Pfau’s Order was unofficially amended on November 18, 2010 and posted on the internet in amended form. Counsel, however, has failed to submit an order by Judge Pfau executed after her October 20, 2010 Order, or any other legitimate legal authority, in which the language of the official mandatory affirmation was modified. Therefore, this Court requires counsel to submit an attorney affirmation in the specific form and with the specific language originally mandated by her Honor’s Order of October 20, 2010.
In this Court’s November 1, 2010 Order, the Court warned of potential sanctions, pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1, if a party submits an application “without proper regard for the applicable statutes, case law and Court Rules.” Indeed, although the plaintiff’s December 13, 2010 attorney affirmation does not include certain language mandated by Judge Pfau’s October 2010 Order, the affirmation does, nevertheless, state at paragraph 4 that counsel is “aware of [her] obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 1200) and 22 NYCRR Part 130.” With regard to sanctions, 22 NYCRR §130-1.1 states, in pertinent part that:
(a) . . . [T]he court, in its discretion may impose financial sanctions upon any party or attorney in a civil action or proceeding who engages in frivolous conduct as defined in this Part, which shall be payable as provided in section 130-1.3 of this Part. . . .
(b) The court, as appropriate, may . . . impose such financial sanctions against either an attorney or a party to the litigation or against both. Where the . . . sanction is against an attorney, it may be against the attorney personally or upon a partnership, [or] firm . . . that has appeared as attorney of record. The . . . sanctions may be imposed upon any attorney appearing in the action or upon a partnership, firm or corporation with which the attorney is associated.
(c) For purposes of this Part, conduct is frivolous if:
(1) it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law;
(2) it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or
(3) it asserts material factual statements that are false. [*7]
. . . In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider, among other issues the circumstances under which the conduct took place, including the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct, and whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was apparent, or should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the party.
(d) An . . . imposition of sanctions may be made . . . upon the court’s own initiative, after a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The form of the hearing shall depend upon the nature of the conduct and the circumstances of the case.
At the December 15, 2010 conference, plaintiff’s counsel represented to the Court that the plaintiff’s submitted application was, in fact, fully compliant with all applicable statutes, case law and Court Rules. Counsel then tendered to the Court Ms. Burke Tarab’s December 13, 2010 affirmation, which is purported to be compliant with the requirements of Judge Pfau’s Order of October 20, 2010. In counsel’s affirmation, she identifies Robert D. Repass, plaintiff’s Senior Vice President, as the representative with whom she communicated on December 10, 2010 for purposes of executing her affirmation.
According to paragraph 2 of the affirmation, Mr. Repass reportedly informed Ms. Tarab that he “personally reviewed plaintiff’s documents and records relating to this case for factual accuracy.” He also allegedly “confirmed the factual allegations set forth in the Complaint and any supporting affirmations filed with the court, as well as the accuracy of the notarizations contained in the supporting documents (Plaintiff’s Affidavit[s]) filed therewith.” Neither the proofs submitted in support of the order of reference, nor the mandatory attorney affirmation are sufficient to grant an order of reference.
Based on the foregoing, the plaintiff’s application for an order of reference is denied. The nature of the proofs provided by the plaintiff, from all sources, compels the Court to order hearing in accordance with 22 NYCRR §130-1 to determine if the conduct undertaken by the plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s counsel was “frivolous” as defined in 22 NYCRR §130-1.1(c) and what, if any, sanction should be imposed.
2 things pop right out. 1. As you read this article, think of the NJ case Kemp v. Countrywide involving Linda DiMartini “Notes were never delivered”, 2. Were they waiting on something to possibly happen dragging this out long enough? Just makes you wonder…thats all.
Waiting Seven Years for Two Answers
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: February 26, 2011
WHEN Zella Mae Green of Georgia filed for bankruptcy to save her home from foreclosure in 2004, she and her lawyer wanted to know two things: Did she actually owe any back payments on her mortgage? And, if so, to whom?
It didn’t seem like a lot to ask. But until last week, those questions had been unanswered for seven years.
Mortgages are complicated to begin with, of course. But when homeowners fall behind on their payments, the situation becomes far more complicated. Recurring fees and charges muddle the accounting. That banks routinely transfer the notes underlying a property can make things cloudier still.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., as nominee for U.S.
BANK, N.A. f/k/a FIRSTAR BANK, N.A.
successor in interest to ALLIANCE
MORTGAGE BANKING CORP.,
against
CARMEN POBLETE
excerpt:
An examination of the plaintiff’s papers submitted herein reveals that they do not contain proof of plaintiff‘s standing to commence this action. The papers assert the plaintiff, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), is the “nominee” for the original mortgagee, Alliance Mortgage Banking Corp. The papers also assert that U.S. Bank, formerly known as First Star Bank, is the successor in interest to the original mortgagee. Furthermore plaintiff has submitted a certificate of merger between U.S. Bank of Oregon and U.S. Bank of Minnesota. Thus the court is unable to ascertain from the papers which party is the record owner of the mortgage, whether or not the mortgage was assigned, and the nature of the relationship between the mortgagee and the plaintiff.
Additionally, plaintiff has submitted, inter alia, an affidavit in support from ”Gregg V. Speer, Vice President,” who claims to be familiar with the books and records maintained by the plaintiff. However the Mr. Speer has failed to identify what entity he represents. Additionally, the affidavit does not specifically recite the facts of this particular default, the facts concerning the subject property, and when the default notice was sent. Indeed the affidavit only contains boilerplate recitations that could relate to any property or defendant.
Furthermore, the copy of the mortgage included in the plaintiff’s papers is barely legible.
Accordingly, as plaintiff has not established its standing to institute this action or prima facie entitlement to relief the proceeding is dismissed
A Bank of America Corp. unit is breaking the law by foreclosing on homeowners in Utah because it doesn’t meet state requirements, the state attorney general’s office said in a federal appeals court case.
ReconTrust Co., a subsidiary of Bank of America, the biggest U.S. lender by assets, isn’t a member of the state bar or a title insurance company and is unqualified to carry out trustee foreclosures, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff wrote in court papers filed yesterday with the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver.
“ReconTrust Co. N.A. is a non-depository national bank initiating approximately 4,000 home foreclosures in Utah each year in violation of Utah law,” the attorney general’s office said.
The court filing was made in a homeowner’s lawsuit against ReconTrust and Bank of America.
“National banks must abide by state law,” said John Christian Barlow, an attorney for the homeowner, Peni Cox. “ReconTrust just wants to foreclose, period,” he said.
It’s a Louisiana bankruptcy case involving a single foreclosure that best illustrates the problems with the banks’ outsourcing their mortgage default work to LPS or similar entities. During a bankruptcy, foreclosure is forbidden without the judge’s permission, so LPS is frequently involved in seeking that permission.
In that Lousiana case, involving the bankruptcy of Ron and La Rhonda Wilson, LPS is facing sanctions for allegedly committing perjury during a hearing held to find out why the bank — Option One — twice asked the bankruptcy court for permission to foreclose when the debtors were current on their mortgage. LPS insists it did not intend to mislead the court.
![[VIDEO] NH Supreme Court Oral Argument of DEUTSCHE BANK v. KEVLIK](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2011/05/oralargument3.jpg&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
Recent Comments