Bank Fraud

America’s Servicing Company
Anita Antonelli
SASCO Trust 2005-RF4
U.S. Bank, N.A.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Action Date: January 3, 2012
Location: Delaware, OH

The Closing Date for SASCO Trust 2005-RF4 is August 31, 2005.

All of the mortgages in the SASCO 2005-RF4 Trust were required to have been deposited in that trust by August 31, 2005.

This is particularly significant right now because SASCO 2005-RF4 is the trust that is claiming to own the Bayless Family Mortgage in Delaware, Ohio, and trying to remove the Bayless family from their home this week.

SASCO is trust shorthand for Structured Asset Securities Corporation.

In almost every case, SASCO trusts CANNOT PRODUCE THE MORTGAGE ASSIGNMENTS required by the trust documents.

In almost every foreclosure case filed by U.S. Bank as Trustee for a SASCO trust, the mortgage assignment is dated several YEARS after the trust was supposed to have acquired the mortgage.

What mortgage document mill consistently supplies these “years late” Assignments? Consistently, that is America’s Servicing Company (ASC) in Ft. Mill, SC, a subsidiary of Wells Fargo Bank.

Who are the signers of these “years late” Assignments? Anita Antonelli, China Brown, Natasha Clark, Nikli Cureton and Herman John Kennerty – the five most prolific robo-signers at ASC -have signed hundreds of these Assignments.

If the trust is a SASCO trust – STRIKE ONE;

If the Assignment is dated years after the trust closing date – STRIKE TWO; and

If the Assignment is signed by Antonelli, Brown, Clark, Cureton or Kennerty and notarized in York County, SC – STRIKE THREE.

Throw the bank out – not the Bayless Family.

As for Anita Antonelli, who signed the Mortgage Assignment in the Bayless case:

Many times Anita Antonelli is the Vice President of Loan Documentation for Wells Fargo Bank.

But then she is also often the Default Documents Manager for Wells Fargo Bank.

At the same time, Antonelli is often an Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

She is also an Assistant Secretary for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. acting as a Nominee for American Home Mortgage…

…and acting as a Nominee for Hilton Head Mortgage, LLC…

…and acting as a Nominee for DHI Mortgage Co., Ltd….

…and acting as a Nominee for Myers Park Mortgage, Inc…

…and acting as a Nominee for CTX Mortgage Co., LLC…

…and acting as a Nominee for Market Street Mortgage Corp…

…and acting as a Nominee for Loan City…

…and acting as a Nominee for Mortgage Network, Inc.

With this history, why would anyone trust the validity of a mortgage assignment signed by Anita Antonelli – and particularly, why would anyone rely on such a document when produced by a SASCO trust?

By Fraud Digest

Mortgage Fraud

AFFIDAVITS OF LOST ASSIGNMENTS
Christina Carter
Linda Green
John Kennerty

Action Date: July 6, 2011
Location: West Palm Beach, FL

Is it perjury to submit a sworn affidavit to a Court that a Mortgage Assignment has been lost when there is absolutely no evidence that such Assignment ever even existed?

What if the affiant swears to know WHEN the non-existent Assignment was lost:

“Affiant’s investigation has revealed that the original unrecorded assignment of mortgage is lost or missing through no fault of the Assignee, although it appears Assignee was in possession of the instrument at the time it was lost or became missing.”

This exact statement – and many similar statements – appear in thousands of Affidavits of Lost Assignments – signed by Linda Green, John Kennerty and Christina Carter – employees of Lender Processing Services, America’s Servicing Company and Ocwen Loan Servicing.

These Affidavits are used in foreclosures to explain why mortgage-backed trusts should be allowed to foreclose even though the original lender never assigned the mortgages to the trusts.

Mortgage servicers continue to file these Lost Assignment Affidavits in 2011 – despite the many investigations and regulatory Consent Decrees.

How can you swear something was lost when it never existed? How can you swear as to the no-fault of a bank that is not even your employer?

Only robo-signers and mortgage servicers know for sure.

In re: CARLOS RAMON FONTES and EVA MARIE FONTES, Debtors.
CARLOS RAMON FONTES; EVA MARIE FONTES, Appellants,
v.
HSBC BANK, USA, NA; DIANNE CRANDELL KERNS, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellees.

BAP No. AZ-10-1345-JUMKPa, Bk. No. 08-13133.

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Ninth Circuit.

.

Argued and Submitted on February 17, 2011 at Phoenix, Arizona. April 22, 2011.

Ronald Ryan, Esq. argued for Appellants Carlos and Eva Fontes Steven D. Jerome, Esq. of Snell & Wilmer LLP argued for Appellee HSBC Bank USA, NA Craig Morris, Esq. argued for Appellee Dianne Crandell Kerns.

Before: JURY, MARKELL, and PAPPAS, Bankruptcy Judges.

EXCERPT:

A. HSBC’s Theories

HSBC argues that we should affirm the court’s decision on the ground that debtors’ statements in their schedules and confirmed plan regarding ASC were judicial admissions^[9] that HSBC had standing to bring the motion for relief from stay because ASC was HSBC’s loan servicer. HSBC further argues that the doctrine of judicial estoppel^[10] should bar debtors from challenging HSBC’s standing because debtors acknowledged their debt to ASC, HSBC’s loan servicer, in their schedules and plan. Thus, HSBC maintains that debtors should not be able to take an inconsistent position in the context of the relief from stay proceeding. Finally, HSBC contends that despite these grounds for affirming the bankruptcy court’s ruling, it independently met its burden of proof that it had a colorable claim to debtors’ property.^[11]

Although we may affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision on any ground fairly supported by the record, Wirum v. Warren (In re Warren), 568 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2009), we disagree with HSBC that it should prevail under any of these theories.

We first address HSBC’s argument that it proved it had a colorable claim to debtors’ property. The record shows that the bankruptcy court did not directly address this question because it relied on debtors’ confirmed plan for its decision. Regardless, we review standing issues de novo and there is no evidence in the record that supports HSBC’s contention.

The assignment of the deed of trust from MERS, as nominee for Infinity, to HSBC also purported to assign the note. However, HSBC, as MER’S assignee, would take subject to the rights and remedies of its assignor. HSBC overlooks the fact that there is no evidence in the record that shows MERS had any interest in the note to assign. Although the deed of trust gave MERS, as nominee, the power to assign the deed of trust, it did not mention the note, nor did the note itself name MERS as nominee, so MERS could not take this right from the documents themselves. Further, there is no independent evidence that Infinity conveyed the note to MERS. Finally, debtors were not obligated under the note to make payments to MERS. In short, the language in the deed of trust which names MERS as a beneficiary, solely as nominee of Infinity, was insufficient to confer any economic benefit on MERS. In re Weisband, 427 B.R. 13, 20 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010).

In Weisband, the bankruptcy court considered whether a MERS assignment of a deed of trust provided the loan servicer with standing for purposes of obtaining relief from stay. The court concluded that MERS had no interest in the note and would suffer no injury if the note was not paid and the deed of trust not foreclosed. As a result, the court concluded that MERS did not have constitutional standing and, if MERS did not have constitutional standing, its assignee could not satisfy the requirements for constitutional standing either. Id.; see also Wilhelm, 407 B.R. at 404^[12] (discussing validity of MERS’s assignments related to the note). We do not perceive a different result is warranted under these circumstances.

Moreover, HSBC gives the Williams’ declaration more credence than the rules of evidence allow. Williams’ declaration was conclusory, simply stating that she was familiar with the business records of HSBC and that HSBC was the “holder or servicer” of the note. Williams also stated that HSBC had a contractual right to collect payments and maintain legal actions for the beneficial note holder, either as the current note holder or pursuant to either a Master Servicing Agreement or Power of Attorney. However, neither of those documents were attached to her declaration and there is no other foundation for her to have made these equivocal statements. Finally, the declaration creates an ambiguity because Williams stated that HSBC was “the holder or servicer” of the Note. Which is it? If HSBC was a servicer of the note, it does not necessarily follow that HSBC was the holder of the note under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-1201(B)(21)(a).^[13]Weisband, 427 B.R. at 21 (noting that “[E]ven if a servicer has constitutional standing, it may still not be the `real party in interest’ under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 and may not, therefore be able to satisfy the requirements for prudential standing.”). In short, Williams’ declaration did not establish that HSBC had constitutional or prudential standing or that HSBC had authority to act for any entity that did have standing. See

HSBC’s judicial admission and estoppel theories as grounds for affirmance are also unpersuasive. HSBC seeks to have these doctrines applied to itself vis-a-vis ASC. The only manner in which HSBC links itself to ASC in the record is through its repeated assertion without reference to any evidence that ASC was its “servicer.”^[14] No further details are given. Does HSBC mean that ASC was its agent at the time of debtors’ filing? Or, does HSBC mean it somehow became the successor in interest to ASC? The record does not support either theory.

Generally, a loan servicer acts only as the agent of the owner of the instrument. We do not find any evidence in the record that establishes an agency relationship between HSBC and ASC that existed when debtors filed their petition and proposed their plan. The record contains no servicing agreement between ASC and HSBC indicating that ASC was HSBC’s agent, and ASC’s proof of claim did not state that it was acting as the authorized agent for HSBC. Further, MERS’s assignment to HSBC of the trust deed and note is dated September 11, 2009 — a date well past the petition and plan confirmation dates. Thus, the only inference to be drawn from the record is that ASC was acting as servicer for some party other than HSBC when debtors filed their petition.

We also cannot conclude on this record that HSBC established that it was ASC’s successor in interest. A successor in interest is “one who follows another in ownership or control of property. A successor in interest retains the same rights as the original owner, with no change in substance.” Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th ed. 2009). Nothing in the record shows ASC was in the line of assignments of the note or trust deed. In reality, ASC and HSBC appear to be separate unrelated entities at the time of debtors’ filing. Without a direct link to ASC, HSBC cannot take advantage of the judicial admission or estoppel doctrines to bar debtors’ challenge to its standing.

In sum, the record is devoid of evidence that would support any of HSBC’s theories.

[…]

[ipaper docId=57257408 access_key=key-14ee6g2flupct4kcyjeg height=600 width=600 /]

From Jacksonville.com

It’s a tale populated with many of the major players in the national foreclosure drama: The law firm of David Stern, the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (better known as MERS) and a mortgage packaged with others and sold into a securitized trust.

Here’s how it happened.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Equitable Estoppel)

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Inducing Breach of Contract)

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unjust Enrichment)

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Business & Professional Code 17200, et seq., Unlawful, Unfair, or Fraudulent Business Practices)

WELLS FARGO CA

[ipaper docId=44310085 access_key=key-19a2my72oaghv73lscz0 height=600 width=600 /]

NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT – QUEENS COUNTY
Present:
Honorable JAMES J. GOLIA
Justice
Index No: 13555/07

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., D/B/A
AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY,

against

ROXANNE CAMPBELL, AMERICA’S SERVICING
COMPANY, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AS NOMINEE
FOR WILMINGTON FINANCE, INC., NEW
YORK CITY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD,
NEW YORK CITY PARKING VIOLATIONS
BUREAU, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
ADJUDICATION BUREAU, MR. KANE,

Excerpt:

Standing is a threshold issue. If standing is denied, the pathway to the courthouse is blocked.(Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki, 100 N.Y.2d 801A[ 2003]) Therefore, the court first considers the issue of plaintiff’s standing.

A plaintiff has standing to maintain an action upon alleging an injury in fact that falls within its zone of interest” (Silver v Pataki, 96 NY2d 532, 539 [2001]). The requirement that a litigant asserting a claim have an injury in fact — an actual stake in the matter being adjudicated — ensures that a person seeking judicial review has some concrete interest in prosecuting the action, which casts the dispute in a form capable of judicial resolution (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 772, 573 N.E.2d 1034, 570 NYS2d 778 [1991]).

To have standing in an action for foreclosure of a mortgage the action must be brought by one who has title to it (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537 [2d Dept 1988]) and an assignee of a mortgage does not have standing unless the assignment is complete at the time the action is commenced. (See U.S. Bank, N.A. v Collymore, 68 AD3d 752 [2d Dept 2009]; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v Gress, 68 AD3d 709 [2d Dept 2009]). A retroactive assignment cannot be used to confer standing upon the assignee in a foreclosure action commenced prior to the execution of an assignment.” (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Marchione, 69 AD3d 204, 210, 887 N.Y.S.2d 615 [2d Dept 2009]).

[ipaper docId=39561306 access_key=key-of37m6lhm801q1hn0at height=600 width=600 /]

SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK
TRIAL TERM. PART 17 NASSAU COUNTY
Index No. 23255/09

PRESENT:
Honorable Karen V Murphy
Justice of the Supreme Court

WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
3476 Stateview Boulevard
Ft. Mil, SC 29715

-against-

ANGEL VARGAS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC. AS NOMINEE
FOR CONTINENTAL MORTGAGE BANKERS,
INC. D/B/A FINANCIAL EQUITIES, ET AL.,

EXCERPT:
Plaintiff has not provided a copy of an alleged servicing agreement between Plaintiff and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. A vice president of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has provided what purports to be an affidavit of facts, however it is not clear that they are authorized to do so.

Additionally the subject mortgage was allegedly modified by Defendant Vargas and yet another entity known as Americas Servicing Company (“Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. doing business as America’s Servicing Company).

The Plaintiff herein lacks standing to bring this action. The purported assignment assigned the mortgage but makes no mention of the debt or note. (Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 2d 537, 536 N. 2d 92 (2d Dept., 1988); U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Collymore 68 A.D.3d 752, 890 N. 2d 578 [2d Dept., 2009]).

Under the circumstances Plaintiff has failed to establish that it is entitled to the relief sought and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

[ipaper docId=39560979 access_key=key-o8t973eukhmnfy8gt66 height=600 width=600 /]

False Statements

AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY
LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Action Date: October 7, 2010
Location: Palm Beach County, FL

WHY WELLS FARGO MUST BE ORDERED TO STOP ITS FORECLOSURES. While other banks have acknowledged some problems and halted some foreclosures, Wells Fargo has issued self-serving statements and forged ahead.

Why should Wells Fargo be ordered to stop its foreclosures? First, Wells Fargo’s foreclosure mill, America’s Servicing Company, and its robo-signers John Herman Kennerty, China Brown, Heather Carrico, Natasha Clark and others signed thousands of documents each month with no knowledge of the truth of the matters set forth for the courts in those documents. The sheer volume of the documents signed by Kennerty should be enough to convince any court that Kennerty had no knowledge of the facts.

A court in Brooklyn found a case where Kennerty’s signature was notarized, but actually did not appear on the document. The notary was mindlessly signing a stack of documents.

Which law firms are submitting the Affidavits in Florida for Wells Fargo? Florida Default Law Group and the Law Offices of David Stern, two of the law firms under investigation by the Florida Attorney General. Second, Wells Fargo used Docx in Alpharetta, Georgia to produce mortgage assignments used in thousands of Wells Fargo foreclosures. Many different employees signed the name “Linda Green” on these documents. (For three examples of mortgage assignments used by Wells Fargo, click on the “Pleadings” section of this website – no sign-on is necessary.)

Despite the statements of Lender Processing Services to the contrary, Docx “Linda Green” Affidavits – with many versions of the Linda Green signature – continued to appear in Wells Fargo cases well into 2009. Examples are also in the Pleadings Section. The Perry Affidavit was signed July 10, 2008, but notarized January 15, 2009. The Carrerra Affidavit was signed in January 2008, but notarized in January, 2009. On these few examples, Linda Green is identified as the Vice President of Wells Fargo bank, the Vice President of Sand Canyon Mortgage and the Vice President of American Home Mortgage Servicing. Most are notarized by the same notary, Brittany Snow, who says she has personal knowledge that Linda Green is Vice President of these many entities.

In the first quarter of 2010, Wells Fargo filed 1,117 foreclosure actions in Palm Beach County. In the second quarter, Wells Fargo filed 920 foreclosures in Palm Beach County. In the third quarter, Wells Fargo filed 847 foreclosures. In the vast majority of these foreclosures, Wells Fargo is acting as a trustee for a mortgage-backed securitized trust that cannot even prove that it acquired the mortgages without relying on the Linda Green and John Kennerty documents.

This is not the time to stonewall. THE FDIC AND OCC, THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY AND THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING NEED TO STOP THE WELLS FARGO FORECLOSURES.

Good points to learn.

[ipaper docId=30956413 access_key=key-24x2kud1l0tlsbm92i4r height=600 width=600 /]