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.
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 United States District Court for the North District of Georgia has certified a question to this Court regarding the 1995 Amendment to OCGA § 441-4-33. See Ga. L. 1995, p. 1076, § 1. The question is whether the 1995 Amendment
means that, in the absence of fraud, a security deed that is actually filed and recorded, and accurately indexed, on the appropriate county land records provides constructive notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers, where the security deed contains the grantor’s signature but lacks both an official and unofficial attestation (i.e., lacks attestation by a notary public and also an unofficial witness).
For the reasons that follow, we answer the certified question in the negative.
1. In October 2005, Bertha Hagler refinanced her residence through the predecessor-in-interest to U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank) and granted the predecessor a first and a second security deed to her residence. The security deeds were recorded with the Clerk of the Fulton County Superior Court in November 2005, but the first security deed was not attested or acknowledged by an official or unofficial witness. According to the district court’s certification order:
Gordon, the Chapter 7 Trustee in Hagler’s bankruptcy case, sought to avoid or set aside the valid, but unattested, first security deed to the residence through the “strong-arm” power of Section 544 (a) (3) of the Bankruptcy Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 544 (a) (3). Gordon argued that under the proper interpretation of § 44-14-33 of the Georgia Code, a security deed that is not attested by an official and unofficial witness cannot provide constructive notice to a subsequent purchaser even if it is recorded. U.S. Bank argued, in opposition, that a 1995 amendment to § 44-14-33 changed the law to enable an unattested security deed to provide constructive notice. Gordon argued in response that the 1995 amendment served only to recognize constructive notice from a security deed with a “latently” defective attestation, meaning an irregular attestation that appears regular on its face; a deed with a “patently” defective attestation, meaning an attestation that is obviously defective on its face, would not provide constructive notice.
The bankruptcy court ruled in Gordon’s favor, concluding that, under the 1995 Amendment, a security deed with a facially defective attestation would not provide constructive notice, while a security deed with a facially proper but latently defective attestation would provide constructive notice. See Gordon v. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. (In re Hagler), 429 BR 42, 47-53 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2009). Concluding that the issue involved an unclear question of Georgia law and that no Georgia court had addressed the issue after the 1995 Amendment, the district court certified the question to this Court. We conclude that the bankruptcy court properly resolved the issue.
2. OCGA § 44-14-61 provides that “[i]n order to admit deeds to secure debt . . . to record, they shall be attested or proved in the manner prescribed by law for mortgages.” OCGA § 44-14-33 provides the law for attesting mortgages:
In order to admit a mortgage to record, it must be attested by or acknowledged before an officer as prescribed for the attestation or acknowledgment of deeds of bargain and sale; and, in the case of real property, a mortgage must also be attested or acknowledged by one additional witness. In the absence of fraud, if a mortgage is duly filed, recorded, and indexed on the appropriate county land records, such recordation shall be deemed constructive notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers.
The second sentence of this Code section was added by the 1995 Amendment.
3. We first address Gordon’s contention that the 1995 Amendment does not apply at all to security deeds. He contends that only the first sentence of § 44-14-33, which expressly deals with attestation, is applicable to security deeds through § 44-14-61 and that, because the 1995 Amendment addresses constructive notice, it does not apply to security deeds. We disagree. The General Assembly chose to enact the 1995 Amendment not as a freestanding Code provision but as an addition to a Code provision clearly referenced by § 44-14-61. Moreover, “[t]he objects of a mortgage and security deed . . . under the provisions of the Code are identical — security for a debt. While recognizing the technical difference between a mortgage and security deed hereinbefore pointed out, this court has treated deeds to secure debts . . . as equitable mortgages.” Merchants & Mechanics’ Bank v. Beard, 162 Ga. 446, 449 (134 SE 107)Fair v. State, 288 Ga. 244, 252 (702 SE2d 420) (2010), so the placement of the amendment makes complete sense. Indeed, no reason has been suggested why the General Assembly would want the same type of recording to provide constructive notice for mortgages but not for security deeds. Accordingly, we conclude that the 1995 Amendment is applicable to security deeds. (1926). The General Assembly is presumed to have been aware of the existing state of the law when it enacted the 1995 Amendment, see
4. Turning back to the certified question, we note that the “recordation” that is deemed to provide constructive notice to subsequent purchasers clearly refers back to “duly filed, recorded, and indexed” deeds. U.S. Bank argues that a “dulyin fact filed, recorded, and indexed, even if unattested by an officer or a witness. We disagree. filed, recorded, and indexed” deed is simply one that is
Construing the 1995 Amendment in harmony with other recording statutes and longstanding case law, we must reject U.S. Bank’s definition of “duly filed, recorded, and indexed.” Its definition ignores the first sentence of § 44-14-33, which provides that to admit a security deed to record, the deed must be attested by or acknowledged before an officer, such as a notary public, and, in the case of real property, by a second witness. See OCGA § 44-2-15 (listing the “officers” who are authorized to attest a mortgage or deed). Other statutes governing deeds and mortgages similarly preclude recording and constructive notice if certain requirements are not satisfied. See OCGA § 44-2-14 (“Before any deed to realty or personalty or any mortgage, bond for title, or other recordable instrument executed in this state may be recorded, it must be attested or acknowledged as provided by law.”); OCGA § 44-14-61 (“In order to admit deeds to secure debt or bills of sale to record, they shall be attested or proved in the manner prescribed by law for mortgages”). Indeed, U.S. Banks’ construction of the 1995 Amendment contradicts OCGA § 44-14-39, which provides that “[a] mortgage which is recorded . . . without due attestation . . . shall not be held to be notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers.”
Thus, the first sentence of § 44-14-33 and the statutory recording scheme indicate that the word “duly” in the second sentence of § 44-14-33 should be understood to mean that a security deed is “duly filed, recorded, and indexed” only if the clerk responsible for recording determines, from the face of the document, that it is in the proper form for recording, meaning that it is attested or acknowledged by a proper officer and (in the case of real property) an additional witness. This construction of the 1995 Amendment is also consistent with this Court’s longstanding case law, which holds that a security deed which appears on its face to be properly attested should be admitted to record, see Thomas v. Hudson, 190 Ga. 622, 626 (10 SE2d 396) (1940); Glover v. Cox, 137 Ga. 684, 691-694 (73 SE 1068) (1912), but that a deed that shows on its face that it was “not properly attested or acknowledged, as required by statute, is ineligible for recording.” Higdon v. Gates, 238 Ga. 105, 107 (231 SE2d 345) (1976).
We note that at the time the 1995 Amendment was considered and enacted, the appellate courts of this State had “never squarely considered” whether a security deed with a facially valid attestation could provide constructive notice where the attestation contained a latent defect, like the officer or witness not observing the grantor signing the deed. Leeds Bldg. Prods. v. Sears Mortg. Corp., 267 Ga. 300, 301 (477 SE2d 565) (1996). The timing of the amendment suggests that the General Assembly was attempting to fill this gap in our law as the Leeds litigation worked its way through the trial court and the Court of Appeals before our decision in 1996. See Gordon, 429 BR at 50. We ultimately decided in Leeds that, “in the absence of fraud, a deed which, on its face, complies with all statutory requirements is entitled to be recorded, and once accepted and filed with the clerk of court for record, provides constructive notice to the world of its existence.” 267 Ga. at 302. We noted that Higdon remained good law, because in that case the deed was facially invalid, did “not entitle [the deed] to record,” and “did not constitute constructive notice to subsequent purchasers.” Leeds, 267 Ga. at 302. Because we reached the same result as under the 1995 Amendment, we did not have to consider whether the amendment should be applied retroactively to that case. See id. at 300 n.1.
Our interpretation of the 1995 Amendment also is supported by commentators that have considered the issue. See Frank S. Alexander, Georgia Real Estate Finance and Foreclosure Law, § 8-10, p. 138 (4th ed. 2004) (stating that “[a] security deed that is defective as to attestation, but without facial defects, provides constructive notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers”); Daniel F. Hinkel, 2 Pindar’s Georgia Real Estate Law and Procedure, § 20-18 (6th ed. 2011) (without mentioning deeds with facial defects, explaining that the 1995 Amendment to § 44-14-33 and Leeds “provide that in the absence of fraud a deed or mortgage, which on its face does not reveal any defect in the acknowledgment of the instrument and complies with all statutory requirements, is entitled to be recorded, and once accepted and filed with the clerk of the superior court for record, provides constructive notice to subsequent bona fide purchasers”); T. Daniel Brannan & William J. Sheppard, Real Estate, 49 Mercer L. Rev. 257, 263 (Fall 1997) (without mentioning deeds with facial defects, stating that the 1995 Amendment to § 44-14-33 resolves “the issue that was before the court in [Leeds]”). As noted by the bankruptcy court, if Hinkel and the law review authors thought that the 1995 Amendment altered longstanding law with regard to deeds containing facial defects as to attestation, they surely would have said so. See Gordon, 429 BR at 52-53.
Finally, it should be recognized that U.S. Bank’s interpretation of the 1995 Amendment to § 44-14-33 “would relieve lenders of any obligation to present properly attested security deeds” and “would tell clerks that the directive to admit only attested deeds is merely a suggestion, not a duty,” and this would risk an increase in fraud because deeds no longer would require an attestation by a public officer who is sworn to verify certain information on the deeds before they are recorded and deemed to put all subsequent purchasers on notice. Gordon, 429 BR at 51-52. Moreover, while “it costs nothing and requires no special expertise or effort for a closing attorney, or a lender, or a title insurance company to examine the signature page of a deed for missing signatures before it is filed,” U.S. Bank’s construction would “shift to the subsequent bona fide purchaser and everyone else the burden of determining [possibly decades after the fact] the genuineness of the grantor’s signature and therefore the cost of investigating and perhaps litigating whether or not an unattested deed was in fact signed by the grantor.” Id. at 52.
For these reasons, we answer the certified question in the negative.
Certified question answered. All the Justices concur.
Q. Would Litton have reached out to — I’m going to
13 call it MERS in place of Mortgage Electronic
14 Registration Systems. Would Litton have reached out to
15 MERS to execute this assignment?
16 A. Actually, Marti Noriega and Denise Bailey are
17 employed by Litton Loan Servicing. They have authority
18 to sign on behalf of MERS.
19 Q. Does either of those parties have authority to
20 sign on behalf of Accredited Home Lenders?
21 A. No, not to my knowledge.
22 Q. Do you know if Accredited Home Lenders was still
23 in place on the date that this assignment of mortgage
24 was executed?
THE WITNESS: I’m not certain of Accredited
2 Home Lenders’ status at this time.
3 BY MR. KORTE:
4 Q. As of April of 2009, are you aware if Accredited
5 Home Lenders was in bankruptcy?
6 A. I don’t know what their status was.
7 Q. Are there any other assignments of mortgage other
8 than this one as Composite Exhibit C that you’re aware
9 of?
10 A. No.
<SNIP>
Q. Well, is this Allonge a copy of the Allonge; or
3 is this the original Allonge copied with the correct
4 endorsement?
5 A. The only way I could verify that is to see the
6 actual, original note which is on file with the court.
7 Q. Do you know why the Allonges are different from
8 the one that was filed with the complaint and the one
9 that was filed with the court several months later?
10 A. No, I do not.
The piñata sat alone at the witness table, facing the members of the House subcommittee on financial institutions and consumer credit.
The Wednesday morning hearing was titled “Oversight of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.” The only witness was the piñata, otherwise known as Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard law professor hired last year by President Obama to get the new bureau — the only new agency created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law — up and running. She may or may not be nominated by the president to serve as its first director when it goes live in July, but in the here and now she’s clearly running the joint.
And thus the real purpose of the hearing: to allow the Republicans who now run the House to box Ms. Warren about the ears. The big banks loathe Ms. Warren, who has made a career out of pointing out all the ways they gouge financial consumers — and whose primary goal is to make such gouging more difficult. So, naturally, the Republicans loathe her too. That she might someday run this bureau terrifies the banks. So, naturally, it terrifies the Republicans.
In re: WALTER RALPH PINEDA, Debtor(s).
WALTER RALPH PINEDA, Plaintiff(s),
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al, Defendant(s).
Case No. 10-91936-E-7, Adv. Pro. No. 10-9060, Docket Control No. WRP-5.
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California, Modesto Division.
March 15, 2011.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM FOR ISSUANCE OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
RONALD H. SARGIS, Bankruptcy Judge
The court has been presented with a Motion for Injunctive Relief and Ex Parte Application for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by Walter R. Pineda, a pro se plaintiff in this adversary proceeding. The Motion was presented the court at 4:00 p.m. on March 14, 2011. In the Motion Mr. Pineda asserts that Bank of America Corp, LP, a defendant, intends to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure sale at 3:00 p.m. on March 15, 2011, for real property commonly known as 22550 Bennett Road, Sonora, California (“Bennett Road Property”). The Bennet Road Property is listed on Schedule A as real property owned by the Debtor and his unnamed spouse, with a value of $210,000.00 Schedule A, Docket Entry No. 16, Case No. 10-91936.
The Debtor commenced a voluntary Chapter 7 case on May 20, 2010. The petition lists the Bennett Road Property as his street address. The nature of the Debtor’s business is listed as “Law.” The petition further states that the Debtor has not filed any prior bankruptcy cases within the last 8 years. Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, Case No. 10-91936.
On Schedule D filed by the Debtor on June 14, 2010, the Debtor lists the Bank of New York Mellon as his only creditor having a secured claim. He states under penalty of perjury that there is a codebtor, that the date the claim was incurred, nature of the lien, and description of collateral is “Unknown,” the value of the unknown collateral is $10.00, and the amount of the claim is $10.00. Docket Entry No. 18. In the original Schedule D filed on June 3, 2010, the Debtor stated under penalty of perjury that Bank of America had a claim for a debt incurred on August 13, 2002, secured by a deed of trust against the Bennett Road Property, that the Bennett Road Property had a value of $300,000.00, and that the Bank’s disputed claim was for $477,894.27. Nothing in the court’s file indicates which statement under penalty of perjury is true and correct.
The Motion asserts that by proceeding with a trustee’s sale under the deed of trust, Bank of America Corp., LP is attempting to usurp the court’s authority with respect to this adversary proceeding, and is in violation of Rule 7001, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (which states the matters for which an adversary proceeding is required), and Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 7065, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, (injunctive relief). The Motion does not assert how a non-judicial foreclosure sale usurps the court’s power relating to adversary proceedings and injunctive relief. The court construes this contention to be that if the foreclosure sale is allowed to proceed, the court will be unable to grant the relief requested by the Debtor in the Complaint.
The Debtor next contends that he will suffer immediate, irreparable injury, loss or damage in that Plaintiff/Debtor’s “current poor, physical condition will worsen and Plaintiff will become homeless balanced against adding another vacant home to Defendant’s hundreds of thousands of vacant homes inventory.” Motion, pg. 2:17-20. The Debtor/Plaintiff further alleges that a non-judicial foreclosure will impair the administration of the Chapter 7 case, but does not identify the potential impairment.
The Debtor has filed a document titled affidavit in support of the Motion in which he states that he is currently under treatment for a deteriorating transplanted liver and will become homeless in the event of a sale. Further, that failure to grant the restraining order will result in the Debtor/Plaintiff being denied the protection of the injunctive relief rules, as well as frustrating (in an unstated way) the administration of the Chapter 7 case. The “Affidavit” further states that he called the law office for Bank of America’s attorneys and advised them that he was seeking a temporary restraining order. Though this document is not in the proper form or notarized as an affidavit and does not state that it is under penalty of perjury so as to be a declaration, the court takes into account that the Debtor is representing himself in pro se, and for purposes of this ex parte Motion will consider the statements as being made under penalty of perjury.
On January 25, 2010, Bank of America, N.A., as the alleged beneficiary under the deed of trust, instructed ReconTrust Company, N.A. to file a notice of default. The deed of trust, Exhibit 4, names PRLAP, Inc. as the trustee and not ReconTrust Company, N.A. On February 9, 2010, Bank of America an assignment of trust deed and a substitution of trustee, naming ReconTrust Company as the trustee. It is alleged that this assignment was for the purpose of misrepresenting who is the owner of the note and deed of trust. Debtor/Plaintiff further contends that Bank of America, N.A. and ReconTrust Company improperly commenced the nonjudicial foreclosure in violation of California Civil Code Sections 2924a et. seq.
Debtor/Plaintiff further alleges that on May 2, 2010, he was notified that a nonjudcial foreclosure sale would be conducted at 3:30 p.m. pursuant to the deed of trust. It is contended that such sale was improper because Bank of America and ReconTrust Company did not have the authority to conduct a nonjudical foreclosure sale.
Summary of Complaint
The court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint filed in this Adversary Proceeding, Docket Entry No. 57. The Debtor/Plaintiff first asserts a series of claims against Bank of America, N.A. and other Defendants arising under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. § 1600 et. seq.), Fraud (California Civil Code § 1709), California Unfair Business Practices Act (California Civil Code § 17200 et seq.), and breach of contract. The gist of the complaint is that various improper conduct has existed with respect to loan foreclosures throughout the country. This is commonly referred to as the Robo-Signing investigations. It is alleged that the Defendants have refused to provide the Debtor/Plaintiff with an accounting as required under 12 U.S.C. § 2605(a)(1)(A), (f), which has caused Debtor/Plaintiff unstated pecuniary damages. Much of this part of the complaint appears to focus on default swaps, obtaining funds from investors, credit obtained by Defendants, securitized loan pools into which the note was transferred. These allegations do not go to the question of whether the Debtor/Plaintiff has defaulted on his particular loan. At no point in the Complaint or present motion does the Debtor/Plaintiff assert that he is current on the obligations secured by the Deed of Trust. Rather, the contention appears to be that based upon the post-loan financial transactions of the Defendants, monies they received from third-parties from the sale and brokering of the note should be treated as payments on the Note.
It is also asserted that neither Bank of America, N.A. or ReconTrust Company are authorized as agents of the Bank of New York Mellon, the alleged trustee of the trust in which the Debtor/Plaintiff’s note has been transferred to initiate the nonjudical foreclosure process. It is further contended that the nonjudical foreclosure process is an attempt to swindle the property from the Debtor/Plaintiff. Through this second cause of action the Debtor/Plaintiff seeks a determination of the rights of the respective parties.
In reviewing the exhibits filed with the original complaint, there is a May 7, 2010 letter from Bank of America, to the Debtor/Plaintiff stating that it was servicing the loan for the Bank of New York, the investor. The letter does not explain what is meant by referencing the Bank of New York as an investor. However, the letter does clearly state that Bank of America is the entity servicing the loan, though that position is not explained in the letter. Finally, this letter unequivocally states that “Bank of America did not sell your loan at anytime.”
The Debtor/Plaintiff has attached as Exhibit 2 an April 6, 2010 letter from Bank of America to the Debtor/Plaintiff which states that a copy of the complete loan history is attached. (The Debtor/Plaintiff did not include the loan history as part of the exhibit.) This letter states that “The Bank of New York Mellon, fka The Bank of New York, as trustee for the certificate holders of GSR 2003-9…” is the owner of the Note. This appears to conflict with the May 7, 2010 letter stating to the Debtor/Plaintiff that the note has never been sold. Additionally, the letter identifies the Bank of New York Mellon as the trustee for the “certificate holders” of the trust, and not as a trustee of the trust itself.
The Debtor/Plaintiff also contends that the Substitution of Trustee and Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded by Bank of America on February 9, 2010, Exhibit 8 is false as there is no basis for showing that it had the authority to do so at that time. The document purports to assign all beneficial interest in the deed of trust from Bank of America, N.A. to Bank of America, N.A., as servicer for GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-9. This purported assignment was made three months prior to the May 7, 2010 letter in which Bank of America advised the Debtor/Plaintiff that Bank of America never sold the loan at any time.
The Debtor/Plaintiff has attached as Exhibit 10 the notice of default issued with respect to the Note and Deed of Trust. This notice was recorded on January 25, 2010 and states that ReconTrust Company is acting as the agent for the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust. At this juncture, based upon the allegations in the complaint, Bank of New York Mellon was the owner of the Note, as the trustee of the GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-9 (the court is presuming that the reference by Bank of America to Bank of New York Mellon being the trustee for the certificate holders actually means the trustee of the trust for which the beneficiaries are certificate holders). The purported assignment of the Deed of Trust to Bank of America, as servicer did not occur until February 2010, after the notice of default was issued and recorded.
From the court’s survey of California law, an assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the mortgage alone is a nullity. Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 274 (1872); accord Henley v. Hotaling, 41 Cal. 22, 28 (1871); Seidell v. Tuxedo Land Co., 216 Cal. 165, 170 (1932). If one party receives the note and another receives the deed of trust, the holder of the note prevails regardless of the order in which the interests were transferred. Adler v. Sargent, 109 Cal. 42, 49-50 (1895). “Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of money, the power is part of the security and vests in any person by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded.” California Civil Code § 2932.5.
The Debtor/Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants have breach their contractual obligations arising under the Note and Deed of Trust. The alleged breaches include instructing ReconTrust to file the notice of default; failure to advise the Debtor/Plaintiff of the transfer of the Note; failing to account for the monies received in the transfers, securitization, and credit default swaps; and using the note in the GSR Trust. Debtor/Plaintiff asserts that his damages include the drop in real estate values due to the Defendants “reckless, irresponsible, and greedy conduct” in the home mortgage market in the 2000’s.
In light of the Debtor/Plaintiff’s pro se status, it also appears that the Complaint seeks to enjoin the Defendants from proceeding with a non-judicial foreclosure sale peding a determination of who owns the note and who is the beneficiary of under the Deed of Trust.
STATUS OF ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
The Adversary Proceeding was filed August 20, 2010. No answer has been filed, with the Defendants having filed several motions attacking the complaint. These have been denied without prejudice. On January 28, 2011 the Debtor/Plaintiff, Bank of America, N.A., ReconTrust Company, N.A., Bank of New York Mellon, N.A., Inc., and Goldman Sachs, Inc. (GSR Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-9) filed a stipulation extending the deadline for Debtor/Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint. The First Amended Complaint was filed on February 4, 2011, and the Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss which is set for hearing on April 6, 2011. It appears that the Motion to Dismiss directly attacks the issues raised in the Complaint and are inexorably tied to the issuance of injunctive relief in this case.
RULING
Though the Debtor/Plaintiff appears to have staked his case on contentions and allegations which have nothing to do with his performance on the Note — making the payments promised for the monies borrowed, he does raise a credible issue as to who owns the note, and under California law, who is the beneficiary entitled to enforce the Note. At this early juncture, it appears that by the time Bank of America sought to “assign” the beneficial interest to itself as servicer, the Note had been transferred to The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee. Since the obligation was owed to the Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee, it appears that it is this bank that holds the beneficial interest.
The parties must properly address who holds the note and has the right to enforce the beneficial interest. The court issues the Temporary Restraining Order to maintain the status quo pending the hearing on the motion to dismiss. If the parties elect to extend the term of the Temporary Restraining Order so as to allow the hearing on the preliminary injunction to April 6, 2011, the court will do so for the convenience of the parties.
Pursuant to Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 7065, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the court may issue a temporary restraining order without notice if there is a clear showing of immediate and irreparable harm. As stated above, the court accepts the pro se Debtor/Plaintiff’s statements in the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as being stated under penalty of perjury. The court shall not grant the Debtor/Plaintiff shall liberties in the future, and even the pro se plaintiff must comply with basic requirements for pleadings and evidence.
In balancing the hardships, there appears to be little hardship for the Defendants as they have been litigating this case since August 2010, and are operating under a stipulated time line. Further, it appears that the automatic stay continues in full force and effect in this case as to property of the estate, even though the Debtor/Plaintiff has been discharged. The bankruptcy case has not been closed and the property has not been abandoned by the Chapter 7 Trustee. 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(2). If the automatic stay does not apply, then there is potential significant harm to the Debtor/Plaintiff by clouding title to the property through a purported valid non-judicial foreclosure sale or a potential third-party purchasing the property at the sale. The potential loss of his interest in the real property is potential irreparable harm sufficient for the issuance of this preliminary injunction.
At this juncture and given that the parties are already in the process of addressing the issues in the Motion to Dismiss of whether there are even valid claims pled, the court finds that no bond is required pending the hearing on the preliminary injunction. In granting this Temporary Restraining Order, the Debtor/Plaintiff should not be misled into thinking that the court has determined that the various claims and assertions attacking the home mortgage market in the 2000’s, Robo-Signing, and post-Pineda loan transactions by financial institutions are meritorious with respect to the obligations owed by the Debtor/Plaintiff on the Note that is secured by the Deed of Trust. Debtor/Plaintiff shall have to carry his burden for any such claims at the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, as well as the facts at his for his specific loan, payments made by him on his specific loan, the balance due on his loan, and why the holder of the note, whomever it is, should not be allowed to foreclose based on the borrower’s (Pineda’s) failure to make payments for the monies borrowed.
The court shall issue a Temporary Restraining Order and set the hearing on the Preliminary Injunction for 10:30 a.m. on March 23, 2011, at the United States Bankruptcy Court, 1200 I Street, Modesto, California.
Testimony of Elizabeth Warren Special Advisor to the
Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Before the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit
Committee on Financial Services
United States House of Representatives
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The current economic crisis began one bad mortgage at a time. Mortgages that promised investors huge profits for low risks were the raw material of the securities that contributed to the near collapse of the worldwide economy. Irresponsible lending that encouraged people to buy homes with no realistic hope of ever paying off their loans has now led millions of families into foreclosure and bankruptcy. If there had been just a few basic rules and a cop on the beat to enforce them, we could have avoided or minimized the greatest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. In the future, the new consumer bureau will be that cop.
In this case, DBNTC clearly had no standing to bring the motion. Debtors never consented to MERS to act as Nominee under the terms of the DOT. Even if one assumes that MERS had authority to assign IndyMac Bank’s beneficial interest to DBNTC, IndyMac Bank ceased to exist at the time MERS purportedly made an assignment to DBTNC. DBNTC received nothing by virtue of the assignment; the assignment constitutes a fraudulent conveyance.
For the foregoing reasons, Debtors respectfully request the Court to make findings of fact and to deny DBNTC’s second Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay with prejudice. Debtors further request this Court to award attorney fees incurred by Debtors against DBNTC and its attorney for bringing this frivolous motion.
Chase specifically and purposely disregards the Bankruptcy Code and, through false, fraudulent, misleading and undocumented Proofs of Claim, illegally collects or attempts to collect amounts from debtor that Chase cannot document and/or are not actually owed. Defendant’s routine and persistent filing of undocumented and false Proofs of Claim is an abuse of process and is in violation of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules.
FOR more than a decade, the American real estate market resembled an overstuffed novel, which is to say, it was an engrossing piece of fiction.
Mortgage brokers hip deep in profits handed out no-doc mortgages to people with fictional incomes. Wall Street shopped bundles of those loans to investors, no matter how unappetizing the details. And federal regulators gave sleepy nods.
That world largely collapsed under the weight of its improbabilities in 2008.
But a piece of that world survives on Library Street in Reston, Va., where an obscure business, the MERS Corporation, claims to hold title to roughly half of all the home mortgages in the nation — an astonishing 60 million loans.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA ANA DIVISION
In Re:
THUAN X. NGUYEN AND TAMMY H. NGUYEN
excerpt:
The deception and fraud committed by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and its known foreclosure mill counsels, Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP, upon the Court and harassment upon Debtors with unwarranted motion to cause delay and to increase litigation costs by Debtors must be stopped.
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.
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.
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE’S POST-TRIAL BRIEF IN LIEU OF CLOSING
ARGUMENT
TO THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH W. MAGNER:
Henry G. Hobbs, Jr., the Acting United States Trustee for Region 5 (“United States Trustee”), files this brief in lieu of closing argument, per the Court’s directive at the conclusion of evidence on December 1, 2010. This brief, and the December 1, 2010 trial, relate to the May 21, 2010 Motion for Sanctions filed by the United States Trustee (“Motion”). The Motion seeks sanctions against the respondent, Lender Processing Services, Inc., f/k/a Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (“Fidelity”), pursuant to the Court’s inherent power to sanction bad faith conduct and under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to prevent an abuse of process.
I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Fidelity permitted its officer, Dory Goebel, to give materially misleading testimony to the Court on August 21, 2008, and should be sanctioned. It is undisputed that important parts of Goebel’s testimony were untrue; the crux of the matter now is determining Fidelity’s level of culpability. The evidence proves that, at a minimum, Fidelity acted with indifference to the truth in permitting Goebel to give the misleading testimony. The United States Trustee has met his burden of proof, which is a mere preponderance of the evidence. The sanctions available to this Court, through its inherent authority and 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a), range from financial sanctions to injunctive relief.
An awful lot of attorneys are in deep trouble, two companies will be destroyed, two more will be deeply damaged and a venture capital firm faces big losses, if the allegations in a lawsuit updated Monday are true.
Jonathan and Darlene Thorne accuse the companies, LPS Default Solutions and Prommis Solutions, and their attorneys of having an illegal and fraudulent business model through which non-attorneys secretly practice law and illegally share legal fees. Because many of these fees are for bankruptcy work and are ultimately paid by the debtor, the suit explains, the business model isn’t just illegal — it’s also a fraud on the bankruptcy court system in violation of the the bankruptcy code, rules and processes.
Although many of the basic allegations have been known since last October, when the original suit was filed, the new complaint contains far more detail about some of the companies involved, particularly Prommis Solutions and its venture capital funder, Great Hill Partners. The suit also adds detail about the time pressure LPS Default Solutions puts on its network attorneys, and how that pressure allegedly feeds document fraud in foreclosure filings, whether in state or bankruptcy court. Given LPS’s dominant market position, those pressures have widespread consequences.
LPS and Great Hill Partners have not returned requests for comment about this case. Prommis Solutions general counsel Richard Volentine says: “Our position is pretty much the same as it’s always been. We think the claims are without merit and will continue to defend ourselves vigorously.”
In re: JOSE D CRUZ, Chapter 13, Debtor.
JOSE D CRUZ, Plaintiff,
v.
HACIENDA ASSOCIATES, LLC and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants.
Case No. 10-43793-MSH, Adv. Pro. No. 11-04006.
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts, Central Division.
January 26, 2011.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
MELVIN S. HOFFMAN, Bankruptcy Judge
Before me is the emergency motion of the plaintiff, Jose D. Cruz, for a preliminary injunction barring defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. from foreclosing its mortgage on the plaintiff’s residence at 73 Bolton Street, Marlborough, Massachusetts. After a preliminary hearing on the motion on January 18, 2011, I entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the foreclosure sale, which had been scheduled for that day, but permitted Wells Fargo to postpone the sale by public proclamation to a date after January 25, 2011. On January 25th, I held an evidentiary hearing on the motion. After reviewing the complaint and the evidence submitted by the parties, and for the reasons stated below, I will grant the plaintiff’s motion and enter a preliminary injunction subject to certain conditions.
In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7065, my decision whether or not to grant a preliminary injunction must be based on the evidence before me, including the verified complaint and affidavits submitted by the parties. I consider the plaintiff’s complaint to be a verified complaint because the plaintiff filed an affidavit dated January 13, 2011 in which he verified the facts alleged in the complaint. The plaintiff also filed the affidavit of Joseph Molina of GIM Services, Inc., who averred that his office submitted a loan modification application to Wells Fargo on behalf of the plaintiff on November 29, 2011. According to Mr. Molina’s affidavit, after several inquiries regarding the status of the loan modification application, his office was informed by telephone on January 19, 2011 (after the complaint had been filed) that the plaintiff’s loan modification application had been denied, and that the reason given for the denial was the approaching foreclosure sale. Mr. Molina also averred that Wells Fargo has not yet communicated this denial to the plaintiff in writing. Lastly, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of his attorney, Michael Shepsis, who averred that he had contacted Wells Fargo’s foreclosure counsel on several occasions regarding the status of the loan modification and as of January 18, 2011, he had not received any notice that the application had been denied.
In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, the requesting party must demonstrate that (i) there is a likelihood of success on the merits of his claim; (ii) that he will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (iii) that the harm to the requesting party if the injunction is not granted is greater than the harm to the opposing party if it is granted; and (iv) that the public interest would not be adversely affected by the issuance of the injunction. See Sunshine Development, Inc. v. F.D.I.C., 33 F.3d 106, 110-11 (1st Cir. 1994).
On the issue of irreparable harm, the plaintiff seeks in Counts I (breach of contract) and V of his complaint (breach of duty of good faith and reasonable diligence) judgment canceling the pending foreclosure sale of his home. Accordingly, I find that absent an injunction the plaintiff will be irreparably harmed because a foreclosure sale will effectively deprive him of the relief requested in those counts of his complaint.
The question of whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his complaint is really the critical factor to be determined here. See Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Guilbert, 934 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1991). The plaintiff argues that Wells Fargo, which is a participant in the federal government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), breached its obligation under the program by scheduling a foreclosure sale of the plaintiff’s property while the plaintiff’s application for a loan modification was under consideration by it. HAMP arose out of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, and is administered by the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) as the agent of the Department of the Treasury. Speleos v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., 2010 WL 5174510, *1 (D. Mass. 2010). The program requires that all mortgage loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac” and together with Fannie Mae, the government-sponsored agencies or “GSEs”) that meet certain requirements be evaluated by the loan servicers for loan modifications. If a borrower qualifies, then the servicer is obligated to modify the loan in accordance with a predefined formula that reduces the borrower’s monthly payment to 31% of his gross income for the first five years.[1] In addition, many servicers of mortgage loans not owned by the GSEs have executed so-called Servicer Participation Agreements (“SPAs”) with Fannie Mae, as agent for the Treasury Department, by which they agree to review and modify loans on similar terms. The Treasury Department, through Fannie Mae, has established guidelines that servicers must follow in evaluating and approving loan modification requests by borrowers. These guidelines are binding on each servicer by way of its servicing agreements with the GSEs or the SPA to which it was a party. I take judicial notice of the fact that Wells Fargo has executed an SPA, and is thus obligated to follow the HAMP requirements with respect to evaluating a loan modification application.[2]
The plaintiff points to Supplemental Directive 09-01, the first of the Treasury Department’s HAMP guidelines, to support his allegation that servicers such as Wells Fargo are prohibited from foreclosing on mortgages that are under review for loan modification. This directive also requires servicers to seek alternatives to foreclosure in the event that a loan modification is denied.[3] The plaintiff alleges that Wells Fargo scheduled the foreclosure sale of his property while his loan was being reviewed for a HAMP modification, and that this alleged violation of the HAMP guidelines constituted a breach of contract and of Wells Fargo’s duty to act in good faith and with reasonable diligence, justifying, among other things, cancellation of the foreclosure.
The plaintiff’s breach of contract claim in Count I of the complaint is premised on the proposition that he is a third party beneficiary of the Wells Fargo’s SPA or its servicing agreements with the GSEs. While the HAMP program was intended to benefit homeowners by helping them avoid foreclosure, the majority of courts considering the issue have held that consumers have no private cause of action as third party beneficiaries to enforce HAMP violations by their servicers. See McKensi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2010 WL 3781841, *5-6 (D. Mass. 2010) (“the existing case law weighs decisively in favor of defendant: numerous district courts have interpreted identical HAMP agreements and have come to the conclusion that a borrower is not a third party beneficiary.”) (quoting Hoffman v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2010 WL 2635773 (N.D. Cal.) and citing additional cases); but see Reyes v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., 2009 WL 3738177, *2 (S.D. Cal.) (plaintiff’s complaint alleging a third party beneficiary status with respect to a HAMP violation was “sufficient to state a plausible claim for breach of contract under a third party beneficiary theory”). Very recently, Judge Gorton of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts cited the proposition in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 311(b) that one must look to a contract itself to determine whether the parties intended to give rights to third party beneficiaries. Speleos, 2010 WL 5174510 at *5. He held that although the various SPAs and servicing agreements related to HAMP serve to benefit borrowers, nothing in the contracts themselves indicate an intent to create a private right of action in favor of borrowers. I agree with the majority view that the plaintiff is not a third party beneficiary of Wells Fargo’s SPA or other relevant HAMP servicing agreements and, therefore, I find that the plaintiff is not likely to succeed on Count I of the complaint.
In Count V of his complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Wells Fargo breached its duty to act in good faith and with reasonable diligence by attempting to foreclose its mortgage on the plaintiff’s property. Massachusetts courts have consistently held that in addition to complying with the statutory requirements governing mortgage foreclosure set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, a mortgagee must act in good faith and must use reasonable diligence to protect the interests of the mortgagor. Williams v. Resolution GGF OY, 417 Mass. 377, 382-83 (1994). In Snowden v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., 2003 WL 22519518 (Mass. Super.), the court held that a lender breached this duty by foreclosing a mortgage the day after receiving notice that the borrower had negotiated an agreement to sell the property at a price beneficial to the lender. The court noted that mortgagees in Massachusetts must act as a “trustee for the benefit of all persons interested.” Id. at *2 (quoting Taylor v. Weingartner, 233 Mass. 243, 247 (1916)).
The plaintiff argues that by scheduling a foreclosure sale while the plaintiff’s loan modification request was pending, Wells Fargo breached its duty to act in good faith and with reasonable diligence to protect the plaintiff’s interests. The plaintiff’s argument finds support in Speleos, which concluded that even though the borrowers had failed to state a claim for relief under third party beneficiary theory, they could state a claim for negligence on the theory that the defendants had a duty under the HAMP guidelines not to proceed with a foreclosure sale while evaluating the borrowers for a loan modification. Speleos, 2010 WL 5174510 at *6. The plaintiff’s allegation in Count V of the complaint that Wells Fargo breached its duty of good faith and reasonable diligence is comparable to the negligence claim in Speleos.
The evidence thus far indicates that Wells Fargo scheduled and intended to conduct a foreclosure sale of the plaintiff’s property while the plaintiff’s request for a loan modification was pending before it. Even if the modification was denied on January 19, 2011, eight days prior to the rescheduled foreclosure sale, the plaintiff was not given written notice of the denial nor was he offered other foreclosure mitigation options as required under HAMP guidelines. I find, therefore, that there is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on Count V of his complaint.
In addition, I find that the plaintiff has satisfied the remaining requirements for injunctive relief. While it is possible that the value of the plaintiff’s property may depreciate as this case proceeds (although Wells Fargo offered no evidence on this point), I find that any potential detriment to Wells Fargo from depreciation is outweighed by the enormity of the harm to the plaintiff from a foreclosure sale. Further, my order that the plaintiff make payments to the Chapter 13 trustee will protect Wells Fargo from depreciation and unpaid real estate taxes in the event it ultimately prevails in this action. Finally, I find that it is in the public interest to ensure that lenders foreclose on properties only when they are entitled to do so. Also, the neighbors surrounding the plaintiff’s property will likely benefit if foreclosure can be avoided.
Under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7065 the court may require a party who benefits from a preliminary injunction to post security to protect the enjoined party in the event that the injunction turns out to have been wrongly issued. Here, the plaintiff’s first and second amended Chapter 13 plans filed in the main case, dated September 24 and October 11, 2010 respectively, each contained provisions in which the plaintiff agreed to make monthly payments to Wells Fargo while his loan modification application was under review. At the evidentiary hearing on the plaintiff’s motion, the plaintiff’s counsel conceded that these payments have not been made to date. The Chapter 13 trustee noted that the plaintiff’s amended Schedule J accompanying his bankruptcy petition lists a total of $1800 in expenses to be dedicated to home mortgage and real estate tax payments. In his memorandum of law in support of his motion for injunctive relief, the plaintiff indicates that his current monthly income is $5829, plus $1,200 in rental income from a tenant. Based on these amounts, a hypothetical HAMP loan modification would involve an initial monthly payment of $1806.99, equal to 31% of total income, after subtracting 25% of the rental income to account for vacancy risk. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction will be conditioned on the plaintiff’s making monthly payments of $1800 to the Chapter 13 trustee. This payment requirement shall be retroactive to October 1, 2010 (the first month after the plaintiff proposed to make these payments in his September 24, 2010 amended Chapter 13 plan). Payments shall be held by the trustee for the benefit of Wells Fargo and paid to Wells Fargo in the event it prevails in this action.
The plaintiff shall make payments of $1800 per month to the Chapter 13 trustee on the first day of each month beginning on February 1, 2011, with a ten day grace period for late payment. In order to catch up on payments due for October through January, the plaintiff shall make a double payment of $3600 on the first day of March, April, May and June. The failure of the plaintiff to make any payment when due will be grounds for vacating the injunction.
A separate order shall enter.
[1] See, e.g., Making Home Affordable Program Handbook for Servicers of Non-GSE Mortgages, Version 3.0 (hereinafter “HAMP Handbook”) at 65, available at https://www.hmpadmin.com/portal/programs/docs/hamp_servicer/mhahandbook_30.pdf.
[2] See Wells Fargo Servicer Participation Agreement, available at http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/housing-programs/mha/Documents_Contracts_Agreements/093010wellsfargobanknaSPA(incltransmittal)-r.pdf; see also HAMP Handbook, supra note 1 at 17 (explaining the role of the SPA).
[3] Each of the GSEs has its own version of this directive, but all contain the prohibition against foreclosure while loans are under review for modification.
On Jan. 27, a California appeals court ruled that U.S. Bank conned Claudia Aceves out of her home. Specifically, the court found that U.S. Bank (USB) told Aceves that if she gave up bankruptcy court protection on her home, it would negotiate a loan modification with her. But, the court found, the bank had no intention of negotiating. Instead, as soon as the bankruptcy court protection was removed, the bank foreclosed. As a result, the court ruled, Aceves can sue U.S. Bank for damages and fraud.
What she can’t do, unfortunately, is get her house back. The court found the foreclosure, once Aceves was duped into allowing it, was done legitimately. In further bad news for Aceves, the opinion contains enough information to make it likely that U.S. Bank didn’t have standing to foreclose when it did, but her lawyers did not raise those issues at trial, and weren’t asked by the court to raise them on appeal, so the court refused to consider them. One of her attorneys, Nick Alden, said that because of that, he considered the case a loss despite the ruling against the bank.
Key to the decision was the bank’s promise, and Aceves’s reliance on that promise to her significant detriment. Specifically, the bank promised to negotiate a mortgage loan modification, and relying on that promise, Aceves gave up her bankruptcy protections, so she was significantly damaged when the bank reneged. For the fraud claim, the court found that the bank not only failed to keep its promise, it never had any intent of keeping it. As Aceves’s other attorney, Dennis Moore, put it, “borrowers should be able to rely on the banks when negotiating.”
CLAUDIA JACQUELINE ACEVES, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee, etc.,
Defendant and Respondent.
B220922 (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC410890)
APPEAL from an order and a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael L. Stern, Judge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Dennis Moore; Nick A. Alden for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Brooks Bauer, Michael R. Brooks and Bruce T. Bauer for Defendant and Respondent.
___________________________________________
As alleged in this case, plaintiff, a married woman, obtained an adjustable rate loan from a bank to purchase real property secured by a deed of trust on her residence. About two years into the loan, she could not afford the monthly payments and filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §§ 701–784). She intended to convert the chapter 7 proceeding to a chapter 13 proceeding (11 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1330) and to enlist the financial assistance of her husband to reinstate the loan, pay the arrearages, and resume the regular loan payments.
Plaintiff contacted the bank, which promised to work with her on a loan reinstatement and modification if she would forgo further bankruptcy proceedings. In reliance on that promise, plaintiff did not convert her bankruptcy case to a chapter 13 proceeding or oppose the bank’s motion to lift the bankruptcy stay. While the bank was promising to work with plaintiff, it was simultaneously complying with the notice requirements to conduct a sale under the power of sale in the deed of trust, commonly referred to as a nonjudicial foreclosure or foreclosure. (See Civ. Code, §§ 2924, 2924a–2924k.)
The bankruptcy court lifted the stay. But the bank did not work with plaintiff in an attempt to reinstate and modify the loan. Rather, it completed the foreclosure.
Plaintiff filed this action against the bank, alleging a cause of action for promissory estoppel, among others. She argued the bank’s promise to work with her in reinstating and modifying the loan was enforceable, she had relied on the promise by forgoing bankruptcy protection under chapter 13, and the bank subsequently breached its promise by foreclosing. The trial court dismissed the case on demurrer.
We conclude (1) plaintiff could have reasonably relied on the bank’s promise to work on a loan reinstatement and modification if she did not seek relief under chapter 13, (2) the promise was sufficiently concrete to be enforceable, and (3) plaintiff’s decision to forgo chapter 13 relief was detrimental because it allowed the bank to foreclose on the property. Contrary to the bank’s contention that plaintiff’s use of the Bankruptcy Code was ipso facto bad faith, chapter 13 is “‘uniquely tailored to protect homeowners’ primary residences [from foreclosure].’” (In re Willette (Bankr. D.Vt. 2008) 395 B.R. 308, 322.)
I
BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are taken from the allegations of the operative complaint, which we accept as true. (See Hensler v. City of Glendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 8, fn. 3.)
A. Complaint
This action was filed on April 1, 2009. Two months later, a first amended complaint was filed. On August 17, 2009, after the sustaining of a demurrer, a second amended complaint (complaint) was filed. The complaint alleged as follows.
Plaintiff Claudia Aceves, an unmarried woman, obtained a loan from Option One Mortgage Corporation (Option One) on April 20, 2006. The loan was evidenced by a note secured by a deed of trust on Aceves’s residence. Aceves borrowed $845,000 at an initial rate of 6.35 percent. After two years, the rate became adjustable. The term of the loan was 30 years. Aceves’s initial monthly payments were $4,857.09.
On March 25, 2008, Option One transferred its entire interest under the deed of trust to defendant U.S. Bank, National Association, as the “Trustee for the Certificateholders of Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust, Series OOMC 2006-HE5” (U.S. Bank). The transfer was effected through an “Assignment of Deed of Trust.” U.S. Bank therefore became Option One’s assignee and the beneficiary of the deed of trust. Also on March 25, 2008, U.S. Bank, by way of a “Substitution of Trustee,” designated Quality Loan Service Corporation (Quality Loan Service) as the trustee under the deed of trust. The Substitution of Trustee was signed by the bank’s attorney-in-fact.
In January 2008, Aceves could no longer afford the monthly payments on the loan. On March 26, 2008, Quality Loan Service recorded a “Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust.” (See Civ. Code, § 2924.) Shortly thereafter, Aceves filed for bankruptcy protection under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §§ 701–784), imposing an automatic stay on the foreclosure proceedings (see 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)). Aceves contacted U.S. Bank and was told that, once her loan was out of bankruptcy, the bank “would work with her on a mortgage reinstatement and loan modification.” She was asked to submit documents to U.S. Bank for its consideration.
Aceves intended to convert her chapter 7 bankruptcy case to a chapter 13 case (see 11 U.S.C. §§ 1301–1330) and to rely on the financial resources of her husband “to save her home” under chapter 13. In general, chapter 7, entitled “Liquidation,” permits a debtor to discharge unpaid debts, but a debtor who discharges an unpaid home loan cannot keep the home; chapter 13, entitled “Adjustment of Debts of an Individual with Regular Income,” allows a homeowner in default to reinstate the original loan payments, pay the arrearages over time, avoid foreclosure, and retain the home. (See 1 Collier on Bankruptcy (16th ed. 2010) ¶¶ 1.07[1][a] to 1.07[1][g], 1.07[5][a] to 1.07[5][e], pp. 1?25 to 1?30, 1?43 to 1?45.)
U.S. Bank filed a motion in the bankruptcy court to lift the stay so it could proceed with a nonjudicial foreclosure.
On or about November 12, 2008, Aceves’s bankruptcy attorney received a letter from counsel for the company servicing the loan, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (American Home). The letter requested that Aceves’s attorney agree in writing to allow American Home to contact Aceves directly to “explore Loss Mitigation possibilities.” Thereafter, Aceves contacted American Home’s counsel and was told they could not speak to her before the motion to lift the bankruptcy stay had been granted.
In reliance on U.S. Bank’s promise to work with her to reinstate and modify the loan, Aceves did not oppose the motion to lift the bankruptcy stay and decided not to seek bankruptcy relief under chapter 13. On December 4, 2008, the bankruptcy court lifted the stay. On December 9, 2008, although neither U.S. Bank nor American Home had contacted Aceves to discuss the reinstatement and modification of the loan, U.S. Bank scheduled Aceves’s home for public auction on January 9, 2009.
On December 10, 2008, Aceves sent documents to American Home related to reinstating and modifying the loan. On December 23, 2008, American Home informed Aceves that a “negotiator” would contact her on or before January 13, 2009 — four days after the auction of her residence. On December 29, 2008, Aceves received a telephone call from “Samantha,” a negotiator from American Home. Samantha said to forget about any assistance in avoiding foreclosure because the “file” had been “discharged” in bankruptcy. On January 2, 2009, Samantha contacted Aceves again, saying that American Home had mistakenly decided not to offer her any assistance: American Home incorrectly thought Aceves’s loan had been discharged in bankruptcy; instead, Aceves had merely filed for bankruptcy. Samantha said that, as a result of American Home’s mistake, it would reconsider a loss mitigation proposal. On January 8, 2009, the day before the auction, Samantha called Aceves’s bankruptcy attorney and stated that the new balance on the loan was $965,926.22; the new monthly payment would be more than $7,200; and a $6,500 deposit was due immediately via Western Union. Samantha refused to put any of those terms in writing. Aceves did not accept the offer.
On January 9, 2009, Aceves’s home was sold at a trustee’s sale to U.S. Bank. On February 11, 2009, U.S. Bank served Aceves with a three-day notice to vacate the premises and, a month later, filed an unlawful detainer action against her and her husband (U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Aceves (Super. Ct. L.A. County, 2009, No. 09H00857)). Apparently, Aceves and her husband vacated the premises during the eviction proceedings.
U.S. Bank never intended to work with Aceves to reinstate and modify the loan. The bank so promised only to convince Aceves to forgo further bankruptcy proceedings, thereby permitting the bank to lift the automatic stay and foreclose on the property.
The complaint alleged causes of action against U.S. Bank for quiet title, slander of title, fraud, promissory estoppel, and declaratory relief. It also sought to set aside the trustee’s sale and to void the trustee’s deed upon the sale of the home.
B. Demurrer
U.S. Bank filed a demurrer separately attacking each cause of action and the requested remedies. Aceves filed opposition.
At the hearing on the demurrer, Aceves’s attorney argued that Aceves and her husband “could have saved their house through bankruptcy,” but “due to the promises of the bank, they didn’t go those routes to save their house. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [T]hat’s the whole essence of promissory estoppel. [¶] . . . [¶] Prior to [American Home’s November 12, 2008] letter, there’s numerous phone contacts and conversations with [American Home], which was the agent for U.S. Bank, regarding, ‘Yes, once we get leave, we will work with you, . . . and they did not work with her at all.’” The trial court replied: “The foreclosure took place. There’s no promissory fraud or anything that deluded [Aceves] under the circumstances.”
On October 29, 2009, the trial court entered an order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and a judgment in favor of U.S. Bank. Aceves filed this appeal.
II
DISCUSSION
Aceves focuses primarily on her claim for promissory estoppel, arguing it is adequately pleaded. She also contends her other claims should have survived the demurrer. U.S. Bank counters that the trial court properly dismissed the case.
We conclude Aceves stated a claim for promissory estoppel. As alleged, in reliance on a promise by U.S. Bank to work with her in reinstating and modifying the loan, Aceves did not attempt to save her home under chapter 13. Yet U.S. Bank then went forward with the foreclosure and did not commence negotiations toward a possible loan solution. As demonstrated in its brief on appeal, U.S. Bank fails to appreciate that chapter 13 may be used legitimately to assist a borrower in reinstating a home loan and avoiding foreclosure after a default.
All but one of Aceves’s remaining claims were properly dismissed. She adequately pleaded a claim for fraud. But the record does not support her other claims or requests for relief: The complaint does not allege any irregularities in the foreclosure process that would permit the trial court to void the deed of sale or otherwise invalidate the foreclosure.
A. Promissory Estoppel
“‘The elements of a promissory estoppel claim are “(1) a promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) [the] reliance must be both reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party asserting the estoppel must be injured by his reliance.” . . .’” (Advanced Choices, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health Services (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1661, 1672.)
1. Clear and Unambiguous Promise
“‘[A] promise is an indispensable element of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The cases are uniform in holding that this doctrine cannot be invoked and must be held inapplicable in the absence of a showing that a promise had been made upon which the complaining party relied to his prejudice . . . .’ . . . The promise must, in addition, be ‘clear and unambiguous in its terms.’” (Garcia v. World Savings, FSB (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1044, citation omitted.) “To be enforceable, a promise need only be ‘“definite enough that a court can determine the scope of the duty[,] and the limits of performance must be sufficiently defined to provide a rational basis for the assessment of damages.”’ . . . It is only where ‘“a supposed ‘contract’ does not provide a basis for determining what obligations the parties have agreed to, and hence does not make possible a determination of whether those agreed obligations have been breached, [that] there is no contract.”’” (Id. at p. 1045, citation omitted.) “[T]hat a promise is conditional does not render it unenforceable or ambiguous.” (Ibid.)
U.S. Bank agreed to “work with [Aceves] on a mortgage reinstatement and loan modification” if she no longer pursued relief in the bankruptcy court. This is a clear and unambiguous promise. It indicates that U.S. Bank would not foreclose on Aceves’s home without first engaging in negotiations with her to reinstate and modify the loan on mutually agreeable terms.
U.S. Bank’s discussion of Laks v. Coast Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 885 misses the mark. There, the plaintiffs applied for a loan and relied on promissory estoppel in arguing that the lender was bound to make the loan. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the case on demurrer, explaining that the alleged promise to make a loan was unclear and ambiguous because it did not include all of the essential terms of a loan, including the identity of the borrower and the security for the loan. In contrast, Aceves contends U.S. Bank promised but failed to engage in negotiations toward a solution of her loan problems. Thus, the question here is simply whether U.S. Bank made and kept a promise to negotiate with Aceves, not whether, as in Laks, the bank promised to make a loan or, more precisely, to modify a loan. Aceves does not, and could not, assert she relied on the terms of a modified loan agreement in forgoing bankruptcy relief. She acknowledges that the parties never got that far because U.S. Bank broke its promise to negotiate with her in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable modification. While Laks turned on the sufficiency of the terms of a loan, Aceves’s claim rests on whether U.S. Bank engaged in the promised negotiations. The bank either did or did not negotiate.
Further, U.S. Bank asserts that it offered Aceves a loan modification, referring to the offer it made the day before the auction. That assertion, however, is of no avail. Aceves’s promissory estoppel claim is not based on a promise to make a unilateraloffer but on a promise to negotiate in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable loan modification. And, even assuming this case involved a mere promise to make a unilateral offer, we cannot say the bank’s offer satisfied such a promise in light of the offer’s terms and the circumstances under which it was made.
2. Reliance on the Promise
Aceves relied on U.S. Bank’s promise by declining to convert her chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding to a chapter 13 proceeding, by not relying on her husband’s financial assistance in developing a chapter 13 plan, and by not opposing U.S. Bank’s motion to lift the bankruptcy stay.
3. Reasonable and Foreseeable Reliance
“‘Promissory estoppel applies whenever a “promise which the promissor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance” would result in an “injustice” if the promise were not enforced. . . .’” (Advanced Choices, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health Services, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1671–1672, citation omitted, italics added.)
“[A] party plaintiff’s misguided belief or guileless action in relying on a statement on which no reasonable person would rely is not justifiable reliance. . . . ‘If the conduct of the plaintiff in the light of his own intelligence and information was manifestly unreasonable, . . . he will be denied a recovery.’” (Kruse v. Bank of America (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 38, 54, citation omitted.) A mere “hopeful expectation[] cannot be equated with the necessary justifiable reliance.” (Id. at p. 55.)
We conclude Aceves reasonably relied on U.S. Bank’s promise; U.S. Bank reasonably expected her to so rely; and it was foreseeable she would do so. U.S. Bank promised to work with Aceves to reinstate and modify the loan. That would have been more beneficial to Aceves than the relief she could have obtained under chapter 13. The bankruptcy court could have reinstated the loan — permitted Aceves to cure the default, pay the arrearages, and resume regular loan payments — but it could not have modified the terms of the loan, for example, by reducing the amount of the regular monthly payments or extending the life of the loan. (See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2), (3), (5), (c)(1); 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶¶ 1322.06[1], 1322.07[2], 1322.09[1]–[6], 1322.16 & fn. 5, pp. 23–24, 31–32, 34–42, 55–56.) By promising to work with Aceves to modify the loan in addition to reinstating it, U.S. Bank presented Aceves with a compelling reason to opt for negotiations with the bank instead of seeking bankruptcy relief. (See Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1041–1042 [discussing justifiable reliance].)
We emphasize that this case involves a long-term loan secured by a deed of trust, one in which the last payment under the loan schedule would be due after the final payment under a bankruptcy plan. (See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5).) Aceves had more than 28 years left on the loan, and a bankruptcy plan could not have exceeded five years. In contrast, if a case involves a short-term loan, where the last payment under the original loan schedule is due before the final payment under the bankruptcy plan, the bankruptcy court has the authority to modify the terms of the loan. (See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(2); In re Paschen (11th Cir. 2002) 296 F.3d 1203, 1205–1209; 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 1322.17, pp. 57–58; March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy (The Rutter Group 2010) ¶ 13:396, p. 13?45; compare id. ¶¶ 13:385 to 13:419, pp. 13?42 to 13?48 [discussing short-term debts] with id. ¶¶ 13:440 to 13:484, pp. 13?49 to 13?54 [discussing long-term debts].) The modification of a short-term loan may include “lienstripping,” that is, the bifurcation of the loan into secured and unsecured components based on the value of the home, with the unsecured component subject to a “cramdown.” (See In re Paschen, supra, 296 F.3d at pp. 1205–1209; 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 1322.17, pp. 57–58; see also March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, ¶¶ 13:370 to 13:371.1, p. 13?41 [discussing lienstripping].) If a lien is “stripped down,” the lender is “only assured of receiving full [payment] for the secured portion of the [bankruptcy] claim.” (In re Paschen, supra, 296 F.3d at p. 1206.)
4. Detriment
U.S. Bank makes no attempt to hide its disdain for the protections offered homeowners by chapter 13, referring disparagingly to Aceves’s bankruptcy case as “bad faith.” But “Chapter 13’s greatest significance for debtors is its use as a weapon to avoid foreclosure on their homes. Restricting initial . . . access to Chapter 13 protection will increase foreclosure rates for financially distressed homeowners. Loss of homes hurts not only the individual homeowner but also the family, the neighborhood and the community at large. Preserving access to Chapter 13 will reduce this harm.
“Chapter 13 bankruptcies do not result in destruction of the interests of traditional mortgage lenders. Under Chapter 13, a debtor cannot discharge a mortgage debt and keep her home. Rather, a Chapter 13 bankruptcy offers the debtor an opportunity to cure a mortgage delinquency over time — in essence it is a statutorily mandated payment plan — but one that requires the debtor to pay precisely the amount she would have to pay to the lender outside of bankruptcy. Under Chapter 13, the plan must provide the amount necessary to cure the mortgage default, which includes the fees and costs allowed by the mortgage agreement and by state law. Mortgage lenders who are secured only by an interest in the debtor’s residence enjoy even greater protection under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) . . . . Known as the ‘anti-modification provision,’ [section] 1322(b)(2) bars a debtor from modifying any rights of such a lender — including the payment schedule provided for under the loan contract. . . . [Cf. 11 U.S.C. § 1322(c)(2) [bankruptcy court has authority to modify rights of lender, including payment schedule, in cases involving short-term mortgages]; see pt. II.A.3, ante.]
“Even though a debtor must, through reinstatement of her delinquent mortgage by a Chapter 13 repayment plan . . . , pay her full obligation to the lender, Chapter 13 remains the only viable way for most mortgage debtors to cure defaults and save their homes. Mortgage lenders are extraordinarily unwilling to accept repayment schedules outside of bankruptcy. . . . There is no history to support any claim that lenders will accommodate the need for extended workouts without the pressure of bankruptcy as an option for consumer debtors. Reducing the availability of [C]hapter 13 protection to mortgage debtors is most likely to result in higher foreclosure rates, not in greater flexibility by lenders.” (DeJarnatt, Once Is Not Enough: Preserving Consumers’ Rights To Bankruptcy Protection (Spring 1999) Ind. L.J. 455, 495–496, fn. omitted.)
“It is unrealistic to think mortgage companies will do workouts without the threat of the debtor’s access to Chapter 13 protection. The bankruptcy process is still very protective of the mortgage industry. To the extent that the existence of Chapter 13 protections increases the costs of mortgage financing to all consumers, it can and should be viewed as an essential form of consumer insurance . . . .” (DeJarnatt, Once Is Not Enough: Preserving Consumers’ Rights To Bankruptcy Protection, supra, Ind. L.J. at p. 499, fn. omitted.)
We mention just a few of the rights Aceves sacrificed by deciding to forgo a chapter 13 proceeding. First, although Aceves initially filed a chapter 7 proceeding, “a chapter 7 debtor may convert to a case[] under chapter []13 at any time without court approval, so long as the debtor is eligible for relief under the new chapter.” (1 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 1.06, p. 24, italics added; accord, March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, ¶¶ 5:1700 to 5:1701, 5:1715 to 5:1731, pp. 5(II)?1, 5(II)?3 to 5(II)?5; see 11 U.S.C. § 706(a).) In addition, Aceves could have “cured” the default, reinstating the loan to predefault conditions. (See In re Frazer (Bankr. 9th Cir. 2007) 377 B.R. 621, 628; In re Taddeo (2d Cir. 1982) 685 F.2d 24, 26–28; 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5); March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 13:450, p. 13?50.) She also would have had a “reasonable time” — a maximum of five years — to make up the arrearages. (See 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(5), (d); 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 1322.09[5], pp. 39–40; March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, ¶ 13:443, p. 13?49.) And, by complying with a bankruptcy plan, Aceves could have prevented U.S. Bank from foreclosing on the property. (See 8 Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, ¶¶ 1322.09[1] to 1322.09[3], 1322.16, pp. 34–37, 55–56.) “‘“Indeed, the bottom line of most Chapter 13 cases is to preserve and avoid foreclosure of the family house.”’” (In re King (Bankr. N.D.Fla. 1991) 131 B.R. 207, 211; see also March et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Bankruptcy, supra, ¶¶ 8:1050, 8:1375 to 8:1411, pp. 8(II)?1, 8(II)?42 to 8(II)?47 [discussing automatic stay]; In re Hoggle (11th Cir. 1994) 12 F.3d 1008, 1008–1012 [affirming district court order denying lender’s motion for relief from automatic stay]; Lamarche v. Miles (E.D.N.Y. 2009) 416 B.R. 53, 55–62 [affirming bankruptcy court order denying landlord’s motion to set aside automatic stay]; In re Gatlin (Bankr. W.D.Ark. 2006) 357 B.R. 519, 520–523 [denying lender’s motion for relief from automatic stay].)
U.S. Bank maintains that even if Aceves had pursued relief under chapter 13, she could not have afforded the payments under a bankruptcy plan. But the complaint alleged that, with the financial assistance of her husband, Aceves could have saved her home under chapter 13. We accept the truth of Aceves’s allegations over U.S. Bank’s speculation. (See Hensler v. City of Glendale, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 8, fn. 3.)
5. Absence of Consideration
U.S. Bank argues that an oral promise to postpone either a loan payment or a foreclosure is unenforceable. We have previously addressed that argument, stating: “‘[I]n the absence of consideration, a gratuitous oral promise to postpone a sale of property pursuant to the terms of a trust deed ordinarily would be unenforceable under [Civil Code] section 1698.’ (Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 10 Cal.3d 665, 673, italics added.) The same holds true for an oral promise to allow the postponement of mortgage payments. (California Securities Co. v. Grosse (1935) 3 Cal.2d 732, 733 [applying Civil Code section 1698].) However, ‘. . . the doctrine of promissory estoppel is used to provide a substitute for the consideration which ordinarily is required to create an enforceable promise. . . . “The purpose of this doctrine is to make a promise binding, under certain circumstances, without consideration in the usual sense of something bargained for and given in exchange. . . .”’ (Raedeke, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 672.) ‘“Under this doctrine a promisor is bound when he should reasonably expect a substantial change of position, either by act or forbearance, in reliance on his promise, if injustice can be avoided only by its enforcement. . . .”’” (Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 299, 312; accord, Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1039–1041.) We further commented: “When Raedeke and California Securities Co. were decided, Civil Code section 1698 provided in its entirety: ‘A contract in writing may be altered by a contract in writing, or by an executed oral agreement, and not otherwise.’ . . . In 1976, a new section 1698 was enacted which states in part: ‘A contract in writing may be modified by a contract in writing . . . [or] by an oral agreement to the extent that the oral agreement is executed by the parties. . . . Nothing in this section precludes in an appropriate case the application of rules of law concerning estoppel . . . .’” (Sutherland v. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp., supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at p. 312, fn. 8, citations omitted.) Our earlier analysis in Sutherland applies here.
Finally, a promissory estoppel claim generally entitles a plaintiff to the damages available on a breach of contract claim. (See Toscano v. Greene Music (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 685, 692–693.) Because this is not a case where the homeowner paid the funds needed to reinstate the loan before the foreclosure, promissory estoppel does not provide a basis for voiding the deed of sale or otherwise invalidating the foreclosure. (See Garcia v. World Savings, FSB, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at p. 1047, distinguishing Bank of America v. La Jolla Group II (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 706, 711–714.)
B. Remaining Claims
The elements of fraud are similar to the elements of promissory estoppel, with the additional requirements that a false promise be made and that the promisor know of the falsity when making the promise. (See McClain v. Octagon Plaza, LLC (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 784, 792–794 [discussing elements of fraud].) Aceves has adequately alleged those facts.
Aceves’s other claims and requests for relief lack merit as a matter of law. All of them are based on alleged irregularities in the foreclosure process. We see no irregularities that would justify relief. For example, Aceves contends U.S. Bank’s designation of Quality Loan Service as the trustee under the deed of trust was defective because the “Substitution of Trustee” was signed by the bank’s attorney-in-fact. But Aceves cites no pertinent authority for her contention. (See Schoendorf v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 227, 237–238 [party forfeits contention absent citation of authority].) Neither Civil Code section 2934a, which governs the substitution of trustees, nor the trust deed itself precludes an attorney-in-fact from signing a Substitution of Trustee. And case law strongly suggests Aceves is wrong. (See Tran v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1213 [“an attorney-in-fact is an agent owing a fiduciary duty to the principal”]; Burgess v. Security-First Nat. Bank (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 808, 818–819 [person can perform any legal act through attorney-in-fact that he or she could perform in person, including entering into contracts].)
Aceves also takes issue with the notice of default, pointing out that it mistakenly identified Option One as the beneficiary under the deed of trust when U.S. Bank was actually the beneficiary. Although this contention is factually correct, it is of no legal consequence. Aceves did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the error. Nor could she. The notice instructed Aceves to contact Quality Loan Service, the trustee, not Option One, if she wanted “[t]o find out the amount you must pay, or arrange for payment to stop the foreclosure, or if your property is in foreclosure for any other reason.” The notice also included the address and telephone number for Quality Loan Service, not Option One. Absent prejudice, the error does not warrant relief. (See Knapp v. Doherty (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 76, 93–94 & fn. 9.)
Last, after the filing of the reply brief and before oral argument, we requested additional briefing on the protections accorded by chapter 13. In her letter brief, Aceves went beyond the scope of the request and presented arguments not previously made about the order in which various documents were recorded. The new arguments were unsolicited; Aceves did not explain why the arguments were not raised earlier; and U.S. Bank had no opportunity to respond. Accordingly, we do not reach them. (See City of Costa Mesa v. Connell (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 188, 197; Campos v. Anderson (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 784, 794, fn. 3.)
It follows that the trial court properly sustained the demurrer without leave to amend with respect to all claims and requests for relief other than the claims for promissory estoppel and fraud. Aceves should be allowed to pursue those two claims.
III
DISPOSITION
The order and the judgment are reversed to the extent they dismissed the claims for promissory estoppel and fraud. In all other respects, the order and judgment are affirmed. Appellant is entitled to costs on appeal.
In re MIKE ZITTA AND IRENA ZITTA, Debtors.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP FKA COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
SERVICING LP, its assignees and/or successors in interest, Movant,
v.
MIKE ZITTA AND IRENA ZITTA, Respondents.
No. 09-bk-19154-SSC
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
DATED: January 21, 2011.
Not for Publication-Electronic Docketing ONLY
AMENDED1 MEMORANDUM DECISION
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This Court recently received a Notice of Appeal filed by BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P.(“BAC”) on December 23, 2010. The Notice of Appeal concerns the Court’s denial of a Motion for Reconsideration filed by BAC relating to its Motion for Relief from Stay in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Mike and Irena Zitta (“Debtors”). Because BAC may have prematurely filed its Notice of Appeal, and because this Court had anticipated an opportunity to execute some sort of Order, with an appended memorandum decision on the issues presented, this Court will amplify its reasoning in denying the Motion for Reconsideration and clarify the record so that the Motion for Reconsideration may be heard on appeal.
BAC filed its Motion for Relief from Stay on August 30, 2010.2 Copies of the interest-only promissory note (“Note”), along with an allonge (“Allonge”), the recorded deed of trust (“Deed of Trust”), and the Broker’s price opinion were attached to the Motion.3 BAC also filed a declaration in support of the Motion.4 However, no assignment of the Deed of Trust from any entity to BAC was included. The Debtors filed a response/objection to the relief requested.5 The Court denied BAC’s Motion by Minute Entry Order issued on October 20, 2010 (the “Minute Entry Order”), because BAC had failed to provide a copy of an assignment of the Deed of Trust with its Motion.6 The October 20 Minute Entry Order was not executed by this Court.
On October 29, 2010, BAC filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Minute Entry Order, asserting that under Arizona law, an assignment of the Deed of Trust was not necessary to establish standing to move for relief from the automatic stay.7 The Court heard the Motion for Reconsideration on December 15, 2010, and denied the requested relief. BAC never submitted a form of order denying the Motion for Reconsideration, and although a minute entry order was generated that same day outlining briefly the Court’s denial of the Motion, the minute entry order was never executed by this Court.8 Rather than wait for an appropriate form of order to be entered, BAC chose to file a Notice of Appeal on December 23, 2010.
In this Memorandum Decision, the Court has set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 7052 of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The issues addressed herein constitute a core proceeding over which this Court has jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157(b) (West 2010).
II. FACTUAL DISCUSSION
In the Motion for Relief from Stay filed on August 30, 2010, BAC asserted that it was the “holder in due course” and that it was the “payee and a holder in due course under that certain Promissory Note dated March 20, 2007.”9 The Note attached to the Motion for Relief from Stay stated that GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., had provided the financing to the Debtors so that the Debtors could acquire the real property located at 5100 East Blue Jay Lane, Flagstaff, Arizona (“Property”).10 The Note further stated that anyone taking the Note “by transfer and who [was] entitled to receive payments under [the] Note [was] called the “Note Holder.”11 The Allonge, dated March 20, 2007, stated as follows: “Pay to the Order of BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, LP without recourse.”12 GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. had executed the Allonge, although the signature is difficult to discern.13 The Deed of Trust attached to the Motion for Relief from Stay stated that GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. was the lender and that MERS was the nominee for the lender. Specifically, the Deed of Trust stated:
(E) “MERS” is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument.14
The Deed of Trust stated that the Debtors acknowledged or executed the document on March 21, 2007, although the Allonge and the Note had an execution date of March 20, 2007. Finally, the Declaration submitted in support of the Motion for Relief from Stay stated that “[it] is in the regular course and scope and business for BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP to prepare and maintain books and records relating to the status of the servicing of Movant’s Deed of Trust.”15 The Declaration also stated that “Movant is the payee under that certain Promissory Note dated March 20, 2007…. Further, Movant is the present holder and owner of that certain First Deed of Trust of same date…. securing said Note against Debtors’ property….”16 Thus, BAC’s Declaration creates an ambiguity as to whether BAC is the servicer of the loan or whether it is the Note Holder who is entitled to payments under the Debtors’ Note obligation. The documentation presented by BAC also includes a security agreement, granting BAC a security interest in the Note.17
A review of the Motion for Relief from Stay reflects the myriad problems that this and other Courts are facing in attempting to handle the tremendous volume of such motions that are filed in the numerous bankruptcy cases that are pending across the country. First, the Motion that was filed in this case appears to be a form that may have been imperfectly tailored to the facts of this case. For instance, the Motion for Relief from Stay alleges that GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. “was the original lender on the subject Note and Deed of Trust. Thereafter, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. assigned all of its rights, title and interest in and to said [N]ote and Deed of Trust to BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P. by way of an Allonge….”18 However, as noted previously, the Declaration seems to indicate that BAC was acting as a servicer. If BAC was simply the servicer, then for whom was BAC receiving payments under the Note? If BAC was holding the Note as the servicer, for whom was it acting? If BAC was the Note Holder, as defined in the Note, then why does the Declaration state that BAC operates as a servicer? Another way to state the problem is that the Motion for Relief from the Stay and the Declaration seem to reflect imperfectly the transfer of the various interests in the Note and Deed of Trust. Given the posture of the record presented to the Court, and the lack of clarity, the Court denied the Motion for Relief from Stay by Minute Entry Order on October 20, 2010. Rather than clarify the record by filing the appropriate assignment, a further declaration or affidavit, or some other documentation, BAC filed its Motion for Reconsideration. BAC chose to provide no further information to the Court from a factual standpoint.
III. LEGAL DISCUSSION
The Motion for Reconsideration
As outlined above, part of the problem with the issues to be decided is the context in which the matters have been presented to the Court. When a motion for relief from stay is filed, the Bankruptcy Code, the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, and the Local Rules of this Court are immediately applicable or implicated.
11 U.S.C. §362 (d) states that the bankruptcy court may, for instance, terminate, modify, or condition the automatic stay (1) “for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of such party in interest,” or (2) “with respect to a stay of an act against
property under subsection (a) of this section if-(A) the debtor does not have an equity interest in such property; and (B) such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.”19 Section 362(g) states that the party requesting relief from the automatic stay has the burden of proof of whether the debtor has any equity in the property at issue.20 The Local Rules of the Arizona Bankruptcy Court further require that a party filing a motion for relief from the automatic stay be able to provide some support for the relief requested. For instance, if the party is stating that it is a secured creditor requesting relief from the automatic stay to pursue a trustee’s sale under Arizona law, the secured creditor should be able to provide support in the motion that it has a perfected security interest in property of the estate in which the debtor or debtor in possession also has an interest.21
In reviewing the sufficiency of any motion for relief from the automatic stay, the court must also consider under what provision of the Bankruptcy Code the debtor has filed. For instance, if the individual debtor has filed a chapter 7 petition, a trustee in bankruptcy is appointed that must collect and liquidate property of the estate, that has not been claimed exempt by the debtor, for distribution to the debtor’s creditors, according to the priorities set forth in the Bankruptcy Code.22 The trustee in bankruptcy may increase the amount of property of the estate available for distribution to creditors by exercising certain avoidance powers enumerated, inter alia, in Bankruptcy Code Sections 544, 547, and 548.23 An individual debtor may acquire the same duties and responsibilities of a trustee in bankruptcy by filing a chapter 11 petition, seeking to reorganize or to file a plan of liquidation.24 Because the debtor in possession is vested with the same powers of the trustee, the debtor in possession may pursue avoidance actions as well.25 In this case, the individual Debtors filed a chapter 11 petition seeking to reorganize, and no bankruptcy trustee has yet been appointed in this case. As a result, the Debtors exercise the rights of a bankruptcy trustee concerning the ability to avoid certain transfers or transactions.
Because of the avoidance powers of the bankruptcy trustee or the debtor in possession, this Court requires that if a party seeking relief from the automatic stay asserts a perfected security interest in any property of the estate, that moving party must be able to present at least a prima faciecase that it has such a perfected security interest under applicable law.26 The fact that the transaction is not avoidable between the parties to the underlying loan transaction is not dispositive of whether the transaction may be avoided by third parties that are, for instance, bona fidepurchasers.27
Turning to the standards of a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must show a manifest error of fact, a manifest error of law, or newly discovered evidence. School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, OR v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); In re Gurr, 194 B.R. 474 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 1996). A motion for reconsideration is not specifically contemplated by the Federal Rules. To the extent it is considered by the Court, it is under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) to alter or amend an order or judgment. In re Curry and Sorensen, Inc., 57 B.R. 824, 827 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 1986). Because BAC presented no new evidence to this Court and has not outlined any manifest error of fact, the sole basis for the BAC Motion for Reconsideration must be a manifest error of law by this Court. BAC has outlined several bases for what it believes is this Court’s manifest error of law.
(A) Is the Movant the Real Party in Interest?
A colleague in the Arizona Bankruptcy Court has stated that a party that brings a motion for relief from the automatic stay must first establish a “colorable claim.” “In order to establish [such a claim], a movant…. bears the burden of proof that it has standing to bring the motion.” In re Weisband, 427 B.R. 13, 18 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010) (citing In re Wilhelm, 407 B.R. 392, 400 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2009)). In the Weisband decision, the Court states that the moving party may establish standing by showing that it is a “real party in interest.”28 The Weisband Court next states that a holder of a note is a “real party in interest” under FRCP 17 because, under the Arizona Revised Statute (“ARS”) § 47-3301, the note holder has the right to enforce it. Weisband at 18. Relying on a decision from a bankruptcy court in Vermont, the Weisband Court next opines that “[b]ecause there is no federal commercial law which defines who is a note holder, the court must look to Arizona law to determine whether [movant] is [such] a holder.” Id. (citing In re Montagne, 421 B.R. 65, 73 (Bankr. D. Vt. 2009)). Finally, the Weisband Court states that under Arizona law, a holder of a note is defined as, inter alia, “the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession.” Id. (citing ARS § 47-1201(B)(21)(a)).
BAC’s citation to Weisband fails to address this Court’s concerns. In the Motion for Relief, BAC contends that it is the “payee and a holder in due course.” However, the Declaration that it filed appears to reflect that BAC is the servicer for some other party. Obviously there is a difference. A servicer acts pursuant to a separate agreement with the Note Holder and is paid a separate fee to determine what payments have been made, or not made, by a given borrower. However, the servicer would not normally list the loan on its balance sheet as one of its assets. The Note Holder, according to the definition in the Note, is the party that is entitled to receive the payments under the Note, because it has arguably paid some consideration for the transfer of the obligation to it, and has listed the obligation as an asset in its books and records.29 BAC has not provided any additional facts to clarify whether it is the servicer pursuant to an agreement with the Note Holder, or contrary to its Declaration, it actually acquired the loan and has placed the loan on its balance sheet as one of its assets.
From the documentation provided by BAC, it appears that GreenPoint provided the original funding for the loan to the Debtors so that they could acquire the Property. Yet, at the time of the closing, GreenPoint immediately assigned its interest in the Note to BAC. The Declaration submitted by BAC, however, seems to indicate that BAC is only in the business of servicing loans-perhaps for some other entity associated or related to BAC. If BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, is acting as the servicer of a Bank of America entity, for which entity is it acting? Conversely, if GreenPoint transferred the Debtors’ loan from its books and records to some other entity, was it BAC? If BAC alleges in its Motion for Relief from the Stay that it is the Note Holder, is it, in fact, the one legally entitled, because of the purchase of the Debtors’ obligation, to receive the Debtors’ payments?
As a part of its prima faciecase, BAC should have provided the Court with more factual information in support of its position. As a result, this Court may deny the Motion for Reconsideration, and the underlying Motion for Relief from the Stay, on the basis that BAC has failed to provide sufficient documentation to this Court so that the Court may ensure that BAC is the proper Note Holder, or servicer if appropriate, to pursue such a Motion for Relief from the Stay.
Thus, the focus of the BAC’s Motion for Reconsideration does not consider all of the factual and legal issues that it should. It does not address whether BAC, in this matter, has presented an appropriate factual and legal basis to proceed on this loan concerning the Debtors and their Property. BAC could have easily supplemented the record to provide the appropriate documentation to proceed, but chose not to do so.
(B) Has BAC Set Forth a Prima Facie Case That It Has
A Perfected Security Interest in the Property Given the Status
Of the Debtors As Debtors In Possession?
In its Motion for Reconsideration, BAC relies on ARS § 33-817, which states, “The transfer of any contract or contracts secured by a trust deed shall operate as a transfer of the security for such contract or contracts.” ARS § 33-817. BAC further points out that the Supreme Court of Arizona has held that a mortgage is a “mere incident to the debt,” and its “transfer or assignment does not transfer or assign the debt or the note,” but “the mortgage automatically goes along with the assignment or transfer” of the note. Hill v. Favour, 84 P.2d 575, 578 (Ariz. 1938) (emphasis added). However, at the hearing on December 15, 2010, the Court expressly stated its concern about the ability of BAC to proceed given that it had not provided any information as to a recorded assignment of the Deed of Trust. The Court asked counsel how her analysis was appropriate given (1) the status of the Debtors as Debtors in Possession who had objected to the relief requested, and (2) ARS § 33-818 which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
[A]ssignment of a beneficial interest under a trust deed,… shall from the time of being recorded impart notice of the content to all persons, including subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers for value.
As outlined above, the Debtors, as Debtors in Possession, acquire the status of a bona fide purchaser and are able to set aside any real estate transaction, concerning their Property, for which the creditor has not taken appropriate steps under Arizona law. See 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) (West 2010). Arizona law requires that if a secured creditor with a lien on the Debtors’ Property wishes to ensure that said interest is not subject to the claims of a bona fide purchaser, that said secured creditor record an assignment of its interest with the Recorder in the County where the Debtors’ Property is located. If notice of the assignment has not been provided, through recordation, the secured creditor may have its interest avoided by a bona fide purchaser. See Rodney v. Arizona Bank, 836 P.2d 434, 172 Ariz. 221 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 1992) (Unless and until the transferee of the beneficial interest in the deed of trust records an assignment of the deed of trust, the security interest in the real property remains unperfected.)
At the time of the hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration, BAC’s counsel agreed that although vis-a-vis the original parties to the transaction, no assignment of the Deed of Trust need be produced or recorded, because of the Debtors’ filing of a bankruptcy petition, ARS § 33-818 required that an assignment be prepared and properly recorded given the new status of the Debtors as Debtors in Possession.30 It is unclear why BAC has not simply supplemented the record to provide the assignment of the Deed of Trust.
The request that an assignment be recorded is not a burdensome requirement. MERS, through its registration system, keeps track of the transfers of the beneficial interests, under a deed of trust, from member to member in the system. When there is some type of default under the loan transaction, MERS generally prepares an assignment of the beneficial interest in the deed of trust for signature and then records the assignment with the appropriate state authority, which in Arizona would be the Recorder in the County where the real property that is subject to the secured creditor’s lien is located. This recordation of the assignment provides the requisite notice to third parties, as required under Arizona law.
Although BAC relies on the decision of Rodney v. Arizona Bank, 836 P.2d 434, 172 Ariz. 221 (Ariz. App. Div. 2 1992), the decision actually supports this Court’s understanding of the importance of the recordation of the assignment of the deed of trust. In Rodney, the borrowers were the Vasquezes, who received purchase money financing from the initial lender, Hal Clonts (“Clonts”), to purchase real property (“Property”) located in Mohave County. The Vasquezes executed a promissory note and deed of trust in favor of Clonts to provide him with a lien on their Property to secure repayment of the note. It is important to keep in mind that the Vasquezes remained the borrowers throughout a series of subsequent transactions that only affected the lender or the party that had a security interest in the promissory note and deed of trust.
Clonts transferred his interest to the Fidlers through an assignment of the beneficial interest in the promissory note and deed of trust. Id. at 435. However, on April 11, 1985, the Fidlers entered into a separate loan transaction in which they borrowed money from a third party, State Bank, later called Security Pacific Bank Arizona (“Security Pacific”). The Fidlers provided security to Security Pacific for their loan transaction by pledging “all monies” received by the Fidlers in “Escrow # 85-02-9290.” Id. Security Pacific immediately notified the title company, for the subject escrow, as to Security Pacific’s interest in the escrow funds. In September 1986, the Fidlers again transferred their beneficial interest in the promissory note and deed of trust to Theron Rodney (“Rodney”). The Fidlers received $20,000 from Rodney for the transfer of their interest. The Fidlers executed an assignment of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust. Rodney recorded his interest in the deed of trust with the Mohave County Recorder’s Officer where the Property was located. Not surprisingly, Security Pacific and Rodney disagreed as to the priority of their respective security interests in the loan proceeds. Security Pacific argued that the interest in the loan proceeds could only be perfected pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. Conversely, Rodney argued that the real property provisions of Arizona law were applicable. Id. at 436.
The sole issue to be addressed by the Appellate Court was whether Article Nine of the Uniform Commercial Code (as adopted in Arizona) applied to the creation and perfection of a security interest in a promissory note when the note itself was secured by a deed of trust in real property. Id. Before considering the analysis by the Court, let’s diagram the various loan transactions.
+——————————————————————————————————–+———————————————+
| The Vasquezes | Clonts |
| —- | |
+——————————————————————————————————–+———————————————+
| initial borrowers purchase money financing | initial lender |
+——————————————————————————————————–+——————————————————————+
| Vasquezes continue to pay on the original note and deed of trust to the title company, as escrow agent | (1) transfer of the interest in the note and deed of trust for consideration to the Fidlers |
| | (2) separate loan to the Fidlers–security interest in the note and deed of trust given to Security Pacific-consideration given to Fidlers |
| | (3) Fidlers again seek financing–security interest in the note and deed of trust given to Rodney |
| | for $20,000. |
+——————————————————————————————————–+——————————————————————–+
| | |
+——————————————————————————————————–+——————————————————————–+
Thus, it is only the parties on one side of the initial loan transaction that are in disagreement as to the priority of their security interests. Noting that Security Pacific only wanted to obtain a perfected security interest in the promissory note proceeds, the Court stated “we find that Security Pacific received a corollary security interest in the real property evidenced by the deed of trust, along with its interest in the note, although the corollary interest remained unperfected.” Id. The Court then stated that Security Pacific need not have a perfected security interest in the real property, because Security Pacific’s interest was only in the note which was a security interest in personal property under ARS § 47-1201(37). Id. at 436-37. The Court concluded that “Arizona case law holds that a mortgage note and the debt evidenced thereby are personal property (citing to Hill v. Favour, 52 Ariz. at 571, 84 P.2d at 579). Article Nine of the UCC applies to security interests in personal property….” Id. at 437. However, Article Nine of the Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to obtaining a lien on real property. In considering the somewhat murky area of “realty paper,” the Court relied on Commentators J White and R. Summers, who described “realty paper” as follows:
B mortgages his real estate to L. L gives B’s note and the real estate mortgage to Bank as security for a loan. Article Nine does not apply to the transaction between L and B, but does apply to that between L and Bank.
Id.31 Turning to the facts of this case, BAC is arguing that its security interest in the Note and Deed of Trust is perfected as to all others, rather than to just other mortgagees. It has forgotten the other side of the transaction, which is the “mortgagor” in the White and Summers analysis, or someone that may acquire an interest from the mortgagor, such as a bona fide purchaser. To perfect its interest as to the “mortgagor,” which would be the Zittas, or someone who may acquire an interest in the Property from the Zittas, BAC needed to record its assignment in the Deed of Trust, as required under real property law, such as ARS § 33-818 (West 2010). BAC has not shown this Court that any such assignment exists, so its Motion for Reconsideration must be denied as a matter of law.
BAC also relies on In re Smith, 366 B.R. 149 (Bank. D. Colo. 2007), which is inapposite. The debtor had been in a chapter 13 proceeding, but had converted his case to one under chapter 7. Id. at 150. Bank of New York, N.A. (“Bank of New York”) subsequently requested relief from the automatic stay as to the real property owned by the debtor. The debtor did not oppose the motion, and a foreclosure sale, pursuant to Colorado law, subsequently occurred. Bank of New York then recorded a deed upon sale as to the debtor’s real property. Without seeking any stay of the foreclosure proceedings, the debtor filed an adversary proceeding with the bankruptcy court. The debtor asserted that the Bank of New York was not the real party in interest, and therefore, it was unable to proceed with a foreclosure of his real property. The bankruptcy court reviewed the evidence presented and determined that Bank of New York was the holder of the promissory note at the time it commenced its foreclosure sale. The court stated that Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., which had originally provided the financing to the debtor, had endorsed the promissory note in blank. Under Colorado law, such a blank endorsement allowed the promissory note to become “payable to bearer.” However, Bank of New York did submit a Certification of Owner and Holder of the Evidence Debt, which allowed the Colorado court to conclude that Bank of New York was the “holder of the original evidence of debt.” The court then reviewed the deed of trust, determining that it was recorded at approximately the same time as the loan closing between the debtor and Countrywide Home Loan, Inc. The bankruptcy court then concluded that the promissory note was assigned to the Bank of New York. As such, once the promissory note was assigned to the Bank of New York, MERS then functioned as the nominee for the Bank of New York. Id. at 151. Presumably, as a result of MERS nominee status, the bankruptcy court concluded, sub silentio, that no additional action needed to be taken by Bank of New York vis-a-vis the debtor.
This Court questions the analysis by the Smith court.32 Although the Smith court relies on a 2002 decision from the Colorado Supreme Court, the court does not analyze the concept of “realty paper” or discuss White and Summers. As noted by this Court supra, the lender in the original loan transaction or a party that may subsequently obtain a security interest in the promissory note, as a result of a separate loan transaction, may be protected, but this Court is viewing the transaction from a different viewpoint: that of the Debtors in Possession that acquire the status of bona fide purchasers. There is no discussion, in Smith, as to how Colorado law would treat such third parties. Moreover, it is unclear whether Colorado has a similar provision as Arizona’s ARS § 33-818 that focuses on the separate requirements of a creditor that may have a beneficial interest under a deed of trust assigned to it.
In considering the ability of the debtor to pursue a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 544, the Colorado court concludes that the debtor does not have the standing of the bankruptcy trustee. Smith at 152. Such an analysis is correct, since the debtor pursued his claim against the Bank of New York only after he had converted his case to one under chapter 7. The chapter 7 trustee also failed to join with the debtor in the adversary proceeding or to pursue the claim separately.33 However, as to the facts before this Court, the Debtors, as Debtor in Possession, in this chapter 11 proceeding do have the standing to pursue claims under Section 544.34 Thus, this Court must reject the analysis in the Smith case.
This Court concludes that given the summary nature of motions for relief from the automatic stay, 35 the general requirements in the case law and the Local Rules of this Court36 that a creditor alleging a security interest in certain property of the debtor and/or the bankruptcy estate at least set forth a prima facie case as to its perfected security interest, 37 BAC should have provided an assignment of the Deed of Trust. It failed to do so; however, the Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay was denied without prejudice. BAC still has the opportunity to refile the Motion with the appropriate documents as exhibits thereto.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Denial of the Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay. The Court
Recent Comments