CTPOST-

State lawmakers hope changes to a successful foreclosure mediation program will grant homeowners struggling to hold on to their property more time and greater piece of mind.

Under the new proposal, which needs to by signed by the governor, lenders cannot proceed with any legal action for eight months.

“A lot of people were able to work things out within three months,” said state Sen. Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, who helped enact the original mediation effort in 2008.

Measure puts more teeth into 2009 law, moves to House for final action

In regular session this afternoon, the state Senate approved legislation that updates law enacted in 2009 that helps protect municipalities from the disrepair and blight of foreclosed properties in the state of Connecticut.

The 2009 bill required a registration system to track the owners of uninhabited one-to-four family dwellings obtained by strict foreclosure or foreclosure by sale and allowed municipalities to enforce any provision of the General Statutes or any municipal ordinance on the repair or maintenance of uninhabited real estate.

“This action puts a lot more teeth into issue that is rampant in not just our state, but many other states across the country,” said Senator Duff. “The blight that many times comes along with foreclosed properties is more than unattractive. It brings down neighboring property values and leads to an increase of neighborhood crime. As we continue to cope with the foreclosure crisis in our state, this bill gives municipalities even greater opportunity to enforce blight ordinances and combat some of the negative effects that accompany foreclosure.”

Additionally, property owners would no longer be allowed to register with the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) and instead would be required to register with the local municipal town clerk.

[source: http://www.senatedems.ct.gov ]

[ipaper docId=55927217 access_key=key-2mf2s8ttlg7donxnfp45 height=600 width=600 /]

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
BRIDGEPORT DIVISION

In re
TIFFANY M. KRITHARAKIS,
Debtor.

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR RULE 2004 EXAMINATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE(S) OF DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS
TRUSTEE FOR SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2005-OPTI,
ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-OPTI

EXCERPT:

21. Also annexed to the Amended Proof of Claim is a copy of the Sand Canyon AOM whereby Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation assigned its rights to the Mortgage to Deutsche. See Amended POC at Part 8. The Sand Canyon AOM is dated June 11, 2010 but has an effective date of assignment of May 1, 2005. Id. The Sand Canyon AOM is signed by Rhonda Werdel (“Werdel”) as Assistant Secretary of Sand Canyon Corporation FKA Option One Mortgage Corporation. Id. The May 1, 2005 effective date contained in the Sand Canyon AOM conflicts with the January 19, 2005 dated contained in the Option One Allonge. See Amended POC at Part 5 and Part 8.

22. On information and belief, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. purchased the mortgage servicing rights of Sand Canyon in April 2008. See Declaration of Dale M. Sugimoto, As President of Sand Canyon Corporation, dated March 18, 2009, doc id # 141 in In re Ron Wilson, Sr. and LaRhonda Wilson, 07-11862 (EWM), United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana attached here to as Exhibit 3 (“March 2009 Sugimoto Declaration”). According to the March 2009 Sugimoto Declaration, Sand Canyon does not own any mortgage servicing rights or any residential real estate mortgages. See Exhibit 3 at ¶ ¶ 5, 6. As such, it appears that the Sand Canyon AOM executed in June 2010 may be deficient because Sand Canyon did not own any mortgages in 2010.

Continue below …

[ipaper docId=54318319 access_key=key-z151xlx5vl7092b3eem height=600 width=600 /]

* Allegations Deutsche Bank filed false documents

* Inquiry could affect foreclosures across United States

* Testimony demanded from Deutsche Bank officials

By Scot J. Paltrow

NEW YORK, Jan 28 (Reuters) – A branch of the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating whether Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) filed false documents and attempted to mislead a bankruptcy judge in a foreclosure action.

Although the investigation involves the case of only one homeowner in Connecticut, a court document filed on Jan. 26 by the United States Trustee’s Office said it wants to elicit information about Deutsche Bank’s practices in general in foreclosure cases.

The inquiry involves Deutsche Bank National Trust Co, the Deutsche Bank unit that acts as trustee for thousands of trusts that invested in mortgage-backed securities. The U.S. Trustees’ Office is a division of the Department of Justice responsible for overseeing administration of bankruptcy cases.

In recent months, the office has stepped up efforts around the United States to block banks and law firms from using false or fabricated documents in home foreclosure actions. The effort follows disclosures in October 2010 of large-scale “robo-signing”, the mass signing of foreclosure affidavits containing “facts” that had never been checked, and wide production of false mortgage assignments.

[ipaper docId=47660940 access_key=key-odzifwfqkhdmy2d50w2 height=600 width=600 /]

Via: NakedCapitalism

A new development is that the US Bankruptcy Trustee, which is part of the Department of Justice, has started poking around the nether world of slipshod and possible made-up documents, and is asking banks to explain what they are up to. These inquiries may be paving the ground for broader-based action.

[…]

DeutscheBank purports to be the trustee for a particular 2005 mortgage securitization which contains the mortgage at issue. This is a partial list of the documentation problems; the motion itself makes for instructive reading:
In the first filing, Deutsche provides a copy of an undated promissory note which is not made out to the trust but the originator. A few days later, Deutshce filed an objection to the debtor’s plan of reorganization, and in it said the mortgage (the lien, not the note) had been recorded as transferred from the originator to Sand Canyon (a unit of Option One) in 2005 and then transferred to Deutsche less than two weeks before the bankruptcy filing. Note that a 2010 transfer is well outside the time parameters stipulated in the pooling and servicing agreement.

[ipaper docId=47660940 access_key=key-odzifwfqkhdmy2d50w2 height=600 width=600 /]

SUPERIOR COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD

———————————

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
v.
ROBERT STENHOUSE

REPLY TO OBJECTION TO STATE’S MOTION FOR
ORDERS TO ADDRESS IMPROPER DOCUMENTS

EXCERPT:

A court cannot award a foreclosing plaintiff relief unless that plaintiff comes to the court with “clean hands.” Here, there are no facts from which the court can conclude that the plaintiff acted with clean hands because the only facts before the court are that the plaintiff was aware in February of 2010 that its employees were routinely executing foreclosure affidavits without personal knowledge and outside the presence of a notary and that it was not until eight months later in October 2010 –

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=44668795 access_key=key-ks28l55dvm15scg5tk height=600 width=600 /]

This is an excellent piece!

I could not get excerpts out of it because it’s ALL perfection!

This motion pertains to the pending Florida foreclosure matter of EMC Mortgage Corporation vs. Karen A. Krondes, et al  –  (Case No: 56-2008-CA-000066), in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court In St. Lucie County, Florida.

[ipaper docId=39694571 access_key=key-mskoyxz89q32cbgx529 height=600 width=600 /]

Be sure to catch the Full Depo of Renee Hertzler below after AP Alan Zibel’s article

Bank of America delays foreclosures in 23 states

JPMorgan, Bank of America Face `Hydra’ of State Foreclosure Investigations

By Margaret Cronin Fisk – Oct 6, 2010 12:01 AM ET

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Ally Financial Inc., defending allegations of fraudulent home foreclosures from customers and Congress, may face the most financial peril from investigations by state attorneys general.

Authorities in at least seven states are probing whether lenders used false documents and signatures to justify hundreds of thousands of foreclosures, and the number of these inquiries will grow, according to state officials and legal experts.

“You’re going to see a tremendous amount of activity with all the AGs in the U.S.,” Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray said in an interview. “We have a high degree of skepticism that the corners that were cut are truly legal.”

JPMorgan, Bank of America and Ally have curtailed foreclosures or evictions in 23 states where courts have jurisdiction over home seizures.

While homeowners in those states and elsewhere must usually show damages to win a lawsuit, “attorneys general can just sue over deceptive sales practices and get penalties,” said Christopher Peterson, a University of Utah law professor who specializes in commercial and contract law.

In Ohio, penalties include fines up to $25,000 per violation, with each false affidavit or document considered a violation, according to state law enforcement officials. In Iowa, fines rise to a maximum of $40,000 for each violation.

Foreclosure Freeze

This penalty would apply to “every instance of an affidavit that was filed improperly or every time facts were attested to that weren’t true,” said Cordray. His counterpart in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, has called for a freeze on foreclosures and said the submissions are a “possible fraud on the court.”

Officials in Ohio and Connecticut, along with Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Iowa and Illinois, said they are investigating mortgage foreclosure practices.

Continue reading …BLOOMBERG

.

by Thomas MacMillan | Jul 1, 2010 4:16 pm NewHavenIndependent

While working to earn votes in her pursuit of a state representative seat, Debra Hauser has been involved in another campaign—to save her East Rock home.

“My husband had a failed business,” Hauser said on Thursday afternoon, when asked about the circumstances of foreclosure proceedings against her. She said she has recently come to an agreement with her lender to pay back the money her family owes.

Hauser (pictured), a psychologist, is one of two Democrats running for New Haven’s only open state legislative seat, representing the 96th General Assembly district. The district includes parts of Hamden and parts of New Haven, including East Rock, Fair Haven, and Wooster Square. Her opponent for the Democratic nomination is East Rock Alderman Roland Lemar.

Foreclosure proceedings on her house at 396 Livingston St. (pictured) in East Rock were initiated in November 2009. Hauser’s lawyer, James Brownstein, stated on Thursday that a settlement with the bank had been reached, but that the final settlement paperwork has not yet been filed.

An online database lists the value of Hauser’s home and property at $631,890.

According to the foreclosure case file in the clerk’s office at Superior Court on Church Street, New Alliance Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings against Hauser in November 2009. The complaint lists Hauser, her husband Jack Hauser, and Connecticut Weight And Wellness, LLC as defendants. Jack Hauser is the principal of CT Weight And Wellness.

According to the complaint, the Hausers mortgaged their home for a $500,000 loan to CT Weight And Wellness in October 2007. By June 2009, they had defaulted on the mortgage. In October 2009, the bank sent a written demand for payment. When no payment was made, the bank filed for strict foreclosure and breach of contract against Jack Hauser and CT Weight and Wellness.

Marshal Peter Criscuolo earned $108.80 for serving the Hausers’ lawyer with foreclosure papers on Nov. 12, 2009.

Jack Hauser filed for bankruptcy on Nov. 30, 2009.

Over the next six months, lawyers for the Hausers and the bank traded repeated motions asking for information and objecting to the questions being asked. On April 26, in a filing by lawyers for New Alliance, the bank charged that “The Defendants are guilty of repeated vexatious and dilatory tactics, which have substantially delayed this action and forced the Plaintiff to incur unnecessary attorneys fees.”

The same document accused the Hausers of using a “dragnet method of requesting information in hopes of obtaining a defense.” The bank objected to what it characterized as overly broad discovery requests by the Hausers’ lawyer.

“I didn’t think they were dilatory,” said Brownstein, Hauser’s lawyer, on Thursday. The bank’s charges are standard rhetoric between lawyers, he said.

Hauser said she and her attorney cooperated fully with the foreclosure case.

On June 3, the judge granted the bank’s motion to default because of the Hausers’ failure to plead. Brownstein said on Thursday that the Hausers had not responded to the complaint with a plea because they had been on the verge of a settlement.

Continue…HERE