Obama and the AGs still balk at the only solution to the housing-driven recession
Salon-
There is $700 billion in negative equity in the U.S. housing market. That means Americans owe $700 billion more than their homes are worth. Any plan for the housing sector or the U.S. economy, that doesn’t take a serious bite out of negative equity isn’t serious.
Yet un-serious is what we continue to get from elected officials. This week the Obama Administration announced a new plan to help underwater homeowners refinance their mortgages to lower rates. The plan, really an expansion of an existing program, is the latest in a series of programs designed to deal with the moribund housing market. Each has proven a more dismal disappointment than the next.
So too with the latest version of the proposed settlement between the state Attorneys General, led by Iowa’s Tom Miller, and the mortgage servicing industry. Yes, the deal has been sweetened by the addition of some interest rate reductions for underwater homeowners who are current on their payments. But that’s small potatoes.
By now, I hope you fully understand, if your AG has yet to join The State AG’s that are holding the bankers feet to the fire, than they’re working hand by hand with the bankers against you.
AG’s are there to serve the peoples interest not those that commit fraud on a massive level.
NYTimes-
Cutting to the chase: if you thought this was the deal that would hold banks accountable for filing phony documents in courts, foreclosing without showing they had the legal right to do so and generally running roughshod over anyone who opposed them, you are likely to be disappointed.
Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden sued the private national mortgage registry MERS, alleging a slew of deceptive trade practices that prevent homeowners from staving off foreclosure.
so they decided to privitize it, on their own. and in doing so, they did two things. they avoided millions upon millions of fees, and are able to more nimbly secure ties to mortgage backed securities. but they forgot to keep track of mortgages. and in Delaware, in 72% of the cases we’ve investigated, and this is just the beginning, they’ve literally foreclosed on behalf of the wrong entity. so they exercise the right to foreclosure on an entity, and in one case in Delaware that we have, they foreclosed on behalf of an entity that no longer existed. so that’s how screwed up this has become. they don’t follow their own rules, and that’s why we think they violated the Delaware deceptive trade practices act.
MERSCORP, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Excerpt:
17. Since January 1, 2008, MERS has filed over 1,600 foreclosure actions in Delaware. Thousands more foreclosures on MERS-registered mortgages have been filed in Delaware after assignments out of the MERS System that were based on the unreliable data in MERS’ records. Many more thousands of mortgages associated with outstanding loans remain recorded in the Delaware county land records in the name of MERS without appropriate indications or avenues to ascertain the identity of the true mortgagee in interest.
[…]
51. Many foreclosed-upon mortgage loans have previously been securitized and are purportedly owned at the time of foreclosure by a securitization trust. Under the law governing the creation of many securitization trusts, the contractual arrangements setting forth the manner and conditions under which mortgage loans were to be sold into a securitization is crucial to whether the securitization succeeded in owning the mortgages it purportedly bought.
[…]
C. Defendants committed and continue to commit deceptive trade practices by assigning or foreclosing upon mortgages for which MERS did not possess authority to act because the mortgage loan was never properly transferred to the purported beneficial owner.
55. The MERS System is designed to reflect the intended transfer of the beneficial ownership of a mortgage loan, but does not have adequate safeguards to ensure that the transfer recorded in MERS System accurately reflects an actual transfer of ownership. Where MERS seeks to assign a mortgage or foreclose on a mortgage loan on behalf of a securitization trust that, despite being registered as the mortgage owner in the MERS System, does not own the loan, MERS acts without authority. This is a deceptive trade practice within the meaning of 6 Del. C. § 2532(a)(2), (3), (5) and (12).
I think MERS’ Janice Spokeswoman needs to be updated on all that happened from 1998-2002 before she comments.
Just like the others who have resigned when the company is on the brink of exposure. Wait until they get a hold of those who were involved from the beginning (X-CEO and X-VP/Treasurer)… who know what’s up.
But they will be reeled back in because they knew all along this was bound to happen. You ain’t so smart now… are you?
New York’s attorney general has subpoenaed MERS, the electronic registry of mortgages used by the banking industry, seeking information about how it is used by major banks, a person familiar with the matter said.
Delaware also took action by filing a lawsuit on Thursday that accuses MERS of taking unlawful shortcuts in dealing with the foreclosure crisis.
The registry used by the banking industry is “unreliable” and “frequently inaccurate,” Beau Biden, the state’s attorney general said in the lawsuit, which seeks penalties of $10,000 per violation.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a subpoena earlier this week demanding documents from MERS about how it is used by major banks, a source told Reuters.
The subpoena is part of a joint New York-Delaware mortgage probe, the source said.
On October 27, 2011 Attorney General Beau Biden filed a lawsuit against the mortgage registry MERS that is at the center of the housing crisis. The suit charges that MERS has repeatedly violated the Delaware’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
If you are a Delaware resident and believe you have been harmed by MERS, contact the Attorney General’s Office by e-mail at mortgage@state.de.us or call the Attorney General’s Mortgage Hotline at 800-220-5424.
What is MERS: In 1995, banks and others in the mortgage lending industry created the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) – a national registry to track ownership and servicing rights for residential mortgages. This system is designed to facilitate mortgage securitizations and circumvent the traditional county Recorders of Deeds offices. The rapid rise in popularity of mortgage backed securities and their subsequent decline in value is a major cause of the housing crisis that sent America’s economy into the largest collapse since the Great Depression.
Foreclosure crisis in Delaware: Delaware is experiencing a record rate of foreclosures. The foreclosure rate tripled from 2008 to 2009, rising from 2,000 homes annually to 6,000. A record 6,457 homes were foreclosed on in 2010.
Who owns/uses MERS: There are more than 5,500 members representing the most significant players in the mortgage industry, including: mortgage lenders and servicers (Bank of America, CitiMortgage, Inc., GMAC Residential Funding Corporation, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.); government-sponsored entities (e.g., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac); insurance and title companies and the Mortgage Bankers Association.
MERS in Delaware: MERS purports to hold more than 30% of Delaware mortgages. Since January 1, 2008, MERS has filed more than 1,600 foreclosure actions in its own name against Delaware homeowners. Additionally, thousands of other homeowners whose mortgages have been tracked in the MERS system were foreclosed on by entities whose right to the property was unclear because of the unreliability of MERS’ records. Thousands more Delaware homeowners currently hold mortgages with MERS listed as the owner, but with no way to actually determine the true owner.
What is Attorney General Biden alleging: MERS violated Delaware’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act by creating an unregulated shadowy registry that is unreliable and inaccurate and blocks homeowners from learning which entity truly owns their mortgage. The complaint highlights three major deficiencies:
• MERS obscures important information from borrowers and what is available to borrowers is frequently inaccurate. • MERS acts without authority • MERS is a “front” organization that does not enforce its own rules
How the mortgage industry works: A mortgage loan taken out by a homeowner is really two documents – the first is a promissory note requiring the borrower to repay the holder of the note. The second document (the mortgage instrument) allows the holder to foreclose on the property if the loan is not repaid. The person or entity holding the note receives the money from the borrower’s monthly mortgage payments.
How securitization works: Banks that make the mortgage loans to homeowners sell the mortgage notes to other financial institutions. Several times over, the loans are bundled into investments known as mortgage-backed securities and the notes are sold to large investment groups, such as pension funds.
Where MERS comes in: As the notes are sold in the securitization process, someone has to service the loans and hold legal title to the mortgage instrument. Servicers do all the work involved with a mortgage loan on the lender side – physically collecting and distributing payments, answering borrowers’ questions, etc. MERS acts as passive place-holder on the County Recorder of Deeds public registry. Additionally, MERS can also file foreclosure actions on behalf of the note-holders in foreclosure proceedings. MERS allows its members to sell mortgages many times over without recording the transactions at the local Recorders of Deeds offices, thereby avoiding fees, eliminating any official paper trail and creating significant confusion that has led to improper foreclosures.
What the lawsuit seeks: The suit asks the Court of Chancery to impose various sanctions on MERS, including requiring it to audit its records to ensure accuracy, stop foreclosing on homes without divulging the true owner of the mortgage, and correct records filed with county Recorder of Deeds that do not list the entity that owns the mortgage. The suit seeks a civil penalty against MERS of up to $10,000 for each willful violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as restitution to borrowers who were harmed by these violations. The exact amount will be determined during trial.
Delaware joined what is becoming a growing legal battle against the mortgage industry today, charging in a Chancery Court suit that consumers facing foreclosure were purposely misled and deceived by the company that supposedly kept track of their loans’ ownership.
By operating a shadowy and frequently inaccurate private database that obscured the mortgages’ true owners, Merscorp made it difficult for hundreds of Delaware homeowners to fight foreclosure actions in court or negotiate new terms on their loans, the suit filed by the Attorney General’s Office said.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said he is working with Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden to investigate possible criminal acts by financial institutions tied to the foreclosure crisis in an interview today on the cable news network MSNBC.
Tried to get the video clip off the Rachel Maddow show but it would never work. So until it’s fixed there won’t be a video of his interview.
JULIA FELTUS, Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as TRUSTEE of MASTR ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGES TRUST 2007-3, Appellee.
Case No. 2D10-3727.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Opinion filed October 19, 2011.
Jacqulyn Mack of The Mack Law Firm, Englewood, for Appellant.Roy A. Diaz and Diana B. Matson of Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale for Appellee.
WHATLEY, Judge.
Julia Feltus appeals a final summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee of Mastr Adjustable Rate Mortgages Trust 2007-3 (U.S. Bank or the Bank). We reverse because material issues of fact as to which entity holding the promissory note executed by Feltus existed at the time the trial court entered summary judgment.
On August 24, 2009, U.S. Bank filed an unverified complaint seeking to reestablish a lost promissory note and to foreclose the mortgage on Feltus’s home. U.S. Bank attached to the complaint a copy of the note and the mortgage, but both documents showed the lender to be Countrywide Bank, N.A. In the count to reestablish the note pursuant to section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2009), U.S. Bank alleged that the note was executed by Feltus on February 16, 2007; U.S. Bank is the owner and holder of the note; the original note has been lost and is not in U.S. Bank’s custody or control; the note was continuously in the possession and control of the Bank’s assignor and predecessor from the date of execution until the loss, at which time the assignor and predecessor was entitled to enforce the note; and the note has not been paid or otherwise satisfied, assigned, or transferred, or lawfully seized. Notably, these allegations did not include an allegation that Countrywide had assigned the note to U.S. Bank.
After Feltus filed a motion to dismiss alleging that U.S. Bank had failed to establish that it owned or held the subject note, on November 16, 2009, U.S. Bank filed an affidavit of indebtedness executed by Kathy Repka, an assistant secretary of BAC Home Loan Servicing, L.P., f/k/a Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, L.P. Repka asserted that her affidavit was based on the loan payment records of the servicing agent and her familiarity with those records. After she explained that the purpose of the records was “to monitor and maintain the account relating to a note and mortgage that are the subject matter of the pending case,” Repka asserted that U.S. Bank owns and holds the note described in its complaint. Then on November 18, 2009, U.S. Bank filed another copy of the note as a supplemental exhibit to its complaint. In contrast to the copy attached to the complaint that contained no endorsements, this copy contained two endorsements that were side by side on the last page—the first stated “PAY TO THE ORDER OF: COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. WITHOUT RECOURSE COUNTRYWIDE BANK, N.A.” and the second stated “PAY TO THE ORDER OF: __________ WITHOUT RECOURSE COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.” Notwithstanding this filing, eight days after Feltus filed her answer and affirmative defenses, on May 26, 2010, U.S. Bank filed a motion for summary final judgment alleging that it “owns and holds a promissory note and mortgage” and that the original note had been lost and is not in U.S. Bank’s control. But on June 4, 2010, the Bank filed a reply to Feltus’s affirmative defenses in which it asserted that it is now in possession of the original note, which it attached and which is the same note it filed on November 18, 2009. The Bank further asserted that because the note is endorsed in blank and it is in possession of the note, it is the bearer and entitled to foreclose the mortgage. See Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So. 3d 932, 933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (noting that pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code, negotiation of note by transfer of possession with blank endorsement makes transferee the holder of the note entitled to enforce it).
We view U.S. Bank’s filing of a copy of the note that it later asserted was the original note as a supplemental exhibit to its complaint to reestablish a lost note as an attempt to amend its complaint in violation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(a). U.S. Bank did not seek leave of court or the consent of Feltus to amend its complaint. A pleading filed in violation of rule 1.190(a) is a nullity, and the controversy should be determined based on the properly filed pleadings. Warner-Lambert Co. v. Patrick, 428 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
Before a court may grant summary judgment, the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and any affidavits must “`conclusively show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'” Allenby & Assocs., Inc. v. Crown St. Vincent Ltd., 8 So. 3d 1211, 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (quoting Fini v. Glascoe, 936 So. 2d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden to show conclusively that there is a complete absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Id.
The properly filed pleadings before the court when it heard the Bank’s motion for summary judgment were a complaint seeking to reestablish a lost note, Feltus’s answer and affirmative defenses alleging that the note attached to the complaint contradicts the allegation of the complaint that U.S. Bank is the owner of the note, a motion for summary judgment alleging a lost note of which U.S. Bank is the owner, an affidavit of indebtedness alleging that U.S. Bank was the owner and holder of the note described in the complaint, and U.S. Bank’s reply to Feltus’s affirmative defenses asserting that it was now in possession of the original note, which it attached to the reply. But the note attached to the complaint showed the lender to be Countrywide Bank, N.A. And the complaint failed to allege that “[t]he person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred, or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred.” § 673.3091(a). In addition, the affidavit of indebtedness revealed no basis for the affiant’s assertion that U.S. Bank owns and holds the note. The affiant is an assistant secretary for the alleged servicing agent of the Bank, and she asserted that she had personal knowledge of the loan based on the loan payment records. She did not assert any personal knowledge of how U.S. Bank would have come to own or hold the note. See Shafran v. Parrish, 787 So. 2d 177, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“When affidavits are filed to establish the factual basis of the motion [for summary judgment], they must be made on personal knowledge, demonstrate the affiant’s competency to testify, and be otherwise admissible in evidence.”).
The trial court erred in entering final summary judgment of foreclosure because the documents before it created a genuine issue of material fact of who owned or held the note. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
CRENSHAW, J., Concurs.
CASANUEVA, J., Concurs with opinion.
CASANUEVA, Judge, Concurring.
I fully concur with the majority opinion and write only to point out further failings in the affidavit of indebtedness.
The affidavit of indebtedness was the sole affidavit offered in support of U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment. The affiant was an assistant secretary employed by the Bank’s loan servicing agent. She set forth, under oath, that her direct personal knowledge was restricted to that learned in maintaining the loan payment records of the servicing agent. And, as the majority opinion points out, she did not assert any personal knowledge of how U.S. Bank had come to own or hold the note. Beyond this deficiency noted in the majority opinion, the affiant also stated that U.S. Bank had accelerated the entire principal balance due and had “retained Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, P.A. to represent it in this matter.” Because the affiant’s competency was based only on her review of the loan payment records, she was not competent to aver as to actions of the Bank in accelerating the loan or hiring counsel, and her averments are hearsay and inadmissible at trial. The Bank could have easily established the facts of acceleration of the note and hiring of counsel with affidavits from the Bank’s official in charge of foreclosing this loan and/or the Bank’s counsel to establish the fact of hiring and of the fee arrangement. Such bank official or counsel would have direct personal knowledge, would be competent, and would have presented evidence admissible at trial.
The affidavit the Bank submitted fell woefully short of these requirements and could not aid the Bank in any way to support its motion for summary judgment of foreclosure.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.
Imagine that a group of arsonists was terrorizing your town. First they’d buy insurance on a stranger’s home, then they’d show up with a blowtorch and a tanker truck filled with gasoline and burn the place down. Imagine that they’ve burned down a thousand homes this way, ruining the lives of the homeowners — and everyone else’s, too, as real estate values plunged and the local economy collapsed.
Now let’s imagine that the Mayor, the DA, and the Chief of Police said they’ve come up with a great “settlement”: The arsonists will pay a small fine, and they’ll never be prosecuted for arson. Plus, if they’re asked very nicely, they’ll also agree to provide a little help to 27 out of the 1,000 families they made homeless — although they’d control the ‘help’ process and the town might wind up footing the bill anyway.
And one more thing: They get to keep the gasoline truck and the blowtorch. ____________________________
People NEED JOBS ..!! I don’t care if you refi or reduce the mortgage 50%… “people” need jobs.
Do all the math you want and all these mortgages will head back into default. Is anyone paying close attention to the economy? Just because AG’s have security and banker back ups, there are millions who can barely put food on the table. So this refinance plan WILL NOT WORK for all!
Again, if anyone does this… you will create new paper to correct any issues that may exist with the original paper trail.
It’s a trap and no wonder this world is failing.
LA Times-
California is reemerging as a central focus for state attorneys general hoping to reach a nationwide wrongful-foreclosure settlement with major banks, even though the Golden State walked away from talks three weeks ago.
Iowa Atty. Gen. Tom Miller, who is leading the negotiations on behalf of the states and federal agencies, met with representatives of the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers in Washington on Friday to discuss details of a new plan aimed at enticing California back into the fold.
The key paragraph in Manhattan federal judge William Pauley III‘s 21-page ruling Wednesday in Bank of America’s proposed $8.5 billion settlement with Countrywide mortgage-backed-securities investors is the last one.
“The settlement agreement at issue here implicates core federal interests in the integrity of nationally chartered banks and the vitality of the national securities markets,” Pauley wrote. “A controversy touching on these paramount federal interests should proceed in federal court.”
Me thinks this just sunk the Foreclosure Fraud Settlement ship!
California is trying to determine whether BofA and its Countrywide Financial subsidiary sold investments backed by risky mortgages to investors in California under false pretenses, a source says.
Oh Hella Yeah…they did & They everyone knows this!
La Times-
Investigators with the state attorney general’s office have subpoenaed Bank of America Corp. in connection with the sale and marketing of troubled mortgage-backed securities to California investors, according to a person familiar with the probe.
The state is trying to determine whether the bank and its Countrywide Financial subsidiary sold investments backed by risky mortgages to institutional and private investors in California under false pretenses, according to the person, who was not authorized to speak publicly and requested confidentiality.
Bob Ivry, Hugh Son and Christine Harper have written an article that needs to be read by everyone interested in the financial crisis. The article (available here) is entitled: BofA Said to Split Regulators Over Moving Merrill Derivatives to Bank Unit. The thrust of their story is that Bank of America’s holding company, BAC, has directed the transfer of a large number of troubled financial derivatives from its Merrill Lynch subsidiary to the federally insured bank Bank of America (BofA). The story reports that the Federal Reserve supported the transfer and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) opposed it. Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism has written an appropriately blistering attack on this outrageous action, which puts the public at substantially increased risk of loss.
I write to add some context, point out additional areas of inappropriate actions, and add a regulatory perspective gained from dealing with analogous efforts by holding companies to foist dangerous affiliate transactions on insured depositories. I’ll begin by adding some historical context to explain how B of A got into this maze of affiliate conflicts.
Beau Biden, Attorney General for the State of Delaware, has made it his mission along to hold the banks accountable for their behavior in such a way that we can discipline and encourage our way into a system that actually resurrects a positive future for the people in this country. Here’s his interview.
It’s official now and it’s very clear that the AG’s behind this foreclosure fraud settlement are purposely doing something so insane that it does not surprise us. For example, take the Michael Hudson’s iWatch series that takes us behind the scenes of what really went down in Countrywide.
Now take a look at what Reuters is reporting the AG’s want to include in the settlement
In recent days, the state attorneys general agreed to release major banks from claims that they made legal errors when first originating the loans, such as approving loans for borrowers without verifying any income, according to two people familiar with the talks.
Is there any other reports out there of more fraudulent activity we can post so this also gets included in the settlement before it’s wrapped up in the coming few days?
In case you want a refresher of Attorney Kathy Patrick you can read a letter from Attorneys for Bank of America, who fired back at her on November 4, 2010 about her “baseless allegations”.
Her $8.5 billion Bank of America settlement over bad mortgage deals was just the beginning. Now, backed by bond giants Pimco and BlackRock, Texas lawyer Kathy Patrick is gearing up for a new legal assault on the financial industry.
IN RE WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE-BACKED CERTIFICATES LITIGATION.
Consolidated Class Action No. 09-CV-1376-LHK (PSG).
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division.
October 13, 2011.
Kathy D. Patrick-Texas Bar No. 15581400, Scott A. Humphries-Texas Bar No. 00796800, Gibbs & Bruns LLP, Houston, Texas, Email: kpatrick@gibbsbruns.com, Email: shumphries@gibbsbruns.com.
.
(Pending Pro Hac Vice Admission), Charles M. Kagay-CBN 73377, Spiegel Liao & Kagay, LLP, San Francisco, California, Email: cmk@slksf.com, Attorneys for Neuberger Berman Europe, Ltd. and Bayerische Landesbank.
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.
Kathy D. Patrick, whose business address and telephone number is 1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 5300, Houston, Texas 77002, (713) 650-8805 and who is an active member in good standing of the bar of Texas having applied in the above-entitled action for admission to practice in the Northern District of California on a pro hac vice basis, representing Neuberger Berman Europe, Ltd., as Agent for Sealink Funding, Ltd. and Bayerische Landesbank.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application Is granted, subject to the terms and conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate appearance pro hac vice. Service of papers upon and communication with co-counsel designated in the application will constitute notice to the party. All future filings in this action are subject to the requirements contained in General Order No. 45, Electronic Case Filing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ———————————————————x RICHARD DELMAN, derivatively on behalf of the Nominal Defendant, Plaintiff,
–against —
CHARLES K. GIFFORD, D. PAUL JONES, JR., FRANK P. BRAMBLE, SR., MONICA C. LOZANO, THOMAS J. MAY, VIRGIS W. COLBERT, CHARLES O. HOLLIDAY, BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, DONALD E. POWELL, MUKESH D. AMBANI, SUSAN S. BIES, CHARLES O. ROSSOTTI and CHARLES H. NOSKI, Defendants,
–and–
BANK OF AMERICA CORP., a Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant
EXCERPTS:
2. Thus, at the time the CWC acquisition closed in July 2008, BAC management and its Board had a full understanding of the potential liabilities which might arise in the future. Rather than coming clean, or resolving the CWC issues, BAC management and the Board adopted a wrongful and obstinate policy: refusing to cooperate with government regulators investigating the Company’s mortgage foreclosure practices; obtaining reimbursement on government guaranteed mortgages which were likely violative of the False Claims Act; failing to comply with an Arizona Consent Decree requiring that BAC fairly entertain mortgage modifications; engaging in massive “Robo-Signing” of foreclosure documents; agreeing to cease Robo-Signing, but then resuming Robo-Signing despite its questionable legality. (“Robo Signing” is the bulk execution of foreclosure-related documents without actual review for accuracy and adequacy).
[…]
4. The BAC Board knew that BAC was legally obligated to proceed with legacy mortgage foreclosures in a prudent lawful manner. This did not occur. Rather, the Board wholly failed to rein in management. On the contrary, it let management engage in blatantly unlawful excesses as outlined above and as discussed in detail below. The BAC Board is composed of banking, finance and business professionals who fully understand the issues facing BAC, and who fully appreciate why its response need to be lawful and transparent. Nonetheless, the Board ignored numerous c1ear-as-day reports of irregularity bordering on fraud, and allowed the Company to get drawn in to additional illegality, materially raising BAC’s potential liability. As a result, the BAC Board breached its fiduciary duty and should be held liable to BAC for the harm it has caused.
1. Did the borrower have a choice or was he/she coerced into accepting MERS, who they really had no idea of what or who it was?
2. Was it ever disclosed that many of the lenders are shareholders of MERS, also who may own the first or second position… this includes Fannie Mae who is a shareholder?
3. Since Fannie (GSE) is owned by “taxpayers” why is she acting 100% private – 100% of the time?
4. One may have been coerced into having MERS in their documents but one would never accept forgery or robo-signing because everyone knows this would be fraud and therefore void the transaction…like a check.
With mounting evidence of robo-signing and other alleged fraud perpetrated by banks, foreclosure law firms and others, Fannie Mae and Flagstar Bank have filed a new defense of such actions in Ingham County Circuit Court — and Ingham County Register of Deeds Curtis Hertel, Jr. is crying foul.
“What they are basically saying is they can forge an assignment and there is nothing the citizen or court can do about it. It is a brazen attempt to legalize robosigning,” says Hertel. “It’s just another example of Fannie Mae thumbing its nose at the American people, and unfortunately while they are under federal bailout we are paying for it.”
This is happening in the case of a Haslett man who suffered a stroke and fell behind on his mortgage payments. As a result, Flagstar Bank and Fannie Mae foreclosed on him and are now in the final stages of evicting him from his Haslett home, says Hertel.
![[VIDEO] New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman “MBS’s That Brought Down The Country…All Issued Out of NY, DE Trusts” – The Rachel Maddow Show](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ericschneiderman1.jpg&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
![Why Judge Pauley kept $8.5bn BofA MBS case in federal court [READ RULING]](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2011/10/dueprocess1.jpg&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
![AG Beau Biden Discusses His Fight to Investigate the Banks, MERS on The Dylan Ratigan Show [VIDEO]](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2011/10/BeauBiden-DelawareAGonhisFighttoInvestigatetheBanks-DylanRatigan_13189791900081.png&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
Recent Comments