Q. But, for example, looking at this assignment,
document, isn’t the signer, Bethany Hood, attesting to
the fact that MERS wants to assign the Deed of Trust to Indymac Federal Bank?
MR. SPOONMORE: That’s a
mischaracterization, I object. Bethany Hood isn’t
representing; MERS is representing. That’s a gross
misinterpretation of the document.
MS. HUELSMAN: No. Ms. Hood is signing on
behalf of MERS; therefore, she is making an affirmation
on behalf of MERS.
MR. SPOONMORE: MERS is making the
affirmation.
MS. HUELSMAN: She’s making it on their
behalf.
MR. SPOONMORE: Yeah, as MERS is the one
making the affirmation.
Q. So could you please answer the question,
Mr. Allen?
A. MERS is making the reaffirmation.
Q. Mr. Allen, you’re not allowed to parrot
your attorney’s response. Please-
MR. SPOONEMOORE: He’s-
MS. HUELSMAN: –answer–
MR. SPOONMORE: –answered your–
MS. HUELSMAN: –the question.
Are you coaching him, Mr. Spoonmore?
MR. SPOONMORE: No. I’m saying the
premise of your question-
MS. HUELSMAN: well-
MR. SPOONEMOORE: –is–
MS. HUELSMAN: –a speaking–
MR. SPOONEMOORE:–misleading–
MS. HUELSMAN: –objection is providing
your client with an answer –your client with an
answer to a question, and that’s improper.
MR. SPOONEMOORE: Well, and a misleading
legal premise to your question is clearly
objectionable, because this client is not an attorney.
When you represent Mr. Hood is representing, that is
a gross legal mischarachterization of this document. I’m
allowed to correct that.
MS. HUELSMAN: Well, I disagree. When
people sign documents in their capacity as alleged
officers of the company, they are, in fact, making a
representation.
If MERS can figure out how, as a corporation,
which doesn’t exist except on paper, it can can sign
documents itself, then, in fact, it can say it’s
doing so without the assistance of a person.
MR. SPOONEMOORE: Legally it is MERS making the representation. People are authorized to sign on behalf of MERS. That doesn’t make them making the representation; it makes MERS making the representation.
Q. Okay. So when did MERS tell Ms. Hood that
this is what it wanted to do?
A. I would think within the –when granting the
signing authority.
Q. No. When did MERS specifically say to
Bethany Hood, We want to assign our interest in the
Deed of Trust referenced herein to IndyMac Federal
Bank? When did that occur?
MR. SPOONEMOORE: Counsel knows very well
that MERS can operate through counsel, which is their
agent. Again, you’re asking misleading questions of
this witness, and you know it. You know that MERS’s
counsel made this request, and that an agent of MERS.
MS. HUELSMAN: Well, then, you can explain
to Regional Trustee why they they violated their duty to-
to the Deed of trust doc by acting on behalf and as an
agent for somebody when they’re suppose to be acting
as a neutral in conjunction with a foreclosure sale.
Is that your representation, Counsel?
MR. SPOONEMOORE: That’s not us. You can
go after who ever you want, but as far as what we’re
doing, you’re way off base here.
Q. When did MERS give instruction to Bethany
Hood to assign this Deed of Trust? Whether it came
through Regional Trustee or Santa Clause, I don’t care.
When did MERS give this instruction to Ms. Hood?
The latest bombshell follows with a brilliant 325 Pg. Deposition of LPS/ Fidelity’s Bill Newland.
Feel free to upload docs using email a tip link located above the site.
EXCERPTS:
2 Q Sure. Are there any attorneys who are not
3 members of the Fidelity — or the LPS attorney network
4 who can access your Process Management system?
5 A Not that I’m aware of.
6 Q And is it a fact that the only attorneys who
7 are using Process Management are attorneys who have
8 signed a referral agreement with LPS?
9 A That would be correct.
10 Q So, while your clients are free to choose
11 whomever as a foreclosing attorney, if they are an MSP
12 user and they are an LPS — they have an LPS agreement
13 with you for Default Solutions, the only attorneys
14 available on LPS system are attorneys who have signed
15 a contract with LPS?
16 A That have signed a contract with LPS, yes.
<SNIP>
3 Q So I just want to be sure. What you’re
4 testifying to is that there is no compensation ever
5 paid by the servicer to LPS Default Solutions for all
6 this work that it does on behalf of the servicer with
7 respect to the foreclosure?
8 A No.
9 Q There is compensation or there is not
10 compensation?
11 A No, there’s no compensation.
12 Q Is it your testimony then that the only fees
13 which LPS Default Solutions collects with respect to
14 the foreclosure of any given loan is the
15 administrative support fee charged to the network
16 attorneys?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And the division of LPS Default Solutions
19 which we are here about today and which you are
20 testifying as a 30(b)(6) representative, the only
21 source of income it derives for its work with respect
22 to foreclosure is the administrative support fee?
23 A That’s my understanding.
That seems to be the approach that notorious robo-signing firm Nationwide Title Clearing has taken in responding to some of its critics.
If you are unfamiliar with their name, you might recall earlier this Fall when depositions of several Nationwide robo-signers employees went viral on YouTube (We mentioned these here and here).
This, amongst other perceived sleights has upset Nationwide Title, who has sued a St. Petersburg foreclosure defense lawyer, Matthew Weidner, for alleged libel and slander.
This is likely to be a terrible, terrible idea.
For those of you who are not attorneys, I need to point out a few things out about Libel and Slander laws in the United States. These are Constitutional issues, as the First Amendment protects speech, opinion, arguments, viewpoints, etc. In these cases, (capital “T”) Truth is an absolute defense. So if any defendant can demonstrate that the damaging statements were indeed, accurate, they win.
This case turns on the bizarre claim that the term robo-signer so libels the plaintiffs that they are entitled to damages. Given that Truth is a defense, the defendant will prevail if they can demonstrate Nationwide’s approach was robotic. Not literally machines doing the work, but any showing of assembly line manufacturing, for profit, of a streamlined document production that failed to review the documents, evaluate them, analyze the contents should qualify.
Here’s where things get very very interesting: In civil litigation, the discovery process provides lots of opportunities for a defendant to gather information related to the accusations to prove they are true. This is a very broad standard, and it means nearly anything relevant is fair game. Depositions of senior executives, the firm’s accounting and records, balance sheets, low level employees are all legitimate aspects of pre-trial discovery.
Why any private firm would subject themselves to this degree of scrutiny is quite baffling to me.
According to a Certification filed by NTC’s counsel, on November 17, 2010, the trial court contacted via e-mail and requested that a one-hour hearing be set on Friday, November 19th, to hear the pending motions. App. Tab 10. NTC’s counsel learned that Mr. Forrest was traveling outside of the country and would not return until the following Monday, November 22nd. Id. As NTC’s counsel explained: …
Q So the original —
5 A — and I’ve been to her office.
6 Q — the original was located in your office?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Where’s your office located?
9 A Simi Valley, California.
10 Q And has the original of this allonge remained in your
11 office until you appeared here today?
12 A We had sent it on to — to our attorneys. They were in
13 possession of it.
14 Q And again, who do you believe is the holder of the note
15 and mortgage here?
16 A Well, Countrywide — Bank of America — whatever we’re
17 calling ourselves these days, we are Bank of America now — we
18 originated this loan. It was originated via a broker and it’s
19 really always been a Countrywide loan. The investor is Bank
20 of New York. We are the servicer of the loan.
21 Q Now, when you say it’s really a Countrywide loan, wasn’t
22 it sold? Wasn’t this loan securitized and ultimately sold —
23 sold to this trust?
24 A Right, it would have been securitized and sold. They are
25 the investors of the loan. But we are the ones that would
<SNIP>
9 A Who is in possession of the note? We have the note in our
10 origination file.
11 Q So — so Bank of New York as trustee does not hold the
12 note, is that correct, or is not in possession of the note?
13 A The original note to my knowledge is in the origination
14 file.
15 Q Where is the — do you have it here today?
16 A No, I don’t have it with me here today.
17 Q So you don’t have the note?
18 A It’s in our office.
19 Q So it’s in your office, it’s not with this trust that owns
20 the — that’s supposedly holds the — or is the owner of this
21 note, is that correct?
22 A That’s correct. 23 Q And your testimony is that this allonge was never
24 submitted to — it was never in the possession of Bank of New
25 York as trustee for the certificate holder, is that correct?
<SNIP>
9 Q And this allonge, it’s a stand-alone document, correct?
10 It’s not attached to anything, is that correct?
11 A I’m not sure I’m understanding your question.
12 Q Was there anything — when you brought the original that’s
13 in front of you, did you remove it? Was it stapled to
14 something else?
15 A No, it wouldn’t have necessarily been stapled to something
16 else. There would have probably been other documents showing
17 the — you know, we would have shown her the note. We would
18 have reviewed all of that before.
THE COURT: All right. I have the supplemental and
12 second supplemental submissions of Countrywide and the reply.
13 Mr. Kaplan, I look to you first. I am, frankly, appalled at
14 the confusion and lack of credibility of Countrywide’s
15 response to the issue of the note — the possession of the
16 note.
17 We started out with Ms. DeMartini’s testimony that
18 the note never leaves the servicer. She says that she saw a
19 Federal Express receipt whereby the actual note, the physical,
20 original note was transferred to the Foreclosure Department
21 internally in the same building, but that the note had not yet
22 been located. That’s where we stood at that point.
23 Then we had a submission, the supplemental
24 submission saying the original note has been found and can be
25 available for inspection. It doesn’t say where it was found,
1 who had possession or the like, but it was found and is
2 available for inspection.
3 And then without any explanation, there is a lost
4 note affidavit presented dated February of 2007 indicating
5 that the note cannot be found. No explanation provided. What
6 do I do with that, Mr. Kaplan?
<SNIP>
THE COURT: It’s amazing how sloppy this
2 presentation was, and I’m very disappointed about that.
3 Anyway — all right. Well, thank you, Mr. Kaplan. Do you
4 want to present testimony? Does it matter, you know, because
5 there is no testimony regarding possession by Bank of New York
6 as Trustee, correct?
7 MR. KAPLAN: That’s correct, Your Honor. I’m not
8 disputing that. That’s what Ms. DeMartini testified to, that
9 the note — she had no record of this note leaving and going
10 across country, across wherever, to Bank of New York.
11 THE COURT: And you do understand as well that the
12 Pooling and Servicing Agreement requires that transfer, that
13 physical transfer of the note in accordance with — and
14 endorsement — in accordance with UCC requirements?
15 MR. KAPLAN: I understand that, Your Honor. I’ll
16 simply say for the sake of edification, but this is — and I
17 was told it was all e-filed — this is apparently the index to
18 this Master Servicing Agreement showing all the loans and it
19 does reference the Kemp loan. It’s a double-side document,
20 includes all the loans.
21 And I can say that, although Your Honor is right and
22 the UCC and the Master Servicing Agreement apparently requires
23 that, procedure seems to indicate that they don’t physically
24 move documents from place to place because of the fear of loss
25 and the trouble involved and the people handling them. They
basically execute the necessary documents and retain them as
2 long as servicing’s retained. The documents only leave when
3 servicing is released.
4 THE COURT: They take their chances.
5 MR. KAPLAN: I understand, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Understood. Thank you.
7 Counsel, the proof of claim was filed — let’s see
8 — it was filed by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., servicer for
9 Bank of New York — now, that’s wrong. We understand that.
10 Can the — can these problems be corrected post-petition? In
11 other words, we know that claims can be transferred post12
petition.
13 What about if the note, the original note now that
14 has seemingly appeared, is now transferred to the Bank of New
15 York as Trustee and amended, it wouldn’t have to — well, it
16 would be amended to reflect that Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
17 is not the right party, but Countrywide Home Loans, Master
18 Servicing or servicing whatever that name is, as servicer for
19 Bank of New York, Trustee, is filing this proof of claim,
20 what’s wrong with that?
How to report? One of the things we strongly recommend is that you look at the MISMO standards, the Mortgage Industry Standards Maintenance Organization, for definitions, for format, and I think this might address issues, for example, with HUD reported credit score. That if you like at the MISMO, we don’t simply look at one field for credit score. There’s a field for a number. There’s also then a field of whether it’s a vantage score, whether it comes from FICO, what vendor reported the score. So that there are a number of variables then that are really behind it, and if you simply then pick up all of these variables associated with the credit score the way we do, you can then use the information internal to then generate whatever percentile or whatever calculation you would like to do, but that that would not be put back on the lender to reenter data, to rekey it, but instead use what’s already out there in the industry. Also it would provide for easier changes later on, if any additions are needed.
What about a universal mortgage identifier? That has been brought up. We would strongly recommend that you look at the mortgage identification number that’s been put out by the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, MERS. It allows us to track mortgages throughout the system from application all the way to sale of servicing, sales of the secondary market and I think for these purposes it would allow us to really sort of track some of the under coverage that we do see in the HMDA data. We did some analysis and found that by throwing out all the correspondent loans, we are eliminating a number of loans that had no counterpart in the retail broker data.
What to make public? Well, we really think that’s your decision. In a sense that there are a number of data elements here that we would very much not want to make public as companies because of the limitations we face, but that certainly that’s an issue that the bureau and the Fed will have to face going forward is the tradeoff between risks of identity theft associated with some of these elements and that, but that’s really your decision to make rather than the industry, and to some degree, we would benefit, I think, in terms of what would explain what’s going on in the industry with a greater data release.
Finally on multifamily, we did an analysis and we think that HMDA already covers about 95 percent of the multifamily loans that are made. In contrast, though, it covers only about 60 percent or so of the dollar amount of the loans. So that if you look then at the average loan amount that’s in HMDA, it’s about $1.7 million for a multifamily loan. If you look at the average loan size of what’s missing, it’s about $19 million. So we don’t know how much effort really should be put into trying to capture this remaining 5 percent of really high dollar loans that are done for just an entirely different set of investors out there. So I think you really ought to look at what do you really want to do with the multifamily data? Do you really want to expand it or is there a questionable usefulness of what’s already there? Thank you.
Action Date: November 8, 2010
Location: Palm Harbor, FL
The video-taped depositions of employees of Nationwide Title Clearing in Palm Harbor, Florida, were made available on the website Stop Foreclosure Fraud.
The deposition of Bryan Bly is particularly startling and straightforward. Bryan Bly signed documents and witnessed or notarized other documents. Bly testified that he did not witness the signatures he notarized. Bly signed in batches of 200. Bly signed approximately 5,000 mortgage assignments each day. Bly also signed as an officer of many lenders. Bly signed as an officer of over 20 banks and mortgage companies. His supervisors told him there were corporate resolutions authorizing him to sign using these titles. Bly had no knowledge of the information on the documents. Bly did not know what was meant by a mortgage assignment or an attorney-in-fact although he signed mortgage assignments as an officer of Citi Financial as attorney-in-fact for Argent Mortgage. He did not verify any information other than to make sure co-employees had signed their names so there were no blank lines on the documents. He has done this work for approximately 10 years.
One of the titles not discussed in the deposition, but used on tens of thousands of mortgage assignments signed by Bly was Attorney-In-Fact, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for IndyMac Federal Bank FSB, successor to IndyMac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. Bly continued to sign as Attorney-In-Fact for the FDIC as recently as June 25, 2010. A copy of an assignment signed by Bly as Attorney-In-Fact for the FDIC is available in the “Pleadings” section of Fraud Digest.
Q I know that, but you signed the document
saying that you had done some things. Are you saying
you know it to be true simply because it was presented
to you?
A No.
Q Well, how do you know that Deutsche Bank
National Bank, as trustee is owed a thing?
A Because of the process in the place with the
department that generate the foreclosure figures for
us, and I rely on their integrity and their accuracy.
Q Do you know if Deutsche Bank owned the notes as
of the day this was notarized February, 27, 2007?
A Yes.
Q How do you know that?
A By the transaction of the sale of the loan to
them.
Q By who?
A By investor operations.
Q Who is investor operations?
A They are the department that processed the
reporting to the investors.
4 Q. So all of the client files, all of your
5 clients have a file in that system, and you maintain
6 records relating to that client in these files?
7 A. No. Specific clients are in specific
8 systems. So you update only those clients that are in
9 that particular system.
10 Q. Okay. What system would MERS be in?
11 A. MERS isn’t in the system.
12 Q. They’re not? What about GMAC Mortgage, LLC?
13 A. They’re NewTrack.
14 Q. What other systems do you use for the — for
15 the clients, for your clients?
16 A. It depends upon the client.
17 Q. Can you give me some examples of the systems?
18 A. Um, we have Lendstar, we have Vendorscape,
19 those are the two that I have used.
20 Q. And you’ve also used NewTrack?
21 A. Yes, ma’am.
22 Q. What type of information do you keep in the
23 systems?
24 A. We have to update when hearings are
25 scheduled, when service is complete for the clients.
1 Q. Do you also keep in those systems,
2 information as to when the lawsuit is filed, when
3 assignments are executed, when affidavits are
4 executed?
5 A. When complaints are filed, yes.
6 Q. But not when assignments are executed or
7 affidavits are executed?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Is that information kept in another software
10 program?
11 A. Not to my knowledge.
<SNIP>
1 A. It’s a form. It’s the same form for every
2 assignment.
3 Q. So you do not read them?
4 A. They’re checked by an attorney before I sign.
5 Q. So you rely on the attorney?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Also, in this document it indicates
8 that “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,
9 residing or located at care of GMAC Mortgage, LLC,”
10 what does that mean?
11 A. The address of the servicer.
12 Q. So Mortgage Electronic Registration System is
13 the servicer?
14 A. Mortgage Electronic Registrations is who
15 the — the mortgage apparently was sitting in the name
16 of for this file at the time.
17 Q. And GMAC is the servicer?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. What does that phrase residing or located at
20 care of mean?
21 A. That’s an address.
22 Q. So MERS is physically located at GMAC
23 Mortgage, LLC?
24 A. I don’t know.
25 Q. Don’t know. Do you have access to any of the
1 title work, or any other information before you
2 execute the assignments of mortgage?
3 A. It’s in the file that’s been reviewed by the
4 attorney.
5 Q. So you don’t review them yourself?
6 A. No. It’s been reviewed by the attorney.
7 Q. Are you — what provides you the
8 authorization to sign?
9 You notice on the assignment, that you’re
10 executing it as Assistant Secretary of Mortgage
11 Electronic Registration System; is that correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. So before I asked you if you were employed by
14 any other corporations, you indicated that you were
15 not. What does it mean when you hold the position of
16 Assistant Secretary of Mortgage Electronic
17 Registration Systems, Inc.?
18 A. We have power of attorney.
19 Q. And what does that mean?
20 A. That we had authorization to sign on behalf
21 of.
22 Q. And did you obtain that power of attorney?
23 A. No, I did not.
24 Q. Did you — do you know anything about the
25 negotiations leading up to the execution of that power
1 of attorney?
2 A. No.
<SNIP>
23 Q. If you’ll take a look at the first document
24 that I handed to you, the Lis Pendens and complaint.
25 If you look, there’s a document attached to that as
1 Exhibit A. And who is listed as the lender on that
2 document?
3 A. It says MERS.
4 Q. And does it, a little bit further down, also
5 say Taylor, Bean, and Whitaker Mortgage Corporation,
6 “lender —
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. — is organized and existing under the laws
9 of?”
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. Do you have any documents — did you have any
12 documents in your file relating to Taylor, Bean and
13 Whitaker Mortgage Corporation at the time you executed
14 the assignment?
15 A. I don’t know.
16 Q. Would you have looked at the original
17 mortgage prior to executing the assignment?
18 (Brief telephonic interruption.)
19 THE WITNESS: No. Again, they were reviewed
20 by an attorney.
Q. Okay. And did it actually grant you
14 authority to sign as vice president anywhere in there?
15 A. The listing capacity on that assignment was
16 — is a clerical error. It needed to state “attorney in
17 fact.” This document grants the power as attorney in
18 fact.
19 Q. Okay. So —
20 A. But it does grant the authority to execute
21 the assignment of mortgage.
22 Q. Okay. So you are not vice president of
23 Wells Fargo Bank N.A.?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Okay. During your employment at Florida
1 Default Law Group, were there other companies that you
2 would execute assignments of mortgages on behalf of?
3 A. Yes. I believe there were others.
4 Q. And would you execute those assignments of
5 mortgages as attorney in fact or vice president?
6 A. I believe it varied. I do believe there were
7 other corporate resolutions that it did vary, the
8 capacity in which I signed.
9 Q. Okay. Do you recall specifically any of the
10 other entities that you would execute assignments of
11 mortgages on behalf of?
12 A. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
13 known as MERS.
14 Q. MERS?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And what was your capacity as — what was
17 your signing authority on behalf of MERS?
18 A. I believe it was as vice president and
19 assistant secretary. I’m not positive, but I believe it
20 was as vice president.
21 Q. All right. Are you currently — this grants
22 you authority to act as attorney in fact for Wells Fargo
23 Bank until December 31st, 2010.
24 Do you still then execute documents as
25 attorney in fact for Wells Fargo Bank?
1 A. No, I don’t.
2 Q. Okay. And when did you stop doing that?
3 A. It would have been when I left Florida
4 Default in October of 2008.
5 Q. Okay. So was the sole basis of your actions
6 to sign documents as attorney in fact for Wells Fargo
7 Bank out of your employment for Florida Default Law
8 Group?
9 MS. HILL: Object to form.
10 MR. GANO: Objection to the form.
11 A. I’m sorry. Can you rephrase it?
12 Q. Outside of working as an attorney for Florida
13 Default Law Group, did you execute assignments of
14 mortgages for Wells Fargo Bank pursuant to this for any
15 other types of actions not related to Florida Default
16 Law Group?
17 A. No.
18 MS. HILL: When you say “this,” you pointed.
19 For record, you are referring to?
20 MR. IMMEL: This Limited Power of Attorney.
21 MR. GANO: Exhibit A.
22 MR. IMMEL: Exhibit A.
23 Q. And have you ever been to Wells Fargo Bank’s
24 headquarters or any of their offices?
25 A. No. I don’t believe I have.
1 Q. Okay. Are you aware — did you have to apply
2 for the limited power of attorney status with Wells
3 Fargo?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Are you aware of how you were chosen as a
6 limited — to be appointed the limited power of
7 attorney?
8 A. No, I don’t.
9 Q. Okay. Did Wells Fargo Bank provide you any
10 formal training or, I guess, any sort of detailed job
11 responsibilities, or was just this limited power of
12 attorney provided to you?
13 MR. GANO: I’m going to object as far as that
14 going into any specific instructions regarding
15 particular files that she was working while at
16 Florida Default on behalf of the Plaintiff.
17 Q. Without divulging privileged information, if
18 you would limit the answer to that.
19 A. Instruction from Wells Fargo, no.
20 Q. Okay. Did you receive any compensation from
21 Wells Fargo Bank for your duties as an attorney in fact,
22 limited power of attorney?
23 MR. SMITH: You’re asking about her
24 personally?
25 MR. IMMEL: Yes, her personally.
1 A. No.
2 Q. No. Okay. Did you ever attend any board
3 meetings or executive meetings for Wells Fargo Bank?
4 A. No.
5 Q. For that matter, with regard to your signing
6 authority on behalf of MERS, was there any difference
7 between how you carried out your authority with being
8 able to sign documents on behalf of MERS versus Wells
9 Fargo Bank?
10 MS. HILL: I’m going to object to the form.
11 A. I’m sorry. Rephrase, please.
12 Q. Okay. In executing an assignment of mortgage
13 on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank pursuant to the Limited
14 Power of Attorney, when you would do that, did that
15 differ in any way from when you would execute them and
16 an assignment of mortgage on behalf of MERS?
17 A. No.
18 MS. HILL: Object to the form.
19 Q. Okay. Are you still — do you still have
20 signing authority on behalf of MERS?
21 A. I don’t know.
22 Q. You don’t know?
23 A. No, sir.
24 Q. Okay. Did MERS pay you for executing
25 assignments of mortgages?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Okay. Approximately, how many assignments of
3 mortgages would you execute on behalf of Wells Fargo
4 Bank?
5 A. I have no —
6 MS. HILL: Object to the form.
7 A. I don’t know.
8 Q. Okay. Going back to Exhibit A, it says that
9 Mark Wooton, Vice President of Loan Documentation,
10 granted this Limited Power of Attorney.
11 Did you ever meet Mark Wooton?
12 MS. HILL: I’m going to object to the form
13 only to the extent that Mark Wooton signed the
14 Limited Power of Attorney, I don’t know if signing
15 it is the same thing as granting it or if there is
16 a distinction. But to that extent, I’m objecting
17 to the question.
18 Q. Mark Wooton signed the Limited Power of
19 Attorney. Did you ever meet Mark Wooton?
20 A. Not that I recall.
21 Q. Okay. Are you aware of whether he was
22 authorized to sign this Limited Power of Attorney?
23 A. No. I don’t know.
24 Q. Okay. Did you report to anyone directly at
25 Wells Fargo Bank?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did you receive directions to execute an
3 assignment of mortgage directly from Wells Fargo Bank?
4 MR. GANO: I’m going to object base upon
5 attorney-client privilege, any specific
6 instruction she obtained regarding this case or
7 any other cases.
8 Q. Without divulging privileged information.
9 A. We did have a procedure that under certain
10 circumstances, yes, we were directed to prepare the
11 assignments.
12 Q. Okay. Could you, I guess, describe the
13 procedure for when you would be directed, without
14 divulging attorney-client privileges?
15 A. Yes. When our client referred in the
16 mortgage referral.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. It could be the owner or it could be the
19 servicer. In this particular case with Wells Fargo,
20 they sent in the referral. They indicated that they
21 were the servicer for the new owner, which I believe was
22 HSBC, and indicated that HSBC was the proper owner and
23 holder of the note.
24 In that event of record, Wells was the last
25 of-record owner and holder of the note; therefore, we
1 were to effectuate the assignment of mortgage prepared
2 and executed on behalf of Wells Fargo.
3 Q. Okay. What type of documents would you rely
4 upon to determine that aside from just the referral
5 stating that HSBC Bank was, I guess, the owner of the
6 note; what other documents would you rely upon to
7 ascertain that?
8 A. That HSBC was the owner?
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. We relied on our client’s referral indicating
11 that they had sold it to HSBC.
12 Q. Okay. Was there any other information that
13 you can recall?
14 A. Not that I recall.
15 Q. Okay. So going back to the referral, the
16 determination to execute an assignment of mortgage then
17 would be sent to you by Wells Fargo in a case like this
18 — in this case?
19 MR. GANO: Object to the form.
20 A. I’m sorry. I don’t quite understand that
21 question.
22 Q. Okay. Wells Fargo directed you to execute
23 the assignment of mortgage in this case?
24 MR. GANO: Again, I’m going to object based
25 upon any specific information given as
1 attorney-client privilege.
2 Q. Without divulging attorney-client privilege.
3 A. Under the procedure we had, yes.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Okay. And how would the referral — how was
7 the referral sent?
8 A. I’m not positive. It varied. I believe it
9 was electronic.
10 Q. Okay. And in situations where the — would
11 you ever rely upon the note to determine who to execute
12 an assignment of mortgage to?
13 A. Rely upon the note?
14 Q. The note, the promissory note.
15 A. A copy or the original?
16 Q. Copy, original, any fashion, the promissory
17 note?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Okay. So whether or not the note was lost at
20 the time of the referral would not impact your execution
21 of the assignment of mortgage?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Okay. How would you receive a promissory
24 note then from the plaintiff or whoever referred the
25 case to you?
1 A. Typically, they would mail the original
2 documents to our office.
3 Q. Do you recall if it would be mailed by any
4 sort of certified mail or return receipt; would you sign
5 for anything?
6 A. I don’t know. It didn’t come to me directly.
7 Q. And in cases such as this where Wells Fargo
8 would send the referral to you and state that they were
9 the servicer, what type of information would you review
10 to ascertain that they were, in fact, the servicer?
11 MR. GANO: Object to the form, and object to
12 any specific information, again, on this
13 particular referral.
14 Q. Without divulging privileged information. 15 A. We just relied on them indicating that they
16 were the servicer —
17 Q. Okay. 18 A. — who the plaintiff was to be.
And my duties at
21 that point was a consultant for certain investors that
22 we — that we acquired their pools of loans.
23 And I was that go-to person for that investor,
24 and it was Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs at the time.
25 And we acquired — we didn’t acquire, but I acquired
1 Ohio [phonetic] Savings as one of my relationships that
2 I had; and they — I was the go-to person for any of
3 their reporting, any questions they may have had on one
4 of their loans in their pools that we were servicing.
5 So I was that go-to person in client relations, and that
6 position —
7 Q. Can you define what being a go-to person
8 entailed?
9 A. Basically if there — again, if there was
10 questions on a particular loan in the pool, if there was
11 an acquisition or they were selling a certain pool of
12 loans, you know, they’d send me up the numbers reports.
13 Q. Okay. For example, you say questions regarding a
14 particular loan in a certain pool. What would be an
15 example of a type of question that you might get?
16 A. I may get a phone call from the investor, I’ve
17 got this particular loan that perhaps is in foreclosure,
18 REO, I need some details of what’s going on, where that
19 loan is at in the process of foreclosure, or perhaps it
20 was an REO. And then my job was to go to those
21 different areas, those different departments and get the
22 details for the client.
<SNIP>
4 Q. You have, okay. So it’s your testimony that
5 you’ve never seen this one, though?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Okay. But you did review all of the documents
8 that were produced in connection with this case?
9 A. This is the history that I reviewed.
10 Q. Okay. Not the question. The question was did
11 you review all of the documents that Wells Fargo
12 produced in connection with this case?
13 A. I did.
14 Q. Okay. Did you review all the documents —
15 MR. ALFIERI: Objection, form.
16 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) Did you review all of the
17 documents that I produced on behalf of the Guevaras in
18 connection with this case?
19 A. I have.
20 Q. Okay. And so it’s your testimony that you have
21 never seen that document before?
22 A. I do not recall looking at this particular
23 account activity statement.
24 Q. Okay. Do you know how Wells Fargo determines
25 when and whether to charge a late fee?
1 A. I do.
2 Q. Okay. How do they do it?
3 A. Okay. After the — after the 15-day grace period
4 — and this is typical. Some notes can vary, but it’s
5 typical that the payment is due on the 1st of the month;
6 and after 15 days a late fee is assessed on the 16th of
7 the month. And typically that’s 5 percent of what their
8 payment is.
9 Q. Is it assessed every time?
10 A. Every — each time the payment is late, yes, a
11 late fee is assessed if it’s not received by the due
12 date or the grace period that’s been granted.
13 Q. Are there any exceptions that would be made?
14 A. Not that I’m aware of.
15 Q. Okay. Are you aware of any changes to Wells
16 Fargo’s accounting practices following April of 2007?
17 MR. ALFIERI: Objection, form.
18 A. I am not.
19 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) Okay. And specifically with
20 regard to how Wells Fargo books receipts and pays late
21 fees from those receipts, have you ever heard of any
22 changes being made?
23 A. I have not.
24 Q. Okay. Are you familiar with Freddie Mac
25 Servicing Guidelines?
1 A. If it pertains to what I do on a daily basis,
2 yes.
3 Q. Okay. And what does that include?
4 A. General servicing of the loan. I do — I have
5 some knowledge of how the custodial files are held.
6 Q. How are the custodial files held?
7 A. It’s designated by Freddie Mac who the custodian
8 would be.
9 Q. I’m sorry, what is designated?
10 A. Who the custodial facility would be, who the
11 custodian would be.
12 Q. Where would that designation be, or how does
13 that designation — I mean, does it appear on a computer
14 screen? Is it in a file?
15 A. It — in general I’m just — no, it would not
16 be — it would not be — are you asking in relation to
17 this loan or just in general?
18 Q. I want to know what your knowledge is —
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. — regarding the custodial procedures pertaining
21 to Freddie Mac and their guidelines.
22 MR. ALFIERI: Okay. Ask — wait for the
23 question.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 MR. ALFIERI: Mr. Bartholow will ask you a
1 question. Answer the question.
2 A. Okay. Could you re-ask the question, please?
3 Thank you.
4 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) Okay. You stated a moment
5 ago that you were familiar with the custodian — custody
6 guidelines for Freddie Mac, correct?
7 A. Yes, correct.
8 Q. Okay. What are the custody guidelines for
9 Freddie Mac? What is your knowledge of them anyway?
10 MR. ALFIERI: Ask a specific question to my
11 witness, please.
12 MR. BARTHOLOW: That is as specific as I can
13 get.
14 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) Please answer the question if
15 you can.
16 MR. ALFIERI: Objection, form.
17 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) You can answer if you know,
18 if you’re able. If you’re unable, that’s fine. We
19 can — I can pull out some Freddie guidelines and we can
20 talk about them specifically.
21 A. Okay. Let’s move forward.
22 (Exhibit No. 10 was marked.)
23 Q. (By Mr. Bartholow) The document I am handing you 24 is a custodian certification schedule summary form
25 1034S. Have you seen this form before?
Feel sorry for the poor robo-signer who had to sign 1,000 foreclosure files a day? Then here’s some good news: allegations are now surfacing that at least one robo-signer got help from co-workers.
Imagine standing in your front yard and watching as a car pulls up. A stranger gets out, walks up to you, verifies your identity, then serves you with foreclosure papers. Now imagine that you’ve never missed a mortgage payment in your life.
You’ve seen the headlines about banks stopping foreclosures – but if you haven’t yet realized the implications for every American, this is a story you don’t want to miss.
I could not get excerpts out of it because it’s ALL perfection!
CASE NAME: EMC Mortgage Corporation vs. Karen A. Krondes, et al
STATE: Florida
DATE: October 19, 2010
RE: Defenandants Motion For Order Prohibiting Plaintiff From Transfering, Selling Alleged Note and Mortgage
This motion pertains to the pending Florida foreclosure matter ofEMC Mortgage Corporationvs. Karen A. Krondes, et al – (Case No: 56-2008-CA-000066), in the 19th Judicial Circuit Court InSt. Lucie County, Florida.
EXCERPTS:
5 I do know we have to bill the clients in advance. It
6 wouldn’t be after the fact. From what I recall it would
7 be at least four people that were being served. That’s
8 the person being served, their unknown spouse, Mary Jane
9 and John Doe. So it’s forty-five dollars times four.
10 That’s the amount that we would do before they got
11 served or not, regardless if John Doe was served or the
12 unknown spouse was served.
13 Q It would still be a hundred and eighty
14 dollars?
15 A Right. That’s what I remember.
16 Q What did you think about that?
17 A I thought that was a little unfair. I felt
18 like I wanted to question why. I kind of got the
19 impression from my trainers that we don’t ask questions,
20 we just do what we are told. There was really no
21 handbook during my training as to which clients are
22 billed. I would sit with each training and — I’m
23 trying to remember. It’s been a year.
24 Q That’s okay.
25 A We didn’t have a manual so I was trying to
1 understand why they bill clients differently. I never
2 really got an explanation. I just typed really fast and
3 that’s why I was hired.
4 Q Were you ever aware that Stern had an
5 ownership interest in G&Z?
6 A No.
7 Q Besides process serving did G&Z offer any
8 other services? Were there skip tracers in there?
9 A There were skip tracers, yes.
10 Q Were there investigators?
11 A Private investigators.
12 Q Did David Stern utilize them as well to the
13 best of your knowledge?
14 A Yes. They had an office right next to the
15 input department of about three or four individuals that
16 were skip tracers. I think they had one private
17 investigator. He was an older man. I don’t recall his
18 name.
19 Q How did you become aware that Stern was using
20 them as well?
21 A Because when I was introduced during my
22 interview and after I got hired they said this is our
23 skip trace department and these are private
24 investigator/skip tracers. That’s how I was introduced,
25 by title.
<SNIP>
9 Q So how come you were there only for two
10 months?
11 A I was there only two months because I had to
12 sign a paper that said — I wish I had that paper. They
13 gave out a paper to all employees saying if you don’t
14 sign this paper you’re pretty much considered fired.
15 Don’t even bother coming back to work if you don’t sign
16 it.
17 Q Was it a confidentiality agreement?
18 A Something like that, yeah.
19 Q What was in it that made you not want to sign
20 it?
21 A I wish I had a copy of it.
22 Q I wish you did too.
23 A It’s in my email somewhere. I didn’t have
24 internet at work the past couple of days.
25 Q You have a copy of it?
1 A I have a copy somewhere in my email, yeah.
2 Q Would you send it to me?
3 A Yes, I can send it.
13 Q Okay. That makes sense. So you basically
14 only worked with the night people and didn’t have that
15 much contact with the day people?
16 A I didn’t have that much contact other than
17 when I was training and in that thirty minute gap when
18 everyone is pretty much wrapping it up.
19 Q Did you ever hear anything or did you ever
20 notice anything that was to you made you feel
21 uncomfortable about doing work over there, specifically
22 with Stern’s office besides the four names on every
23 complaint?
24 A Well, not with Stern but the way G&Z was
25 handling. For instance, before I got hired I looked at
1 G&Z’s website and the part where they said they use
2 private investigators and skip tracers, it said that we
3 have fully licensed private investigators. There was
4 one guy Michael Gold and I mentioned him in that letter,
5 that was a skip tracer but he wasn’t licensed. He was
6 still going to school. The only licensed private
7 investigator that I recall was Ira and Michelle.
8 He was talking to a lady that I think only
9 spoke Spanish. There was a language barrier. He was
10 kind of bullying her. His tone of voice was well we
11 need to serve these papers. He was acting as if he was
12 a private investigator. He’s even announced himself as
13 a private investigator. He’s right next to me in the
14 other office and I just felt a little uncomfortable that
15 he’s claiming to be that and he’s not. He was asking
16 for her address and saying we have to do this and saying
17 we’ll serve it at your place of work if we need to. He
18 was really —
19 Q Bullying her?
20 A Bullying her into getting information. I just
21 kind of felt bad for the lady that he was talking to.
22 Q Nothing else about Stern?
23 A No. It was more about G&Z.
24 MS. CLARKSON: This is a two-page memo. It
25 looks like it was sent to Duane. Enter that as
1 Exhibit B. There was a letter dated September 9,
2 2009 that we’ll enter as exhibit C.
3 BY MR. BRIESMEISTER:
4 Q Mary, are those copies that we can keep?
5 A You can keep those. Actually, I have copies
6 on my little hard drive.
7 Q Mary, you indicated you were there
8 approximately two months at G&Z. Can you tell us why
9 you left, under what circumstances did you leave?
10 A Because I did not agree to sign that paper
11 that everyone had to sign.
12 Q That’s the only reason?
13 A That was it.
14 Q Did somebody come to you and say you must sign
15 it or else you have to leave?
16 A It was a group meeting. It was said that
17 everyone has to sign it. Don’t even bother working here
18 if you don’t. They told everyone that they had to sign.
19 Q Did others leave?
20 A No.
21 Q At that point in time?
22 A No.
23 Q You were the only one?
24 A I was the only one to my knowledge. I think
25 the environment from the impression I got at G&Z was
Side note…DJSP recently signed what may be the largest lease in Orlando this year. They plan to open a 12,870-square-foot in Highwoods Properties’ Landmark Center Two, near Lake Eola.
8 Q. And what was said about Cheryl’s bills being paid for
9 the Law Offices of David Stern?
10 A. That he’s always done it. David Stern has always
11 paid for Cheryl’s expenses.
12 Q. Personal expenses?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you know if he — Well was there rumor — Was
15 there talk, rather, that he paid — that he bought her car?
16 A. No, that’s confirmed. He did buy her a car. I
17 acknowledge that.
18 Q. He did buy her a car?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What kind of car did he buy her?
21 A. It was a BMW SUV.
<SNIP>
Q. Anything that —
4 A. Is it like personal or business or —
5 Q. Personal? Business? Anything at all?
6 A. Personal? The only thing that I was aware of that
7 took place there were the perks that certain employees received
8 from David Stern. If they were either dating him or they were
9 good friends with him, that they would basically do certain
10 things for him for certain files, in the sense of like David
11 Vargas. He would have certain perks from David Stern, like a
12 house, a car, cell phone paid all by David Stern.
13 And that’s all I know.
14 Q. Okay. So do you know of any other perks besides what
15 you said that Cheryl Salmons got? A car you said, for sure.
16 And her personal bills paid.
17 A. Yes. And cell phone.
18 Q. And probably her mortgage?
19 A. Yes. And vacations and gifts, jewelry.
20 Q. Who else would received gifts and jewelry or cars or
21 homes?
22 A. His girlfriend and David Vargas.
23 Q. Who’s his girlfriend?
24 A. At the time it was Christina Dell’Aguila
<SNIP>
8 Q. You have friends that still work at the office?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Doing what?
11 A. Foreclosure paralegals, docket return clerks.
12 Q. And what are they telling you?
13 A. That they’re very scared. That’s it.
14 Q. That your friends are scared?
15 A. Yeah, that my friends are scared.
16 Q. Did they say anything about what’s going on with
17 Stern or Cheryl Salmons or anybody else?
18 A. The only concern was that they were moving files out
19 of the office into a different office and that Eighteen Inch
20 Freight, I think, was picking them up. Something like that.
21 Trailer freight, something like that.
22 Q. Do you know where —
23 MS. CLARKSON: Eighteen wheeler?
24 THE WITNESS: Yeah, eighteen wheeler.
25 BY MS. EDWARDS:
1 Q. Do you know where they were moving them?
2 A. Supposedly they were being moved to Orlando’s office.
3 Q. And do you know why they would do that?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Do you know how long ago this was going on?
6 A. I think a month and a half ago.
7 Q. What kind of office is Orlando?
8 A. David Stern has another law office in Orlando,
9 Florida.
10 Q. What office is that?
11 A. I don’t know.
12 Q. And was it connected with the office here in Broward
13 County?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And do you know which — what the office is there or
16 what the location is?
17 A. No, I just know it’s another law office for David
18 Stern that he’s opened for foreclosures in Orlando.
19 Q. And did he just open it a month and a half ago?
20 A. No. He opened it, I think it was either sometime at
21 the beginning of this year or the end of last year. I can’t
22 remember.
23 Q. 2010?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. Or December 2009?
Robert S. Mueller III
Director Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20535
Robert O’Neill
US Attorney
Central District of Florida
400 North Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, FL 33602
Dear US Attorney Robert O’Neill and Director Mueller,
When it comes to foreclosures, there is mounting evidence of a state of rampant lawlessness in Central Florida. There are increasing signs that big banks routinely evade laws meant to protect homeowners, in many well-documented cases of ‘foreclosure fraud’. Despite the demonstrated existence, for instance, of ‘robosigners’ signing affidavits attesting to documents that they have never seen, the parties engaging in such misconduct are not being brought to justice. Big banks are mischaracterizing this as mere “technical problems,” and apologizing only where there is clear and very public evidence of harm.
It is not enough for big banks only to apologize for fraud, perjury, and even breaking and entering – when they are caught. It is time for handcuffs. Fraud does not become legal just because a big bank does it.
On September 20, 2010, after my office found evidence of systemic foreclosure fraud perpetrated by big banks and foreclosure mills, I called for a halt to illegal foreclosures.
Since then, big banks such as Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, GMAC, PNC and others have suspended foreclosures or foreclosure sales. These banks are still claiming that the massive fraud they have perpetrated amounts to nothing more than a series of technical mistakes. This is absurd. This is deliberate, systemic fraud, and it is a crime.
To give but two of the many available examples, attached is a deposition from an ex-employee of one of the largest ‘foreclosure mills’ in the state, the Law Offices of David Stern. In it, this employee testifies under oath that it was routine for that office to falsify documents regarding military records, in order to move foreclosure cases along more quickly.
The local media has reported on the case of Nancy Jacobini; a contractor for JP Morgan Chase broke into her home after the bank mistakenly foreclosed on it. JP Morgan Chase ‘apologized’ for terrifying her. But we do not have an apology-based legal system; we have a system of laws. I am writing to ask you to enforce them.
The organized and systematic manufacturing of falsified documents to deprive people of their homes is not only a threat to the integrity of the legal system. It also aggravates and extends the weakness in the housing market. Who is going to feel comfortable buying a home if a big bank can simply take it, whether or not that bank has a right to it? Given the securitization of mortgage-backed securities, this misconduct is a threat to our securities markets as well. But fundamentally, this is a question of protecting basic property rights – if you don’t own it, then you shouldn’t try to take it. Without clear property rights, and a legal system that insists on clear proof of those rights before transferring ownership by force, the economy will fall apart.
If perpetrators of perjured affidavits and other systematic criminal activity can get off simply with civil liability — or even less, an insincere bureaucratic apology — the freedom that Americans enjoy will erode quickly in the face of lawless seizures of property. I appreciate your work on the joint Middle District of Florida’s Mortgage Fraud Initiative, and respectfully request that the efforts of your offices turn towards reining in this rampant criminality.
Make sure you read this carefully…This is a transcript of an employee of Residential Funding Company who is in charge of record keeping of original documents. Don’t miss the full deposition down below.
Follow the assets, don’t get lost in the trail…
17 Q. Now, when you said you’re the Director of
18 Records Management for the Minnesota office?
19 A. Uh-huh.
20 Q. Are there other offices of Residential
21 Funding that maintain records that you are
22 not responsible for?
23 A. There are records services sites in Iowa and
24 in Pennsylvania.Those deal mostly with the
25 GMAC mortgage assets.
<snip>
11 Q. And what, if anything, is your responsibility
12 with regard to those records?
13 A. To track the physical paper for those
14 assets — or that asset.
15 Q. Are you what you consider to be the keeper of
16 the records for those documents?
17 A. Sure, yep.
5 Q. Okay. And then when somebody wants to view
6 specific records from your system, is that
7 something that you’re responsible for
8 obtaining as part of your day-to-day
9 responsibilities?
10 A. The people that report to me, yes, or the
11 vendor that — that we have retained to do
12 those functions, yes. I don’t do that
13 myself.
14 Q. Who’s the vendor that you retain to do that?
15 A. A company called ACS.
16 Q. ACS?
17 A. Yep.
18 Q. And what does ACS do with regard to the
19 records?
20 A. They fulfill the request. So if somebody
21 needs a credit folder or a legal folder, they
22 research where those documents are, obtain
23 the documents and then provide that requestor
24 with either the paper documents or images.
<snip>
21 Q. There’s a file folder that shows it came from
22 the outside vendor?
23 A. Yes. Their sticker is affixed to the front
24 of the folder, so I know it came from them.
25 Q. Okay. And then is there anything on the
1 documents themselves that show where they
2 came from?
3 A. No.
4 Q. And by the outside vendor, do you mean ACS?
5 A. No. Actually, the vendor that stores the
6 actual folder is Iron Mountain.
7 Q. So there’s a sticker on that file that shows
8 it came from Iron Mountain?
9 A. Correct, yes.
10 Q. Does Iron Mountain maintain your system or do
11 they just maintain hard copies of documents?
12 A. They maintain the hard copies of the
13 documents.
14 Q. Not any records on your computer system,
15 correct?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Is that correct?
18 A. Correct.
<snip>
18 Q. What’s the relationship between Residential
19 Funding Company, LLC and U.S. Bank National
20 Association?
21 A. In — in this instance, U.S. Bank is the
22 trustee on the security that this loan is in.
23 And RFC was the issuer of the security that
24 was created.
25 Q. Who was the issuer of the security?
1 A. RFC was the issuer of the security.
2 Q. Oh, RFC is what you call Residential Funding
3 Company?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So RFC issued the security?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. Can you explain to me what that means?
8 A. No, I can’t.
9 Q. Okay. How do you know RFC issued the
10 security?
11 A. It’s the normal course of business as to how
12 our — our business works. RFC is in the
13 business of acquiring assets and putting them
14 together into securities to sell in the — in
15 the market.
16 MR. SHAW: I would like to
17 register a general objection to this line of
18 questioning. There’s not been a foundation
19 laid for Judy Faber being competent to reach
20 some of these conclusions that are being
21 stated on the record.
22 BY MR. HOLLANDER:
23 Q. So in this particular instance, do you have
24 any personal knowledge of the relationship
25 between RFC and U.S. Bank National
1 Association as trustee?
2 A. No.
3 Q. For whom is U.S. Bank National Association
4 acting as the trustee?
5 A. I believe it would be for the investors of
6 the — that have bought the securities.
7 Q. I’m sorry. Something happened with the phone
8 and I didn’t hear your answer. I’m sorry.
9 A. I believe it would be for the different
10 investors who have bought pieces of that
11 security that was issued.
12 Q. Are there different investors that have
13 purchased the Peter Cook note?
14 A. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer that.
15 You know, I can tell you from what my basic
16 understanding is from the process, but I’m
17 not an expert.
18 MR. SHAW: Once again, I’d like to
19 raise a continuing general objection that she
20 being — testifying with respect to what her
21 job is, and I believe you’re getting into
22 areas that is other than what her job is and
23 you’re asking for possibly even legal
24 conclusions here. So I would like to raise
25 that objection again.
By Phil Milford and Denise Pellegrini – Oct 9, 2010 12:01 AM ET
A former paralegal told Florida investigators that workers at a law firm that processed foreclosures signed paperwork without reading it, misdated records and skirted rules protecting homeowners in the military.
Tammie Lou Kapusta, who said she spent more than a year at the Law Offices of David J. Stern PA, made the accusations in a Sept. 22 interview with lawyers for Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum. In August, McCollum announced a probe of three law firms to see whether improper documents were created and filed with state courts to hasten the foreclosure process.
Jeffery Tew, a lawyer for the Stern firm, denied Kapusta’s claims.
Kapusta, who spoke under oath, said the Stern firm ballooned from 225 employees when she started in March 2008, to more than 1,100 when she was fired in July 2009. She described a disorganized workplace where documents got lost and mortgages were misfiled. The training process was “stupid and ridiculous,” she said.
“There were a lot of young kids working up there who really didn’t pay attention to what they were doing,” she said, according to a transcript. “We had a lot of people that were hired in the firm that were just hired as warm bodies.”
Kapusta’s statements were reported Oct. 7 in the Tampa Tribune. Tew, of Tew Cardenas LLP in Miami, said he wasn’t aware of the interview until it was released to the public.
“We didn’t get a chance to cross-examine her,” he said. “It was a one-sided statement by a disgruntled employee. There was a lot of animus and personal references, and she seeks to besmirch people’s reputation. The law firm denies there’s any accuracy in the charges.”
Jurisdiction Challenged
There’s a court hearing set for Oct. 12 to determine whether McCollum’s office has jurisdiction over the firm’s conduct, Tew said.
“This is a civil investigation, and the attorney general hasn’t made any conclusions,” Tew said.
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
By ALAN ZIBEL, AP Real Estate Writer Alan Zibel, – Fri Oct 1, 7:46 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Bank of America is delaying foreclosures in 23 states as it examines whether it rushed the foreclosure process for thousands of homeowners without reading the documents.
The move adds the nation’s largest bank to a growing list of mortgage companies whose employees signed documents in foreclosure cases without verifying the information in them.
Bank of America isn’t able to estimate how many homeowners’ cases will be affected, Dan Frahm, a spokesman for the Charlotte, N.C.-based bank, said Friday. He said the bank plans to resubmit corrected documents within several weeks.
Two other companies, Ally Financial Inc.’s GMAC Mortgage unit and JPMorgan Chase, have halted tens of thousands of foreclosure cases after similar problems became public.
The document problems could cause thousands of homeowners to contest foreclosures that are in the works or have been completed. If the problems turn up at other lenders, a foreclosure crisis that’s already likely to drag on for several more years could persist even longer. Analysts caution that most homeowners facing foreclosure are still likely to lose their homes.
State attorneys general, who enforce foreclosure laws, are stepping up pressure on the industry.
On Friday, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal asked a state court to freeze all home foreclosures for 60 days. Doing so “should stop a foreclosure steamroller based on defective documents,” he said.
And California Attorney General Jerry Brown called on JPMorgan to suspend foreclosures unless it could show it complied with a state consumer protection law. The law requires lenders to contact borrowers at risk of foreclosure to determine whether they qualify for mortgage assistance.
In Florida, the state attorney general is investigating four law firms, two with ties to GMAC, for allegedly providing fraudulent documents in foreclosure cases .The Ohio attorney general this week asked judges to review GMAC foreclosure cases.
Mark Paustenbach, a Treasury Department spokesman, said the Treasury has asked federal regulators “to look into these troubling developments.”
A document obtained Friday by the Associated Press showed a Bank of America official acknowledging in a legal proceeding that she signed up to 8,000 foreclosure documents a month and typically didn’t read them.
The official, Renee Hertzler, said in a February deposition that she signed 7,000 to 8,000 foreclosure documents a month.
“I typically don’t read them because of the volume that we sign,” Hertzler said.
She also acknowledged identifying herself as a representative of a different bank, Bank of New York Mellon, that she didn’t work for. Bank of New York Mellon served as a trustee for the investors holding the homeowner’s loan.
HEY JUDGE COX, THIS IS WHAT YOUR MOTION TO QUASH IS PROTECTING!
~
MY GOD!
~
WHERE ARE THE F***ING FEDERAL AGENTS!!!
~
“I personally did not do it because I refused to do it.”
“I wasn’t going to falsify a military document.”
“I was told that that’s fine, somebody else on your team will do it.”
~
This just in and it is unbelievable!
We are neck deep in issues today so I do not have time to go through and highlight everything, and there is a lot, but here are some snips…
TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY
THIS SHOULD BE THE BOMBSHELL THAT STOPS IT ALL IN FLORIDA
MORE TO FOLLOW ON THIS
1 STATE OF FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2 DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
3 AG # L10-3-1145
4
5 IN RE:
6 INVESTIGATION OF LAW OFFICES
OF DAVID J. STERN, P.A.
7
8 ____________________________/
9
10
11
12 DEPOSITION OF TAMMIE LOU KAPUSTA
13
14
15
16 12:11 p.m. – 1:58 p.m.
September 22, 2010
17 Office of the Attorney General
110 Southeast 6th Street, 10th Floor
18 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 – – –
3 Deposition taken before Kalandra Smith, Court
4 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
5 Florida at Large, in the above cause.
6 – – –
7 THERE UPON:
8 TAMMIE LOU KAPUSTA
9 having been first duly sworn or affirmed, was examined
10 and testified as follows:
1 Q Let’s go to the assignments of mortgage. They
2 were prepared in-house?
3 A Yeah.
4 Q You’re smiling. You want to tell me about
5 them?
6 A Assignments were done sometimes after the
7 final judgement was entered.
8 Q Do you know why that is?
9 A Because that’s what we were directed to do
19 Q Can you tell me the execution of the
20 assignments, how it worked?
21 A Assignments were prepared again from the
22 casesum. All of our stuff comes from the casesum. They
23 would be stamped and signed by a notary or not. Per
24 floor we had a designated spot to place them and Cheryl
25 would come once a day and sign them.
22
1 Q Sign them as what?
2 A As –
3 Q For the bank?
4 A Correct.
5 Q Or for MERS or whoever it was for?
6 A Correct.
7 Q Would these notaries be there watching her as
8 she signed?
9 A No.
10 Q She would just sit there and sign stacks of
11 them?
12 A Correct. As far as notaries go in the firm I
13 don’t think any notary actually used their own notary
14 stamp. The team used them.
15 Q There were just stamps around?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And you actually saw that?
18 A I was part of that.
19 Q You did it? Are you a notary?
20 A No, I’m not.
21 Q Did you sign as a witness?
22 A I did not. I signed as a witness on one
23 document and after that I decided that I didn’t want to
24 put my name as a witness anymore.
25 Q Tell me about the stamps. You stamped them?
23
1 A Yeah, I had stamps. Each team had a notary on
2 them or notaries that I was aware of. Whether they were
3 or weren’t wasn’t –
4 Q You had stamps?
5 A Correct. We would stamp them and they would
6 get signed.
7 Q Stamp them in blanks?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Who would sign them?
10 A Other people on the team that could sign the
11 signature of the person or just a check on there or
12 whatever.
13 Q Was that common practice?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Was that standard practice?
16 A Pretty much.
17 Q What about the witnesses?
18 A Those would be signed by juniors who were –
19 Q Standing there?
20 A Here, sign this. It has to go to Cheryl, sign
21 it. Then it would go and sit at the desk where Cheryl
22 would sign everything.
23 Q Out of view of the notary and out of view of
24 the witnesses?
25 A Correct.
24
1 Q Do you know who implemented this procedure?
2 A Cheryl.
3 Q Cheryl did?
4 A Um-hum.
5 Q Did anybody else sign with the firm for the
6 banks?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Who was that?
9 A There were people that were responsible for
10 signing Cheryl’s name. Cheryl, Tammie Sweat, and Beth
11 Cerni. Those were the only three people that could sign
12 Cheryl’s name. If you ever look at assignments you’ll
13 see that they are not all the same.
14 MS. EDWARDS: What are the names again?
15 Cheryl, Tammie?
16 THE WITNESS: Tammie Sweat and Beth Cerni.
17 MS. EDWARDS: Could you spell that.
18 MS. CLARKSON: C-E-R-N-I.
19 BY MS. CLARKSON:
20 Q Did they practice Cheryl’s signature?
21 A I would assume so.
22 Q Did you ever see them?
23 A Not practicing but I’ve seen them sign it.
24 Q Did you see somebody sign Cheryl’s name?
25 A Yes.
25
1 Q That wasn’t Cheryl?
2 A Yes. All the time.
3 Q Did Cheryl know about this?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Was it at her direction?
6 A Yes.
16 Q Did anyone quit as far as you know due to the
17 practices?
18 A I’m sure but they wouldn’t come right out and
19 say I quit because of the practices. I know that people
20 had left because they were uncomfortable with the things
21 that they were being asked to do, as most of us were.
22 When it got really sticky there were a lot of us that
23 weren’t here.
24 Q What does really sticky mean?
25 A They wanted us to start changing the documents
33
1 and stuff and doing stuff that we weren’t supposed to be
2 doing as far as service.
3 Q What documents did they want you to change?
4 A Manpower documents. A lot of judges started
5 requiring, because of the Jane and John Doe issues,
6 required that you have a military search for all the
7 defendants. If you named a Jane and John Doe as an NKA
8 you had to pull a military search on them. Unless you
9 have somebody’s social security number technically you
10 can’t pull a military search supposedly.
11 The program that we used for the program that
12 we used, you could put in the main defendant’s social
13 security and John or Jane Doe’s name and it would give
14 us a military search saying that they were in the
15 military.
16 Q You would get their social security number
17 because the bank documents contained it?
18 A Correct. The lenders, the referrals had the
19 socials.
20 Q Did you put the social in on everybody to find
21 out their address for service?
22 A Not everybody. I personally did not do it
23 because I refused to do it. I wasn’t going to falsify a
24 military document. I was told that that’s fine,
25 somebody else on your team will do it.
1 Q What do you mean falsify a military document?
2 A Well, I’m using the main defendant’s social
3 security number on somebody else’s name, not his name.
4 John Doe and the main defendant was James, I was taking
5 James’ social security number and putting John Doe’s
6 name in there. I wasn’t but that’s what the practice
7 was. The judges started saying we’re not going to
8 consider service completed until –
9 Q There’s a miliary search?
10 A Correct.
11 Q So why wouldn’t they use the right social
12 security number for the right person?
13 A Because you don’t have a social for an NKA or
14 unknown tenant. They wouldn’t enter a final judgement
15 unless the military doc was there.
16 Q So you just used anybody’s?
17 A Correct.
9 A So what we had to do from that point, again
10 the affidavits were still split in two pages, at that
11 point we were supposed to be sending them back to the
12 banks to be signed now. The problem being that a lot of
13 times we wouldn’t get them back or executed in time for
14 the hearings. So we had what they called signature
15 pages that Tammie Sweat or someone else would have in
16 their possession. If we couldn’t get it back from the
17 bank executed in time we would just take a signature
18 page and put it on the affidavit.
19 Q What was on the signature page?
20 A The signature and notary from the bank.
21 Q Were these documents photocopied or were they
22 original documents?
23 A Some were photocopied.
24 Q How would you get that many from a bank
25 original? The bank supplied them to you.
42
1 A Well, what would happen would be like if I had
2 file A and that one didn’t go to hearing because there
3 was something wrong with it and file B was going to
4 hearing but it was the same bank, I would take the
5 signature page from A and give it to B.
6 Q Oh give it to another file?
7 A And just re-execute this file.
8 Q Okay. That was common practice?
9 A Yes, after Cheryl couldn’t sign.
10 Q Did Cheryl know?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Cheryl knew about all the practices because
13 she is the one who ran the office?
14 A She was the one who implemented them.
15 Q Were there any other activities or practices
16 over at David Stern’s firm that made you feel
17 uncomfortable or that you were unwilling to do?
18 A I don’t know how to answer that question.
19 It’s a loaded one.
20 Q Take your time.
21 A Yeah. Some of the things that were done there
22 just were not on the up and up.
23 Q Explain to me in as much detail as you can
24 what those things were.
25 A I don’t even know where to start with it.
![[MUST READ] FULL TRANSCRIPT OF KEMP v. COUNTRYWIDE](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2010/11/depositionbookKC.jpg&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
Side note…DJSP recently signed what may be the largest lease in Orlando this year. They plan to open a 12,870-square-foot in Highwoods Properties’ Landmark Center Two, near Lake Eola.
CONTINUE READING…..YAHOO
Recent Comments