OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Economic Crimes Division

UNFAIR, DECEPTIVE AND UNCONSCIONABLE ACTS IN FORECLOSURE CASES

By: June M. Clarkson, Theresa B. Edwards
and Rene D. Harrod

Continue below to the excellent presentation…

46278738 Florida Attorney General Fraudclosure Report Unfair Deceptive and Unconscionable Acts in Foreclosu… by DinSFLA on Scribd

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 2, 2011

In the early 1990s, the biggest names in the mortgage industry hatched a plan for a new electronic clearinghouse that would transform the home loan business – and unlock billions of dollars of new investments and profits.

At the time, mortgage documents were moved almost exclusively by hand and mail, a throwback to an era in which people kept stock certificates, too. That made it hard for banks to bundle home loans and sell them to investors. By contrast, a central electronic clearinghouse would allow the companies to transfer thousands of mortgages instantaneously, greasing the wheels of a system in which loans could be bought and sold repeatedly and quickly.

“Assignments are creatures of 17th-century real property law; they do not coexist easily with high-volume, late 20th-century secondary mortgage market transactions,” Phyllis K. Slesinger, then senior director of investor relations for the Mortgage Bankers Association, wrote in paper explaining the system.

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

RE: Emergent Amendments to Rules 1:5-6, 4:64-1 and 4:64-2

In light of irregularities in the residential foreclosure practice as reported in sworn deposition testimony in New Jersey and other states, the Court has adopted, on an emergent basis, amendments to Rules 1:5-6, 4:64-1 and 4:64-2. These amendments are effective December 20, 2010. The new rule and the amendments, along with the Order adopting them, appear with this notice. The Court’s Order also contains directions for counsel in pending uncontested residential foreclosure cases.

[ipaper docId=45793132 access_key=key-bzcjxjxvpvow5e8b3a8 height=600 width=600 /]

Mortgage Fraud

Ally Financial/GMAC
Bank of America
Citibank
JP Morgan Chase
OneWest Bank
Wells Fargo Bank

Action Date: December 20, 2010
Location: Mercer County, NJ

New Jersey State Supreme Court Chief Justice Stuart Rabner entered an order To Show Cause “In The Matter of Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Pleadings and Document Irregularities” in Civil Action No. F-059553-10, Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, General Equity Part, Mercer County on December 20, 2010. Six mortgage servicing companies and their bank-owners were ordered to show cause why the Court should not suspend their rights to foreclose.

First on the list was Ally Financial, formerly known as GMAC. Ally/GMAC is the employer of Jeffrey Stephan who was exposed as one of many “robo-signers” – a phrase indicating that an employee signed thousands of documents used in foreclosure cases with no idea of the truth of the matters asserted in the documents, and more often than not, without even having read what was signed.

Stephan signed thousands of Affidavits, but he signed tens of thousands of Mortgage Assignments – the documents used by mortgage-backed trusts to show that the trusts acquired the mortgages at issue and have the right to foreclose.

Stephan signed these Mortgage Assignments for many different mortgage-backed trusts. Over 50 RALI (Residential Accredit Loans, Inc.) Trusts relied almost exclusively on Mortgage Assignments signed by Stephan. Over 44 RAMP (Residential Asset Mortgage Products) Trusts also used Assignments churned out by Stephan. At least 20 RASC (Residential Asset Securities Corp.) Trusts used Stephan assignments almost exclusively in foreclosures. At least 40 other mortgage-backed trusts, including certain Aames Mortgage Investment Trusts, certain Bear Stearns Trusts and certain Harborview Trusts all relied on Ally/GMAC’s Stephan for proof of their right to foreclose.

These trusts needed the Stephan-made assignments because the trusts’ depositors, sponsors, trustees and document custodians failed to obtain the critical documents, including notes and assignments, at the inception of the trust – despite promises to investors and regulators that these documents had been obtained and were being safeguarded.

In Florida, Stephan’s name appears on thousands of Mortgage Assignments, most often on documents prepared by the Law Offices of David Stern, who is under investigation by the Florida Attorney General. In almost every case, Stephans signed as a Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.

According to the Stephan documents, the trusts almost always acquired these mortgages AFTER they were already in default, and often AFTER foreclosure proceedings had been initiated.

Many different banks, in their capacity as Trustees for mortgage-backed trusts, used Stephan Assignments, but Stephan documents were most often used by Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Bank of NY Mellon and U.S. Bank.

Assuming that each trust has mortgage loans with a face value of one billion dollars – and that over 200 trusts are involved, the amount in controversy is staggering.

Also disturbing is the number of Assignments on Stephan/Stern documents where the assignee trust is unidentified. The Stephan/Stern team repeatedly prepared and filed Assignments where only the Trustees – and not the trusts themselves – were identified as the new owners of the mortgages. “U.S. Bank as Trustee” and “Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee” are the new owners of thousands of mortgages.

Stephan often wrongly stated his own job title, the date the assignment to the trusts took place, and the identity of the trusts. Stephan’s conduct – and the documents he produced – will not stand up to the most superficial examination. Chief Justice Rabner seems determined to dig much deeper.

The other five companies named by Chief Justice Rabner have the very same problems, having produced hundreds of thousands of flawed loan documents for mortgage-backed trusts, signed by individuals with very limited knowledge or authority. Their role was to sign their names without questioning or understanding what they signed.

According to Chief Justice Rabner, the next step may be the Appointment of a Special Master “to inquire into and report to the court on the extent of irregularities concerning affidavits, certifications, assignments and other documents from time to time filed with the court in residential mortgage foreclosure actions…” Past and present business practices would be examined and the Master could also consider whether sanctions should be imposed…and a suggested formula to determine an appropriate sanction.”

By his Order, Chief Justice Rabner gave hope to hundreds of thousands of victims of fraud by securities companies, banks, mortgage companies and mortgage servicing companies.

EXCERPT:

The nature of the problem calls for a balancing of the court’s supervisory and adjudicatory roles and responsibilities. The court has therefore established the procedure in this Order to address the pressing needs of the Office of Foreclosure while providing due process to affected parties. The court will direct that the six Foreclosure Plaintiff’s named on this order show cause at a hearing scheduled for January 19, 2011, why the court should not suspend the processing of all foreclosures matters involving the six Foreclosure Plaintiffs and appoint Special Masters to review their past and proposed foreclosure practices.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=45721307 access_key=key-1baelv8uhv3ev5v47sl9 height=600 width=600 /]

Via: Anonymous

This is fascinating. It showed up on the American Banker site this morning, which is not readable without subscription.

Contrary to the statement that these ‘counselors’ do not “track” follow-up, I recently received a request to fill-in a follow up e-survey which was oddly pre-filled out stating erroneously that I had not disclosed the identity of my bank during my “counseling” session.

I forwarded it to SIGTARP, COP, and the President with the relevant questions.

So… Could it be that counsel-obtained info via Hope hotlines could corrupt HAMP performance data, and/or disadvantage borrowers in litigation/settlement?

http://www.collectionscreditrisk.com/news/lender-tie-to-borrower-aid-3004375-1.html

Excerpt from article:

Some industry experts have questioned why a nonprofit affiliated with servicers is receiving government funding to resolve disputes between borrowers and the same servicers who are denying modifications. Several distressed homeowners who contacted American Banker said servicers refuse to give explanations for denied mods. Many were put into trial mods at a reduced payment but were later denied and are now in worse shape because servicers demand that any arrearages be paid in full for the loan to become current.

PROVEST, LLC

The case file cited below relates to a civil — not a criminal — investigation. The existence of an investigation does not constitute proof of any violation of law.

GISSEN & ZAWYER PROCESS SERVICES, INC.

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.

Continue below to the transcript…

[ipaper docId=45556213 access_key=key-rvgb96qx4uuxvufi2md height=600 width=600 /]

On December 6, 2010, the homeowners filed a brief with the Third Circuit, maintaining that reversal of the July 14th order is necessary because (1) the lower court abused its discretion by altogether ignoring the substance of the proposed Amended Complaint and (2) the lower court erred as a matter of law in misconstruing federal bankruptcy law as a basis for its dismissal of the earlier Complaint.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 10-3431

DENNIS A. RHODES et al, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

– v.-

ROSEMARY DIAMOND et al,
Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA,
09-cv-1302

APPELLANTS’ OPENING BRIEF
AND APPENDIX VOLUME I (Pages A1-A13)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………………… 1
STATEMENT OF ISSUES …………………………………………………………………………… 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE …………………………………………………… 2
STATEMENTOFFACTS ……………………………………………………… 4
Appellees’ Foreclosure Practices ……………………………………………………………. .4
Facts Alleged in the PAC ……………………………………………………………………….. 8
Independent Confirmation of Abusive Foreclosure Practices ……………………. 11
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT …………………………………………….. 15
ARGUMENT …………………………………………………………………….. 17
I. THE COURT BELOW ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING
THE HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THE PAC ………… 17
II. THE COURT BELOW ERRONEOUSLY DISMISSED
THE HOMEOWNERS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT ………………………………….. 21
A. Bankruptcy Creditors Have A Duty to Amend Inaccurate Claims ………. 21
B. The U.S. Bankruptcy Code Does Not Preclude FDCPA Lawsuits
Brought to Remedy Institutionalized Debt Collection Abuses …………… 21
CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………… 30
CERTIFICATION REGARDING BAR MEMBERSHIP ……………………….. 31
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE …………………………………………….. 32
CERTIFICATE OF IDENTICALNESS ………………………………………….. 33
CERTIFICATE OF VIRUS CHECK ……………………………………………. 34

Continue below…

BHN LAW FIRM

[ipaper docId=45205187 access_key=key-1cnszvqq1bhrkzn5g3km height=600 width=600 /]

Exhibit from the Harris Case SFF published in 3/2010:

Excerpts from complaint:

1. This case involves the undisclosed kickback/sharing of bankruptcy creditor attorney fees to a non-law firm corporate entity.

2. Mortgage servicers routinely appear in this Court seeking relief from the automatic stay or in opposition to proposed chapter 13 plans. The Mortgage servicers appear through counsel who announce their appearance on behalf of those mortgage servicers.

3. But, unbeknownst to this Court, those counsel often answer not to the mortgage
servicers on whose behalf they appear, rather these counsel answer to an undisclosed
middleman such as the Defendants.

4. Defendants provide what is known in the mortgage-servicing industry as default
servicing. Loans which are subject to default servicing include loans which may be
subject to foreclosure and loans which are in bankruptcy.

5. Some of the services which are provided by default servicers such as the Defendants
include: 1) executing documents on behalf of the original servicer; 2) ordering and
providing broker price opinions; 3) track and provide fees for payoffs and
refinancings, and; 4) provide centralized billing to vendors.

6. An additional function of default servicing is the identification and retention of legal
services which may be necessary for any particular mortgage in default, e.g. noticing
and posting a property for foreclosure or seeking relief from the automatic stay in a
bankruptcy proceeding.

7. In managing the performance of the legal services for their mortgage servicing
clients, Defendants require law firms to execute a “Network Agreement,” which
details the agreement for services between the Defendants and the particular law firm.

8. The claims covered in this Complaint relate to the illegal fixing of fees in the
bankruptcy context and the requirement that law firms that execute the “Network
Agreement” to kickback a contractual prearranged fixed portion of their attorney fees
to the Defendant.

[ipaper docId=44787181 access_key=key-1dhqqv0jeski96cvyvsf height=600 width=600 /]

F. DANA WINSLOW
NYS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
Before the House of Representatives
DECEMBER 2,2010
ON
CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
FORECLOSED JUSTICE:
CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS
Hon. F. Dana Winslow
December 2, 2010

Excerpts:

3.2.4 Robo·signing. Questionable validity of signatures on assignments and affidavits
attesting to ownership of the Note and Mortgage. Examples:

3.2.4.1 Signed by: “Duly Authorized Officer,” “Authorized Signer,” “Attomey·in·
Fact” or “Authorized Agent.” What do these titles mean? What is the function
afthe person signing the documents, and what is the basis of their personal
knowledge?

3.2.4.2 Same person signs several documents, in several different capacities: e.g.,
“Vice President of [Assignor Mortgagee)” is also the “Assistant Secretary of
the Servicer” for the Plaintiff Mortgagee, and an employee of the law firm
bringing the foreclosure action.

3.2.5 Validity of notary stamps on assignments.

3.2.5.1 Assignment documents notarized several months after the assignment was
purportedly effected.

3.2.5.2 Notarized in blank – name of the person whose signature was purportedly
witnessed is omitted.

Continue Below…

[ipaper docId=44593776 access_key=key-22jxp4fylf9hwpn3g9yu height=600 width=600 /]

Written Testimony of
James A. Kowalski, Jr., Esquire
Law Offices of James A. Kowalski, Jr., PL
Jacksonville, FL

Before the
Committee On The Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
“Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis“

Excerpt:

The focus on speed is part of the business model for the servicers. As those of us
who have litigated these cases for years now, and as all of us now know as a result of the
robo-signing scandals, most of the servicers use “Signing Officers” – rows of individuals
who sit before reams of documents prepared by others, with not even a modest wink at
the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and who sign the documents only to
have the document transported across the business campus to rows of notaries, who attest
to the signatures without ever complying with the basics of their state’s notary laws.

Some of the mill firms now employ their own “Signing OffIcers” – individuals
who will sign Assignments of Mortgage on behalf of the owners of the pool, supposedly
authorized by the servicer pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement which
applies to the particular securitized trust. The documents are prepared entirely by the
servicer.

On occasion, the law fIrm employees also sign the AffIdavits in support of
motions for summary judgment fIled by the law fIrms – here, the lawyer’s offIce staff
becomes the material witness for the lawyer’s client.

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=44593724 access_key=key-r8depdmlv6a3blz9a5u height=600 width=600 /]

For you to understand a little more about “the 4 minute foreclosure” you first have to know some key players in the controversy surrounding the foreclosure process today. I included a few excerpts from an article written by Gerlad B. Alt for DS News March of 2007 that you will find at the end. I only wish MERS was included in this article because without this device none of this would have been made possible.

The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac, is a public government sponsored enterprise (GSE), headquartered in the Tyson’s Corner CDP in unincorporated Fairfax County, VirginiaFreddie Mac, one of America’s biggest buyers of home mortgages, is a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1970 to keep money flowing to mortgage lenders in support of home-ownership and rental housing.

Freddie Mac was the first investor to improve on the so-called standard timeframes by tightening the noose and imposing what seemed at the time like draconian and arbitrary standards for completion of legal actions for foreclosure and bankruptcy. To reinforce its point, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation adopted a designated counsel program under which the attorneys chosen to participate were expected to meet and be graded against these more stringent dates.

LOGS Network is a multi-state network of title companies and law firms and connecting them via a proprietary web-hosted software system. They developed a proprietary statistical program called ASAP (Attorney Scorecard and Performance) to help manage the more than 250 law firms its outsourcing division. By introducing , invented the field counsel industry that serves residential mortgage banking. LOGS Network was co-founded by Gerald M. Shapiro of Shapiro & Fishman PA a law firm who handles foreclosures for the financial industry. His network held a virtual monopoly on all foreclosure and bankruptcy work nationwide until the early 1990s. In addition, he preempted the entire industry by creating the “cradle to grave” concept through business developments in title, closing, document preparation, foreclosures, REO, outsourcing, collection, and debt acquisition businesses.

Fidelity National, a national default outsourcing and information provider, was one of the first in the industry to implement time-frames a high priority instead of a guideline standards. It instituted a policy recognizing and rewarding those attorneys who did work for its clients in a consistently shorter time than their competition. Fidelity mentality was the faster the better and by publicizing and comparing the time to completion of various legal tasks among the hundreds of law firms doing work for its client base. It created a demand for attorneys to keep up with their business practices in the same sequence that other industries have had to in the sense of “recreating the wheel” so to speak to keep up with growing competition.

By having a goal of recovering nonconforming assets for the servicers this put pressure on the time frames they had in order to recover title.

Of course, when the only acceptable
test for quality becomes a simple test
of speed, it is inevitable that some of
the participants will feel compelled
to cut corners to stay in the game.

Click Image For PDF

DSN_FORE2_March07

SFF first posted this back on August 26, 2010.

Linda Green is/was an employee of DocX a subsidiary of Lender Processing Services located in Alpharetta, Georgia. Her signature was forged on key sensitive documents relating to county land records.

Below is a document that Shapiro & Fishman filed as a CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE.

What about the Satisfactions? In DOCX’s website they said:

“DOCX has built its solid reputation at not only managing large assignment projects, but satisfactions as well“.

• Exactly how many documents were signed by Green’s name as VP for MERS between these dates?
• Who do we contact to make this a nationwide recall alert like the recent “egg recall” containing salmonella?
  
• Exactly who is being notified if there is any title issues on your homes?
• Has there been a recall notice sent to County Recorders on this issue?
• Are there more VP’s of MERS who had no authority to execute documents?

LPS DOCX LINDA GREEN SHAPIRO

[ipaper docId=44005903 access_key=key-28f23qvartvao40f2b0x height=600 width=600 /]

[ipaper docId=43431406 access_key=key-1p9k2xprgdcqkjajbc1u height=600 width=600 /]

Link to his site: Christian Meister

Just want to make it clear that no one from his office/party sent this to me.

Winner in my book!

[ipaper docId=43373487 access_key=key-1t11nhdq6z6u5z00k4p7 height=600 width=600 /]

RULING MAY COMPLICATE LOAN CRISIS

Ruling might further complicate loan crisis

( page of 4 )

At issue is the use of sworn affidavits that convinced circuit judges the borrower’s original promissory note had been lost in the shuffle but that the lender still had a right to foreclose. Experts likened it to a used car dealer selling a vehicle using a photocopy of the title.

Circuit court judges have been using such promises to issue summary judgments, which have sped cases along at a time when the courts have been inundated.

Observers say the rulings from the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee and the 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach could become templates for more challenges.

It is unclear just how many cases could be affected — the chief judge in this region’s circuit says foreclosure paperwork is carefully scrutinized by teams of case managers — but the rulings come as the system already is dealing with disruptions from self-imposed bank moratoriums to deal with questionable paperwork.

“It is the culmination of the worst civil procedure nightmare we’ve ever imagined,” said Anne L. Weintraub, a real estate attorney at Sarasota’s Syprett Meshad law firm, referring to the recent appellate rulings.

What happens next could have widespread implications for the more than 200,000 Floridians who have lost their homes to foreclosure since January 2007, including the more than 12,000 in Manatee, Sarasota and Charlotte counties.

ANOTHER FL WIN! FLORIDA 4th DCA APPEALS COURT SERVEDIO v. US BANK

[ipaper docId=41737977 access_key=key-virafbbku2781pl40gp height=600 width=600 /]

William K. Black and L. Randall Wray

Posted: November 5, 2010 01:23 PM

This is the second installment of a two-part series. Read the first here.

We have explained in prior posts and interviews that there are two foreclosure-related crises. Our first two–part post called on the U.S. to begin “foreclosing on the foreclosure fraudsters.” We concentrated on how the underlying epidemic of mortgage fraud by lenders inevitably produced endemic foreclosure fraud. We wrote to urge government policymakers to get Bank of America and other lenders and servicers to clean up the massive fraud. We obviously cannot on rely solely on Bank of America assessing its own culpability.

Note also that while we have supported a moratorium on foreclosures, this is only to stop the foreclosure frauds — the illegal seizure of homes by fraudulent means. We do not suppose that financial institutions can afford to maintain toxic assets on their books. The experience of the thrift crisis of the 1980s demonstrates the inherent problems created by forbearance in the case of institutions that are run as control frauds. All of the incentives of a control fraud bank are worsened with forbearance. Our posts on the Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) law (which mandates that the regulators place insolvent banks in receivership) have focused on the banks’ failure to foreclose as a deliberate strategy to avoid recognizing their massive losses in order to escape receivership and to allow their managers to further loot the banks through huge bonuses based on fictional income (which ignores real losses). We have previously noted the massive rise in the “shadow inventory” of loans that have received no payments for years, yet have not led to foreclosure:

In re NILES C. TAYLOR and ANGELA J. TAYLOR, Chapter 13, Debtors.

Bankruptcy No. 07-15385-DWS.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

April 15, 2009

OPINION

DIANE WEISS SIGMUND, Bankruptcy Judge

On June 9, 20081 entered an order to show cause (the “June 9 Order”) in response to certain practices of HSBC Mortgage Corp. (HSBC“) and its attorneys and agents, the propriety of which I questioned and which ultimately became the subject of four lengthy evidentiary hearings as described below. The United States Trustee (the “UST”) was invited to participate.

In connection with this inquiry, the UST sought discovery of Lender Processing Services, Inc., f/k/a Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.^[1] (“LPS” or “Fidelity”). LPS describes itself as “a leading provider of integrated technology and outsourced services to the lending industry, with market-leading positions in mortgage processing and default management services in the U.S.”^[2] Id. In this case, it served as the intermediary between HSBC and its law firms, the Udren Law Office (the “Udren Firm”) and Moss Codilis LLP (“Moss”). The UST’s discovery requests were opposed by LPS^[3] (2) the UST’s Motion for Relief from Order Entered on October 23, 2008 (“Second Vacate Motion”) and (3) LPS‘ Objection to the Second Vacate Motion and Subpoena Issued on February 20,2008 (“Protection Motion”). Notwithstanding these contested matters, LPS had produced almost all of the Fidelity documents requested by the UST in the UST Motion but pursuant to a non-disclosure requirement memorialized in an order dated October 21, 2008 (the “Confidentiality Order“) from which the UST sought to be freed. LPS did not oppose the use of its documents in this bankruptcy case with appropriate safeguards but objected to the UST’s intention to share them with other members of the Office of the United States Trustee in other jurisdictions. on confidentiality grounds and resulted in the (1) Motion of the Acting United States Trustee for Rule 2004 Examination (the “UST Motion”) of Lender Processing Services, Inc., f/k/a Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.,

The UST Motion, Second Vacate Motion and Protection Motion have now been settled by an agreement between LPS and the UST have submitted a consent order that reflects their agreement that the Confidentiality Order be vacated and replaced with “Order Directing Filing of Documents Under Seal” (“Order Re: Protected Documents”). and the UST as further explained below.

Still remaining to be addressed is the June 9 Order which contemplated that sanctions could be issued depending on the outcome of the investigation it commenced. Regrettably I have found certain practices and procedures employed by HSBC, its agents and attorneys to implicate the integrity of these proceedings as more specifically described below. I have also found that these same practices and procedures have created an environment where Rule 9011 duties have been subordinated to efficiency and cost-savings so as to require sanctions, and sanctions are appropriately imposed.

BACKGROUND

The June 9 Order

The June 9 Order emanated from a routine Claim Objection hearing held on June 5, 2008.^[4] The hearing had previously been continued thirty days from its first listing to allow HSBC to produce documentation requested by Debtors in support of HSBC’s disputed claim. At the continued hearing, David Fitzgibbon, Esquire (“Fitzgibbon”) of the Udren Firm who represented HSBC,^[5] advised me that HSBC was unresponsive to his notice that HSBC was directed to produce a loan history. When pressed as to the details of his colloquy with HSBC, he informed me that he had no personal access to his client HSBC but rather communicated solely by means of an electronic information system known as “NewTrak,” NewTrak, I have since learned, is a technology developed by Fidelity and employed to provide foreclosure, bankruptcy and other mortgage loan-related default services to the mortgage industry. Simply stated HSBC and other mortgage lenders upload all or part of the mortgage documents and loan records of specified borrowers into the NewTrak system. Attorneys are engaged on a case by case basis through NewTrak to handle specified tasks. They get their assignments from NewTrak and report and/or seek further direction by “opening up an issue” on NewTrak. In this case, Fitzgibbon claimed to have opened up an issue (i.&. court has directed you to send a loan history immediately) and awaited an electronic response over NewTrak. He asserted that he had no recourse to the client when one was not forthcoming, specifically that he had no ability to discuss my directive about document production with either representatives of HSBC or the attorneys at Moss who had filed the claim for HSBC.^[6]

This frank but surprising admission resulted in the entry of the June 9 Order in which I ordered HSBC to “provide a full accounting to Debtors by transmitting a loan history in form that Debtors and their counsel can understand as well as an explanation about the flood insurance charges.” Doc. No. 52. I scheduled a continued hearing on the Claim Objection and directed the following persons to appear in addition to Debtors and their counsel: (1) a representative of HSBC with knowledge of Debtors’ loan; (2) a representative of HSBC with knowledge of the procedures it uses with respect to assertion of claims in bankruptcy; (3) Maria Borrensen, Esquire (“Borrensen”), authorized agent for HSBC’s bankruptcy work at Moss; (5) the partner in charge of HSBC’s bankruptcy work at the Udren Firm; (6) Lorraine Gazzara Doyle (“Doyle”), Esquire of the Udren Firm; and (7) Fitzgibbon. As noted, the United States trustee was expressly invited to attend. The purpose of the hearing, as stated in the June 9 Order, was two-fold: (1) to address the Claim Objection and (2) “to investigate the practices in this case employed by HSBC, its attorneys and agents and consider whether sanctions should issue against HSBC, its attorneys and agents.” Id.^[7] who filed the proof of claim and amended proof of claim in this case; (4) the partner in charge of

Continue Reading Below…

[ipaper docId=41064172 access_key=key-3m0ufwegm0mi1up05lw height=600 width=600 /]

By Natalie Doss and Nishad Majmudar – Nov 3, 2010 11:32 AM ET

Ally Financial Inc., the auto and home lender, said the company was “embarrassed” that it used so-called robosigners to fill out foreclosure documents.

“We screwed up,” Chief Executive Officer Michael Carpenter, 63, said today during a conference call on third- quarter earnings for Detroit-based Ally. “We had a robosigner affidavit problem. No question about it. We’re embarrassed about it and we fixed it going forward.”

Any errors will be corrected and the company is “confident that we did not foreclose on anybody inappropriately,” Carpenter said. “It’s up to us to prove that.”

Just a few weeks ago Wells Fargo made an announcement that there were no problems at all blah blah blah…and now they have passed the baton to Lender Processing Services…

Wells Fargo has found fraud errors… sigh.

LPS: no defects in related foreclosures, no fee-splitting

Perhaps if the Florida Bar followed each complaint homeowners filed, this would’ve never been been so “intense”.

Fast forward a few months and here we are: