First Posted: 12-14-10 04:23 PM | Updated: 12-14-10 04:32 PM
The leader of a nationwide investigation of foreclosure fraud told homeowners Tuesday that the probe will have some serious consequences for bankers.
“We will put people in jail,” Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said, according to homeowner advocates present at the meeting in Des Moines.
Miller said the 50 attorneys general participating in the investigation want criminal prosecutions as part of a big settlement with home-loan providers. The probe launched this fall in the wake of news that the foreclosure processes at many large banks are as bogus as the lending practices that fed the housing bubble in the first place, as banks granted loans indiscriminately to feed derivatives-market speculation and failed to track original mortgage documents after packaging the loans and selling them to investors.
Several banks temporarily halted foreclosures shortly after some of the more egregious practices were revealed, but resumed seizing homes as the scandal fell off the front pages.
Other components of the proposed settlement would require banks to modify home loans and reduce debt burdens for customers whose homes are worth less than their mortgages.
“One of the main tools needs to be principal reductions, just like in the farm crisis in the 1980s,” Miller told the assembled homeowners, adding that he also supported restitution for victims of wrongful foreclosure. “There should be some kind of compensation system for people who have been harmed.”
Another 155 employees received pink slips Thursday from the Law Offices of David J. Stern and DJSP Enterprises, which processes home foreclosure cases for the Plantation-based law firm.
The layoffs came as Fannie Mae, which withdrew it business from the Stern firm after becoming one of its biggest clients, announced it had named eight law firms to handle foreclosure cases in Florida.
AMI has consistently supported federal remedial programs to offer eligible, distressed, homeowners relief from foreclosure through modifications through HAMP and 2MP. Additionally, we support principal forgiveness and total debt realignment. No first lien modification will be sustainable without properly addressing a borrower’s total mortgage debt. Regrettably, these programs have often proven unsuccessful due to the servicers, who invariably are the second lien holders, and who continue to inhibit sustainable modifications. Mortgage investors have no control over the modification process, and therefore share many of the frustrations that homeowners and state Attorneys General are experiencing when dealing with mortgage servicers.
“All too often, homeowners are being victimized by the servicers’ past and ongoing actions. The time is now for a permanent solution to America’s housing crisis,” continued Katopis.
By JOSH KOSMAN
Last Updated: 4:25 AM, November 15, 2010
Posted: 10:34 PM, November 14, 2010
Bank lawyers prosecuting the 80,000 foreclosure cases in New York are all but admitting that the cases they have filed over the past number of years have been riddled with fraud.
In the three weeks-plus since New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman put the foreclosure lawyers on notice that any fraud in foreclosure paperwork would be met with severe penalties — he is making lawyers sign affirmations promising they took “reasonable” steps to make sure the legal papers are true — practically no new foreclosure cases have been filed, The Post has learned.
And existing cases have ground to a halt, a source close to the state’s foreclosure practice said.
“Banks do not want to be the first to test the new rules,” the source said.
The virtual shutdown of New York’s foreclosure business comes despite chest-thumping, bravado-filled statements made by some banks in October that they had nothing to be afraid of when it came to foreclosure fraud and that the lawsuits aimed at kicking delinquent homeowners from their houses would continue shortly.
It seems lawyers pressing the foreclosure cases are not willing to bet their law licenses on such claims.
The foreclosure fiasco will be the subject of Senate hearings tomorrow and a House hearing Thursday, when execs from major lenders like Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase are expected to testify.
Stern’s DAL Enters Forbearance Agreement With Bank of America Over Credit
By Dawn McCarty – Nov 15, 2010 7:51 AM ET
A business run by David Stern, the Florida foreclosure lawyer who is under investigation by the state’s attorney general, entered a forbearance agreement with lender Bank of America NA.
The bank agreed not to take action in the period ending Nov. 26 over a default on a revolving line of credit by DAL Group LLC, a unit of Stern’s foreclosure-processing company, DJSP Enterprises Inc., according to a regulatory filing. The credit line, entered into in March, has an outstanding principal balance of about $12 million, DAL said.
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:
Sample Letter Sent to Public Companies on Accounting and Disclosure Issues Related to Potential Risks and Costs Associated with Mortgage and Foreclosure-Related Activities or Exposures
In October 2010, the Division of Corporation Finance sent the following illustrative letter to certain public companies as a reminder of their disclosure obligations to consider in their upcoming Form 10-Qs and subsequent filings, in light of continued concerns about potential risks and costs associated with mortgage and foreclosure-related activities or exposures.
October 2010
Name
Chief Financial Officer
ABC Company
Address
Dear Chief Financial Officer:
The purpose of this letter is to remind you of disclosure obligations that you should consider for your upcoming Form 10-Q and subsequent filings in light of continued concerns about potential risks and costs associated with mortgage and foreclosure-related activities or exposures.
Items that should be considered include, without limitation, the impact of various representations and warranties regarding mortgages made to purchasers of the mortgages (or to purchasers of mortgage-backed securities) including to the government-sponsored entities (GSEs), private-label mortgage-backed security (MBS) investors, financial guarantors and other whole loan purchasers. While not an exhaustive list, these representations and warranties may include the following:
ownership of the loan;
validity of the lien securing the loan;
the absence of delinquent taxes or liens against the property;
the process used to select the loan for inclusion in a transaction;
the loan’s compliance with any applicable loan criteria established by the buyer, including underwriting standards;
delivery of all required documents to the trust; and
the loan’s compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws.
In addition, we understand that some issuers are undertaking reviews of their loan documentation and foreclosure practices, and, in some cases, have suspended foreclosures pending completion of such reviews.
Item 303 of Regulation S-K requires you to discuss, in your Management’s Discussion and Analysis of your Forms 10-Q or Form 10-K, any known trends or any known demands, commitments, events or uncertainties that you reasonably expect to have a material favorable or unfavorable impact on your results of operations, liquidity, and capital resources. Item 103 of Regulation S-K requires disclosure of legal proceedings, including proceedings known to be contemplated by governmental authorities. Item 1 of Part II of Form 10-Q requires you to address legal proceedings when they first become a reportable event and in subsequent quarters when there have been material developments.
In addition, ASC Subtopic 450-20 (SFAS 5) requires you to establish accruals for litigation and other contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. When a loss is not both probable and estimable, an accrual is not recorded, but disclosure of the contingency is required to be made when there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss or an additional loss has been incurred. The disclosure should indicate the nature of the contingency and give an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss or state that such an estimate cannot be made. Rule 10-01(a)(5) of Regulation S-X requires the disclosure of material contingencies in interim financial statements.
As appropriate, you should provide clear and transparent disclosure regarding your obligations relating to the various representations and warranties that you made in connection with your securitization activities and whole loan sales. In addition, you should discuss any implications of any foreclosure review, including potential delays in completing foreclosures, if applicable. These disclosures should address your role as an originator, securitizer, servicer, and investor, as applicable. Depending on your circumstances, please consider the following points as you prepare your Form 10-Q and subsequent filings:
Risks and uncertainties associated with potentially higher repurchase requests as a result of any foreclosure review process and any changes to the methodology or processes you use to estimate any repurchase reserve;
Litigation risks and uncertainties related to any known or alleged defects in the securitization process, including any potential defects in mortgage documentation or in the assignment of the mortgages;
Litigation risks and uncertainties related to any known or alleged breach of the pooling and servicing criteria, including any potential defects in the foreclosure process;
Risks and uncertainties associated with any agreements or understandings, including for indemnification and settlement, with title, mortgage, and bond insurers regarding coverage;
Potential effects of defects in the securitization process or improper application of the pooling and servicing criteria on the valuation and any possible impairment of your mortgage servicing rights (MSR);
Potential effects of defects in the securitization process or improper application of the pooling and servicing criteria on the recognition or impairment of servicing advances, and related effects to your liquidity; and
Potential effects of changes in the timing of sales of loans, other real estate owned, and mortgage-backed securities resulting from such issues to your liquidity and any related effects on the valuation and impairment of these assets.
In addition, if you have established a reserve relating to representations and warranties attributable to loans that you have sold, you should consider providing a roll-forward of this reserve presenting separate amounts for increases in the reserve due to changes in estimate and new loan sales and decreases attributable to utilizations/realization of losses.
This is not an exhaustive list of the disclosures you should consider. It is your responsibility to determine the disclosures that should be provided in your particular circumstances.
Some of these issues are not limited to financial institutions that sold or securitized mortgages or mortgage-backed securities. Issuers that engage in mortgage servicing, title insurance, mortgage insurance, and other activities relating to residential mortgages should also consider the impact of these and similar issues for their disclosures.
To:ALL HOLDERS OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES FOR WHICH DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY OR DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS ACTS AS A SECURITIZATION TRUSTEE
FROM: DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST NATIONAL COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE AND DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, AS TRUSTEE (the “Trustee”)
Date: October 25, 2010
Re: Certain Allegations Regarding Loan Servicer Foreclosure Practices
After a quick review of its procedures, Bank of America this week announced that it will resume its foreclosures in 23 lucky states next Monday. While the evidence is overwhelming that the entire foreclosure process is riddled with fraud, President Obama refuses to support a national moratorium. Indeed, his spokesmen on the issue told reporters three key things. As the Los Angeles Times reported:
A government review of botched foreclosure paperwork so far has found that the problems do not pose a “systemic” threat to the financial system, a top Obama administration official said Wednesday.
Yes, that’s right. HUD reviewed the “paperwork” problem to see whether it threatened the banks — not the homeowners who were the victims of foreclosure fraud. But it got worse, for the second point was how the government would respond to the epidemic of foreclosure fraud.
The Justice Department is leading an investigation of possible crimes involving mortgage fraud.
That language was carefully chosen to sound reassuring. But the fact is that despite our pleas the FBI has continued its “partnership” with the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA). The MBA is the trade association of the “perps.” It created a ridiculous on its face definition of “mortgage fraud.” Under that definition the lenders — who led the mortgage frauds — are the victims. The FBI still parrots this long discredited “definition.” That is one of the primary reasons why — in complete contrast to prior financial crises — the Justice Department has not convicted a single senior officer of the large nonprime lenders who directed, committed, and profited enormously from the frauds.
Note that the Justice Department is not investigating foreclosure fraud. HUD Secretary Donovan’s statement shows why:
“We will not tolerate business as usual in the mortgage market,” he said. “Where there have been mistakes made or errors, we will hold those entities, those institutions, accountable to stop those processes, review them and fix them as quickly as possible.”
Note the language: “mistakes”, “errors”, “processes” (following the initial use of “paperwork”). No mention of “fraud”, “felony”, “criminal investigations”, or “prosecutions” for the tens of thousands of felonies that representatives of the entities foreclosing on homes have admitted that they committed. Note that Donovan does not even demand that the felons remedy the harm caused by their past fraudulent foreclosures. Donovan wants them to “fix” “processes” — not repair the harm their frauds caused to their victims.
The fraudulent CEOs looted with impunity, were left in power, and were granted their fondest wish when Congress, at the behest of the Chamber of Commerce, Chairman Bernanke, and the bankers’ trade associations, successfully extorted the professional Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to turn the accounting rules into a farce. The FASB’s new rules allowed the banks (and the Fed, which has taken over a trillion dollars in toxic mortgages as wholly inadequate collateral) to refuse to recognize hundreds of billions of dollars of losses. This accounting scam produces enormous fictional “income” and “capital” at the banks. The fictional income produces real bonuses to the CEOs that make them even wealthier. The fictional bank capital allows the regulators to evade their statutory duties under the Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) law to close the insolvent and failing banks.
There’s been plenty of recent media attention to the prospect of investor lawsuits over fraudulent mortgages and mortgage securities. But investor lawsuits against mortgage servicers could be even more damaging than these other lines of legal inquiry. The four largest banks hold nearly half a trillion dollars worth of second-lien mortgages on their books—loans that could be decimated if investors successfully target improper mortgage servicing operations. The result would be major trouble for the financial system. The result would be major trouble for too-big-to-fail behemoths.
Mortgage servicers are the banking industry’s debt collectors. They accept payments and forward them along to investors who own mortgage securities– servicers themselves don’t actually own the mortgages they handle. This is a recipe for trouble for a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest problems is the fact that the nation’s four largest banks also operate the four largest mortgage servicers. Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup service about half of all mortgages in the United States. They also have multi-trillion-dollar businesses whose interests often conflict with those of mortgage security investors.
By Fred Schulte Huffington Post Investigative Fund
Posted: 10/19/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
.
Nearly a dozen major banks and hedge funds, anticipating quick profits from homeowners who fall behind on property taxes, are quietly plowing hundreds of millions of dollars into businesses that collect the debts, tack on escalating fees and threaten to foreclose on the homes of those who fail to pay.
The investors, which include Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, have purchased from local governments the right to collect delinquent taxes on several hundred thousand properties, many in distressed housing markets, the Huffington Post Investigative Fund has found.
In many cases, banks and hedge funds created new companies to do their bidding.
In exchange for paying overdue real-estate taxes, the investors gain legal powers to collect the debts and levy fees. At first, property owners may owe little more than a few hundred dollars, only to find their bills soaring into the thousands. Some jurisdictions tack on bills, such as for water, sewer and sidewalk repair.
Some states allow the investors to bill for up to 18 percent interest and a passel of legal fees and other charges. When property owners fail to make full payment, the investors can sue to foreclose — in some states within as little as six months.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 8, 2010; 2:16 PM
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called on major lenders to halt foreclosures across the country Friday following Bank of America‘s announcement that it will suspend all such proceedings until a review of possible paperwork problems is completed.
Reid, who had sent a letter to major banks asking them to suspend foreclosures in Nevada, extended his concern to include all 50 states.
“I thank Bank of America for doing the right thing by suspending actions on foreclosures while this investigation runs its course,” he said. “I urge other major mortgage servicers to consider expanding the area where they have halted foreclosures to all 50 states as well.”
Reid is the latest Democratic leader to join a growing chorus of lawmakers and state attorneys general who have called for greater scrutiny of the foreclosure process and a nationwide moratorium. Homeowner advocates say that lenders have used dubious paperwork to expedite the eviction of homeowners who are behind on their payments.
Pressure on the banks continues to grow on Capitol Hill, where Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said Friday that the banking committee he chairs will hold hearings Nov. 16 to investigate the foreclosure paperwork morass.
Bank of America Corp., the nation’s largest bank, said Friday it would stop sales of foreclosed homes in all 50 states as it reviews potential flaws in foreclosure documents.
A week earlier, the company had said it would only stop such sales in the 23 states where foreclosures must be approved by a judge.
The move comes amid evidence that mortgage company employees or their lawyers signed documents in foreclosure cases without verifying the information in them.
“We will stop foreclosure sales until our assessment has been satisfactorily completed,” company spokesman Dan Frahm said in a statement. “Our ongoing assessment shows the basis for our past foreclosure decisions is accurate.”
Concern is growing that mortgage lenders have been evicting homeowners using flawed court papers. State and federal officials have been ramping up pressure on the mortgage industry over worries about potential legal violations.
On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urged five large mortgage lenders to suspend foreclosures in Nevada until they have set up systems to make sure homeowners aren’t “improperly directed into foreclosure proceedings.” Nevada is not among the states where banks had suspended foreclosures.
Also Friday, PNC Financial Services Group Inc. said it is halting most foreclosures and evictions in 23 states for a month so it can review whether documents it submitted to courts complied with state laws. An official at the Pittsburgh-based bank confirmed the decision on Friday, which was reported earlier by the New York Times. The official requested anonymity because the decision hasn’t been publicly announced.
This is without question the most important decision so far in the war against the unlawful and fraudulent conduct of the originators, securitizers, out-source-providers, default servicers, and their so-called lawyers! The Judge articulates the business models we are dealing with better than anyone has done in any opinion, article or brief. I am sure your work contributed greatly to the education of the court and for that you should be highly commended. This Judge really and truly got it! It is the perfect outline of the transactional requirements and debunks every bogus argument that the other side has been advancing for year”.
O. MAX GARNDER III-
Dear Damian,
I have attached a sampling from my Amicus Brief filed on Friday, October 1, 2010 with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the landmark cases that are presently on appeal from the Massachusetts Land Court styled: U.S. Bank v. Ibanez and its companion case, Wells Fargo Bank v. LaRace.
My brief reveals groundbreaking evidence that Antonio Ibanez’s loan was most likely securitized twice – a hidden fact unknown until now.
Moreover, the Assignment of Mortgage allegedly conveying the Ibanez loan to U.S. Bank, executed by “robo-signer” Linda Green, violated the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and other Trust documents.
Finally I expose the fact that U.S. Bank, who bought the Ibanez property at foreclosure for $94,350, sold it on December 15, 2008 for $0.00. That’s right, they foreclosed on Ibanez’s property so that they could give it away!
With respect to Mark and Tammy LaRace, I am happy to report that through the efforts of Attorney Glenn F. Russell, Jr. and myself, the LaRaces moved back into their home in January of this year, two and a half years post-foreclosure!
My Amicus Brief reveals that Wells Fargo Bank’s own documents prove that they did not have the authority to foreclose on the LaRaces. Therefore, the Assignment of Mortgage, Power of Attorney, Affidavit, and Foreclosure Deed executed by “robo-signer” Cindi Ellis were all unauthorized.
Wells Fargo Bank’s recent statement that it does not have the same “document” problem that GMAC, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America have admitted to is simply not true. I have audited many, many foreclosure files where Wells Fargo Bank employees and their agents have manufactured false documents to prosecute wrongful foreclosures such as in the LaRaces’ case.
Gretchen Morgenson is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist.Gretchen is one of the first journalist who began reporting on the mortgage crisis and understands exactly what is happening all around us. We thank Gretchen for all her hard work and we are proud to say she is aware of StopForeclosureFraud.com 🙂
Gretchen Morgenson, Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times writer, interviewed for Pacific Street’s upcoming feature doc on the financial crisis. Begun in 2007, this film (yet untitled) has strayed in many directions; covered much ground, and, when completed, will offer a very different perspective on the personalities and companies that have played the principal leads in the longest-running soap opera in this country’s financial history. A Ken Burns documentary it is not…
Aptitude Solutions’ ShowCase & OnCore Acclaim Software to Provide Greater Efficiency and
Secure Access to Courts & Land Records Information
This is IMPORTANT!!! They may go under similar names.
07/16/2010 – Lake County, Florida Clerk of the Circuit Court Signs with Aptitude Solutions for Court Case Management and Land Records Software – Read Story
07/15/2010 – Arapahoe County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder Implements Aptitude Solutions’ Land Fraud Registration and Notification System – Read Story
07/1/2010 – Webb County, Texas, County Clerk’s Office Signs with Aptitude Solutions’ for Oncore Acclaim Land Records Software System – Read Story
05/03/2010 – San Diego County Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk to Implement LPS Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Acclaim Recording System – Read Story
04/29/2010 – Palm Beach County Clerk and Comptroller to Implement LPS Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Acclaim Recording System – Read Story
02/22/2010 – Arapahoe County, Colorado, Implements Aptitude Solutions’ Software Suite, including the OnCore Recording Platform, For Greater Efficiency and Records Access – Read Story
02/11/2010 – Johnston County, N.C. Register of Deeds uses Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording Software for Electronic Recording of Survey Maps – Read Story
01/25/2010 – Broward County, Florida, Implements Aptitude Solutions’ Automated Indexing Optical Character Recognition Technology with OnCore – Read Story
01/25/2010 – Larimer County, Colorado, Implements Aptitude Solutions’ Automated Indexing Optical Character Recognition Technology with OnCore – Read Story
01/25/2010 – Johnston County, N.C. Register of Deeds Implements Aptitude Solutions’ Automated Redaction Software for Protecting Sensitive Information in Public Records – Read Story
01/04/2010 – Dauphin County, Pennsylvania Implements Aptitude Solutions Automated Redaction Software for Protecting Sensitive Information in Public Records – Read Story
11/20/2009 – Cherokee County Clerk of Superior Court Signs Contract with Aptitude Solutions for Court Case Management Software – Read Story
11/12/2009 – Tipton County, Indiana, Signs with Aptitude Solutions to Implement the OnCore Recording Platform & Automated Redaction System – Read Story
10/26/2009 – Arapahoe County, Colorado, Signs with Aptitude Solutions to Implement the OnCore Recording Platform for Greater Efficiency and Access – Read Story
09/01/2009 – Union County, Florida, Upgrades OnCore to Aptitude Solutions’ New Acclaim System for Official Records Recording – Read Story
08/24/2009 – Douglas County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder Implements Aptitude Solutions OnCore Recording and Indexing Platform – Read Story
08/03/2009 – Lender Processing Services’ Aptitude Solutions Announces OnCore Software Implementation in Largest County in Nevada – Read Story
06/22/2009 – Palm Beach County Clerk & Comptroller to Implement Lender Processing Services Aptitude Solutions’ Court Case Management System – Read Story
06/08/2009 – Nevada County, California, Implements Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording Platform For Greater Efficiency and Access – Read Story
05/01/2009 – Erie County Ohio Recorder’s Office Live with Aptitude Solutions OnCore Recording System – Read Story
05/01/2009 – Douglas County, Washington Auditor Recording Office Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
05/01/2009 – Aptitude Solutions Announces New Representative in Indiana – Read Story
05/01/2009 – Broward County Florida Recording Office to Implement Aptitude Solutions’ Automated Indexing – Read Story
02/17/2009 – Lender Processing Services’ Aptitude Solutions Selected To Implement Automated Land Records System for Nevada’s Largest County – Read Story
01/01/2009 – Land Fraud Notification and Identity Theft Prevention by Aptitude Solutions – Read Story
01/01/2009 – Davidson County, North Carolina Register of Deeds Now eRecording – Read Story
01/01/2009 – Aptitude Solutions County Recording and Indexing Solutions Provider Approved by the State of North Carolina – Read Story
01/01/2009 – Erie County, Ohio Recorder’s Office to Implement Aptitude Solutions OnCore Recording System – Read Story
01/01/2009 – Douglas County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder Selects Aptitude Solutions for Recording and Indexing Platform – Read Story
01/01/2009 – Aptitude Solutions Announces New Sales Representative in the State of Texas – Read Story
01/01/2009 – Aptitude Solutions Announces New Sales Representative in the State of Georgia – Read Story
11/20/2008 – Nevada County, California Clerk – Recorder’s Office Signs with Aptitude Solutions for OnCore Recording System – Read Story
10/09/2008 – Rockingham County, North Carolina Register of Deeds Complete Historical Digitization and Preservation – Read Story
10/07/2008 – Aptitude Solutions Selected for Clark County, Nevada Recorder’s Office Software RFP – Read Story
10/02/2008 – Skamania County, Washington Auditors’ Office Live with Automated Indexing – Read Story
09/29/2008 – Bradford County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Tribute Tax Deed System – Read Story
09/29/2008 – Franklin County, Washington Auditors’ Office Live with Automated Indexing – Read Story
09/22/2008 – Clarendon County, South Carolina Register of Deeds Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore – Read Story
09/22/2008 – Pulaski County, Arkansas Circuit Clerk Live with Automated Indexing and Redaction – Read Story
09/18/2008 – Walton County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Electronic Recording – Read Story
09/17/2008 – Levy County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Automated Indexing and Redaction Systems – Read Story
09/02/2008 – Tulsa County, Oklahoma Goes Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
08/11/2008 – Chelan County, Washington Auditor Recording Office Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
08/08/2008 – Aptitude Solutions Electronic Recording Certified by State of California ERDS – Read Story
07/17/2008 – Santa Rosa County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Electronic Recording – Read Story
07/07/2008 – Hillsborough County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Automated Indexing and Redaction Systems – Read Story
06/10/2008 – Collier County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Aptitude Solutions Showcase CMS – Read Story
04/21/2008 – Tulsa County, Oklahoma Upon being awarded the bid on April 14th, Tulsa County Clerk officially signs contracts with Aptitude Solutions to provide OnCore, aiIndex, and aiRedact – Read Story
04/16/2008 – Johnston County, North Carolina Register of Deeds Receives eRecording Award – Read Story
04/06/2008 – Davidson County, North Carolina Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
03/31/2008 – Chelan County, Washington Clerk Signs with Aptitude Solutions to implement OnCore Recording System
03/31/2008 – Clarendon County, South Carolina Clerk Signs with Aptitude Solutions to implement OnCore Recording System – Read Story
03/31/2008 – Nassau County, Florida Live with Aptitude Solutions’ Tribute
03/31/2008 – Skamania County, Washington Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System
03/31/2008 – Putnam County, Ohio Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System
03/31/2008 – Duval County, Florida Clerk of Court Civil Departments Go Live with Aptitude Solutions’ ShowCase System on Schedule – Read Story
03/05/2008 – Franklin County, Washington Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
02/26/2008 – Hillsborough County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Electronic Recording – Read Story
01/01/2008 – Pinellas County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Automated Indexing and Redaction Systems – Read Story
12/04/2007 – Escambia County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Tribute Tax Deed System – Read Story
11/05/2007 – Pulaski County, Arkansas Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
11/01/2007 – Escambia County, Florida Clerk of the Circuit Court Live with Automated Indexing and Redaction – Read Story
10/29/2007 – Simplifile and Aptitude Solutions enter into Strategic eRecordings Alliance – Read Story
10/28/2007 – Pickens County, South Carolina Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
10/18/2007 – Collier County, Florida Clerk of Court Selects Aptitude Solutions Showcase Court System – Read Story
10/18/2007 – Duval County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with ShowCase Felony and Juvenile – Read Story
10/16/2007 – Franklin County, Washington Auditor to Implement Aptitude Solutions OnCore Recording System and Automated Indexing – Read Story
10/01/2007 – Manatee County, Florida Clerk of the Circuit Court Live with Automated Redaction – Read Story
09/24/2007 – Pulaski County, Arkansas Clerk Signs with Aptitude Solutions – Read Story
08/30/2007 – Hillsborough County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Tribute Tax Deed System – Read Story
08/27/2007 – Glynn County Georgia Clerk of Superior Court Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
08/20/2007 – Putnam County, Ohio Recorder to implement Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
08/20/2007 – Pickens County, South Carolina to implement Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
08/20/2007 – Rockingham County, North Carolina Register of Deeds Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
08/06/2007 – Grand County, Colorado Clerk & Recorder Go Live with Aptitude
Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
08/06/2007 – Mesa County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder Live with Automated Indexing – Read Story
08/06/2007 – Montrose County, Colorado Clerk and Recorder Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
08/06/2007 – Pitkin County, Clerk and Recorder Live with Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
08/01/2007 – Broward County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Automated Redaction – Read Story
08/01/2007 – Baker County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Automated Redaction and Automated Indexing – Read Story
08/01/2007 – Gilchrist County, Florida Clerk of Court Live with Automated Redaction – Read Story
08/01/2007 – Johnston County, North Carolina Register of Deeds Goes Live with Aptitude Solutions’ Automated Indexing Technology – Read Story
07/17/2007 – Duval County, Clerk of Court Live with Showcase Court Case Management System – Read Story
07/03/2007 – Brevard County, Clerk of Court Live with Tribute Tax Deed System – Read Story
05/29/2007 – Levy County, Florida Clerk of the Circuit Court to implement Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
05/04/2007 – Horry County, South Carolina Register of Deeds Implements Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
03/01/2007 – Rockingham County, North Carolina Register of Deeds to implement Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Recording System – Read Story
11/13/2006 – Hillsborough County Clerk of Court Implements Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Official Records System – Read Story
11/13/2006 – Brevard County Clerk of Court Implements Aptitude Solutions’ OnCore Official Records System – Read Story
Thank you to our friends at American United For Justice for providing this mind blowing audio on a conference Mr. Stern held for DJSP investors. These are some of the highlights of this conference in no particular order. Read it carefully and don’t miss the audio below.
“We take em’ from cradle to grave.”
David Stern, President and CEO of DJSP Enterprises, Inc.
His baseball pitch-
One of my favorite questions from one of my believers, one of my investors on the first call-in, “What inning are we in? If this was a baseball game, what inning are we in?” And my response is, we’re only in the 2nd inning. We still have 3 innings of foreclosures left, and after the foreclosures, we have 3 innings of REO liquidation and as the REO liquidations pan out, we get into the re-fi and we get into the origination.
[ . . . ]
So yeah, we’re in the 2nd inning, but guess what – when we get to the 9th inning, it’s going to be a doubleheader and we got a second game coming. So when people say, “Oh my God, the economy is bad!” I’m like, “Oh my God, it’s great.” I mean, I hate to hear people are losing their homes and credit isn’t available and credit is such that they can’t re-fi, but if you are in our niche, it’s what we do and it’s what we want to see.
Crystal ball admission here-
No matter what Obama rolls out, there is no stopping this inflow of continued defaults that we anticipate to go for another two or three years late behind that is the math of REO’s that need to be liquidated and at the end of the day, the cycle will start again. Well, foreclosure volumes through 2012 are expected to increase dramatically and remain at high levels going on till 2017?
“Increase in Modification Services… This is what Obama rolled out. . Home Affordable Modification Program. Unfortunately, it’s what…folks if you do what I do…unfortunately it is failing. We have the opportunity to handle the modification or where we do have a modification, we get to charge for title search, we get to charge for title exam, we get to charge for doc prep we get a 600.00 dollar incentive fee?
And at the end of the day when it’s all said, 66,000 have been done to date… of the 66,000 more than 20% have failed. So we can get the file in, we start with the foreclosure, we bill for the foreclosure, we get the mod in, we make the incentive, we doc prep, we get the title, the mod is done and guess what? It falls out. It all comes back to foreclosure land and we get to start the foreclosure all over again! So no matter what the Obama Administration brings our way. We have found a way to create a profit center on it and that I think is part of that success!”
In 1989, Brian Hershkowitz developed the “Whole Loan Book Entry” concept while serving as a director for the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA). In 1990, he first introduced this concept to seven different industry groups; Document Custodian, Originators, Servicers, Title Insurers, County Recorders, Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE’s) and Warehouse/Interim Lenders. The reception was very positive and it was viewed as a very useful recording system to be used for how equity and debt securities could be identified and managed.
In 1991, Mr. Hershkowtiz published Farming It Out in Mortgage Banking Magazine. His main discussion in this article is primarily about getting the opinion of the experts in the technology outsourcing service industry. In 1992, Mr. Hershkowitz published another article called Cutting Edge Solutions in Mortgage Banking Magazine. In this particular article he mentions the actual meeting that took place at the Mortgage Bankers Association of America (MBA) headquarters with many key players that are known today as some of MERSCORP’s shareholders, such as, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In this meeting they discussed a “System” that will bring changes in mortgage records.
Mr. Hershkowitz went on to become President and COO of LandSafe Credit, a leading settlement service provider that was a subsidiary of Countrywide. Mr. Hershkowitz also spent several years serving Countrywide in the areas of strategic planning and executive management.
In 2001, Mr. Hershkowitz became Executive Vice President at Fidelity National Information Services (FNIS) and President of its mortgage and information services division. His responsibilities included management of the Company’s data offerings, including public records information, credit reporting information, flood hazard compliance data, real estate tax information and collateral valuation services. He left FNIS in November of 2006 to become Chief Executive Officer of Maximum Value Group, a consulting firm focused on providing advice to private equity and other market participants in the area of banking and mortgages.
ENTER THE X-FILES
MERS has evolved into a totally different purpose today.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of MERSCORP Inc., located at 1595 Spring Hill Rd Ste 310 Vienna, VA 22182.
MERS was founded by the mortgage industry. MERS tracks “changes” in the ownership of the beneficial and servicing interests of mortgage loans as they are bought and sold among MERS members or others. Simultaneously, MERS acts as the “mortgagee” of record in a “nominee” capacity (a form of agency) for the beneficial owners of these loans.
To ensure widespread acceptance within the industry, MERS sought to have security instruments modified to contain MERS as the original mortgagee (MOM) language. MERS began to change decades of business practices after the two biggest mortgage funders in the U.S. the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and the Ferderal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) modified their Uniform Security Instruments to include MOM language. Their approval opened the doors to incorporate MERS into loans at origination.
Soon after, U.S. government agencies like the Veterans Administration, Federal Housing administration and Government National Mortgage Association (Ginne Mae), and several state housing agencies followed both Fannie/Freddie to approve MERS.
More than 60 percent of all newly-originated mortgages are registered in MERS. Its mission is to register every mortgage loan in the United States on the MERS System. Since 1997, more than 65 million home mortgages have been assigned a Mortgage Identification Number (MIN) and have been registered on the MERS System.
The mortgage-backed security (MBS) sector tested the viability of MERS because a substantial number of mortgages are securitized in the secondary market. In February 1999, Lehman Brothers was the first company to include MERS registered loans in a MBS.
Moody’s Investor Service issued an independent Structured Finance special report on MERS and it’s impact of MBS transactions and found that where the securitzer used MERS, new assignments of mortgages to the trustee of MBS transactions were not necessary.
Since MERS is a privately owned data system and not public, all mortgages and assignments must be recorded in order to perfect a lien. Since they failed to record assignments when these loans often traded ownership several times before any assignment was created, the legal issue is apparent. MERS may have destroyed the public land records by breaking the chain of title to millions of homes.
IN MERS CEO’S OWN WORDS
In or around the summer of 1997, MERSCORP President and CEO R.K. Arnold wrote, “Yes, There is life on MERS” Mr. Arnold stated, “Some county recorders have expressed concerns that MERS will eliminate their offices nationwide or destroy the public land records by breaking the chain of title. As implemented, MERS will not create a break in the chain of title, and, because MERS is premised on an assignment recorded in the public land records, MERS cannot work without county recorders.”
In this same article Mr. Arnold also states “The sheer volume of transfers between servicing companies and the resulting need to record assignments caused a heavy drag on the secondary market. Loan servicing can trade several times before even the first assignment in a chain is recorded, leaving the public land records clogged with unnecessary assignments. Sometimes these assignments are recorded in the wrong sequence, clouding title to the property”. Mr. Arnold never mentions the fact that the mortgage notes have been securitized, thereby becoming “negotiable securities” under the Uniform Commercial Code.
In an interview for The New York Times, Mr. Arnold said, “that his company had benefited not only banks, but also millions of borrowers who could not have obtained loans without the money-saving efficiencies MERS brought to the mortgage trade.”
Mr. Arnold went on to say that, ” far from posing a hurdle for homeowners, MERS had helped reduce mortgage fraud and imposed order on a sprawling industry where, in the past, lenders might have gone out of business and left no contact information for borrowers seeking assistance.”
“We’re not this big bad animal,” Mr. Arnold said. “This crisis that we’ve had in the mortgage business would have been a lot worse without MERS.”
Unfortunately, even a simple search in the Florida Land Records proves the opposite to be the case. Researchers have easily found affidavits of lost assignments actually stating, “the said mortgage was assigned to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., from “XXXXXXX”, the original of the said assignment to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., was lost, misplaced or destroyed before same could be placed of record with the Florida Land Records County Clerk’s office; That, “XXXXXXX”, it’s successors and/or assignee is no longer in business/or do not respond to our request for a duplicate assignment, and therefore, a duplicate original of said assignment cannot be obtained.”
According to affidavits such as these, not only have the borrowers lost contact with the lenders, but the same is true that MERS did as well.
Yet again, researchers have easily located affidavits recorded in the Florida Land Records stating “That said Deed of Trust has not been assigned to any other party and that MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, Inc. is the current holder and owner of the Note and Deed of Trust in question.”
NO. THERE’S NO LIFE AT MERS
Aside from not recording assignments, Mr. Arnold failed to mention that the certifying officers given authority to execute sensitive loan documents would not be paid employees of MERS. This raises the critical legal question as to how one can act as a certified officer and execute any equitable interest on behalf of any security instruments without being an employee of MERS.
Q Do the assistant secretaries — first off, are
you a salaried employee of MERS?
A No.
Q Are you a salaried employee of MERS Corp,
Inc.?
A Yes.
Q Are any of the employees of MERS, Inc.
salaried employees?
A I don’t understand your question.
Q Does anyone get a paycheck, if they are an
employee of MERS, Inc., do they get a paycheck from
Mercer, Inc.?
A There is no MERS, Inc.
Q I thought, sir, there’s a company that was
formed January 1, 1999, Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. Does it have paid employees?
A No, it does not.
Q Does it have employees?
A No.
Q Does MERS have any employees?
A Did they ever have any? I couldn’t hear you.
Q Does MERS have any employees currently?
A No.
Q In the last five years has MERS had any
employees?
A No.
<SNIP>
Q How many assistant secretaries have you
appointed pursuant to the April 9, 1998 resolution; how
many assistant secretaries of MERS have you appointed?
A I don’t know that number.
Q Approximately?
A I wouldn’t even begin to be able to tell you
right now.
Q Is it in the thousands?
A Yes.
Q Have you been doing this all around the
country in every state in the country?
A Yes.
Q And all these officers I understand are unpaid
officers of MERS?
A Yes.
Q And there’s no live person who is an employee
of MERS that they report to, is that correct, who is an employee?
A There are no employees of MERS.
If so, how does anyone have any authority to sign security instruments encumbered by any loan documents, if these certifying officers are not paid employees and never attend corporate meetings in the capacity as Vice President, Assistant Secretary, etc. with Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc..
COURTS FIND ISSUES WITH MERS
Federal and state judges across America are realizing that the mortgage industry’s nominee is backfiring.
In Mr. Arnold’s own words, “For these servicing companies to perform their duties satisfactorily, the note and mortgage were bifurcated. The investor or its designee held the note and named the servicing company as mortgagee, a structure that became standard.” What has become a satisfactory standard structure for the mortgage industry has not been found by many courts to be legally sufficient to foreclose upon the property.
Again, MERS only acts as nominee for the mortgagee of record for any mortgage loan registered on the computer system MERS maintains, called the MERS System. MERS cannot negotiate a security instrument. Therefore, MERS certifying officers cannot have legal standing to assign what MERS does not own or hold.
The Supreme Court of New York Nassau County: Bank of New York Mellon V. Juan Mojica Index No: 26203/09
Justice Thomas A. Adams stated, “Not only has plaintiff failed to establish MERS’ right as a nominee for purposes of recording to assign the mortgage, more importantly, no effort has been made to establish the authority of MERS, a non-party to the note, to transfer its ownership.”
The Supreme Court of Maine: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Saunders, No. 09-640, 2010 WL 3168374, (Me. August 12, 2010) The Court explains that the only rights conveyed to MERS in either the Saunders’ mortgage or the corresponding promissory note are bare legal title to the property for the sole purpose of recording the mortgage and the corresponding right to record the mortgage with the Registry of Deeds. This comports with the limited role of a nominee. A nominee is a “person designated to act in place of another, usu[ally] in a very limited way,” or a “party who holds bare legal title for the benefit of others or who receives and distributes funds for the benefit of others.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1149 (9th ed. 2009).
In Hawkins, No. BK-S-07-13593-LBR, 2009 WL 901766
The Court found that the deed of trust “attempts to name MERS as both beneficiary and a nominee” but held that MERS was not the beneficiary, as it had “no rights whatsoever to any payments, to any servicing rights, or to any of the properties secured by the loans.”
In Re: Walker, Case No. 10-21656-E-11– Eastern District of CA Bankruptcy court rules MERS has NO actionable interest in title. “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.” “MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp.” The Court’s ruled that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.
In re Vargas, 396 B.R. at 517-19. Judge Bufford found that the witness called to testify as to debt and default was incompetent. All the witness could testify was that he had looked at the MERS computerized records. The witness was unable to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 803, as applied to computerized records in the Ninth Circuit. See id. at 517-20. “The low level employee could really only testify that the MERS screen shot he reviewed reflected a default. That really is not much in the way of evidence, and not nearly enough to get around the hearsay rule.”
FRAUD ON THE COURT
In US Bank v. Harpster the Law Offices Of David J. Stern committed fraud on the court by the evidence based on the Assignment of Mortgage that was created and notarized on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation/notarization date was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19, 2012. Since Notary commissions only last four years in Florida (see F .S. Section 117.01 (l)), the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the purported date on the Assignment.
The Court specifically finds that the purported Assignment did not exist at the time of filing of this action; that the purported Assignment was subsequently created and the execution date and notarial date were fraudulently backdated, in a purposeful, intentional effort to mislead the Defendant and this Court. The Court rejects the Assignment and finds that is not entitled to introduction in evidence for any purpose. The Court finds that the Plaintiff does not have standing to bring its action.
The Court dismissed this case with prejudice.
In Duval County, Florida another foreclosure case was dismissed with prejudice for fraud on the court. In JPMorgan V. Pocopanni, the Court found that Fishman & Shapiro representing JPMorgan had actual knowledge at all times that the Complaint, the Assignment, and the Motion for Substitution were all false. The Court found that by clear and convincing evidence WAMU, Chase and Shapiro & Fishman committed fraud on this court.
Both these cases involved Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. assignments.
On August 10, 2010 Florida attorney general Bill McCollum announced that he is investigating three foreclosure law firms for allegedly providing fraudulent assignments and affidavits relating in foreclosure cases.
In a deposition taken in December 2009, GMAC employee Jeffrey Stephan said he signed 10,000 affidavits or similar documents a month without personally verifying who the mortgage holder was. That means many foreclosures could have taken place based on false documentation and many homes may have been unlawfully foreclosed on.
On September 20, 2010, GMAC halted foreclosures in 23 different states. Two of the three firms being investigated by the Florida attorney general, the Law Office of Marshall C. Watson and the Law Offices of David J. Stern PA, have represented GMAC in foreclosure proceedings.
This is not limited to only GMAC Mortgage. There are many hundreds of thousands of these same documents that are being created by many foreclosure law firms across the nation.
University of Utah law professor Christopher L. Peterson has raised the issue that MERS should be regarded as a debt collector. He argues that some of MERS’ methods are just the sort of deceptive practices that ought to be regulated under The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U. S. C. §1692(a),(j).
CONCLUSION
Finally in May, 2009, Mr. Arnold said in Mortgage Technology Magazine, “Every system in the mortgage industry can switch MERS registry on or off at will,” referencing that both the Obama administration and Congressional leaders are aware of this.
President Obama and Congressional leaders it is time to permanently switch MERS lifeless device off!
Not until MERS became the primary focus for challenges to legal standing in foreclosure courts as reported by the alternative media, have the main stream media and the mortgage industry have begun to realize that property records cross the United States have become totally unreliable.
It has taken more than a decade for the courts to recognize that MERS has become a mortgage backfire system leaving clouded titles in over 65 million loans since 1997.
Courts across the nation must comply with the law. Any documents submitted to the courts regarding property ownership should be assumed to be nothing but smoke in a mirror.
I go through hundreds of cases each week and I have been saving this one for a rainy day. We’ll it’s raining today.
SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK I.A.S. PART XXXVI SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PAUL J. BAISLEY, JR., J.S.C.
DATED: MAY 10. 2010
The Court is at a loss to understand how a purported “correcting assignment” can be executed eight days before the assignment it is purporting to correct. Moreover, the Court is at a loss as to the identity of the true holder of the mortgage at the time of the commencement of the action (irrespective of any arguments regarding the validity of the purported assignment(s) by MERS as nominee of the original mortgagee; see, for example, US Bank, N.A. II Collymore, 200 NY Slip Op 09019 [2d Dept 2009]), While it is well established that any issues as to a plaintiff’s standing to commence a foreclosure action are waived by the defendant-mortgagor’s failure to appear and answer (HSBC Bank v Dammond, 59 A03d 679 l2d Sept 2009]), the contradictory and conflicting submissions on this motion implicate far more than the more issue of “standing.” Indeed, the submissions appear to have been drafted with utter disregard for the facts, or for counsel’s responsibilities as an officer of the Court, and border on the fraudulent.
In the the circumstances, the motion, which is unsupported either factually or legally, is denied in all respects. Moreover, in light of the failure of the movant to establish that any party was in fact the holder of the mortgage (and the underlying note, see KLuge v Fugm:y, 145 AD2d [2d Sept 1988J) at the time of the commencement of this action – an omission that in the circumstances may not be corrected by mere amendment — the Court, on its own motion, hereby directs the plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed; and further directs Steven J. Baum, P.c. and Heather A. Johnson, Esq., the attorney of record for the plaintiff in this action and the scrivener of the affirmation referred to above, to appear before the undersigned on June 24, 2010 at II :00 a.m. to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed on plaintiff and/or its attorney(s) for frivolous conduct pursuant to 22 NYCRR §130-1.1 (c).
DinSFLA here: 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.
by Austin Kilgore September 9, 2010
The clogged foreclosure pipeline is delaying new foreclosure filings, and Florida-based processing services firm DJSP Enterprises said it’s considering layoffs to deal with the decreased business.
DJSP Enterprises’ main client is The Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. (DJSPA). In the DJSP Enterprises second quarter 2010 and mid-year earnings report released this week, the company said a slow down in new foreclosure filings will likely necessitate cost cutting and personnel layoffs. The company said it initially believed file volume would increase in the third quarter, leading to the decision to maintain current staffing levels. However, file volumes continue to be delayed and existing staffing levels are not sustainable indefinitely, the report said.
“While a large portion of our business can only be processed with human capital, we are identifying opportunities where technology and process change can be implemented to create efficiency,” recently-appointed DJSPA President and COO Richard “Rick” Powers said in the financial statement. “We are prepared to create efficiencies and make cuts where appropriate over the next three to six months.”
Thank you to our friends at American United For Justice for providing this mind blowing audio on a conference Mr. Stern held for DJSP investors. These are some of the highlights of this conference in no particular order. Read it carefully and don’t miss the audio below.
The audio is here: 
I go through hundreds of cases each week and I have been saving this one for a rainy day. We’ll it’s raining today.
Continue reading ….
Recent Comments