Why hasn’t David J. Stern not been disbarred? Suspended?
Is Fraud upon the court 100,000’s of time & to the face of a judge not a crime?
Why would the original judge not sanction anyone?
Will the Supreme Court allow fraud to slap it in its face 2nd time around?
Where has justice gone?
Reuters-
The Florida Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday in a landmark lawsuit that could undo hundreds of thousands of foreclosures and open up banks to severe financial penalties in the state where they face the bulk of their foreclosure-fraud litigation.
Legal experts say the lawsuit is one of the most important foreclosure fraud cases in the country and could help resolve an issue that has vexed Florida’s foreclosure courts for the past five years: Can banks that file fraudulent documents in foreclosure proceedings voluntarily dismiss the cases only to refile them later with different paperwork?
The decision, which may take up to eight months, could influence judges in the other 26 states that require judicial approval for foreclosures.
The case at issue, known as Roman Pino v. Bank of New York Mellon, stems from the so-called robo-signing scandal that emerged in 2010 when it was revealed that banks and their law firms had hired low-wage workers to sign legal documents without checking their accuracy, as is required by law.
If the state Supreme Court rules against the banks, “a broad universe of mortgages could be rendered unenforceable,” said former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey, author of the book, “Foreclosures in Florida.”
The Florida Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Thursday in a lawsuit that could undo hundreds of thousands of foreclosures and open up banks to severe financial liabilities in the state where they face the bulk of their foreclosure-fraud litigation.
The court is deciding whether banks who used fraudulent documents to file foreclosure lawsuits can dismiss the cases and refile them later with different paperwork.
The decision, which may take up to eight months to render, could affect hundreds of thousands of homeowners in Florida, and could also influence judges in the other 26 states that require lawsuits in foreclosures.
Of all the foreclosure filings in those states, sixty three percent, a total of 138,288, are concentrated in five states, according to RealtyTrac, an online foreclosure marketplace. Of those, nearly half are in Florida. In Congressional testimony last year, Bank of America, the U.S.’s largest mortgage servicer, said that 70 percent of its foreclosure-related lawsuits were in Florida.
The case at issue, known as Roman Pino v. Bank of New York Mellon, stems from the so-called robo-signing scandal that emerged in 2010 when it was revealed that banks and their law firms had hired low-wage workers to sign legal documents without checking their accuracy as is required by law.
“This was a case of an intentionally fraudulent document fabricated to use in a court proceeding,” says former U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey, author of the book Foreclosures in Florida.
The Oral Arguments in Roman Pino v. Bank of New York will be heard before the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday, May 10, 2012 at 9:00 AM. In this case the court will be addressing the circumstances under which a voluntary dismissal (a final judgment or other court action) can be set aside long after the case is over, based on underlying fraud on the court.
As reflected above, the Fourth District certified this issue to be one of great public importance, and in doing so, noted that “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents” and that Pino’s requested remedy, if imposed, “may dramatically affect the mortgage foreclosure crisis in this State.” Pino, 57 So. 3d at 954-55.
Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC11-697
ROMAN PINO,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK, etc., et al.,
Respondents.
[December 8, 2011]
PER CURIAM.
The issue we address is whether Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.350 requires this Court to dismiss a case after we have accepted jurisdiction based on a question certified to be one of great public importance and after the petitioner has filed his initial brief on the merits.1 This narrow question arose after the parties to this action filed a joint Stipulated Dismissal, which advised that they had settled this matter and stipulated to the dismissal of the review proceeding pending before this Court. It cannot be questioned that our well-established precedent authorizes this Court to exercise its discretion to deny the requested dismissal of a review proceeding, even where both parties to the action agree to the dismissal in light of an agreed-upon settlement. The question certified to us by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in this case transcends the individual parties to this action because it has the potential to impact the mortgage foreclosure crisis throughout this state and is one on which Florida’s trial courts and litigants need guidance. The legal issue also has implications beyond mortgage foreclosure actions. Because we agree with the Fourth District that this issue is indeed one of great public importance and in need of resolution by this Court, we deny the parties’ request to dismiss this proceeding.
This shouldn’t be so difficult, David J. Stern has TONS of fraudulent documents out there. Pick any County, any documents his firm filed and you’re sure to find fraud. Just read the depositions from his former employees.
“We conclude that this is a question of great public importance, as many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents,” the appeals court wrote in certification to the Supreme Court.
PALM BEACH POST-
An unassuming drywall hanger from Greenacres has banks warning of a “widespread financial crisis” if the Florida Supreme Court favors him in a landmark foreclosure case justices will hear this week.
Plucked out of the 4th District Court of Appeal, Roman Pino v. the Bank of New York is the first significant foreclosure complaint to be heard by the high court since the state’s legendary housing collapse.
It’s particularly unusual because the 41-year-old Pino had already settled the case when the Supreme Court decided in December to take up a legal question it said could affect the mortgage foreclosure crisis statewide.
At issue is whether a bank can escape punishment for filing flawed or fraudulent documents in a case by voluntarily dismissing it. (A voluntary dismissal allows the bank to refile at a later date.)
That’s what Royal Palm Beach-based foreclosure defense attorney Tom Ice said happened when he challenged a document created by the Law Offices of David J. Stern and sought to question employees about its veracity. On the eve of those depositions, the bank moved to dismiss the case, blocking the court’s ability to address any sanctions.
“The objective here was to hide from punishment for the wrongdoing,” Ice said.
INTRODUCTION The Court retained this case so that it could give needed guidance to trial courts and other litigants by its answer to a certified question arising from a mortgage foreclosure action. As the Court wrote: The question certified . . . transcends the individual parties to this action because it has the potential to impact the mortgage foreclosure crisis throughout this state and is one on which Florida’s trial courts and litigants need guidance. The legal issue also has implications beyond mortgage foreclosure actions. Pino v. Bank of New York, 36 Fla. L. Weekly S711 (Fla. Dec. 8, 2011). Florida Land Title Association (“FLTA”) and American Land Title Association (“ALTA”) file this brief to address the need for this Court to give guidance to trial courts and litigants on the importance of protecting the rights of third parties that have justifiably relied on the finality of a prior court action when buying, extending financing on, or insuring title to real property.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Court can expressly limit its decision in this case to the setting aside of a voluntary dismissal in a case where no third party interest in real estate is implicated. Should it choose to do so, FLTA and ALTA have no issues to address. However, if the Court decides to write more broadly, we respectfully ask the Court to emphasize the need to protect the rights of affected third parties when collateral attacks are brought against otherwise final court judgments, orders, decrees or proceedings. The residential mortgage foreclosure crisis has caused a host of problems for homeowners, lenders, and Florida’s court system. The Court addressed many of these problems by forming the Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosures in 2009 and by adopting its recommended amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure in 2010. However, unlike some other states, the Court has not adequately addressed the protection of third party interests when otherwise final court proceedings are collaterally attacked, especially the interest of those who have purchased foreclosed real estate.
Respectfully, if the Court is to give guidance to trial courts and litigants regarding collateral attacks against foreclosure actions (whether relief is sought under rule 1.540(b) or the use of inherent judicial powers) beyond the narrow facts of this case, it should give guidance on protecting the interests of third parties that purchase, finance and insure title to foreclosed properties. Recognition and protection of these neglected interests is vital to the integrity of our judicial system and to the ultimate resolution of the mortgage foreclosure crisis.
Continue to the Link below for Max Gardner’s 65 Tips For Mortgage Documents.
1. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the Originator directly to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust.
2. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned months and sometimes years after the date of the origination of the underlying mortgage note.
3. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the initial aggregator directly to the Securitized Trust with no assignments to the Depositor or the Sponsor for the Trust.
4. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed, dated or assigned in a manner inconsistent with the mandatory governing rules of Section 2.01 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.
5. The assignment of the Mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed by a legal entity that was no longer in existence on the date the document was executed.
Action Date: December 10, 2011 Location: West Palm Beach, FL
In a very unusual move, the FL Supreme Court rejected the settlement in the PINO case last week and will issue a decision about fraudulent mortgage documents.
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals had certified a procedural foreclosure question to the Supreme Court, stating: “This is a question of great public importance” since “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents.”
At the trial court level, PINO’s attorneys had asked the court to sanction BNY Mellon by denying it the equitable right to foreclose the mortgage at all. The district court observed that if this sanction were available after a voluntary dismissal, “it may dramatically affect the mortgage crisis in this state.”
The Fourth District Court of Appeals decision seemed to recognize that very frequently, bank lawyers used dismissals when homeowners raised a question regarding the legitimacy of the documents filed by the banks.
Advocates for homeowners were encouraged by the Supreme Court’s action denying the settlement as the final resolution.
So who exactly is NOT happy?
Perhaps the preparers and signers of the two mortgage assignments in the PINO case.
One of the Assignments was prepared by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, Esq. This is signed by Stern’s office manager, Cheryl Samons who signs as an Asst. Sect. of MERS.
This is dated September 19, 2008 – though not filed until February 18, 2009.
The Lis Pendens (beginning of the foreclosure in judicial states) was dated October 8, 2008.
This is an assignment of the Mortgage and the Note to:
The Bank of New York Mellon F/K/A The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OC8.
For anyone unfamiliar with Cheryl Samons many acts in the Law Offices of David Stern (a law firm that spent a lot of $$ entertaining officials from FANNIE), the sworn statements from paralegals and notaries from the investigation of then Asst. A.G.s June Clarkson & Theresa Edwards (those overly aggressive FORMER prosecutors) are available for review at StopForeclosureFraud.com.
According to these sworn statements, Samons signed thousands of documents each week, allowed other people to sign her name, did not read what she signed, signed other names, etc. She did these things because her boss, David Stern, was very generous (see the articles by Andy Kroll in Mother Jones for more details on this).
The second assignment was notarized July 14, 2009 and filed July 29, 2009.
It seems they forgot all about the first assignment because once again it is an assignment from MERS to the same trust. This Assignment was also prepared by the Law Offices of David Stern. (If the first assignment was effective, of course, MERS had nothing to convey).
The signer this time was Melissa Viveros in Tarrant County, TX.
While she signs as a MERS officer, Viveros in many other reported cases appears as an officer of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, N/K/A BAC Home Loans Servicing.
So, once again, Bank of America (then the parent of BAC Home Loans Servicing) and Bank of New York Mellon have the most to lose in the short run – and in the long run, investors in CWALT and CWABS trusts.
Action Date: December 11, 2011 Location: Jacksonville, FL
There is substantial evidence that mortgage servicing companies and their lawyers are continuing to file fraudulent mortgage assignments in county recorders offices throughout the country. In April, 2011, the widespread abuses, including massive forgeries, were exposed in a 60 Minutes segment that focused on employees of Docx, a subsidiary of Lender Processing Services, who forged the name “Linda Green” to mortgage assignments used in foreclosures.
Several weeks later, Guilford County, NC County Recorder Jeff Thigpen came forward with a comprehensive study of the “Linda Green” forgeries in his county’s records – finding over 2000 documents signed by Linda Green with 4 – 15 significant signature variations. County Recorder John O’Brien in Massachusetts and Curtis Hertel in Michigan conducted similar comprehensive studies with similar results.
In November, 2011, the Nevada Attorney General’s office filed the first criminal charges against employees of Lender Processing Services for falsifying mortgage documents.
An examination of recent filings by mortgage servicers shows that these companies are exacerbating the problem of fraudulent documents.
Mortgage assignments are now being filed with the following language:
“This Assignment is to supplement and ratify that certain Assignment of Mortgage recorded in Original Records Book 19467 at Page 1710 Original Records Book 19888 at Page 1466 of Hillsborough County, Florida.” (Instrument #2011294512, Hillsborough County, Florida, filed September 12, 2011.)
An examination of the “ratified” Assignment shows that it is one of the Linda Green forged documents. It is very similar to the Linda Green forged signature demonstrated by LPS employee Chris Pendley on the 60 Minutes segment.
Instead of admissions that the documents are forgeries, the mortgage servicers are filing “ratifications.” These ratifications are signed by other employees of mortgage servicing companies, using titles of MERS officers.
The information continues to be false. In the first “Linda Green” Assignment, the mortgage is reported to have been transferred on September 9, 2009. In the “ratified” version, the mortgage is reported to have been transferred on July 13, 2011.
Both Assignments purport to transfer a mortgage made by American Brokers Conduit to a Bear Stearns trust (Bear Stearns ABS, Series 2006-3) that closed in 2006. U.S. Bank is the trustee for this trust. American Home Mortgage Servicing is the servicer. The first assignment was filed on September 16, 2009 – just two weeks before the date on the Lis Pendens (initial foreclosure filing) prepared by the foreclosure mill, Shapiro & Fishman, LLP.
If the 2009 Assignment from MERS to the trust were valid, MERS would have had nothing to transfer in 2011. In Latin, this concept is stated: Nemo dat quod non habet. Translation: one cannot give what one does not have.
The signers on the 2011 Assignment claim to be corporate officers of MERS, though they are not listed as such in the records of the Florida Secretary of State. (The 2011 Assignment was notarized in Duval County, FL.)
These “ratification” filings are a good indication that the Consent Order entered by the FDIC and the OCC on April 13, 2011, are not being adequately monitored.
Why would any trust or mortgage servicer ratify conduct that has been described as criminal conduct by attorneys general?
As reflected above, the Fourth District certified this issue to be one of great public importance, and in doing so, noted that “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents” and that Pino’s requested remedy, if imposed, “may dramatically affect the mortgage foreclosure crisis in this State.” Pino, 57 So. 3d at 954-55.
Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC11-697
ROMAN PINO,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK, etc., et al.,
Respondents.
[December 8, 2011]
PER CURIAM.
The issue we address is whether Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.350 requires this Court to dismiss a case after we have accepted jurisdiction based on a question certified to be one of great public importance and after the petitioner has filed his initial brief on the merits.1 This narrow question arose after the parties to this action filed a joint Stipulated Dismissal, which advised that they had settled this matter and stipulated to the dismissal of the review proceeding pending before this Court. It cannot be questioned that our well-established precedent authorizes this Court to exercise its discretion to deny the requested dismissal of a review proceeding, even where both parties to the action agree to the dismissal in light of an agreed-upon settlement. The question certified to us by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in this case transcends the individual parties to this action because it has the potential to impact the mortgage foreclosure crisis throughout this state and is one on which Florida’s trial courts and litigants need guidance. The legal issue also has implications beyond mortgage foreclosure actions. Because we agree with the Fourth District that this issue is indeed one of great public importance and in need of resolution by this Court, we deny the parties’ request to dismiss this proceeding.
Southern Essex District Register of Deeds John O’Brien today is calling for a temporary halt on all foreclosures on Massachusetts homeowners until there is time to sort through the complex issues, including the fraudulent documents that have been recorded in people’s chains of title. In addition, O’Brien has cautioned people that they should think twice before buying a foreclosed property in light of the recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Decision in Bevilacqua v. Rodriquez.
Although O’Brien commended the Supreme Court and Judge Long for its sound decision in the Bevilacqua Case, he recommends that any lender, servicer or foreclosure law firm be required to attest in an affidavit, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that all the paperwork involved in a foreclosure has been reviewed by someone in authority at the bank with knowledge of the transaction and that the paperwork is correct, truthful and valid. He believes that lenders should also have to prove, through a forensic audit, that they actually own the note and mortgage upon which they are foreclosing upon.
The Bevilacqua Decision makes it clear that a lender must own the mortgage before it may foreclose. “As I have said all along, had Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and others followed the law and played by the same rules as everyone else, maybe our economy would not be in this crisis today. There is a good reason that we have registries of deeds in this country. It is so that every document that pertains to a parcel of real property is recorded in a public registry, so that anyone, at any time, may view their chain of title.”
“Since the property involved in the Bevilacqua Case is in Haverhill, which is a part of my district, I have reached out to our mortgage fraud and forensic analyst, Marie McDonnell of McDonnell Property Analytics. Ms. McDonnell has certified to me that there are at least three missing assignments in the Bevilacqua chain of title, and that the one assignment which was recorded on the property is fraudulent. This clearly demonstrates the damage to a chain of title when assignments are not timely filed or not filed at all.” said O’Brien.
In calling for a halt on foreclosures, O’Brien said, “This will send a clear message that Massachusetts will not tolerate the practice of using fraudulent documents to put someone out on the street. This is something that we do not do in America. We all have to remember that foreclosures are not good for anyone; they hurt families, neighborhoods, property values and therefore communities as a whole. These big banks have played fast and loose with peoples property rights, and now courts in Massachusetts and other states are standing up and saying that what they have done is wrong. Fraudulent documents are and always should be unacceptable and never be recorded in a registry of deeds. If the average person recorded a fraudulent document and then attempted to present it to a court of law as evidence, they would be prosecuted. So it begs the question, why are the captains of the bank industry and Wall Street being treated differently? Let me make it clear that this fraudulent activity is being done by major lenders, not our local community banks. I think that the lesson here is if anyone is currently looking for a mortgage, they should be dealing with their local hometown banks who have always played by the rules.” O’Brien continued, “Perhaps if people stop buying these foreclosed properties, which in most cases sell for less than what the original homeowner owed the lender, than maybe the banks will rethink their position and do the right thing, namely begin working with homeowners to create a new payment plan that will keep people in their homes.”
In an attempt to provide people with more assistance, O’Brien is now offering any homeowner in his district who has a document in their chain of title signed by a known robo-signer, an affidavit signed by him as Register of Deeds attesting to the presence of that signature which has been recorded at his Registry. For those homeowners that are currently being foreclosed upon, this affidavit may be presented to their attorney, the lender or the court to show that their chain of title has been corrupted. For those who are not in foreclosure, the affidavit may be presented to their current lender to show that a robo-signed document has in fact been recorded in their chain of title and be part of a request to investigate how this happened and what the lender is going to do to correct it.
Homeowners may check to see if there is a known robo-signer in their chain of title by visiting his website www.salemdeeds.com or by calling his Customer Service Department at 978-542-1704.
Washington, DC (Oct. 18, 2011) – Today, Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, responded to an announcement by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) that it has instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to begin “transitioning away” from their use of designated foreclosure attorney networks to a system under which “mortgage servicers select qualified law firms that meet certain minimum, uniform criteria.”
“Several of these law firms were able to engage in abusive and illegal behavior that violated the rights of borrowers, in part because of deficient oversight by FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac,” said Cummings. “In light of the extensive problems recently documented by the FHFA Inspector General, I urged FHFA to seriously consider terminating these attorney networks, and it appears they are implementing my request.”
“I remain concerned, however, that FHFA has not provided specific details about how mortgage servicers will select and oversee law firms to ensure that abusive behavior is prevented,” added Cummings. “I will continue my oversight efforts to ensure that specific measures are in place to require mortgage servicers to properly oversee the actions of law firms conducting foreclosure proceedings, including those involving mortgages owned or backed by the government sponsored enterprises.”
On February 25, 2011, Ranking Member Cummings launched a major investigation into abuses and illegal activities by mortgage servicing companies, including wrongful foreclosures, inflated fees, and the filing of improperly executed legal documents during the foreclosure process. As part of that investigation, Cummings sent a letter asking the FHFA Inspector General to examine “widespread allegations of abuse by private attorneys and law firms hired to process foreclosures as part of the ‘Retained Attorney Network’ established by Fannie Mae.”
On September 23, 2011, the FHFA Inspector General issued a report concluding that Fannie Mae and its regulators, including FHFA, were alerted repeatedly to serious problems with the legal firms in Fannie Mae’s retained attorney network (RAN) beginning as early as 2003, but failed to take corrective action. The Inspector General reported that “FHFA did not begin to act on foreclosure abuse issues involving Fannie Mae’s RAN until mid-2010,” despite “multiple indicators of foreclosure abuse risk prior to 2010 that could have led FHFA to identify and act earlier on the issue.”
On October 3, 2011, Cummings sent a letter to FHFA Acting Director Edward DeMarco requesting additional documents and information regarding these oversight failures. Cummings requested that the agency “give serious consideration to terminating the existing Fannie Mae Retained Attorney Network program.” He also requested that “FHFA take immediate and decisive action to remedy these failures and ensure that no additional borrowers suffer similar abuses.”
Nothing last forever… But now the servicers get to make the call on who they want to use… Already see the drama unfolding.
Bloomberg-
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will phase out their foreclosure attorney networks in the wake of the so-called robo-signing scandal, according to two people briefed on the plan.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates the mortgage companies, may make the announcement as soon as this week, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the matter isn’t public.
Fannie Mae has required the mortgage servicers handling its loans to use its Retained Attorney Network for foreclosures and bankruptcy cases. Some lawyers were accused by lawmakers, regulators and consumer groups of mishandling paperwork for evictions and foreclosures, including falsifying signatures on court affidavits. The dispute led many mortgage servicers to suspend foreclosure activity last year.
Fannie Mae, the mortgage finance giant, learned as early as 2003 of extensive foreclosure abuses among the law firms it had hired to remove troubled borrowers from their homes. But the company did little to correct the firms’ practices, according to a report issued Tuesday.
Only after news reports in mid-2010 began to describe the dubious practices, like the routine filing of false pleadings in bankruptcy courts, did Fannie Mae’s overseer start to scrutinize the conduct. The report was critical of that overseer, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and was prepared by the agency’s inspector general.
I’ll say it again, Their days are numbered. Plenty to hide but eventually the cat will come out of the bag!
HuffPO-
For many months, people concerned about the anemic American economy have focused on the housing market, and the reality that many of the nation’s homeowners remain underwater, owing banks more than their homes are worth. Eyes have turned to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-controlled mortgage behemoths that collectively back about half of the nation’s $11 trillion worth of outstanding home loans: If they would forgive a significant slice of this debt for homeowners facing difficulty, that would give borrowers a greater stake in their properties, diminishing the foreclosure crisis. The move would put more money in people’s pockets via lowered mortgage payments — money that borrowers would in turn spend, generating jobs for other people.
But the government body that now supervises Fannie and Freddie, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, has refused to…
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Evaluation of the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Oversight of Freddie Mac’s Repurchase Settlement with Bank of America
EXPLANATION OF REDACTIONS IN THIS REPORT This report includes redactions requested by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). According to FHFA and Freddie Mac, the redactions are intended to protect from disclosure material that they consider to be confidential financial, proprietary business, and/or trade secret information, which Freddie Mac claims it would not ordinarily publicly disclose and, if disclosed, could place it at a competitive disadvantage.
Just like his Twin Fannie and their Robo-Machine…it’s just all a mess. I give them a few months and kaput!
WSJ-
A federal watchdog said Freddie Mac may have given up opportunities to recover billions of dollars in claims over defaulted mortgages and suggested that a January settlement with Bank of America Corp. to resolve $1.3 billion in bad-loan claims was inadequate.
The report is to be released Tuesday by the inspector general for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates Freddie Mac and its larger cousin, Fannie Mae.
A senior FHFA examiner warned in September 2010, months before the Bank of America settlement, that Freddie “could be passively absorbing billions of dollars in losses” by not more aggressively reviewing defaulted …
Once again, without “MERS”, This would not have been made possible. Not only did they give power to 20,000+ certifying officers “VP’s” nationwide the ability to sign any document, it also opened up the possibility to forging, backdating and fabricating them as we’ve seen in court cases!
They knew what was happening.
AP-
Fannie Mae missed chances to catch law firms illegally signing foreclosure documents and its government overseer did not take the right steps to ensure Fannie was doing its job, federal regulators say.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency’s inspector general said in a report Friday that Fannie failed to establish an “acceptable and effective” way to monitor foreclosure proceedings between 2006 and early 2011. Government regulators then failed to ensure it was complying with demands that it clean up its programs.
Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto is expected to file criminal charges against bank and title company employees, as well as notary publics, over allegations of robo signing.
LVRJ-
A Las Vegas attorney who represents people facing foreclosure has accused Wells Fargo of forging loan documents. The allegation is the latest sign that efforts to hold mortgage lenders accountable are escalating in Nevada.
In court papers filed this month in Clark County District Court, attorney Dave Crosby alleged bank employees committed forgery and fraud in making a $350,000 loan to a father of four who was unemployed at the time.
“They forged signatures, they backdated documents,” Crosby said. “We’ve got them cold.”
Like everything else….umm… oh yea! Those things called modifications. This ain’t gonna happen either!
WSJ-
It probably won’t include “1-800-ROBO,” but big banks are preparing to launch a toll-free number to find consumers harmed by problems in foreclosure processing.
The effort to find consumers is an outgrowth of the controversy over so-called robo-signing and other problematic foreclosure practices. Last spring, regulators ordered major banks and thrifts to overhaul their foreclosure practices, finding that 14 lenders filed foreclosures with improper documentation and lacked sufficient staff to properly handle distressed borrowers. The banks have now picked independent consultants to identify any borrowers who were harmed by foreclosure-processing problems.
Counties across the United States are discovering that illegal or questionable mortgage paperwork is far more widespread than first thought, tainting the deeds of tens of thousands of homes dating to the late 1990s.
The suspect documents could create legal trouble for homeowners for years.
Already, mortgage papers are being invalidated by courts, insurers are hesitant to write policies, and judges are blocking banks from foreclosing on homes. The findings by various county registers of deeds have also hindered a settlement between the 50 state’s attorneys general who are investigating big banks and other mortgage lenders over controversial mortgage practices.
The problem of shoddy mortgage paperwork, which comprises several shortcuts known collectively as “robo-signing,” led the nation’s largest banks, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., and other lenders to temporarily halt foreclosures nationwide in the fall of 2010.
At the time, “robo-signing” was thought to be contained to the affidavits that banks file and use to prove they have the right to seize a home for foreclosure. Companies that process mortgages said they were so overwhelmed with paperwork that they cut corners.
The mortgage industry will take a step toward cleaning up some of its most controversial practices under a deal between a New York regulator and three financial firms, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
Under the agreement with the state’s financial-services superintendent, Benjamin M. Lawsky, the three firms—Goldman, its Litton Loan Servicing business and Ocwen Financial Corp.—promised to end so-called robo-signing, in which bank employees signed foreclosure documents without reviewing case files as required by law. They also agreed to comb through loan files for evidence they mishandled borrowers’ paperwork and to cut mortgage payments for some New York homeowners.
Recent Comments