_Hmmm good reason for each & every county recorder to examine his/hers private residences don’t you think?

It’s a great time for everyone!

Journal Gazette-

FORT WAYNE – Allen County Recorder John McGauley knew property documents with suspect signatures were prevalent. After all, there were so many that a year ago the nation’s largest banks had to halt foreclosures to deal with the sea of paperwork that could not be trusted.

The problem was so big it spawned a new word to describe it: “robo-signing,” meaning offices filled with low-paid workers signing documents they had never read, documents they were not qualified to sign and often signing someone else’s name.

Still, McGauley was surprised to hear that robo-signing was not limited to foreclosure documents but was being found on thousands of homeownership documents having nothing to do with seized homes.

[THE JOURNAL GAZETTE]

NAILTA–

In 2005, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. obtained a first mortgage against real estate owned by Rita and Kenneth Cloud. Sometime thereafter, the Clouds went into default and the mortgage was foreclosed. On August 28, 2006, Countrywide filed a foreclosure action against the Clouds. At a Sheriff’s Sale on February 22, 2007, Countrywide bid its judgment and took title to the real estate by Sheriff’s Deed. The Deed was recorded on March 15, 2007.

However, prior to the first mortgage and subsequent foreclosure judgment, the Clouds executed an unsecured promissory note to Citizens Bank of New Castle in January of 2003. The Clouds went into default on that note, as well. A complaint was filed against the Clouds to obtain a judgment on the unsecured note. On June 9, 2006, the Steuben County Court entered a default judgment against the Clouds in favor of Citizens Bank.

At the time Countrywide filed its foreclosure action in August of 2006, the Citizens Bank judgment lien was of record, but missed and Citizens Bank was not named as a defendant in the Countrywide foreclosure action.

On April 19, 2007, Countrywide conveyed title to the subject property to Fannie Mae by limited warranty deed.

[NAILTA]

[ipaper docId=65193185 access_key=key-250vg2towm9adue4ls60 height=600 width=600 /]

Uniform Law Commission
111 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 1010, Chicago, IL  60602
312-450-6600, www.uniformlaws.org

Contact:
Michael Kerr, ULC Legislative Director, michael.kerr@uniformlaws.org
Katie Robinson, ULC Communications Officer, katie.robinson@uniformlaws.org

For Immediate Release:

Seven states have enacted the 2010 Amendments to Article 9 of the UCC

June 15, 2011 – Seven states – Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Texas, and Washington – are the first states to adopt important amendments to the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article 9.  The 2010 Amendments are designed to go into effect simultaneously on July 1, 2013; many more states are expected to enact the amendments next year.

Continue reading [NCCUSL]

IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.,
Appellant-Intervenor/Cross-Claimaint,

vs.

SHANNON S. BARABAS A/K/A SHANNON
SHEETS BARABAS,1
Cross-Claim Defendant,

RECASA FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC,
Appellee-Plaintiff/Cross-Claim Defendant,
and
RICK A. SANDERS,
Appellee/Third-Party Defendant.

EXCERPT:

9. The [c]ourt further finds that [Citi?s] Relief Motion did not provide any notice to ReCasa and the creditors of the [b]ankruptcy [p]roceeding as to any interest of [Citi] in the Real Estate and as to Irwin Mortgage.

***

16. The [c]ourt further finds that [Citi?s] September 22, 2008 Relief Motion and the [b]ankruptcy [p]roceeding could not provide notice of any interest obtained by [Citi] pursuant to the [a]ssignment of [m]ortgage since the [a]ssignment of [m]ortgage was executed more than six months after the filing of the Relief Motion and after the termination and closure of the [b]ankruptcy [p]roceeding.

17. The [c]ourt further finds that no one has provided any evidence to this [c]ourt of the existence of any document providing notice of [Citi?s] interest in the Real Estate and the Irwin Mortgage prior to the filing of ReCasa?s June 13, 2008 [c]omplaint.

18. The [c]ourt further finds that no one has provided to this [c]ourt any document evidencing and providing notice of [Citi?s] interest in Real Estate and Irwin Mortgage other than [Citi?s] submission of an April 1, 2009 [a]ssignment of [m]ortgage recorded 22 months after the filing of ReCasa?s [c]omplaint and six months after the [c]ourt?s September 9, 2008 [d]efault [j]udgment and order of foreclosure.

19. The [c]ourt further finds that pursuant to Indiana Code [§] 32-29-8-2 and the findings herein, [Citi] failed to have its [a]ssignment of [m]ortgage properly placed on the mortgage record, and [Citi] is bound by this [c]ourt?s September 9, 2008 [d]efault [j]udgment, September 16, 2008 [a]mended [d]efault [j]udgment, and order of foreclosure in this cause of action as if [Citi] were a party to ReCasa?s [c]omplaint.

[…]

Ultimately, the Kansas supreme court found that in this case, MERS was little more than a “straw man” for Millennia (and later Sovereign). Id. at 166. The supreme court also noted that the mortgage repeatedly referenced the lender—not MERS—with respect to how notice was to be provided. Id. at 165-166. As such, the supreme court held that

[e]ven if MERS was technically entitled to notice and service in the initial foreclosure action—an issue we do not decide at this time—we are not compelled to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to vacate default judgment and require joinder of MERS and Sovereign.

Id. at 168.5

We choose to follow the persuasive reasoning of the Landmark case because it is factually similar to the present case. Like Landmark, Citi seeks to have the default judgment set aside based on the fact that it received its interest from MERS, which served as the mortgagee “solely as nominee” for Irwin Mortgage. (Appellant?s App. p. 88). Thus, when Irwin Mortgage filed a petition and disclaimed its interest in the foreclosure, MERS, as mere nominee and holder of nothing more than bare legal title to the mortgage, did not have an enforceable right under the mortgage separate from the interest held by Irwin Mortgage. With respect to notice, just as the mortgage in Landmark referenced all notice to be sent to the lender, here, too, the mortgage states that notice to the lender should be sent to the lender?s address, or “10500 Kincaid Drive, Fishers, IN 46038,” which is the address of Irwin Mortgage. (Appellant?s App. p. 88). Thus, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to set aside ReCasa?s amended default judgment.6

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=55783761 access_key=key-2256e2q97wtxmfx0wae0 height=600 width=600 /]

MARILYN L. ELLIOTT and
MICHAEL S. ELLIOTT,

vs.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, as Trustee )
on Behalf of the Registered Certificate Holders )
of GSAMP Trust 2004-SEA2, Mortgage )
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-SEA2,

Excerpt:

The Kafkaesque character of this litigation is difficult to deny. Having failed to receive a summons that may have been improperly served upon them, Marilyn and Michael Elliott learned that a default judgment had been entered against them, foreclosing on their home because of a mortgage that was allegedly in default. The home was sold in a sheriff?s sale to the lending bank. Feeling confused and suspicious, they turned to the Indiana Attorney General, who directed them to file a complaint with the Comptroller of the Currency. The Comptroller?s investigation revealed that Chase Bank, the ostensible plaintiff herein, is entirely unaware of the foreclosure proceeding. Moreover, Chase?s records show that the mortgage was paid in full in 2001. Chase, therefore, executed and recorded a satisfaction of mortgage. Notwithstanding the satisfaction of mortgage, Chase?s loan servicer—Ocwen Bank—continued to prosecute this action in Chase?s name, attempting to force the Elliotts out of their home even though there has never been a trial and the lending bank has declared that the mortgage was paid in full. Finding this situation untenable, we reverse and remand for trial.

Appellants-defendants Marilyn L. Elliott and Michael S. Elliott appeal the trial court?s order denying their motion for relief from judgment on the foreclosure complaint of JPMorgan Chase Bank (Chase). The Elliotts raise two issues, one of which we find dispositive: that they are entitled to relief from judgment pursuant to Trial Rule 60(B) because, during the pendency of this litigation, Chase executed and recorded a satisfaction of the mortgage. Finding that the Elliotts are entitled to relief from judgment, we reverse and remand for trial.

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=51356659 access_key=key-22pw686f4zvo6cdkg0bi height=600 width=600 /]

For immediate release: Jan 03, 2011
Posted by: [Attorney General]
Contact: Molly Butters
Phone: 317-232-0168
Email: molly.butters@atg.in.gov

Best Practices sought to thwart foreclosure violations
Zoeller petitions Indiana Supreme Court to set new requirements for lenders

INDIANAPOLIS – As the 50-state investigation continues into improper “robo-signing” foreclosure practices, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller today filed a petition asking the Indiana Supreme Court to impose new procedures to ensure that borrowers’ legal rights are fully protected and mortgage lenders follow the law.

“When some mortgage lenders try to foreclose on distressed homeowners by filing foreclosure documents that are unverified, unauthenticated or riddled with errors, it not only violates the rights of the homeowners but it is also a fraud upon the court,” Zoeller said. “In Indiana, we are not going to wait for federal government action; we will forge ahead to craft our own solution.”

A foreclosure-prevention task force established by the Indiana Supreme Court developed a list of guidelines to provide assurances to lenders, servicers, courts and borrowers that state and federal laws are being followed for the protection of homeowners.

The Indiana Supreme Court’s task force included the Attorney General’s Office, judges, Supreme Court staff, legal services attorneys and private-practice attorneys for mortgage lenders. Zoeller’s office today filed in the Supreme Court a petition — called “Mortgage Foreclosure Best Practices” — that included all the task force proposed guidelines and added some wording to strengthen them.

The Supreme Court is likely to take the proposals under advisement and decide at a later date whether to adopt them as requirements that lenders and services would have to follow.

The proposed best practices developed by the task force would do the following:

·         Require a mortgage lender seeking to foreclose to produce the original signed mortgage note when asked by the court – or other legal proof if the original cannot be located — and the chain of title proving that the lender has the right to enforce the note.

·         Require that the court send a notice to the borrower of their legal right to a settlement conference with the lender; and require that the judge not take final action until the settlement-conference report has been filed with the court.

·         Prohibit the mortgage lender from asking the borrower to waive his or her legal right to a settlement conference.

·         Allow courts to impose monetary sanctions on lenders who fail to comply with the Best Practices. The petition notes that judges in Allen and St. Joseph counties have ordered sanctions of between $150 to $2,500 for similar violations.

Because of concerns that some distressed borrowers have not been given the full opportunity to pursue “loss mitigation” – alternatives to foreclosure, such as loan modification or a short sale – the Attorney General’s petition includes additional wording to strengthen the task force proposals. It would require the mortgage lender to show, by verified affidavit, that the lender complied with federal requirements concerning borrowers’ legal rights during foreclosure, including providing borrowers with reasons for a denial of modification or other loss mitigation. And it would prohibit a court from ordering a home foreclosed if the borrower is being evaluated for a loan modification under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program or similar programs.

If adopted by the Supreme Court, Zoeller’s petition also would make the task force proposals requirements rather than recommendations.

“By some estimates, a sizeable percentage of homeowners facing foreclosure are not represented by attorneys, so no one is looking out for the borrower’s interests except the court. We must ensure the process is fair,” Zoeller said.

“These proposed best practices would provide much-needed transparency to the foreclosure process, encourage appropriate investigation and disclosure by the servicer and lead to better enforcement of existing federal rules,” Zoeller added. “I hope the Supreme Court will adopt the recommendations and implement them in Indiana’s courts.”

Zoeller said he applauded the Indiana Supreme Court for its leadership on the problem and the members of the task force for their willingness to take the initiative in Indiana rather than waiting for federal action.

On October 13, Zoeller announced that Indiana and the other 49 states had launched an investigation into fraudulent and illegal practices in the mortgage-servicing industry. The multi-state investigation was sparked by admissions by some mortgage lenders’ employees that they signed foreclosure documents without reading or understanding them, and allowed those documents to be filed court without authenticating them. The practice is known as “robo-signing,” and the result of the lack of due diligence has been numerous mistakes and even complaints that potentially erroneous foreclosure actions were filed against homeowners, some of whom were not delinquent on their mortgage payments. The 50-state investigation, led by Iowa, is ongoing.

On November 16, Zoeller organized and led a civil justice summit at the University of Notre Dame on the legal, economic and social impact of mortgage foreclosures in Indiana and efforts by all three branches of state government to stop mortgage fraud and assist borrowers in avoiding foreclosure.

Zoeller warns homeowners not to use illegal for-profit “foreclosure rescue” consultants when nonprofit organizations offers foreclosure-prevention advice for free. Contact the Indiana Foreclosure Prevention Network (IFPN) toll-free at 1(877)GET-HOPE or www.877gethope.org for advice at no charge.

[ipaper docId=46265177 access_key=key-7ivxrxjg1fpzsnvhmtb height=600 width=600 /]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

MARY BETH LUCAS and PERRY LUCAS,
Appellants-Defendants,

vs.

U.S. BANK, N.A., As Trustee For THE
C-BASS MORTGAGE LOAN ASSET-BACKED
CERTIFICATES, SERIES, 2006-MH-1,
Appellee-Plaintiff,

and

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP,
Appellee-Third-Party Defendant

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM THE GREENE SUPERIOR COURT
Honorable Dena Benham Martin, Judge

Excerpt:

Likewise, the Lucases assert third-party claims against Litton for breach of contract and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. In addition, the Lucases maintain that Litton violated FDCPA, RESPA, and that they are entitled to relief under the Civil Damages Statute because Litton committed conversion.

Congress enacted FDCPA because “[t]here is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692(a). Accordingly, these consumer protection statutes exist not only to make the consumer whole, but also to deter practices and behavior that negatively impacts society. In light of the nature of the claims, the rights and interests involved, and the majority of the relief requested, we cannot say that the essential features of this cause are equitable.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the Lucases’ motion for a jury trial on their legal claims.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=44989784 access_key=key-7wroggqk3ub5ydugzhd height=600 width=600 /]

FLORENCE R. LACY-MCKINNEY, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
TAYLOR, BEAN & WHITAKER MORTGAGE CORP., Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 71A03-0912-CV-587.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

November 19, 2010.

JOSEPH F. ZIELINSKI Indiana Legal Services, Inc. South Bend, Indiana, ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT.

CRAIG D. DOYLE, MARK R. GALLIHER AMANDA J. MAXWELL Doyle Legal Corporation, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE.

OPINION

KIRSCH, Judge.

Florence R. Lacy-McKinney (“Lacy-McKinney”) appeals the trial court`s entry of summary judgment in favor of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. (“Taylor-Bean”) on Taylor-Bean`s action to foreclose on Lacy-McKinney`s mortgage that was insured by the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”).^[1] On appeal, Lacy-McKinney raises two issues that we restate as:

I. Whether a mortgagee`s compliance with federal mortgage servicing responsibilities is a condition precedent that may be raised as an affirmative defense to the foreclosure of an FHA-insured mortgage; and

II. Whether the trial court erred when it entered summary judgment in favor of Taylor-Bean on its mortgage foreclosure action against Lacy-McKinney.

We reverse and remand.

At the time Taylor-Bean filed its complaint, the security interest in the subject mortgage was in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) “(solely as nominee for [Taylor-Bean] . . . and [Taylor-Bean`s] successors and assigns).” Appellant’s App. at 8. After MERS assigned the security interest to Taylor-Bean, Taylor-Bean filed an amended complaint. Lacy-McKinney initially argued that summary judgment in favor of Taylor-Bean must fail because Taylor-Bean had no interest in the Property at the time the original complaint was filed. Id. at 102-03. Lacy-McKinney does not raise this issue on appeal.

continue below…

[ipaper docId=44090700 access_key=key-6ibb3x2gq6zf7vuh0jp height=600 width=600 /]

Mortgage Fraud

Bethany Hood
Lender Processing Services, Inc.
MERS

Action Date: October 20, 2010
Location: South Bend, IN

On September 30, 2010, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Harry C. Dees, Jr., Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, confronted head-on the widespread practice of employees of mortgage servicing companies signing Mortgage Assignments with false job titles, in Koontz v. EverHome Mortgage and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Case No. 09-30024, Proc. No. 10-3005.

In this contested foreclosure, EverHome and MERS moved for summary judgment, while the plaintiff homeowners argued that there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment. One such issue involved a Mortgage Assignment signed by Bethany Hood as Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”). (Regular readers of Fraud Digest will recognize that Bethany Hood is a clerical employee of Lender Processing Services who works in the Mendota Heights, MN office and who signs thousands of mortgage documents monthly using at least 20 different job titles.)

Here is what the Court said about this:

“MERS, in its Answer to the plaintiff’s Complaint, admit(ted) that Bethany Hood is not an employee of MERS. (cite omitted).

The debtor claimed that the document [assignment signed by Bethany Hood as a MERS officer] was fabricated and MERS has offered no other explanation, nor has it submitted properly authenticated documentation of an assignment. It appears to this Court that a fraudulent recorded Assignment of Mortgage might still be found today in the St. Joseph’s County Recorder’s Office, despite MERS’ knowledge of the false signature.

Indeed, MERS has completely sidestepped the fact that this Assignment was signed by someone representing herself to be a Vice President of MERS, and it has declined to explain why this false document was attached to the amended Proof of Claim… In the view of this court, the conduct of the EverHome defendants and the MERS defendant – reflecting a lack of transparency and determination not to provide information or documents until required – has burdened both the debtor and this Court…On this case, the Creditors have been forced to admit that a non-employee signed the Assignment of Mortgage, representing herself to be a Vice President of MERS and other banks or mortgage companies held the Mortgage and or Note at issue… Having determined that genuine issues of material fact exist, the Court denies the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by the EverHome defendants and MERS…” How many other Mortgage Assignments signed by individuals falsely claiming to be Vice Presidents of MERS have been filed since 2008?

It is likely that the number is greater than ten million.

October 19, 2010, 7:58 PM EDT

By Andrew M. Harris

(Updates with lender’s spokesman in seventh paragraph.)

Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) — Bank of America Corp. and its Countrywide Home Loans unit were sued by two Indiana residents claiming that perjured affidavits were used to foreclose on their Knightstown home.

Plaintiffs Dwayne Ransom Davis and Melisa Davis accused the lender and its unit of racketeering in a complaint filed today in federal court in Indianapolis. Their lawyer, Irwin Levin, confirmed the filing in a phone interview. The filing couldn’t be independently verified.

“The defendants and their cohorts engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity in which they routinely and repeatedly prepared perjured affidavits in order to rapidly churn foreclosures,” the couple said in the complaint.

Bank of America, the largest U.S. lender, resumed foreclosures yesterday, after a 10-day nationwide pause to review more than 100,000 cases.

Continue reading…BUSINESS WEEK

.

Be sure to catch the Full Depo of Renee Hertzler below after AP Alan Zibel’s article

Bank of America delays foreclosures in 23 states

You Walk Away is a site that advertises heavily on Loansafe.org. This is the first place I ever heard, encountered them…I thought this was their company. I wonder what the outcome of this will be?

The Attorney General of Indiana announced that they were suing five foreclosure consultant companies. Included in this law suit was “You Walk Away” LLC of California. The attorney General is filing law suits on these companies as a result of an investigation into alleged fraudulent business activity.

These companies like so many fraudulent foreclosure consultants have been charging distressed homeowners upfront for negotiation services and then never rendering these services. O to put it another way “You walk away” walked away with your money.

Continue reading …. articlerich