Q Have you reviewed the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement in this case?
A No, I haven’t.
Q It’s my understanding I believe it was
objected to being produced. So up till today, have
you reviewed any document that allows you to speak
on behalf of Bank of New York?
A I haven’t.
Q Have you spoken to anyone at Bank of New
York to confirm that you are allowed to speak on
behalf of a separate corporate entity here today?
A No.
Q So as you sit here, do you know whether
you have the authority from the Bank of New York to
testify to these matters and to bind the Bank of New
York as a corporation?
A No.
Q Okay. And let me go back before I get
into the question one. You are not an officer of
the Bank of New York, correct?
A That’s correct.
Q You’re not a director of the Bank of New
York?
A Correct.
Q You’re not a managing agent of the Bank of
New York?
A Correct.
<SNIP>
Q What I’m getting at is the ownership of
the actual note and mortgage, not the servicing, but
the ownership. Do you have any other document that
would either confirm or contest whether
NationsCredit Mortgage Corporation of Florida owned
this note and mortgage in order to assign it as set
forth in Exhibit 2?
A Not that I know of
<SNIP>
Q So again, do you have anything at all that
suggests that NationsCredit Home Equity Services
Corporation ever owned this note?
A I don’t.
<SNIP>
Q Do you agree that the Bank of New York
lacked standing to file the 2004 case?
A Can you be more specific on your question?
Q Do you agree that the Bank of New York did
not own the note and mortgage at the time it filed
the 2004 case?
A Well, I can say that there’s no recorded
document showing that date.
<SNIP>
Q Do you agree that the lack of standing was clear? A No.
Q Why not? A Because of the overlapping of dates and
the obvious issues with the assignment chain, it’s not clear that it was straightforward.
Written Testimony of
James A. Kowalski, Jr., Esquire
Law Offices of James A. Kowalski, Jr., PL
Jacksonville, FL
Before the
Committee On The Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
“Foreclosed Justice: Causes and Effects of the Foreclosure Crisis“
Excerpt:
The focus on speed is part of the business model for the servicers. As those of us
who have litigated these cases for years now, and as all of us now know as a result of the
robo-signing scandals, most of the servicers use “Signing Officers” – rows of individuals
who sit before reams of documents prepared by others, with not even a modest wink at
the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and who sign the documents only to
have the document transported across the business campus to rows of notaries, who attest
to the signatures without ever complying with the basics of their state’s notary laws.
Some of the mill firms now employ their own “Signing OffIcers” – individuals
who will sign Assignments of Mortgage on behalf of the owners of the pool, supposedly
authorized by the servicer pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement which
applies to the particular securitized trust. The documents are prepared entirely by the
servicer.
On occasion, the law fIrm employees also sign the AffIdavits in support of
motions for summary judgment fIled by the law fIrms – here, the lawyer’s offIce staff
becomes the material witness for the lawyer’s client.
Q I know that, but you signed the document
saying that you had done some things. Are you saying
you know it to be true simply because it was presented
to you?
A No.
Q Well, how do you know that Deutsche Bank
National Bank, as trustee is owed a thing?
A Because of the process in the place with the
department that generate the foreclosure figures for
us, and I rely on their integrity and their accuracy.
Q Do you know if Deutsche Bank owned the notes as
of the day this was notarized February, 27, 2007?
A Yes.
Q How do you know that?
A By the transaction of the sale of the loan to
them.
Q By who?
A By investor operations.
Q Who is investor operations?
A They are the department that processed the
reporting to the investors.
Recent Comments