Just breaking and will report when the ruling is released…

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on 6/20/2011, alleged that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac failed to pay the real estate transfer tax.

Oakland County Treasurer Andy Meisner stated in twitterverse “Just got word Oakland County has won our lawsuit against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, one step in fighting to make our taxpayers whole!”

Hopefully, the similar lawsuit filed by Ingham County Register of Deeds Curtis Hertel, Jr. against mortgage lenders for unpaid taxes scores a win too!

[ipaper docId=86577394 access_key=key-m54490sgiuahsuqfggv height=600 width=600 /]

Remember Michele Sjolander? Well, you can read about her in MERS, Endorsed Note Get SLAMMED by Kings County NY Supreme Court | BANK of NEW YORK v. ALDERAZI –

As well as in ARIZONA BK COURT ORDERS BONY MELLON TO PRODUCE ORIGINAL CUSTODIAN DOCUMENTS

and finally in the FULL DEPOSITION OF BANK OF AMERICA ROBO SIGNER RENEE D. HERTZLER

Fresh off the depo wagon comes her Full Deposition courtesy of 4closurefraud.

Excerpts:

Q It’s employees at Recontrust that stamp the
7 endorsements on the notes in general, including this one;
8 is that right?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And you’ve seen that taking place?
11 A Yes.
12 Q In Simi Valley?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Is there some type of manual or set of
15 instructions?
16 A They have my power of attorney.
17 Q Well, okay. That’s not what I’m asking. But I
18 do want to know about that. But what I’m saying: Is
19 there some sort of manual or instructions or –
20 A If you want to know the desk procedures, you
21 would have to speak with an associate of Recontrust.
22 Q Okay. Okay. Sorry. I’m just reading the notes
23 again. Now, I’m going to try to explain this. I may
24 have to do it a couple of times, but just bear with me.
25 And you’ve been very helpful so far. I appreciate it,
1 there it sat is I guess what I’m asking.
2 A In safekeeping, yes.
3 Q Okay. All right. Now, this is something you
4 touched on a minute ago. I’m going to try to phrase it
5 in a way that makes sense. Who — and let’s just deal
6 with Countrywide in 2007.
7 Who is allowed to be an endorser as you were? I
8 mean, who — let me leave it at that and see if that
9 makes sense to you.
10 A I don’t know what you’re asking.
11 Q What I’m saying is: Are there people other than
12 you at Countrywide in 2007 whose names would appear on a
13 note as an endorsement?
14 A For Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.?
15 Q Yes.
16 A In 2007, I was the endorser for Countrywide Home
17 Loans, Inc.
18 Q Okay. And, I mean, can you explain why you, in
19 particular? I mean, how is that established?
20 A Just lucky.
21 Q I mean, I know this is going to sound silly, but
22 was there some competition for it? Did they come to you
23 and say, “Ms. Sjolander, we choose you?” I mean, how did
24 you come to be designated the person?
25 A It is the position I held within Countrywide.
1 Q Okay. And did you know that going in; you know,
2 if you take this job, you’re going to be the endorser?
3 Was that explained to you at some point?
4 A I knew that my previous boss was the endorser,
5 yes.
6 Q Oh, okay. Now, we covered this, that other
7 people stamped your signature and the other — her name
8 is — oh, it’s Laurie Meder?
9 A Meder.
10 Q Okay. So other people have a stamp with her
11 name and your name on it, and how do those people have
12 the authority to put her name and your name on a note for
13 it to be an effective endorsement?
14 A With my name, they have a power of attorney.
15 Q And what does the power of attorney say?
16 A The power of attorney allows them to place my
17 endorsement stamp on collateral.
18 Q How do they come to have your power of attorney?
19 A I gave that to them.
20 Q But, I mean, in what sort of process? You know,
21 how does someone at Recontrust — I mean, I understand
22 that a power of attorney document exists, I’m assuming;
23 correct?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And how do those people come to operate under
1 it?
2 A It’s common, standard practice.
3 Q I may not be asking it quite right. I guess
4 what I’m asking is: Do they — the people who actually
5 use the stamps — is there more than one, or is there
6 just one stamp? I said “stamps” multiple. Is there only
7 one, or is there –
8 A No, there’s multiple stamps.
9 Q So do these people sign something that says, “I
10 understand I’m under Michele Sjolander’s power of
11 attorney”?
12 A Once again, you would have to look at the desk
13 procedures for Recontrust, and you would have to talk to
14 someone at Recontrust.
15 Q So that’s your understanding that you — did you
16 sign a power of attorney document?
17 A Yes, I did.
18 Q And, I mean, can you explain just in — you
19 know, in general, not word for word what it says, but
20 what does it purport to grant as power of attorney?
21 A It grants Recontrust. They can endorse and
22 assign notes on behalf of myself.
23 Q And do you know if this applies to a select
24 group of people?
25 A I do not have — I would have to read the
1 document.
2 Q Okay. But just to clarify, once again, you
3 don’t actually know the legal mechanism by which these
4 people with the stamps operate under this power of
5 attorney?
6 A As I said, I would have to go back through all
7 of the documentation that surrounds the power of
8 attorney, and Recontrust has desk procedures, and it
9 would be their procedures for them to assign that, to
10 place the stamp on the collateral.
11 Q And this was a procedure in 2007, what we’re
12 talking here is 2007?
13 A Correct.
14 Q And to the present?
15 A No.

<SNIP>

4 Q All of it, okay. Let’s see. Now, you mentioned
5 documents that you had reviewed. The AS-400, that’s a —
6 can you just refresh my memory? What was that again?
7 A A servicing system.
8 Q A servicing system, okay. Now, when you looked
9 over these records and documents before that you
10 mentioned before, where were you when you looked at
11 those?
12 A Simi Valley.
13 Q Simi Valley. And where were the documents that
14 you were looking at?
15 A At that time, they were brought into my office.
16 Q Do you have any idea where they were brought
17 from?
18 A They were printed off the system.
19 Q Printed off the system.
20 A From one of my associates.
21 Q Is that a computer system?
22 A As I said, the collateral tracking is printed
23 off the AS-400, which is our servicing system. The
24 investor number commitment was printed off — it’s a
25 web-based application from secondary marketing. It’s
1 printed off of that. The note was printed off of our
2 imaging system. And I think in this case I asked for a
3 copy of the note showing the endorsements, because in our
4 imaging system it does not — the note is actually imaged
5 prior to my endorsement stamp being in place. So I had
6 my associate contact the bank, which is Recontrust, to
7 get a copy of the original note to show my endorsement
8 stamps, because in imaging it is not shown.
9 Q So if a copy is made of a note that you got from
10 Recontrust, it doesn’t have an endorsement? Is that what
11 you’re saying?
12 A From our bank, it does. In our imaging system,
13 it does not. The note is imaged prior to an
14 endorsement — in ’07, the note is imaged prior to an
15 endorsement being placed on the note. So if you look in
16 our imaging system, you wouldn’t see the chain of title
17 of endorsement.
18 Q And where would you see that?
19 A On the original note.
20 Q Which is — which is where?
21 A In this case, it was in the Fannie Mae vault in
22 Simi Valley, California.
23 Q We’ll come back to the Fannie Mae vault. Okay.
24 So they’re printed off in AS-400 imaging system.
25 A AS-400 and the imaging system are two different
systems.
2 Q Oh, you said AS-400 is a servicing software
3 platform of some type?
4 A Yes.
5 Q And the imaging system, what — can you describe
6 that?
7 A It’s a —
8 Q You know —
9 A It’s when all of the collateral documents and
10 credit file documents are imaged after the closing of a
11 loan, and they are put in our imaging system, and we can
12 go into the system by loan number and pull up the
13 documentation of a loan —
14 Q I guess —
15 A — if you have access to the system.
16 Q But imaging, I mean, I’m imagining a scanner of
17 some sort. Is that what it is?
18 A It is not my area. I cannot tell you.

continue below…

[ipaper docId=86409969 access_key=key-1jwwt069dbt1xut3euia height=600 width=600 /]

LOL…according to Tom Miller.

Good Luck!

HW-

If the top five mortgage servicers begin to abuse bond investors under the foreclosure settlement write-downs, the attorneys general would consider some protections, according to Iowa AG Tom Miller.

Miller faced down banking executives and analysts during a panel at the REthink Symposium Thursday. The $25 billion settlement signed in March forces servicers to meet roughly $10 billion in principal reductions, which could swell higher because in some instances the full dollar written down will not be credited.

Servicers will get full credit for reducing principal on loans they hold on their own portfolio but receive 45 cents for every dollar written down on mortgages held in private securities.

“To try principal reduction in a targeted way and find out if it works is good for the housing market,” Miller said. “We know what (the banks’) plans are. Two have said they wouldn’t do write-downs on private securities. But we could have some discussions about something to reassure investors.”

[HOUSING WIRE]

What about the rest? This is an insult!

Update: Pillar Processing is also part of this settlement.

Buffalo Business First-

The case of embattled foreclosure attorney Steven Baum has taken another turn as the Amherst attorney reached a settlement with the New York State Attorney General over charges his firm mishandled foreclosure filings statewide over many years.

Under terms of the agreement, Baum has agreed not to handle mortgages for two years and will pay a penalty of $4 million.

The deal with Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office comes five month after the firm settled with the United States Attorney for the Southern District and paid $2 million while agreeing to drastically overhaul its business practices.

[BUFFALO BUSINESS FIRST]

SJ-

Plymouth County has filed a class-action lawsuit against a national electronic mortgage registry company it says has enabled banks to avoid paying Iowa mortgage recording fees.

Plymouth County Attorney Darin Raymond filed the suit on behalf of all 99 Iowa counties against MERSCORP Holdings Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., known as MERS, which tracks mortgages sold and traded among banks that subscribe to the company’s service. The suit also names several of the nation’s largest banks and mortgage companies.

In the lawsuit, Raymond said MERS has allowed banks to skirt Iowa’s public information and recording laws by trading mortgages through an electronic registry that lists MERS as the mortgage holder, even though the banks are buying and selling the mortgages.

Read more: [SIOUX CITY JOURNAL]

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH COUNTY

[ipaper docId=86341686 access_key=key-2j7qgr12u2i7czc9ppwn height=600 width=600 /]

Stephen A. Byrd and Cynthia B. Byrd,
v.
MorEquity, Inc.

Stephen A. Byrd and Cynthia B. Byrd appeal from a summary judgment entered by the Mobile Circuit Court (“the trial court”) in an ejectment action filed by MorEquity, Inc. We reverse.

Procedural History

On April 20, 2010, MorEquity filed an action seeking possession of certain real property that was in the possession of the Byrds, who were using it as their residence. MorEquity alleged that it had acquired title to the real property through a foreclosure sale and that the Byrds had unlawfully detained the real property following the termination of their possessory interest in the property and a written demand to vacate the premises. The Byrds filed a pro se answer generally denying the allegations in the complaint and asserting that “we can show that our property was foreclosed on without just cause.”

On June 8, 2010, MorEquity filed a motion for a summary judgment with supporting materials. The Byrds thereafter retained attorneys, who filed an amended answer on the Byrds’ behalf on August 25, 2010. In the amended answer, the Byrds denied that MorEquity had a right to possession of the property, asserting, among other affirmative defenses, that MorEquity had conducted a foreclosure sale without first acquiring any ownership interest in the mortgage covering the property. The Byrds’ attorneys subsequently filed documents in opposition to MorEquity’s summary-judgment motion, to which MorEquity replied, attaching supplemental materials.

On December 9, 2010, the Byrds moved to strike some of the evidence submitted by MorEquity in support of its motion for a summary judgment. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motions on December 10, 2010. Following the hearing, MorEquity filed a supplemental evidentiary submission. On December 17, 2010, the trial court denied the motion to strike and entered a summary judgment in favor of MorEquity. The trial court entered a writ of possession in favor of MorEquity on January 5, 2011. The Byrds filed a timely motion to alter, amend, or vacate the summary judgment, which the trial court denied on March 15, 2011. The trial court stayed enforcement of its judgment on April 6, 2011, and the Byrds appealed on April 22, 2011.

Analysis

The threshold and dispositive issue on appeal is whether MorEquity had standing to prosecute the ejectment action. See Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011); see also Cadle Co. v. Shabani, 950 So. 2d 277, 279 (Ala. 2006) (accord). MorEquity filed its action under the authority of § 6-6-280(b), Ala. Code 1975. See EB Invs., L.L.C. v. Atlantis Dev., Inc., 930 So. 2d 502 (Ala. 2005) (holding that § 6-6-280(b) applied when the complainant alleged that it was entitled to possession of land through foreclosure deed and that the defendant was unlawfully detaining the land); Muller v. Seeds, 919 So. 2d 1174 (Ala. 2005) (same), overruled on other grounds by Steele v. Federal Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 69 So. 3d 89 (Ala. 2010); and Earnest v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Alabama, 494 So. 2d 80 (Ala. Civ. App. 1986) (same). Under § 6-6-280(b), a complaint in an ejectment action must be “commenced in the name of the real owner of the land or in the name of the person entitled to the possession thereof,” and a complaint is sufficient if, among other things, it alleges “that the plaintiff was possessed of the premises or has the legal title thereto.”

Like any other fact essential to recovery, the plaintiff has the burden of proving standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). At the summary-judgment stage, a plaintiff asserting standing cannot rest on mere allegations in the complaint, see Dover Historical Soc’y v. City of Dover Planning Comm’n, 838 A.2d 1103 (Del. 2003), but must prove standing through specific facts set forth by affidavit or other evidence. Grayson v. AT & T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011). To prevail on a motion for a summary judgment, the plaintiff must present a prima facie case that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Armstrong v. McGee, 579 So. 2d 1310, 1312 (Ala. 1991). In making a determination whether the plaintiff has satisfied that burden, this court, de novo, reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, Robinson v. Alabama Cent. Credit Union, 964 So. 2d 1225, 1228 (Ala. 2007), and “entertains such reasonable inferences as the jury would have been free to draw.” Bell v. T.R. Miller Mill Co., 768 So. 2d 953, 956 (Ala. 2000). “`”The burden does not shift to the opposing party to establish a genuine issue of material fact until the moving party has made a prima facie showing that there is no such issue of material fact.”‘” McClendon v. Mountain Top Indoor Flea Market, Inc., 601 So. 2d 957, 958 (Ala. 1992) (quoting Berner v. Caldwell, 543 So. 2d 686, 688 (Ala. 1988), quoting in turn Schoen v. Gulledge, 481 So. 2d 1094, 1096 (Ala. 1985)).

In this case, MorEquity asserts that it had standing to maintain the ejectment action against the Byrds because, it says, it held a foreclosure deed to the property, which it submitted to the trial court. The Byrds maintain, however, that the foreclosure deed is void because it was procured through foreclosure proceedings that were conducted by MorEquity without authority. In Sturdivant, supra, this court held that a foreclosure deed was void, ___ So. 3d at ___ (quoting § 35-10-9, Ala. Code 1975, which provides that “[a]ll sales of real estate, made under powers contained in mortgages or deeds of trust contrary to the provisions of [statutory law governing the power of sale pursuant to the terms of a mortgage], shall be null and void….”), and would not sustain an ejectment action when the evidence showed that the foreclosure proceedings had been initiated by the plaintiff without a valid assignment of the power of sale. Under Sturdivant, the vendee to a void foreclosure deed would not be considered a “real owner of the land” with “legal title thereto” within the meaning of § 6-6-280(b). ___ So. 3d at ___.

MorEquity submitted evidence indicating that the Byrds executed a promissory note in favor of Wilmington Finance, Inc., in the principal amount of $85,000 on July 19, 2007. That same date, to secure the note, the Byrds entered into a mortgage covering the subject property. Section 22 of that mortgage provides that, in the event of a default and failure to cure, and after appropriate notices are provided to the Byrds,

“Lender at its option may require immediate payment in full of all sums secured by this Security Instrument without further demand and may invoke the power of sale and any other remedies permitted by Applicable Law.”

“Lender” is defined in the mortgage solely as Wilmington Finance, Inc.; however, the mortgage provides that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), is the nominee for Wilmington Finance, Inc., and that MERS is the designated mortgagee with all legal rights of a mortgagee, including “the right … to foreclose and sell the Property.”

Pursuant to § 35-10-12, Ala. Code 1975,

“[w]here a power to sell lands is given in any mortgage, the power is part of the security and may be executed by any person, or the personal representative of any person who, by assignment or otherwise, becomes entitled to the money thus secured.”

MorEquity submitted evidence indicating that MERS assigned the mortgage, complete with its power of sale,^[1] to MorEquity so that it could execute that power under § 35-10-12. We agree with the Byrds, however, that MorEquity’s evidence is conflicting as to the date of the assignment.

MorEquity attached to the affidavit of Kenneth Scheller, an assistant vice president of MorEquity, a document entitled “ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE” (capitalization and italics in original), which states:

“FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (`MERS’) as Nominee for WILMINGTON FINANCE, INC., its successors and assigns, hereby assign and transfer to MOREQUITY, INC., 7116 EAGLE CREST BLVD., EVANSVILLE, IN 47715, its successors and assigns, all its right, title and interest in and to a certain MORTGAGE executed by: STEPHEN A. BYRD AND CYNTHIA B. BYRD, in the original principal amount of $85,000.00 and bearing the date of … 07/19/2007 and recorded on 07/25/2007 in the office of the Recorder of MOBILE County, State of ALABAMA in Instrument Number XXXXXXXXXX in BOOK 6227 and PAGE 205.”

(Capitalization and underlining in original.) A notary certified that that document was signed on April 20, 2009. On the other hand, MorEquity attached to the affidavit of Jeff Schutte, its associate director, a document entitled “NOTIFICATION OF SALE, TRANSFER OR ASSIGNMENT OF YOUR MORTGAGE LOAN,” (capitalization and bold typeface in original), indicating that MorEquity had acquired the mortgage via a sale effective December 30, 2009.^[2]

The conflict as to the date of assignment materially impacts the standing issue. In Sturdivant, this court held that, in order to conduct a foreclosure sale, a party must have the power to foreclose and sell the property as of the date of the initiation of the foreclosure proceedings, ___ So. 3d at ___, which is the date the party “accelerates the maturity date of the indebtedness and publishes notice of a foreclosure sale,” Perry v. Federal Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, [Ms. 2100235, Dec. 30, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011), impliedly overruled on other grounds by Ex parte Secretary of Veterans Affairs, [Ms. 1101171, Feb. 10, 2012] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2012). The undisputed evidence in this case shows that the debt had been accelerated as of December 11, 2009, and that the notice of the foreclosure sale was first published on December 15, 2009, which was long after the alleged April 20, 2009, assignment date but over two weeks before the alleged December 30, 2009, assignment date. If the latter date is accurate, MorEquity would not have had authority to initiate the foreclosure proceedings; only Wilmington Finance, Inc., or MERS could have started foreclosure proceedings at that time. Pointedly, two December 11, 2009, letters submitted by MorEquity, notifying the Byrds individually of the acceleration of the debt,^[3] and the notices of foreclosure sale published beginning on December 15, 2009,^[4] all indicate that Wilmington Finance, Inc., had invoked the foreclosure process, implying that the assignment had not yet occurred by mid-December, as the document attached to Schutte’s affidavit reflects.

MorEquity did not present a prima facie case of standing because its own evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it had the power to foreclose and sell the property when the foreclosure proceedings were initiated on December 15, 2009.

The Byrds seek reversal of the summary judgment on numerous other grounds, including the alleged failure of MorEquity to provide notice of default and acceleration of the debt, see Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., [Ms.1100594, Feb. 17, 2012] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2012) (holding that failure of notice of default and acceleration of debt may invalidate foreclosure sale); the alleged failure of MorEquity to prove that it provided contractual notice of the foreclosure sale, see Thompson v. Wachovia Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 39 So. 3d 1153 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009), overruled on other grounds by Steele v. Federal Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 69 So. 3d 89 (Ala. 2010) (genuine issue of material fact existed where borrowers denied receipt of notice of the foreclosure sale and mortgagee failed to submit admissible evidence indicating that it sent required notice), and Kennedy v. Wells Fargo Home Mtg., 853 So. 2d 1009 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (accord); the existence of alleged irregularities in the published notice of the foreclosure sale, see § 35-10-8, Ala. Code 1975 (establishing contents of notice of foreclosure sale); the alleged agreement of MorEquity to forego foreclosure while the Byrds participated in its loss-mitigation program, but see Coleman v. BAC Servicing, [Ms. 2100453, Feb. 3, 2012] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (holding that oral agreements to forebear foreclosure are not valid under the Statute of Frauds); the alleged failure of MorEquity to comply with the loss-mitigation regulations of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1701x(c)(5); and MorEquity’s alleged breach of its fiduciary duty by underbidding on the property at the foreclosure sale. See Berry v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 57 So. 3d 142, 147-48 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). Without commenting on the merits of those grounds, we note that they all may be characterized as affirmative defenses to an ejectment action pertaining to the proper exercise of the power of sale or irregularities in the manner of the sale itself, which errors may render a foreclosure deed voidable. See Sturdivant, ___ So. 3d at ___ (Moore, J., concurring specially). Because we are reversing the trial court’s judgment on a more fundamental issue — a genuine dispute as to the lack of MorEquity’s authority to initiate the foreclosure proceedings, which would render the foreclosure deed void — we pretermit discussion of those issues.

For the foregoing reasons, the summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of MorEquity is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Thomas, J., concurs.

Pittman and Bryan, JJ., concur in the rationale in part and concur in the result, with writings.

Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result, without writing.

PITTMAN, Judge, concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the result.

I agree that the summary judgment in favor of MorEquity, Inc., is due to be reversed and the cause remanded because MorEquity failed to establish that there was no factual dispute as to whether it was the assignee of the mortgage before it initiated the foreclosure proceedings against the Byrds. In my judgment, that failure simply means that MorEquity did not make a prima facie showing that it could satisfy one of the elements of its ejectment claim, not that MorEquity failed to demonstrate that it had standing to sue.

I believe that this case and others like it, see, e.g., Ex parte McKinney, [Ms. 1090904, May 27, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2011); Cadle Co. v. Shabani, 950 So. 2d 277 (Ala. 2006); and Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011), present questions of an ejectment plaintiff’s inability to prove the allegations of its complaint rather than questions of standing. See Ex parte McKinney, ___ So. 3d at ___ (Murdock, J., dissenting); and Sturdivant, ___ So. 3d at ___ (Pittman, J., dissenting).

“As [our supreme court] recently observed: `[O]ur courts too often have fallen into the trap of treating as an issue of “standing” that which is merely a failure to state a cognizable cause of action or legal theory, or a failure to satisfy [an] element of a cause of action.’ Wyeth, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 42 So. 3d 1216, 1219 (Ala. 2010). Compare Steele v. Federal Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 69 So. 3d 89, 91 n.2 (Ala. 2010) (citing Wyeth as authority for rejecting the appellant’s suggestion that a plaintiff’s failure to have made a demand for possession before bringing an ejectment action presented an issue of standing).”

Ex parte McKinney, ___ So. 3d at ___ (Murdock, J., dissenting).

Our supreme court has determined that standing “implicates [a trial court’s] subject-matter jurisdiction.” Ex parte Howell Eng’g & Surveying, Inc., 981 So. 2d 413, 418 (Ala. 2006); see also Hamm v. Norfolk Southern Ry Co., 52 So. 3d 484, 499 (Ala. 2010) (Lyons, J., concurring specially) (citing Riley v. Pate, 3 So. 3d 835, 838 (Ala. 2008), and State v. Property at ` Rainbow Drive, 740 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Ala. 1999)). That court has also explained that subject-matter jurisdiction “concerns a court’s power to decide certain types of cases,” Ex parte Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536, 538 (Ala. 2006), which power is derived from the constitution and statutes of Alabama. Id. Can it seriously be doubted that a circuit court derives its power to decide an ejectment case from § 6-6-280, Ala. Code 1975, rather than from the allegations of the plaintiff who seeks relief pursuant to that statute?

BRYAN, Judge, concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the result.

I agree that the summary judgment in favor of MorEquity, Inc. (“MorEquity”), is due to be reversed and the cause remanded because there was evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether MorEquity had been assigned the mortgage before it initiated the foreclosure proceedings. However, I disagree with the main opinion’s conclusion regarding the significance of that disputed factual issue. As indicated by my dissent in Sturdivant v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, [Ms. 2100245, Dec. 16, 2011] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2011), I am of the opinion that, when an ejectment-action plaintiff bases his or her claim to legal title to the property on a foreclosure deed, evidence tending to prove that the foreclosing party had not been assigned the mortgage before he or she initiated the foreclosure proceedings does not implicate the ejectment-action plaintiff’s standing to bring the ejectment action. Rather, such evidence tends to prove an affirmative defense to the ejectment-action plaintiff’s claim. See Berry v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 57 So. 3d 142, 149-50 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010) (holding that, when an ejectment-action plaintiff bases his or her claim to legal title on a foreclosure deed, evidence tending to prove that the foreclosure sale and resulting foreclosure deed were invalid tends to prove an affirmative defense to the ejectment claim rather than tending to prove that the ejectment-action plaintiff lacked standing to bring the ejectment action). Thus, in the present case, I am of the opinion that the evidence tending to prove that MorEquity had not been assigned the mortgage before it initiated the foreclosure proceedings established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Stephen A. Byrd and Cynthia B. Byrd’s affirmative defense asserting that MorEquity was not entitled to prevail on its ejectment claim because, they said, the foreclosure was invalid, but it did not establish a genuine issue of material fact with respect to MorEquity’s standing to bring the ejectment action.

[1] The Byrds contend in their brief to this court that any assignment of the mortgage did not convey the underlying note, which serves as the basis for the power of sale. See Coleman v. BAC Servicing, [Ms. 2100453, Feb. 3, 2012] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (holding that, under § 35-10-12, Ala. Code 1975, power of sale resides in the party with the right to the money secured by the mortgage, which would be the note holder). However, the Byrds did not raise that issue at or before the summary-judgment hearing, instead asserting it for the first time in one sentence in their postjudgment motion. Because a trial court need not consider a legal argument raised for the first time in a postjudgment motion, Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Blalock, 525 So. 2d 1366, 1369-70 (Ala. 1988), and considering further the sparse nature of the argument below, we decline to address the Byrds’ now fully formed legal argument on appeal.

[2] The Byrds raise issues regarding the admissibility of both the alleged April 20, 2009, assignment and Schutte’s affidavit testimony relating to the alleged December 30, 2009, assignment. The Byrds also argue that the trial court erred in considering new evidence regarding the notarization of the alleged April, 20, 2009, assignment submitted by MorEquity after the summary-judgment hearing. Because of our disposition of the standing issue, we find no need to address those issues.

[3] Those letters both state: “Re: Wilmington Finance, Inc. v. Stephen A. Byrd and Cynthia B. Byrd, Husband and Wife.” The letters also state “cc: MorEquity Inc.” MorEquity does not explain why the caption indicates Wilmington Finance, Inc., is pursuing the Byrds for the mortgage debt, but the letter is copied to MorEquity.

[4] The notice of foreclosure sale states:

“Default having been made in the payment of the indebtedness secured by that certain mortgage executed to [MERS], acting solely as Nominee for Wilmington Finance Inc. on July 19, 2007, by Stephen A. Byrd and Cynthia B. Byrd, Husband and Wife, and recorded in Book 6227 Page 205; said mortgage transferred and assigned to Wilmington Finance Inc. et seq., in the Office of the Judge of Probate of Mobile County, Alabama, the undersigned, as Mortgagee or Transferee, under and by virtue of the power of sale contained in the said mortgage will sell at public outcry to the highest bidder for cash in front of the main entrance of the Mobile County, Alabama, Courthouse in the City of Mobile, Mobile County, Alabama, on January 14, 2010 ….”

The “undersigned” is designated as “Wilmington Finance, Inc., its successors and assigns, Mortgagee or Transferee.” MorEquity is not mentioned.

[ipaper docId=86297249 access_key=key-c53f7tfvjcm5x9z78kh height=600 width=600 /]

ABC-

Lan Pham, an economist fired by the Congressional Budget Office two years ago, is still asking whether the watchdog agency appeared to “diminish or deny” the problem of foreclosure fraud while providing analysis to Congress.

As lawmakers enter budget season in Washington D.C. and wrangle over House Republicans’ new budget blueprint, Pham is hoping to draw more attention to the housing market’s woes.

“Why is one of the most powerful government agencies that can determine the direction of the nation’s policies appearing to diminish or deny that the issue of mortgage securitization is a problem?” she said. “If it is a problem, we have a $7 trillion in mortgage-backed securities that has brought chaos to homeowners, whether or not they are in foreclosure.”

[ABC]

[ipaper docId=86245951 access_key=key-1qbo0nggi3s0p30uthwk height=600 width=600 /]

LAN T. PHAM

February 23,2011

Senator Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member
United States Senate Judiciary Committee
135 Hart Senate Offrce Building
Washington, DC 20510

Re: Inquiry into Reprisal Action by the Congressional Budget Office

Dear Ranking Member Grassley:

At the suggestion of Mr. Gary Aguirre, I describe below the circumstances of my
discharge by the Congressional Budget Office and request your assistance to the extent you
believe there is something appropriate you could do on my behalf.

As the Congress grapples with the economic and budgetary challenges facing the nation,
the Congress relies on the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide “objective” and “nonpartisan”
analyses to inform its policy decisions.l This mandate gives the CBO a unique status
and confers upon the agency an impression of credibility and authority, as its analyses can alter
the course of national policies. The CBO cultivates this image internally and externally, and
enjoys the protection ofthe press.

Yet, my brief time as a senior staffer financial economist at the CBO suggests that there
is room for doubt about this perception of an objective and non-partisan CBO. Alternative view
points are suppressed or questioned as “pessimistic” by CBO Director Doug Elmendorf.
Economic facts inconvenient to the CBO’s forecasts of economic growth, recovery and other
estimates are omitted or suppressed so the desired message may be delivered. For providing
truthful and correct analyses of the issues, I was abruptly fired after 2.5 months at the CBO.

Suppression of Alternative Views

In October 2010,I wrote about the conditions and developments in the banking sector
and mortgage markets. The events surrounding the collapse of the housing market triggered what
many consider to be the worst economic and financial crisis in 80 years since the Great
Depression. The effects from this market with $10 trillion in residential mortgage debt
outstanding exposed systemic risks and put into question the solvency of financial institutions
worldwide. In addition to the global response, the U.S. government and Federal Reserve have
responded with trillions of dollars in extraordinary fiscal and monetary stimulus, the bulk of
which was aimed at shoring up the banks and financial institutions.

I was repeatedly pressured by the CBO Assistant Director, Deborah Lucas, in charge of
the Financial Analysis Division to not write nor discuss issues in the banking sector and
mortgage markets that might suggest weakness in these sectors and their consequences on the
economy and households. Assistant Director Deborah Lucas explicitly sought assurances from
the Assistant Director in charge of the Macroeconomic Analysis Division that the issues I raised
would not lower the CBO’s forecasts of economic growth. More broadly, what emerges is a
pattern of suppression by the CBO to prevent public writings about the damage brought on by
the banking and financial sector and housing collapse. While disregardingfactual and empirical
evidence, the CBO leadership insisted:

• o Statements could not be made attributing the decline in property tax revenues to
  foreclosures and the decline in home prices, which runs counter to common sense and
  the findings by the U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress.

• o Foreclosures had no impact on home prices (negative extemalities, spillover effects).
  This runs counter to common sense, and a prominent national home price index by
  Corelogic in the CBO’s key database subscription showing clearly the distressed
  homes component of the index worsens home price declines.

• o The decline in home prices had no impact on household wealth, which runs counter
  to common sense and the fact that the home is a significant asset or source of ‘wealth’
  for most households. According to the Federal Reserve, about $7 trillion in home
  equity evaporated in the housing collapse.

• o The emerging foreclosure fraud problems in September 2010 were due to media
  “sensationalism”, “the kind of event of the moment where we should be adding
  skepticism, not just repeating the hype in the press” and discussingit “laclcs judgment
  about what is important’.

Let’s take a closer look at the implications of the unknown risks and liabilities of the
foreclosure fraud problems unfolding through the legal process, which led the nation’s largest
banks to suspend foreclosures nationwide. Issues at the heart of the foreclosure problems pertain
to securitization (pooling of mortgages that collateralize mortgage-backed securities “MBS”) and
the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), which purports to have legal standing on
electronic records of ownership on about 65 million or half of all mortgages in the country.

MERS, with Fannie Mae and Bank of America as founding members, facilitated Wall
Street’s ability to expedite the pooling of subprime mortgages into MBSs by bypassing standard
ownership transfer procedures as the housing bubble escalated, the collapse of which devastated
the economy and households. The CBO leadership suppressed and minimized concerns about
these issues, viewing these concerns in October 2010 as media “sensationalism” and “hype.”
Such statements if made public would raise serious questions about the credibility and
objectivity of the CBO, and the kinds of analyses that would be provided to Congress and
allowed to be made known to the public. This “hype” has entered the nation’s courtrooms:

• o On January 7,2011, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts agreed with a lower court
  decision that invalidated the foreclosures actions of two of the largest banks on
  mortgages that were in MBSs; the legal right to foreclose was not proven.

• o Courts in Florida have also followed suit.

• On February 14,2011, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Grossman in Central Islip,
  New York rendered the MERS system invalid. ln rendering his decision, Judge
  Grossman acknowledged that his decision would have “significant impact.”

• o On February 16,2011, MERS released a statement, an exce{pt which reads:
  “The proposed amendment will require Members to not foreclose in MERS’
  name…During this period we request that Members do not commence foreclosures in
  MERS’name.”

The implications have profound financial and economic consequences that would be of
compelling interest to Congress and the public, but the CBO sought to silence a discussion of
such risks, that in reality, have been mateiralizing. These risks put into question the ability of
investors or bondholders to make claims on the collateral (the homes) that underlies trillions of
dollars in MBSs, the bulk of which are now guaranteed by the govemment-sponsored enterprises
(“GSEs” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). This affects $10 trillion in residential mortgage debt
outstanding, of which $7 trillion in mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) are backed by about 65
million homes, and roughly $3 trillion is in the form of mortgage loans on bank balance sheets.

The $7 Trillion MBS Problem -Foreclosure Problems and Buy Backs

Banks, Private Label MBSs. About $1.5 trillion MBSs are bank-issued, private label
MBSs that were collateralized by primarily subprime mortgages, $330 billion of which is
delinquent. Banks have publicly acknowledged these risks by recently increasing reserves
against repurchase of bad mortgages from investors and litigation costs. As of third quarter 2010,
the nation’s largest four banks – Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo
– have reserved about $10 billion for potential mortgage buy back demands,l a “miniscule”
amount given the $330 billion in delinquent mortgages. The combined net worth of the largest
four banks is about $700 billion.

The foreclosure problems may put even greater pressure on banks as some state courts
and legislation have made dents into the legal foundation of MERS. The implication is that
investors may be holding trillions in MBSs that are unsecured, which places even gteater
pressure on banks for mortgage buy-backs. Banks may also face greater losses in not having the
legal authority under MERS to foreclose and liquidate the collateral. These issues (among others)
are concentrated among a handful of the largest banks that hold about three quarters of the
nation’s banking assets, a concentration that has been deemed a systemic risk to the nation’s
economic and financial system. The CBO dismissing such issues prevents an analysis of the
risks, so that the public may be forced again to shoulder the consequences for which they have
not been a given a voice or a choice.

GSEs, Agency MBSs. The other $5.5 trillion MBSs are issued or guaranteed by Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac, whose fate is currently being debated by policy makers. During the first
nine months of 2010, Fannie Mae repurchased about $195 billion in delinquent loans from its
MBSs;2 Freddie Mac faced $5.6 billion in buy back demands.3 The amount of these repurchases
in less than one year alone would wipe out Bank of America, the largest bank in the country.

The GSEs hold $266 billion in bank-issued private label MBSs, which have experienced the
highest rates of default. Recently, Bank of America paid $2.8 billion to the GSEs to settle $7
billion in mortgage buy-back requests, a private transfer of loss to the public that remains
unbeknownst to the public.

A discussion of these and other issues were not acceptable to the CBO leadership, but
unrealistic assumptions are encouraged and significant facts inconsistent with their
predetermined views are overlooked in providing economic analyses and estimates to Congress.
For instance, the CBO leadership appeared panic-stricken when I suggested that interest rates
were likely to rise in early November 2010 despite the Federal Reserye’s quantitative easing
programs, and what that may mean for example, to an already weakened housing market. Indeed,
interest rates have risen sharply since then from 4.3Yoto 5.}Yo onthe 30 year fixed-rate mortgage
“FRM” (as of 2117111). Providing a correct assessment did not seem to matter.

For presenting a truthful and correct assessment of where things stood, I was fired. I
know other economists who have been pressured to fall in line with the leadership, but are afraid
to voice their concerns for fear that it could endanger their careers. I am prepared to identify
them, but only with your assurance that their identities will be remain confidential at this time.

I deeply appreciate your taking the time to consider the information I have placed before
you.

Sincergly,

Lan T. Pham, Ph.D.

Attachments

New York Times Article
Time Line
Mortgage Forecast Memo
Banking Forecast Memo
Banking Forecast Memo: Revision of Key Points

[ipaper docId=86245951 access_key=key-1qbo0nggi3s0p30uthwk height=600 width=600 /]

Abigail C. Field-

Let’s be clear why there’s a mortgage deal: the banks broke the law. Several laws in fact, in ways that appear criminal as well as civil. Limiting their liability is the only reason the banks did a deal.

In this post I’m going to look at what the banks could be held liable for; how much liability “their” money persuaded law enforcers to ignore will be the next post. But one important kind of peace has not been bought: criminal. So as I detail the wrong doing exposed by the deal, I highlight the crimes our law enforcers seem to allege the bankers committed. After all, a liability release isn’t simply what it says, it’s what law enforcers do with their remaining freedom to act. If crimes were committed, and indictments don’t follow, the release is much broader than its text.

A close read of the complaint and the related language that precedes the releases (see Exhibits F and G) reveals:

continue reading [REALITY CHECK]

HuffPO-

The consent agreements the bailed-out bankers (B.O.B.s), the feds and the states are largely as had been promised. One big surprise, however, is that the B.O.B.s would now be allowed to systematically overcharge borrowers and steal their homes. Seriously. Who cares about $1 million or $5 million penalties if horrible damage can be inflicted without punishment?

To see what I’m talking about, you need to look at Exhibit E-1. (It’s in all the consent agreements; here’s Chase‘s.) Exhibit E-1 is a 14 page table titled “Servicing Standards Quarterly Compliance Metrics.” That is, it’s a table that details what, precisely, law enforcers will check to make sure that the B.O.B.s are meeting the very pretty servicing standards in the deal. (See Exhibit A)

(Note: You may want to print out table E-1 while reading this, or at least keep it open in another browser window; what I have to say may be hard to believe and you’ll want to be able to double check that I’m telling you the truth.)

Now, the table doesn’t come right out and say, ‘we, the federal and state governments of the United States of America do hereby bless the institutionalization of servicer abuse,’ but it should. To understand why, you need to keep your eye on how the table’s columns are defined. For most issues, the critical columns are C “Loan Level Tolerance for Error” and D “Threshold Error Rate.” Later I’ll talk about the problems in Column F, the “Test Questions.”

When Error Isn’t Error…

[HUFFINGTON POST]

The never ending settlement… because those in DC are doing their best to make sure their bankers are A-OK.

Reuters-

Mortgage-backed securities investors who are convinced that banks intend to shift the cost of the $25 billion national mortgage settlement onto their shoulders are “evaluating their legal options,” according to Chris Katopis, executive director of the Association of Mortgage Investors (and a former clerk on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals). The private investors, as I’ve reported, are outraged at the terms of the settlement, which sets no limit on the percentage of securitized mortgages the settling banks — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Ally Financial — are permitted to modify to reach their $17 billion target for reducing the principal balance owed by struggling borrowers. Mortgage-backed noteholders believe the deal terms encourage banks to write down investor-owned first liens, rather than second lien mortgages in bank-owned portfolios. That incentive, they say, shifts the cost of the deal from the banks to mortgage-backed bondholders.

Their argument is gaining traction. The New York Times editorialized Sunday on the bank-friendly details of …

[REUTERS LEGAL]

Economic Musings-

 The wounds on past and present homeowners are still fresh from the housing crisis.  As Jonathan Laing points out in this weekend’s Barron’s cover story, “five million of the country’s 76million mortgage holders have lost their homes to foreclosure or lender ordered short sales since 2006, and an estimated 14million more own more on their homes than their properties are currently worth.  In all, some $7.4 trillion in homeowners’ equity has been destroyed according to Mark Zandi…”  

 Cries for Accountability

 Details of the $25bil Settlement (in the words of HUD) & Public Lauding

“On February 9, the Department of Justice …

[ECONOMIC MUSINGS]

by USRepMarcyKaptur

www.kaptur.house.gov

h/t NYE LAVALLE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

GARY STUBBS,
Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, BAC HOME
LOANS SERVICING, LP, and
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.

EXCERPT:

Plaintiff has alleged facts making it plausible that Fannie Mae was in fact
the secured creditor at the time of the foreclosure and has alleged that no
assignment to Fannie Mae was filed prior to the time of sale as required by
O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162(b). Therefore, based on the allegations in the amended
complaint, BAC evaded the most substantive requirements of Georgia’s
foreclosure statute in that (1) it was not the secured creditor entitled to foreclose
despite providing a notice letter affirmatively representing it was the creditor;
and (2) it failed to file the assignment of the security deed to the secured creditor
in the county deed records prior to the foreclosure. See O.C.G.A. § 162(b);
Weems v. Coker, 70 Ga. 746, 749 (Ga. 1883); Cummings v. Anderson, 173 B.R.
959, 963 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994).3 The Court accordingly DENIES the motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful foreclosure based on failure to comply with
Georgia foreclosure law.

For whatever reason scribd download is not permitting this to be downloaded.

Please use this link to download Stubbs_v._Bank_of_America

[ipaper docId=85835317 access_key=key-p289vkcj1anvmg11uxn height=600 width=600 /]

Excellent view from this NYT’s editorial piece.

NYT-

Last week was a big one for the banks. On Monday, the foreclosure settlement between the big banks and federal and state officials was filed in federal court, and it is now awaiting a judge’s all-but-certain approval. On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve announced the much-anticipated results of the latest round of bank stress tests.

How did the banks do on both? Pretty well, thank you — and better than homeowners and American taxpayers.

That is not only unfair, given banks’ huge culpability in the mortgage bubble and financial meltdown. It also means that homeowners and the economy still need more relief, and that the banks, without more meaningful punishment, will not be deterred from the next round of misbehavior.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

Abigail Field-

Q: When is a deal not a deal?

A: When the deal documents punt on contentious issues, merely agreeing to agree later. 

Sadly, that’s what this “deal” does. This “deal” is a hybrid contract and term sheet, with all the crucial, operational aspects of compliance unresolved. A smallish to-be-dealt-with-later item is the timing for implementing the servicing standards. The biggie is the Work Plans; those have not been negotiated at all.

Yes, part of compliance has been finalized; the metrics, and the basic enforcement structure. But it’s not enough to have metrics; you also need processes for gathering the metric data and computing the results. Similarly you need more than a structure for enforcement; you need how-to details. The not-yet-existing Work Plan will cover all that. Worse, the negotiations will happen while the clock is ticking on the deal.

Servicing Standards Take Effect On a Date TBD

When the deal is approved…

[REALITY FIELD]

HuffPO-

I’ve been writing about the MERS monster since 2010. Here is one of my early pieces.

I suppose it is now safe to reveal that a staffer of Representative Marcy Kaptur put me on the trail of this fraud — in dollar terms it has to be the single biggest fraud in human history. In sheer utter disregard for law, it is certainly the most audacious fraud in Western history. To tell the truth, I had never heard of MERS until she called. If you recall the Michael Moore movie, Rep. Kaptur stood on the steps and told homeowners facing foreclosure to stay in their homes. She was right: the banksters have no legal claim on the homes they are foreclosing. Foreclosure is theft. Any bank that used MERS has no legal claim on property — there are 65 million such mortgages to which no bank has a legal claim to foreclose.

And, to be sure, even those mortgages that were not run through MERS are suspect if they are handled by any of the five biggest servicers. These servicers keep such shoddy records that they cannot be trusted to accurately credit payments. They’ve been adding on fees and penalties that were unwarranted since they cannot keep track of records.

Folks, there are $7 trillion of securitized mortgages. It was (mostly) the securitization process that demanded fraud. Securitization could never have been profitable — it was a flawed way to go about financing homeownership. It was simply too expensive to compete with Jimmy Stewart thrifts. It required fraud to show profits. (As Bill Black always says: fraud is a sure thing. It is always the most profitable way to run a business — until you get caught.)

[HUFFINGTON POST]

Counsels for Kristin Bain & Kevin Selkowitz attorneys Melissa Huelsman and Richard Jones (great voice) did a FANTASTIC, OUTSTANDING JOB!!!

BOMBSHELL: Listen and watch when they ask MERS’ counsel “Who is the holder of the note”? HE DOES NOT KNOW & CANNOT ANSWER!

Oral arguments: Bain v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Sys, et al and Selkowitz v. Little “Litton” Loan Servicing, LP, et al. (May a party be a lawful beneficiary under WA’s Deed of Trust Act if it never held the promissory note secured by the deed of trust?)

HuffPo-

No Hollywood scriptwriter could plot a more implausible story. Here is the plotline sequencing:

1. Bankers make NINJA loans, securitize them, and sell on to government GSEs
2. Bankers destroy all the loan documents and begin random and fraudulent foreclosures, throwing millions of innocent victims out on the street
3. GSEs sue bankers and force them to take back bad mortgages
4. Bankers sell servicing rights for the same bad mortgages back to GSEs, who overpay
5. GSEs resell servicing rights to companies run by former GSE officials
6. Bankers slapped on wrist with puny foreclosure settlement in return for government promise it will never sue them for past foreclosure fraud
7. Government stress test claims banks are healthy
8. Bankers get sweet deal, counting mortgage mods for best borrowers toward the settlement
9. HUD report released demonstrating massive foreclosure fraud that reached to highest levels of banks
10. Vampire Squid Executive Director fires off resignation letter decrying bankster culture
11. Banksters walk away scott-free as statute of limitations runs out for criminal behavior

This would have to be a fantasy because no one would ever believe it could have been true...

[HUFFINGTON POST]

by bloomberglaw on Mar 15, 2012

KOMO NEWS-

For the first time, a local homeowner’s fight to keep a house is headed to the state Supreme Court.

What happens there will effect thousands of people who’ve taken out mortgage loans in the past 10 years. If you own property, you need to know about a system known as MERS.

MERS stands for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. It was created by the real estate finance industry to simplify the process of transferring mortgage loans.

But struggling homeowners complain MERS also conceals the true note holder when your mortgage is sold to investors.

Kristen Bain’s comfortable condo in Tukwila is tied up in the MERS debate. First, she had to sue her mortgage broker and the lender for predatory lending and failure to provide proper documentation as required by law.

[KOMO NEWS]