TBO-

“There was no doubt that it was paid off,” Manzo said. “I just assumed that the bank was lagging behind and maybe the system was running every 30 days and it would be corrected.”

But that didn’t happen. Instead, they say, West Palm Beach-based Ocwen Loan Servicing charged them about $2,000 in penalties because they stopped monthly mortgage payments.

“We stopped because we had already paid off the loan,” Manzo explained. “They say we’re in default, and now I’m worried we’re going to lose our home.”

[TBO.com]

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 /]

Decided on February 28, 2012

18600/09

Plaintiff was represented by Alissa L. Wilson, Esq., Shapiro, DiCaro & Barak, LLC, 250 Mile Crossing Blvd., Rochester, NY 14624. Defendant was represented by Yolande I. Nicholson, PC, 26 Court St., Brooklyn, NY 11242.

Herbert Kramer, J.

The following papers have been read on this motion:

Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/Papers Numbered

Petition/Cross Motion and

Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed _____________________________

Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) _______ ______________________

Reply Affidavits (Affirmations)______________________________

_______________(Affirmation)______________________________

Other Papers______________________________

Good faith is absent when two versions of the assignment of the note are presented to the Court. Parties are required to come into the court with clean hands despite having instituted the action prior to the effective date of CPLR §3408.^[FN1] [*2]

This matter was referred to this Court for a bad faith hearing under the appropriate statutory scheme. See CPLR §3408.

The instant matter illustrated the wild west mentality that was so prevalent in the early part of this past decade, which allowed for practically anyone breathing to obtain a mortgage by signing their name.^[FN2] It appears that the process of securitization of mortgages led to major improprieties, this case being a prime example.

However, all of that pales in significance to what follows. During the bad faith hearing, two separate notes with attendant assignments were put into evidence by the plaintiff.

The first was in Exhibit “C.” of plaintiff’s “1.” which is the summons and complaint filed on July 23, 2009.The note itself was endorsed by Marie Sene, only. In addition, there is an allonge, dated July 15, 2009, with the “effective date” of April 30, 2007, signed by Kevin M. Jackson.^[FN3]

The allonge is assigned to “HSBC Bank USA, N.A. as Trustee on behalf of Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust and for the Registered Holders of Ace Securities Corp., Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2007-HE4, asset backed Pass-Through Certificates, without recourse, representation or warranty express or implied…”

The second note was introduced as Exhibit “E.” of plaintiff’s “1.” labeled as the note and assignment. That note included an endorsement from Marjorie Jorgensen, the Collateral Control Manager or ResMae Mortgage Corporation in addition to Ms. Sene’s signature. There was also a purported allonge which was not permitted into evidence. However, the existence of an allonge does not explain the apparent disparity between the two assignments. Both cannot be accurate.^[FN4]

This Court emphatically now joins the judicial chorus who have been wary of the paperwork supplied by plaintiffs and their representatives. There is ample reason for Chief Judge’s requirement for an attorney affirmation in residential foreclosure cases. As stated by [*3]Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman,”we cannot allow the courts in New York State to stand idly and be party to what we now know is a deeply flawed process, especially when that process involves basic human needs-such as a family home-during this period of economic crisis.”^[FN5]

Furthermore, the form affidavit which is now required by Administrative Order 548/10 states that “numerous and widespread insufficiencies in foreclosure filings in various courts around the nation were reported by major mortgage lenders and other authorities…”. See also, HSBC Bank v. Taher, 932 N.Y.S2d 760 [2011].^[FN6]

It is clear in this case, without further hearings, that a fraud has been committed upon this Court. Thus, the only remedy that can be utilized by this Court is to stay these proceedings and any mortgage foreclosure until this matter is cleared up to the satisfaction of this Court.

Further, in connection with this matter, the litigants were directed to submit memorandums of law on issues that arose during the hearing. Plaintiff submitted an affirmation with exhibits. Therein plaintiff attempts to establish Ocwen’s authority to sign as “attorney in fact” for ResMae corporation.

Allegedly, Ocwen’s authority arises from a limited power of attorney attached as exhibit “H.” to Plaintiff’s “1.” The power of attorney between ResMae Mortgage Corporation (the Servicer) and Ocwen, grants the “express power and authority to, for any mortgage loan transferred by the Servicer to Ocwen under that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement between the Servicer and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company dated March 1, 2006.”

Oddly, the pooling and servicing agreement submitted as plaintiff’s Exhibit “2.” allegedly evidencing Ocwen’s power of attorney is dated April 1, 2007 and is between Ace Securities Corp., Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, GMAC Mortgage, LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, HSBC Bank USA, NA. These submissions fail to establish that Ocwen was granted authority as ResMae’s attorney-in-fact. Regardless, the defect in the assignments remain.

This Court is further reporting the matter to the District Attorney, Kings County, the Attorney General of the State of New York and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Copies of the two notes are annexed hereto and made a part hereof.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

J.S.C.

Footnote 1:The plaintiff asserts that the language of “good faith” contained in CPLR § 3408 does not apply as this action was commenced prior to the February 13, 2010 amendment. Plaintiff does not argue that the remainder of CPLR 3408 is applicable, which directs settlement conferences in residential foreclosure matters. This Court disagrees with plaintiff that its obligation to act in good faith throughout the litigation is dependent upon a statutory mandate. Honeywell International v. National Avionics Sys. Corp., 343 F.Supp.2d 272 [2004]. “A mortgagee who is invoking the aid of foreclosure action, may be required, as condition precedent to relief, to do equity.” Farmers’ & Mechanics’Sav. Bank of City of Lockport v. Eagle Bldg. Co. et al., 271 N.Y.S. 306 [1934]. This Court has purposefully cited a decision from 1934 due to the discussion found therein as to the devastating economic conditions at that time, and unfortunately finds many parallels to the current economic climate.

Footnote 2: This court was prepared to update its decision regarding reverse redlining and whether the rebuttable presumption followed with the assignment of the note and mortgage. See, M & T Mortgage v. Foy, 858 NYS2d 567 [2008]. In this Court’s view, it is unnecessary to delve into the other legal arguments when faced with the conflicting assignments.

Footnote 3:As manager for Resmae Mortgage Corporation by its attorney-in-fact Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Footnote 4:It should also be noted that ResMae filed for bankruptcy protection in 2007.

Footnote 5:In regards to the issuance of Administrative Order 548/10

Footnote 6:The decision outlines the numerous and widespread irregularities specific to HSBC Bank USA, NA, the plaintiff in this case. A, NA, the plaintiff in this case.

[ipaper docId=83435780 access_key=key-29jb7yoyxz38dwntiqma height=600 width=600 /]

If anyone can set the record straight, Abigail is just the person to do it!

Naked Cap-

U.S. Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan has embarrassed himself yet again. This time, though, he’s gone in for total humiliation. See, he praised the bank-run Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) foreclosure reviews as an important part of the social justice delivered by the mortgage “settlement“. But thanks to an insider working on an OCC review, we know that process is a sham. Worse, the insider’s story shows that enforcement of the settlement is likely to be similar, which is to say, meaningless. Doesn’t matter how pretty the new servicing standards are if the bankers don’t have to follow them.

Let’s start with Donovan’s sales pitch for the OCC reviews:

“For families who suffered much deeper harm — who may have been improperly foreclosed on and lost their homes and could therefore be owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages — the settlement preserves their ability to get justice in two key ways.

First, it recognizes that the federal banking regulators have established a process through which these families can receive help by requesting a review of their file. [ACF: That’s the OCC process] If a borrower can document that they were improperly foreclosed on, they can receive every cent of the compensation they are entitled to through that process.

Second, the agreement preserves the right of homeowners to take their servicer to court. Indeed, if banks or other financial institutions broke the law or treated the families they served unfairly, they should pay the price — and with this settlement they will. [bold throughout mine]

Now, the justice of the settlement has been debunked many times over. And David Dayen debunks Donovan’s OCC pitch here. What’s important is that Bank Housing Secretary Donovan wants you to believe the Wells Fargo OCC process is a meaningful contribution to holding bankers accountable and compensating victims.

Wells Fargo’s Fraudulent OCC ‘Independent’ Foreclosure Reviews…

[NAKED CAPITALISM]

I got an email the other night from one of my readers.  It said…

“I was hired as one of those “Independent File Review Specialist” at a company called Promontory working on Wells Fargo Bank. I have 15 years industry experience in all facets of the mortgage & title industry, and just needed a job at the moment.  I must say the whole project is a mess, and a terrible joke on the victims of foreclosure and the American people. It’s a total sham.”

No kidding, I said to myself.  Or, as Yves Smith would say… “Quelle surprise.”  The email continued…

“I have found errors that should be moved up through the ranks, but am told “quit digging so deep”…”put your shovel away”…Focus on the questions “in scope”… The review forms are set up so no harm could ever be found. It’s equivalent of an attorney presenting his case to a judge with just 20% of the evidence.”

Well, that can’t be good, right?  He went on…

“I would also like to mention that I was brought in through a temp agency…..some of the people brought in with me do not know the difference between a truth in lending statement, and a note. It’s a shame, these are your reviewers!!! The supervisors don’t want any trouble…they are mostly temps too, just trying to get a promotion to full time. Does this sound like a fair and impartial review to you? Since we’re temps I suppose that’s impartial, not to mention they made us “affiant notaries” so we can so-called “notarize each others reviews.”

Doesn’t sound “fair and impartial” in the least, now does it?  But I do like the ability to notarize each other’s reviews.  That sounds handier than a pocket on a man’s shirt.  He closed by saying…

“The foreclosed victims don’t realize if they do not provide specific dates on the intake forms… their complaints are considered “general comments” out of scope. They should specifically ask for a “full file review” and hopefully their info has not been scrubbed or purged… I could go on and on, but I just felt I needed to share this.”

And in my opinion, you’ve done a very good thing.

Our insider says he was hired by Promontory Compliance Solutions, LLC to do work on the Independent Foreclosure Review for Wells Fargo Bank.  The company’s Website describes itself as follows:

Promontory excels at helping financial companies grapple with and resolve critical issues, particularly those with a regulatory dimension. Taken as a whole, Promontory professionals have unparalleled regulatory credibility and insight, and we provide our clients with frank, proactive advice informed by evolving best practices and regulatory expectations.

Promontory is a leading strategy, risk management and regulatory compliance consulting firm focusing primarily on the financial services industry. Led by our Founder and CEO, Eugene A. Ludwig, former U.S. Comptroller of the Currency, our professionals have deep and varied expertise gained through decades of experience as senior leaders of regulatory bodies, financial institutions and Fortune 100 corporations. 

 [Continue to Mandelman Matters] it gets much better!

.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

EMERALD GARDENS
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
Appellant,

v.

U.S. BANK N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF
MASTR ASSET BACKED
SECURITIES TRUST, 2006-AM1,
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-AM1,
Respondent.

Leach, A.C.J. — Emerald Greens Condominium Association (Association)
appeals a trial court’s decision setting aside an order of default and vacating a
decree quieting title in real property. Because U.S. Bank failed to appear in the
Association’s quiet title action for reasons other than mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect, and failed to present prima facie evidence of a
defense to the Association’s claim, we reverse and direct the trial court to
reinstate the order of default and decree quieting title in the Association.

FACTS

Elizabeth Swanson secured a purchase money loan from Aames Funding
Corporation, d/b/a Aames Home Loan (Aames), with a deed of trust, recorded in
a first lien position against her condominium unit.

In April 2007, Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC recorded a notice of trustee’s
sale for this property that identified U.S. Bank as the current beneficiary of the
deed of trust. The notice recited that Swanson’s condominium was

subject to that certain Deed of Trust dated 9/9/2005, recorded
10/3/2005, . . . from ELIZABETH SWANSON . . . as Grantor(s), to
KAREN L. GIBBON, PS, as Trustee, to secure an obligation in
favor of AAMES FUNDING CORPORATION DBA AAMES HOME
LOAN, as Beneficiary, . . . the beneficial interest in which was
assigned by AAMES FUNDING CORPORATION DBA AAMES
HOME LOAN to U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the registered
holders of MASTR Asset Backed Securities Trust.

But this recital was not true. Instead, on May 25, 2007, Accredited Home
Lenders Inc., successor by merger to Aames, assigned “[a]ll beneficial interest”
in the deed of trust to Ocwen Loan Servicing. Then, on June 1, 2007, Ocwen
assigned its interest to U.S. Bank. These two assignments were recorded with
the Snohomish County Auditor on June 15, 2007.

Earlier, on May 15, the Association filed a complaint against Swanson
and Aames, seeking to foreclose a lien for unpaid condominium assessments on
Swanson’s unit. Three days later, the Association recorded a lis pendens
against the property.

The Association served Aames, but it failed to appear in the action. On
July 6, 2007, the Association obtained entry of an order of default against
Aames. On October 12, 2007, the court entered a “Stipulated/Default Judgment,
Order and Foreclosure Decree.” Swanson stipulated to its entry through
counsel. The decree (1) awarded judgment to the Association and declared its
lien valid and exempt from homestead protection, (2) foreclosed the lien and
directed the sheriff to sell the property if the judgment was not promptly paid,
and (3) declared the rights of Aames and all persons claiming under it to be
subordinate to the Association’s lien and foreclosed those rights, except for any
right of redemption.

The Association purchased the condominium unit at a sheriff’s sale held
in February 2009. After the one-year redemption period expired without
redemption by any party, the Association received a sheriff’s deed conveying the
property to it.

U.S. Bank claims that it first became aware of the lien foreclosure
proceedings in February 2010, after it completed foreclosure of its deed of trust.1
Shortly afterward, U.S. Bank’s attorney Kelly Sutherland sent the Association’s
attorney, Patrick McDonald, a letter, stating, “Pursuant to our telephone
conversation, this office is representing [U.S. Bank,] successor beneficiary
holders of the 1st [Deed of Trust] on . . . the subject loan. My clients are
disputing the priority of the Sheriff’s Deed.” Sutherland also asked McDonald to
“provide . . . [a] breakdown of your client’s total amount of Judgment, including
any attorney fees and advances for taxes and other liens on . . . the subject
loan.” McDonald responded by letter a few days later. He wrote,

As you know, Emerald Gardens Condominium Association . . .
properly served the lender of record and foreclosed the lender’s
interest in the above-referenced condominium unit . . . .
As a result, my client bid the full judgment amount at the
sheriff’s sale, the redemption period expired without redemption by
any party, a sheriff’s deed was issued to the Association, and the
Association now owns the property free and clear. Therefore,
there is no judgment balance upon which to give a payoff as you
request.

Two months later, in an effort to remove any potential cloud on the title,
the Association served U.S. Bank with a summons and complaint to quiet title to
the subject property.2 U.S. Bank, the only defendant in the action, failed to
appear or file an answer within the 20 days allowed by CR 4. The Association
then obtained entry of an order of default and an order and decree quieting title
in its favor.

U.S. Bank moved to set aside the default and vacate the decree under
CR 55 and CR 60. A court commissioner granted the relief requested. The trial
court denied the Association’s motion for revision.
The Association appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a party appeals an order denying revision of a court
commissioner’s decision, this court reviews the superior court’s decision, not the
commissioner’s.3 We review a trial court’s decision on both a motion for default
judgment and a motion to vacate a default judgment for an abuse of discretion.4
Discretion is abused if it is based on untenable grounds or reasons,5 and a
decision is untenable if it rests on an erroneous application of law.6 We review
questions of law de novo.7

ANALYSIS

We must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion when it
denied the Association’s motion for revision. This requires resolution of three
underlying issues: (1) whether U.S. Bank was entitled to notice of the
Association’s motion for default under CR 55(a)(3), (2) whether U.S. Bank
presented substantial evidence of a prima facie defense available to it in the
quiet title action, and (3) whether U.S. Bank’s failure to appear in the quiet title
action was due to surprise or excusable neglect.

A court will set aside a default judgment entered against a party entitled to
notice who did not receive it.8 The Association argues that U.S. Bank was not
entitled to notice of the motion for default because neither U.S. Bank nor
Sutherland appeared in the quiet title action. In response, U.S. Bank asserts
that Sutherland’s prelitigation contacts with McDonald substantially complied
with any appearance requirement. Thus, according to U.S. Bank, it was entitled
to notice of the Association’s motion for default. We agree with the Association.
CR 55(a)(3) requires notice of a motion for default be given to any party
who has appeared in the action. It states,

Any party who has appeared in the action for any purpose shall be
served with a written notice of motion for default and the supporting
affidavit at least 5 days before the hearing on the motion. Any
party who has not appeared before the motion for default and
supporting affidavit are filed is not entitled to a notice of the motion.

Washington courts apply a substantial compliance test to determine whether CR
55(a)(3) requires notice.9

In Morin v. Burris,10 our Supreme Court held that prelitigation contacts
alone are not sufficient to establish substantial compliance with the appearance
requirements of CR 55(a)(3). Instead, those who are properly served with a
summons and complaint must in some way appear and acknowledge the
jurisdiction of the court after they are served and litigation commences.11
Otherwise, “any party to a dispute [could] simply write a letter expressing intent
to contest litigation, then ignore the summons and complaint or other formal
process and wait for the notice of default judgment before deciding whether a
defense is worth pursuing.”12

As Morin makes clear, Sutherland’s prelitigation contact with McDonald
by itself is not sufficient to show substantial compliance with CR 55(a)(3), even
though it expressed an intent to defend. U.S. Bank had no contact with the
Association or its counsel between the time it was served with the summons and
complaint and the order of default entered. U.S. Bank’s failure to appear during
this interval relieved the Association of any obligation to provide the bank with
written notice of a motion for default.

U.S. Bank disagrees. Citing Sacotte Construction, Inc. v. National Fire &
Marine Insurance Co.13 and Old Republic National Title Insurance Co. v. Law
Office of Robert E. Brandt, PLLC,14 the bank claims it substantially complied with
any appearance requirement because McDonald had prior dealings with
Sutherland and knew that Sutherland represented the bank in related matters.15
But neither case supports U.S. Bank’s position. Instead, Sacotte and Old
Republic apply the rule announced in Morin and rely upon contacts made after
the commencement of litigation to establish substantial compliance with
appearance requirements.

In both Sacotte and Old Republic, the defaulted party made an informal
appearance after the plaintiff commenced the action. In Sacotte, the court held
that a telephone call made after litigation had commenced established
substantial compliance with the appearance requirements of CR 55(a)(3)16
Citing Morin, the court stated, “[S]ubstantial compliance can be accomplished
with an informal appearance if the party shows intent to defend and
acknowledges the court’s jurisdiction over the matter after the summons and
complaint are filed.”17 Old Republic is similar. There, the court also held that a
telephone call made after litigation had commenced substantially complied with
the appearance requirements of CR 55(a)(3).18 The court observed that
enforcement of a default judgment would be inequitable where the defendant’s
attorney called the plaintiff’s attorney after the commencement of the legal action
and informed him of his intent to defend.19

Because the bank was not entitled to notice of the motion for default, we
address whether the bank established grounds for vacating the decree under CR
60(b)(1). Generally a default judgment “will [be] liberally set aside . . . pursuant
to CR 55(c) and CR 60 and for equitable reasons in the interests of fairness and
justice.”20 CR 55(c) provides that default judgment may be set aside “in
accordance with rule 60(b).” Grounds for vacating a default judgment under CR
60(b)(1) include “[m]istake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect or
irregularity.” In White v. Holm,21 our Supreme Court announced four factors
which must be shown by a moving party. These factors are whether (1) there is
substantial evidence to support the moving party’s claim of a prima facie
defense; (2) the moving party’s failure to timely appear in the action was
occasioned by mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) the
moving party acted with due diligence after notice of entry of the default
judgment; and (4) vacating the default judgment would result in a substantial
hardship to the nonmoving party.22 Where a party fails to provide evidence of
factors (1) and (2), no equitable basis exists for vacating a judgment.23 A trial
court abuses its discretion when it vacates a judgment without evidence of these
two factors.24

U.S. Bank failed to present substantial evidence of a prima facie defense.
The Association recorded its lis pendens for its original foreclosure action on
May 18, 2007. The record shows that U.S. Bank acquired its beneficial interest
in the deed of trust later, on June 1, 2007. U.S. Bank presented no evidence
that it acquired any interest before that date. A party that acquires an interest in
real property after a lis pendens is recorded has “constructive notice” of the
proceeding and “shall be bound by all proceedings taken after the filing of such
notice to the same extent as if he or she were a party to the action.”25 U.S.
Bank, therefore, had constructive notice of the Association’s foreclosure action,
and it is bound by those proceedings. In that proceeding, the court foreclosed
the interest of the bank’s predecessor in interest, Aames, and all persons
claiming under it, subject only to a right of redemption. Thus, U.S. Bank cannot
show that it has any defense to the Association’s quiet title action.

Also, the record does not support U.S. Bank’s claim that its failure to
appear in the quiet title action was due to surprise or excusable neglect. As
explained above, neither U.S. Bank nor Sutherland had any contact with the
court or the Association between the time the bank was served and default
entered. Moreover, U.S. Bank admitted to the trial court that it did not appear
within 20 days because it “uses numerous outside counsel to handle its matters,
[and] it took several weeks before the quiet title pleadings were properly routed
to Mr. Sutherland’s office.” U.S. Bank cites no authority supporting the
proposition that a large corporation’s failure to timely route pleadings to its
attorney is somehow excusable or otherwise warrants setting aside an order of
default. Implicit in the bank’s argument is a notion that large organizations are
entitled to more time to respond to litigation. This notion finds no support in a
legal system that strives to treat all litigants equally.

CONCLUSION

We reverse and remand to the trial court to reinstate the order of default
and decree quieting title to the Association.

WE CONCUR

1 U.S. Bank’s foreclosure proceedings stopped and started several times
due to agreements with Swanson, Swanson’s bankruptcy filing, and efforts to
obtain relief from an automatic stay.

2 The record shows that the Association effected service on May 17 and
filed its complaint on June 10.

3 In re Marriage of Williams, 156 Wn. App. 22, 27, 232 P.3d 573 (2010).
4 Morin v. Burris, 160 Wn.2d 745, 753, 161 P.3d 956 (2007); Hwang v.
McMahill, 103 Wn. App. 945, 949, 15 P.3d 172 (2000).
5 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 753.
6 State v. Rafay, 167 Wn.2d 644, 655, 222 P.3d 86 (2009) (quoting State
v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654, 71 P.3d 638 (2003)).
7 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 753.

8 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 749.
9 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 749.
10 160 Wn.2d 745, 757, 161 P.3d 956 (2007).
11 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 749.

12 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 757.
13 143 Wn. App. 410, 177 P.3d 1147 (2008).
14 142 Wn. App. 71, 174 P.3d 133 (2007).
15 U.S. Bank alleges that Sutherland represented it in a dispute regarding
the wrongful foreclosure of the property. However, U.S. Bank never filed a
motion to vacate or otherwise challenged the foreclosure decree, which was
adjudicated some three years earlier. Thus, contrary to U.S. Bank’s implication,
no legal action was pending in February 2010.

16 Sacotte, 143 Wn. App. at 416.
17 Sacotte, 143 Wn. App. at 415 (emphasis added).
18 Old Republic, 142 Wn. App. at 73.
19 Old Republic, 142 Wn. App. at 73, 75.

20 Morin, 160 Wn.2d at 749.
21 73 Wn.2d 348, 352, 438 P.2d 581 (1968).
22 White, 73 Wn.2d at 352.
23 Little v. King, 160 Wn.2d 696, 706, 161 P.3d 345 (2007).
24 Little, 160 Wn.2d at 706.

25 RCW 4.28.320; see also Snohomish Reg’l Drug Task Force v. 414
Newberg Rd., 151 Wn. App. 743, 752, 214 P.3d 928 (2009) (once a lis pendens
is filed, any party who subsequently acquires an interest in the property does so
subject to the property’s ultimate disposition in the pending suit), review denied,
168 Wn.2d 1019, 228 P.3d 17 (2010).

[ipaper docId=72110439 access_key=key-u6jjvgjiiq0pd08nt8q height=600 width=600 /]

Via: NYE LAVALLE author of Report On Fraudulent & Forged Assignments Of Mortgages & Deeds In U.S. Foreclosures

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

MICHAEL L. MORGAN,
Plaintiff,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING,
LLC, MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., and
MERSCORP, INC.
Defendants.

ORDER

The action is presently before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (“motion”) [Doc. 15], filed on November 22, 2010. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion.

I. Background1

Plaintiff filed his complaint against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), and Merscorp, Inc. (“Merscorp”) on November 1, 2010. In the complaint, Plaintiff raises state law claims against Defendants for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, cancellation of deed to secure debt, slander of title, quiet title, wrongful foreclosure, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. (Compl. at 1-20.) He also raises a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968.
(Id. at 20-22.)

Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory judgment, cancellation of security deed, slander of title, and quiet title rest on the fact that he obtained a residential mortgage loan from Guaranteed Rate, Inc., and in connection with the loan he executed a promissory note to Guaranteed Rate and a deed to secure debt in favor of MERS “as nominee” for Guaranteed Rate. (Id. ¶¶ 11-13.) He alleges that because MERS had no pecuniary interest in the transaction, and was acting solely as “nominee” for the lender, the security deed to MERS is void. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 20.) Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief, wrongful foreclosure, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence are based on allegations that Ocwen commenced a nonjudicial foreclosure against his property (1) when Ocwen was not the holder of the promissory note, and (2) without sending the statutorily required notice of foreclosure sale to the proper address. (Id. ¶¶ 24-27.) Plaintiff’s RICO claim is based on allegations that Defendants fraudulently used MERS in mortgage transactions, mailed fraudulent notices of foreclosure, and committed other unlawful acts. (Id. ¶¶ 79-80.)

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 22, 2010, that contended: (1) Plaintiff failed to effect service of process, (2) Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful foreclosure based on Defendant’s failure to properly mail the foreclosure notice was moot, because Defendant canceled the November foreclosure sale, and (3) all counts based on allegations that the security deed is void failed to state a claim. (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss at 6-15.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 9, 2010,2 and Defendants filed a reply on December 22, 2010.

On December 30, 2011, all Defendants executed the waiver of service of summons, which was filed with the Clerk’s office on January 3, 2011. (Waiver of Service of Summons, Jan. 3, 2011.)

II. Motion to Dismiss Standard

In determining whether a complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, courts accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hill v. White, 321 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege facts that, if true, “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotations omitted). A claim is plausible where the plaintiff alleges factual content that “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The plausibility standard requires that a plaintiff allege sufficient facts “to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” that supports the plaintiff’s claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007).

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff is appearing pro se. Thus, his complaint is to be liberally construed and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

III. Analysis

A. Service of Process

As Defendants executed the waiver of service on December 30, 2010, their arguments for dismissal based on insufficient process, insufficient service of process, and lack of jurisdiction are moot. (See Waiver of Service of Summons, Jan. 3, 2011.) Defendants’ sole basis for alleging a lack of personal jurisdiction was the (previously true, but no longer so) assertion that service had not been effected under Rule 4. (Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss at 6-8.)

B. Alleged Failure to Send Notice of Foreclosure

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims arising out of failure to send the foreclosure notice to the proper address are moot because the foreclosure did not go forward on November 2, 2010. However, a court may refuse to dismiss as moot claims in which the former controversy is one “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” United Steelworkers of America v. Bishop, 598 F.2d 408, 412 (5th Cir. 1979) (internal citations omitted).3 Claims will be preserved for review on this basis when they meet the following criteria: (1) “the challenged action was too brief in duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration,” and (2) there is a reasonable likelihood that the plaintiff will face the same challenged conduct again. Id. As Plaintiff is still in default on his mortgage, and the Court’s predecessor judge terminated the injunction barring foreclosure on January 3, 2011, it is very likely that Defendants will again attempt a nonjudicial foreclosure. Since the statutorily required notice of foreclosure sale is only required to be sent 30 days prior to the sale date, there would not likely be time to adjudicate this issue should it arise again by virtue of another foreclosure sale notice mailed to the incorrect address. See O.C.G.A. § 44-14- 162.2. Plaintiff contends that Defendant failed to send proper notice, despite his written provision of an updated address. (Compl. ¶ 16.) Under these circumstances, the Court declines to dismiss as moot Plaintiff’s claims for wrongful foreclosure arising out of failure to give the required foreclosure notice.

C. Validity of the Security Deed and Wrongful Foreclosure

The issues presented here regarding ownership of the note and the effectiveness of an assignment executed by MERS have been the subject of much litigation, in this district and throughout the country. Therefore, the Court takes this opportunity to carefully address the complex issues presented.

The following are the facts relevant to these claims that must be presumed true for purposes of the instant motion. Plaintiff obtained a residential mortgage loan from Guaranteed Rate. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Like most residential mortgages in Georgia, this transaction was memorialized by two documents: a promissory note and a deed to secure debt (or “security deed”). The original grantee of the promissory note was Guaranteed Rate. (Id. ¶ 11.) The original grantee of the security deed was MERS “as nominee” for Guaranteed Rate and its successors and assigns. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.)
Guaranteed Rate later transferred the note to Taylor, Bean & Whitaker. (Id. ¶ 14.)

Subsequently, MERS executed a purported assignment of the security deed to Ocwen. (Id. ¶ 64.) Ocwen is not now and has never been the holder of the note.4 (Id. ¶ 25.)

1. Validity of the Security Deed

A promissory note and a security deed are two separate, but interrelated, instruments. See Frank S. Alexander, GEORGIA REAL ESTATE FINANCE AND FORECLOSURE LAW, § 3:7 (2010-11 ed.). The security deed arises from the indebtedness memorialized in the promissory note, and “the deed’s power of sale depend[s] on default under the note.” Boaz v. Latson, 580 S.E.2d 572, 578 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003), rev’d on other grounds, 598 S.E.2d 485, 487 (Ga. 2004). Historically, the note and security deed have traveled together. If an originating lender decided to sell a mortgage loan, that lender would endorse and physically transfer the note (a negotiable instrument) to a new holder, and assign the security deed to that holder as well. See Bowen v. Tucker Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc., 438 S.E.2d 121, 122 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (“the holder of a note who is also the grantee of a security deed has the right to exercise the power of sale in the security deed upon default”). The parties would then record the assignment in the county deed room, giving record notice to the homeowner and all the world of who held the mortgage. Christopher L. Peterson, Foreclosure, Subprime Mortgage Lending, and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, 78 U. CIN. L. REV. 1359, 1362 (2009-10).

With the rise of securitization of mortgage loans, the financial services industry sought to maximize profitability by developing shortcuts to these cumbersome paperwork requirements. Peterson, 78 U. CIN. L. REV. at 1368-69. One such costsaving method was to have the original lender endorse the note in blank, so that it would not have to be specifically endorsed to every holder in the chain of ownership. In the securitization process, ownership of a note might be transferred four or five times, from the original lender to the issuer of the securities, through one or more special purpose entities, and finally to the trustee bank, which holds the legal interest in the note for the benefit of the securities holders. Id. at 1367; Adam Ashcraft and Til Schuermann, Understanding the Securitization of Subprime Mortgage Credit, 318 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK STAFF REPORT at 5 (2008).

Along the same lines, the mortgage industry created MERS to facilitate tracking ownership of mortgage loans without the necessity of executing and recording assignments of the security deeds. Peterson, 78 U. CIN. L. REV. at 1369.

The Georgia Supreme Court has described the MERS system as follows:

MERS, which began operating in 1997, is a private company
created by the mortgage banking industry for the purpose of
establishing a centralized, electronic system for registering the
assignments and sales of residential mortgages, with the goal
being the elimination of costly paperwork every time a loan is
sold . . . . Under the MERS system, the borrower and the original
lender name MERS as the grantee5 of any instrument designed
to secure the mortgage loan. The security instrument is then
recorded in the local land records, and the original lender
registers the original loan on MERS’s electronic system.
Thereafter, all sales or assignments of the mortgage loan are
accomplished electronically under the MERS system.

Taylor, Bean & Whitaker v. Brown, 583 S.E.2d 844, 845 n.1 (Ga. 2003) (internal citations omitted).

Whereas the cost-saving benefits to the mortgage banking industry of the MERS system are clear, its harmony with Georgia real estate law is less evident. Indeed, the use of MERS as a record “holder” of the security instrument (and tracking system for actual ownership of same) has created a great deal of confusion for homeowners attempting to communicate with the owner of their loan, as well as for judges and lawyers attempting to parse out ownership of the debt and authority to foreclose. See Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 216 P.3d 158, 168 (Kan. 2009).

Several of Plaintiff’s claims rest on the argument that the security deed is void because of the fact that MERS was named as the grantee-as-nominee in the security deed rather than Guarantee Rate, the actual lender and payee on the note. This argument is unsupported by Georgia law. Separation of the note and security deed creates a question of what entity would have the authority to foreclose, but does not render either instrument void. See Boaz, 580 S.E.2d at 578; Alexander at § 3.7. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory judgment (Count I), cancellation of the security deed (Count III), slander of title (Count IV), and quiet title (Count V), all of which seek either injunctive relief or damages based on the assertion that the security deed is void because of the MERS involvement.

2. Wrongful Foreclosure

Although the separation of the note and the security deed does not render either instrument void, it does create a substantial question of what entity has the right to foreclose when the borrower defaults on the loan. The Georgia Supreme Court has expressly reserved ruling on the question of “whether MERS, as nominee for the original lender and its successors, has the power to foreclose on an existing security deed either with or without the participation of the existing note holder.” Taylor, Bean & Whitaker v. Brown, 583 S.E.2d at 848. Many other courts have questioned MERS’s right to foreclose or effect an assignment of a security instrument, as it admittedly holds no beneficial interest in the note or security instrument. See Landmark v. Kesler, 216 P.3d at 167 (“If MERS is only the mortgagee, without ownership of the mortgage instrument, it does not have an enforceable right.”); Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619, 624 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (“MERS never held the promissory note, thus its assignment of the deed of trust to Ocwen separate from the note had no force.”); In re Agard, No. 810-77338, 2011 WL 499959, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2011) (“[W]ithout more, this Court finds that MERS’s ‘nominee’ status and the rights bestowed upon MERS within the Mortgage itself, are insufficient to empower MERS to effectuate a valid assignment of mortgage.”).

The question presented by this case is not whether MERS has authority to foreclose under Georgia law, but whether an assignment of a security deed from MERS to Ocwen empowers Ocwen to foreclose when Ocwen does not hold the note.6

Georgia law authorizes the secured creditor, the holder of the obligation, to exercise a power of sale. See O.C.G.A. §§ 44-14-162 et seq.7 The Georgia Supreme Court has clearly indicated that the right to foreclose lies with the party that holds the indebtedness:

Could there be a more conclusive defense to the foreclosure
than that the party prosecuting it was not the holder of the debt
or demand secured by the mortgage, which he failed to produce
when called on, and offered nothing to show that he controlled
it, or to explain why it was not forthcoming at the trial?

Weems v. Coker, 70 Ga. 746, 749 (1883), cited by Truitt v. Moister, 11 B.R. 15 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1981); see also Bowen, 438 S.E.2d at 122; Boaz, 580 S.E.2d at 578; Cummings v. Anderson, 173 B.R. 959, 963 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994) (foreclosure was null and void where the entity foreclosing did not have an actual assignment of the note and security deed), aff’d, 112 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 1997); Weston v. Towson, No. 5:04- CV-416, 2006 WL 2246206, at *6 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 4, 2006) (“[T]he holder of the note continues to retain remedies under the security deed so long as the debt evidenced by the note has not been satisfied.”).

Plaintiff has alleged that Ocwen is attempting to foreclose when it is not the holder of the note. (Compl. ¶ 25.) Moreover, in publishing the foreclosure notice, Ocwen did not purport to be acting as agent for the actual holder of the note, but rather asserted that it was acting on its own behalf. (Id. ¶ 61.) These allegations clearly support a claim for wrongful foreclosure.8 The Court need not reach the question of whether an agent for the holder of the debt can carry out a power of sale foreclosure under Georgia law, as Ocwen did not advertise the foreclosure as agent for any disclosed principal. Defendants further argue that there can be no cause of action for wrongful foreclosure here because the foreclosure has not taken place. However, courts have recognized a cause of action for wrongful attempted foreclosure when a foreclosure action was commenced, but not completed, where plaintiffs have shown that a defendant “knowingly published an untrue and derogatory statement concerning the plaintiffs’ financial conditions and that damages were sustained as a direct result.” Sale City Peanut & Milling Co. v. Planters & Citizens Bank, 130 S.E.2d 518, 520 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).9 Furthermore, Plaintiff is clearly seeking injunctive relief barring Ocwen from foreclosing wrongfully because it allegedly is not the holder of the note. (Compl. ¶¶ 40-43, 63.) A court may enjoin a nonjudicial foreclosure sale in a wrongful foreclosure action where the authority to foreclose is in question. See Atlanta Dwellings, Inc. v. Wright, 527 S.E.2d 854, 856 (Ga. 2000); West v. Koufman, 384 S.E.2d 664, 666 (Ga. 1989); Cotton v. First Nat’l Bank of Gwinnett Co., 220 S.E.2d 132 (Ga. 1975).

Thus, Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief (Count II), wrongful foreclosure (Count VI), and negligence (Count VIII) are not subject to dismissal at this time.

D. Remaining Claims

Defendants have not made any argument for dismissal of the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VII) or RICO (Count IX) other than their general argument that Ocwen had the right to foreclose, which cannot prevail at this stage for the reasons cited above. Therefore, because Defendants have not challenged these claims, Court does not address them in this Order.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [15] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory judgment (Count I), cancellation of the security deed (Count III), slander of title (Count IV), and quiet title (Count V) are DISMISSED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief (Count II), wrongful foreclosure (Count VI), negligence (Count VIII), intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VII), and RICO (Count IX) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of July, 2011.

__________________________________
AMY TOTENBERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Footnotes:

1 The facts described here are taken from Plaintiff’s complaint [Doc. 1] and presumed true for purposes of resolving Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See infra Part II.

2 Plaintiff exceeded the twenty-five-page limit imposed by the local rules in his response brief. See Local Rule 7.1(D). Because Plaintiff is appearing pro se, he is entitled to some lenience from this Court regarding the formalities of litigation. However, Plaintiff is advised in the future to keep any original briefs to no more than twenty-five pages, and reply briefs to no more than fifteen pages.

3 In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981.

4 The facts in the complaint must be presumed true at this stage. Hill v. White, 321 F.3d at 1335. Defendants assert that the Court may consider documents referenced in the complaint, including the promissory note and the purported assignment of the security deed to Ocwen, without converting this motion to a motion for summary judgment. However, Defendants are attempting to use these documents to dispute a central factual allegation of Plaintiff’s complaint, compared to the securities cases wherein courts have considered on a motion to dismiss documents  required to be filed with the SEC of which the contents, and not the truth, were at issue. See Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1271, 1278 (11th Cir. 1989) (“When SEC documents are relevant only to determine what statements or disclosures are actually contained therein, there can be little question as to authenticity, nor can the fact that such statements or disclosures were thus publicly filed be reasonably questioned.”); Oxford Asset Mgmt. Ltd. v. Jahar, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002) (documents outside the complaint may only be considered at the motion to dismiss stage to show their contents, not for the truth of matters asserted therein). The Court must therefore assume at this motion to dismiss stage of the proceedings that Ocwen is not the holder of the note, based on the allegations of  Plaintiff’s complaint. (Compl. ¶ 25.) Furthermore, the documents attached to the motion to dismiss do not support anyfactual finding to the contrary, as an assignment of the security deed is not indicative of who holds the note, and the promissory note shows no endorsement to Ocwen.

5 MERS is listed on the original security deed as the grantee of the instrument “as nominee” for the lender and lender’s successor and assigns.

6 Defendants cite O.C.G.A. § 44-14-64 and Redwine v. Frizzell, 190 S.E. 789 (Ga. 1937) to support their argument that the purported assignment of the security deed also transferred the promissory note. However, this statute and Redwine were authored at a time when the promissory note and the security deed where not commonly separated. Neither support the proposition that a party who has never held the promissory note (MERS) could transfer it by an assignment of the security deed.

7 “The security instrument or assignment thereof vesting the secured creditor with title to the security instrument shall be filed prior to the time of sale in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county in which the real property is located.” O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162(b) (emphasis added). “Notice of the initiation of proceedings to exercise a power of sale in a mortgage, security deed, or other lien contract shall be given to the debtor by the secured creditor no later than 30 days before the date of the proposed foreclosure.” O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2(a) (emphasis added).

8 Defendants cite Nicholson v. OneWest Bank, No. 1:10-CV-0795, 2010 WL 2732325 (N.D.Ga. Apr. 20, 2010) for the proposition that MERS has the ability to foreclose even if it does not hold the promissory note. However, in Nicholson the court denied a motion for TRO because the plaintiff in that case failed to carry his burden on a TRO motion to show the likelihood of success on the merits when he failed to overcome the defendant OneWest’s showing that it held both the note and security deed. Id. at *4. Nicholson is therefore inapposite to the facts that must be assumed true herein.

Defendants also cite Trent v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 288 Fed. Appx. 571 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Revoredo, 955 So.2d 33 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2007). These cases interpret Florida law and therefore are not relevant to the instant case.

9 It is not clear whether Plaintiff can prevail on a claim for wrongful attempted foreclosure, which requires a showing of intentional publication of derogatory and untrue financial information about the complainant. See Sale City Peanut, 130 S.E.2d at 520. Plaintiff does not specify in the complaint whether he was actually in default on the mortgage at the time Ocwen commenced foreclosure proceedings against him or whether a default had been cured through a loan modification. However, to the extent Plaintiff fails to establish the required elements for the tort of attempted wrongful foreclosure, his claim for wrongful foreclosure may proceed as a claim for injunctive relief.

[ipaper docId=62298288 access_key=key-j1lgzc9novxn2v7p77 height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.

Abigail C. Field-

Foreclosures are often done in the name of mortgage servicers rather than the person who actually owns the defaulted loan. Fannie Mae, for example, generally requires servicers to foreclose in the servicers’ name rather than Fannie Mae. (The link is to Fannie Mae’s current servicing guidelines; see Section 101 at p. 801-2.) Well, based on this recent opinion, the practice should no longer fly in Georgia, at least if servicers are trying to foreclose without going to court. In addition the many Georgia foreclosures servicers have already completed non-judicially are now in question.

Only Secured Creditors Can Foreclosure Non-Judicially in Georgia

[REALITY CHECK]

By Fraud Digest

Mortgage Fraud

AFFIDAVITS OF LOST ASSIGNMENTS
Christina Carter
Linda Green
John Kennerty

Action Date: July 6, 2011
Location: West Palm Beach, FL

Is it perjury to submit a sworn affidavit to a Court that a Mortgage Assignment has been lost when there is absolutely no evidence that such Assignment ever even existed?

What if the affiant swears to know WHEN the non-existent Assignment was lost:

“Affiant’s investigation has revealed that the original unrecorded assignment of mortgage is lost or missing through no fault of the Assignee, although it appears Assignee was in possession of the instrument at the time it was lost or became missing.”

This exact statement – and many similar statements – appear in thousands of Affidavits of Lost Assignments – signed by Linda Green, John Kennerty and Christina Carter – employees of Lender Processing Services, America’s Servicing Company and Ocwen Loan Servicing.

These Affidavits are used in foreclosures to explain why mortgage-backed trusts should be allowed to foreclose even though the original lender never assigned the mortgages to the trusts.

Mortgage servicers continue to file these Lost Assignment Affidavits in 2011 – despite the many investigations and regulatory Consent Decrees.

How can you swear something was lost when it never existed? How can you swear as to the no-fault of a bank that is not even your employer?

Only robo-signers and mortgage servicers know for sure.

According to DBR:

The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. was sued by Florida attorney David Stern, who claims he is owed $1.3 million for legal services, according to a complaint filed today.

The government-run mortgage company breached its contract with Stern’s law firm by failing to pay, according to the complaint filed in federal court in Miami.

Recap of previous stunners [links]:

David Stern Sues Lenders That Once Hired Him

FORECLOSURE MILLS: SHAPIRO & FISHMAN V. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN

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 /]

According to South Florida Business Journal:

The lenders are GMAC Mortgage LLC, U.S. Bank, MetLife Bank, Space Coast Credit Union, Chase Home Finance LLC, Ocwen Loan Servicing, Nationstar Mortgage LLC and PNC Bank.

This doesn’t add up because there are others missing. As soon as the rest of the parties such as Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Aurora, Fannie and Freddie come up (if they do) in a lawsuit, we’ll get to see a bit more of what is really going on.

MARCH 3, 2011, 5:09 P.M. ET

By RUTH SIMON

Ocwen Financial Corp. said it is under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, which has asked the mortgage-servicing company for information about its employee training, debt-collection practices, loan modifications and foreclosure procedures.

The Atlanta company, one of the largest home-loan servicers in the U.S., received a formal legal request from the FTC for documents in late November, Paul Koches, executive vice president and general counsel at Ocwen, said in an interview. Ocwen is “fully cooperating” and is “not accused anywhere of any wrongdoing,” he added.

“We are taking it as informational and are providing the [requested] information,” Mr. Koches said. In a securities filing Monday, Ocwen said it had received a “civil investigative demand” from the federal agency.

Continue reading … Wall Street Jounal

EXCERPTS:

To address that condition, and with no end to it in sight, we decided to break the log jam by introducing a process “for debtors and lenders to [mediate and to] reach consensual resolution when a debtor’s residential property is at risk of foreclosure” by “opening communications between debtors’ and [the] lenders’ decision-makers.”3 LMP §I Purpose, 1.

[…]

CONCLUSION
The Rhode Island Loss Mitigation Program was conceived as a case management tool designed to encourage the resolution of differences between residential mortgage lenders and their borrowers, and to provide a way for them to access the various federal housing programs available outside of bankruptcy, such as the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). The Loss Mitigation Program is intended to start a dialogue, giving the parties nothing more than the opportunity to discuss their respective positions. The alleged dire consequences of the implementation of such a Program, as predicted by PHH have not materialized, and if any do emerge, they will be judicially
addressed forthwith.

For the reasons discussed above, and based on the arguments of the NCLC and by the Debtors, here and in Lawton, which are adopted and incorporated herein by reference, PHH’s Objection to participating in this Court’s loss mitigation program is OVERRULED.

Dated at Providence, Rhode Island, this 28th day of January, 2011.

Arthur N. Votolato
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Entered on docket: 1/28/11

Continue to both orders below…

[ipaper docId=47798358 access_key=key-hfqja53kyhn81z66ffk height=600 width=600 /]

JAMES KEITH HOOTEN, et al. GERRY RENEE HOOTEN, Plaintiffs,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant.

Cause No. 1:09cv491-LG-RHW.

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division.

January 11, 2011.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

LOUIS GUIROLA Jr., District Judge.

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment [30]. Plaintiffs James Keith and Gerry Renee Hooten initiated this action against their mortgage holder after their home was lost in a tax sale. Ocwen argues (1) it owed no contractual duty to pay the past due taxes, (2) the Statute of Frauds bars any oral modifications, (3) the Hootens released Ocwen from all claims, (4) and the taxes were not escrowed. The Court has considered the parties’ submissions^[1] and the relevant legal authority. The motion is denied.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=47057141 access_key=key-2jjub4cf8tdnhp6iu0fc height=600 width=600 /]

HENRIETTA J. MONDAY, an Individual, Plaintiff,
v.
SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC, a Texas Corporation; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF ABFC 2007-WMC1 TRUST ASSET BACKED FUNDING CORPORATION ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATED, SERIES 2007-WMC1, an Ohio Business Entity; T.D. SERVICE COMPANY, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants.

No. CIV. 2:10-989 WBS KJM.

November 29, 2010.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

Excerpt:

Plaintiff may therefore proceed under the First Amended Complaint on her claims for negligence against Saxon; cancellation of instrument against Ocwen, U.S. Bank, and TDS; setting aside the trustee’s sale against all defendants; and violations of the UCL against Saxon and U.S. Bank. If plaintiff wishes to amend the complaint to cure the defects explained above, she may do so within twenty days from the date of this Order. Otherwise, the case will proceed under the First Amended Complaint.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=44877779 access_key=key-2luo4yzrtkzjoznz8xk3 height=600 width=600 /]

P RESEN T:
HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACK

HSBC BANK USA, N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE
FOR THE REGISTERED NOTEHOLDERS OF
RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST
2005-3, RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN
ASSET-BACKED NOTES, SERlES 2005-3,
Plaintiff,

– against –

CANDIDA VALENTIN, CANDIDE RUIZ, et. al.,

Excerpts:

Additionally, plaintiff HSBC must address, a third matter if it renews its application for an order of reference. In the instant action, as noted above, Scott Anderson, as Vice President of MERS, assigned the instant mortgage to HSBC on May 1, 2007. Doris Chapman, the Notary Public, stated that on May 1,2007, “personally appeared Scott Anderson, of 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409.” In HSBC Bank, N.A. v Cherry, 4t 3, I observed that:

Scott Anderson, in his affidavit, executed on June 15,2007, states he is Vice President of OCWEN. Yet, this June 13,2007 assignment from MERS to HSBC is signed by the same Scott Anderson as Vice President of MERS. Did Mr. Anderson change his employer between June 13,2007 and June 15,2007. The Court is concerned that there may be fraud on the part or HS I E , or at least malfeasance. Before granting an application for an order of reference, the Court requires an affidavit from Mr. Anderson describing his employment history for the past three years.

Plaintiff has failed to submit “proof of the facts” in “an affidavit made by the party.” The affidavit is submitted by Jessica Dybas, “a Foreclosure Facilitator of OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, servicing agent and attorney in fact to the holder of the bond and mortgage sought to be foreclosed herein.” There must be an affidavit by an officer of HSBC or a servicing agent, possessing a valid power of attorney from HSBC for that express purpose. Additionally, if a power of attc mey is presented to this Court and it refers to pooling and servicing agreements, ihe Court needs a properly offered copy of the pooling and servicing agreements, to determine if the servicing agent may proceed on behalf of plaintiff. (EMC Mortg. Corp. v Batistu, 15 Misc 3d 1143 (A) [Sup Ct, Kings County 20071; Deutsche Bank Nut. Trust Co. v Lewis, 14 Misc 3d 1201 (A) [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 20061).

[ipaper docId=40355076 access_key=key-h33dousswq2l193q8gh height=600 width=600 /]

.

False Statements

Scott Anderson
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
Law Offices of Marshall Watson
New Century Mortgage Corp.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

Action Date: October 21, 2010
Location: St. Petersburg, FL

On October 21, 2010, in St. Petersburg, Florida, Circuit Court Judge Anthony Rondolino dismissed the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint in a foreclosure action, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., et al. v. Donnie J. Decker, et al., Case No. 09-20548-CI-13, 6th Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida.

The complaint was brought by Deutsche Bank as trustee for a mortgage-backed trust, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Capital, Inc., under a Pooling & Servicing Agreement dated May 1, 2001. The original complaint was dismissed due to chain-of-title problems.

The amended complaint included an Assignment from New Century Mortgage Corp. to the plaintiff that was executed on February 17, 2010 by Scott Anderson in his capacity as an Executive Vice President of Residential Loan Servicing for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC through its authority as Attorney-In-Fact for New Century Mortgage Corporation. Regarding this Assignment, Judge Rondolino commented as follows:

“There is nothing about this assignment which would support a determination at the pleading stage that it is invalid. On the other hand, should evidence be presented at a summary judgment hearing that New Century Mortgage Corporation, LLC became the subject of a bankruptcy proceeding which resulted in a liquidation order, the validity of this assignment would be called into question. Then, absent specific proof that Ocwen had authority from either the bankruptcy court or the liquidation trustee, this disposition of New Century’s (the debtor in bankruptcy) asset there would be a disputed material fact precluding a summary judgment. These concerns however are not ripe at this time…”

In closing, Judge Rondolino warned the plaintiff and its counsel, the Law Offices of Marshall Watson, that any new complaint must be verified, in accordance with the revised Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Rondolino then warned very plainly, “If it is thereafter determined that the verification was not based on an appropriate investigation or that the allegations were false, the Plaintiff and the person who signed the verified complaint will be subject to sanctions which may include dismissal of the action with prejudice, assessment of fees and costs, monetary or incarcerative sanctions and referral to the State Attorney for prosecution pursuant to F.S. 837.”

Rondolino’s concerns arose in part because the Assignment came after the foreclosure action was filed. Plaintiff’s law firm is one of four law firms under investigation by the Florida Attorney General for using forged and fraudulent documents in foreclosure actions.

Scott Anderson of Ocwen has been named in foreclosure opinions of Brooklyn Judge Arthur M. Schack as an individual who signs using many different job titles. The trust in this case had a closing date in 2001, but according to the Anderson Assignment, acquired Decker’s non-performing loan in February, 2010. These same or similar facts have been presented in hundreds of foreclosure cases across the country.

Almost every major robo-signer, including Liquenda Allotey, China Brown, Linda Green, Alfonzo Greene, Korell Harp, Bethany Hood and John Kennerty have signed as Attorney-In-Fact for New Century Mortgage Corporation in 2009 and 2010 to transfer mortgages to securitized trusts that closed years earlier.

Judge Rondolino’s opinion lays a blueprint for other judges to follow when presented with mortgage assignments that appear to have been specially created to facilitate foreclosures. It is the first opinion in Florida to warn of possible “incarcerative sanctions.” (Five different versions of the “Scott Anderson” signature are posted in the “Pleadings” section of this web site.)

~

On June 23, 2009, MERS substituted MTC Financial Inc., d.b.a. Trustee Corps, as trustee. (See Id., Ex. B.) Trustee Corps recorded a notice of trustee’s sale (“NOS”) on or about September 15, 2009, indicating that it would sell the Property on October 5, 2009, (see Id., Ex. C), but Plaintiff claims to have never received notice of the NOS, (see id. ¶ 63).

The most obvious potential defect in this foreclosure stems from the fact that Trustee Corps was substituted as trustee after it recorded the NOD, but before it recorded the NOS. In Nevada, the power of sale cannot be exercised until one of two particular entities–the beneficiary or the trustee–or an agent thereof, records the NOD. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 107.080(2)(c). Trustee Corps was not such an entity when it recorded the NOD. Thus, unless Trustee Corps can provide evidence indicating that the beneficiary–Taylor–or the trustee–Equity Title–caused Trustee Corps to file the NOD, it may be liable for wrongful foreclosure.
Further complicating matters, some other unusual events occurred prior to the filing

[ipaper docId=36861562 access_key=key-2dltthz8x68xbfnhkc8z height=600 width=600 /]

May 18, 2010, 1:01 p.m. EDT

  --  Lowering the borrower debt-to-income ratio for modifications -- i.e.,
      allowing for lower monthly payments on modifications.
  --  Allowing for principal reductions on modified loans. (Approximately 15%
      of Ocwen modifications, including those outside HAMP, involve principal
      reductions.)
  --  Making additional funding available for housing counseling groups.
  --  Requiring underperforming servicers in HAMP to outsource to servicers
      that perform.

Since the onset of the mortgage crisis, Ocwen has saved more than 100,000 homes from foreclosure. In doing this, Ocwen has partnered with community groups around the country to reach out to, educate and provide services for customers in distress and at foreclosure risk.

CONTACT:  Sommerfield Communications
Itay Engelman
(212) 255-8386
itay@sommerfield.com


(C) Copyright 2010 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.

Source: Livinglies

From Max Gardner – QUIET TITLE GRANTED

Mortgage Declared Unenforceable in DOT Case: NOTE DECLARED UNSECURED

“When MERS assigned the note to Ocwen, the note became unsecured and the deed of trust became worthless”

Editor’s Note:

We know that MERS is named as nominee as beneficiary. We know that MERS is NOT named on the note. This appellate case from Missouri, quoting the Restatement 3^rd, simply says that the note was split from the security instrument, and that there is no enforcement mechanism available under the Deed of Trust. Hence, the court concludes, quiet title was entirely appropriate and the only remedy to the situation because once the DOT and note are split they is no way to get them back together.

NOTE: THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE NOTE WAS INVALIDATED. BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT IN ORDER TO PROVE A CLAIM UNDER THE NOTE OR TO VERIFY THE DEBT, THE HOLDER MUST EXPLAIN HOW IT ACQUIRED ANY RIGHTS UNDER THE NOTE AND WHETHER IT IS ACTING IN ITS OWN RIGHT OR AS AGENT FOR ANOTHER.

The deed of trust, …did not name BNC [AN AURORA/LEHMAN FRONT ORGANIZATION TO ORIGINATE LOANS] as the beneficiary, but instead names Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), solely as BNC’s nominee. The promissory note does not make any reference to MERS. The note and the deed of trust both require payments to be made to the lender, not MERS.

a party “must have some actual, justiciable interest.” Id. They must have a recognizable stake. Wahl v. Braun, 980 S.W.2d 322 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998). Lack of standing cannot be waived and may be considered by the court sua sponte. Brock v. City of St. Louis, 724 S.W.2d 721 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987). If a party seeking relief lacks standing, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. Shannon, 21 S.W.3d at 842.

A Missouri appellate court, without trying, may have drawn a map to a defense to foreclosures-if borrowers can figure it out before the Missouri Supreme Court overturns the decision in Bellistri v Ocwen. The opinion shows how an assignment of a loan to a servicing company for collection can actually make the loan uncollectible from the mortgaged property.

This case concerns the procedures of MERS, which is short for Mortgage Electronic Registration Service, created to solve problems created during the foreclosure epidemic of the 1980s, when it was sometimes impossible to track the ownership of mortgages after several layers of savings and loans and banks had failed without recording assignments of the mortgages. The MERS website contains this explanation:

MERS is an innovative process that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated, sold and tracked. Created by the real estate finance industry, MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans.

MERS is the named mortgage holder in transactions having an aggregate dollar value in the hundreds of billions, and its service of providing a way to trace ownership of mortgages has played a large role in the securitization of mortgages and the marketability of derivative mortgage-backed securities, because it seemed to eliminate the necessity of recording assignments of mortgages in county records each time the ownership of a mortgage changed, allowing mortgage securities (packages of many mortgages) to be traded in the secondary market, with less risk.

This case began as a routine quiet title case on a collector’s deed, also known as a tax deed. Following the procedure by which people can pay delinquent property taxes and obtain the ownership of the delinquent property if the owner or lien holder fails after notice to redeem, Bellistri obtained a deed from the Jefferson County (Mo.) collector.

Because of the possibility of defects in the procedures of the county collectors and in the giving of proper notices, the quality of title conferred by a collector’s deed is not insurable.

A suit to cure the potential defects (called a “quiet title suit”) is required to make title good, so that the property can be conveyed by warranty deed and title insurance issued to new lenders and owners. The plaintiff in a quiet title suit is required to give notice of the suit to all parties who had an interest in the property identified in the collector’s deed.

A borrower named Crouther had obtained a loan from BCN Mortgage. The mortgage document (called a deed of trust) named MERS as the holder of the deed of trust as BCN’s nominee, though the promissory note secured by the deed of trust was payable to BCN Mortgage and didn’t mention MERS.

Crouther failed to pay property taxes on the mortgaged property.

Bellistri paid the taxes for three years, then sent notice to Crouther and  BNC that he was applying for a collector’s deed. After BNC failed to redeem (which means “pay the taxes with interest and penalties,” so that Bellistri could be reimbursed), the county collector issued a collector’s deed to Bellistri, in 2006.

Meanwhile, MERS assigned the promissory note and deed of trust to Ocwen Servicing, probably because nobody was making mortgage payments, so that Ocwen would be in a position to attempt to (a) get Crouther to bring the loan payments up to date or (b) to foreclose, if necessary. But this assignment, as explained below, eliminated Ocwen’s right to foreclose and any right to the property.

Bellistri filed a suit for quiet title and to terminate any right of Crouther to possess the property. After discovering the assignment of the deed of trust to Ocwen, Bellistri added Ocwen as a party to the quiet title suit, so that Ocwen could have an opportunity to prove that it had an interest in the property, or be forever silenced.

Bellistri’s attorney Phillip Gebhardt argued that Ocwen had no interest in the property, because the deed of trust that it got from MERS could not be foreclosed. As a matter of law, the right to foreclose goes away when the promissory note is “split”  from the deed of trust that it is supposed to secure. The note that Crouther signed and gave to BNC didn’t mention MERS, so MERS had no right to assign the note to Ocwen. The assignment that MERS made to Ocwen conveyed only the deed of trust, splitting it from the note.

When MERS assigned the note to Ocwen, the note became unsecured and the deed of trust became worthless. Ironically, the use of MERS to make ownership of the note and mortgage easier to trace also made the deed of trust unenforceable. Who knows how many promissory notes are out there that don’t mention MERS, even though MERS is the beneficiary of the deed of trust securing such notes?

O. Max Gardner III

Gardner & Gardner PLLC

PO Box 1000

Shelby NC 28151-1000

704.418.2628 (C)

704.487.0616 (O)

888.870.1647 (F)

704.475.0407 (S)

maxgardner@maxgardner.com
max@maxinars.com
www.maxgardnerlaw.com
www.maxbankruptcybootcamp.com
www.maxinars.com
www.governoromaxgardner.com
Next Boot Camp:  May 20 to May 24, 2010

[ipaper docId=30265165 access_key=key-2h0dbrb0moblvjinvom height=600 width=600 /]