Peter A. Holland

University of Maryland School of Law

Journal of Business & Technology Law, Vol. 6, p. 101, 2011

University of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-32

Abstract: Recent years have seen the rise of a new industry which has clogged the dockets of small claims courts throughout the country. It is known as the “debt buyer” industry. Members of this $100 billion per year industry exist for no reason other than to purchase consumer debt which others have already deemed uncollectable, and then try to succeed in collecting where others have failed. Debt buyers pay pennies on the dollar for this charged off debt, and then seek to collect, through hundreds of thousands of lawsuits, the full face value of the debt. The emergence and vitality of this industry presents several legal, ethical and economic issues which merit exploration, study and scholarly debate.

This article focuses on the problem of robo-signing and the lack of proof in debt buyer cases. Although this problem has received limited attention from the media and from regulators, there is a paucity of legal scholarship about debt buyers in general, and this problem in particular. This article demonstrates that robo-signing and fraud are rampant in this industry, and that the debt buyers who pursue these claims often lack proof necessary to show that they own the debt, and often lack proof even that a debt was ever owed in the first place. The fact that this lack of proof has led to consumers being sued twice on the same debt demonstrates the due process concerns which are implicated when courts enter judgments against consumers based on robo-signing and insufficient proof.

This article calls on courts to hold plaintiffs in debt buyer cases to the same standards required of other litigants. Courts must require a demonstration of personal knowledge of the matter at issue before any affidavit is accepted, before any person testifies, and before any documents are admitted into evidence.

[click image below for pdf]

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

S5636-2011 Actions

• Jun 8, 2011: REFERRED TO JUDICIARY

S5636-2011 Memo

BILL NUMBER:S5636

TITLE OF BILL:
An act
to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to residential
foreclosure actions; and to amend the
real property actions and proceedings law, in relation to
standing to commence an action to foreclose a mortgage

PURPOSE OF BILL:
Establishes certain proof requirements for plaintiffs
in mortgage foreclosure actions.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF BILL:
Requires a mandatory settlement
conference be held as a condition precedent to the granting of
summary judgment motions in residential mortgage foreclosure
proceedings;
Creates standards for the granting of summary judgment and default
judgments, including an affirmative showing that plaintiff has dealt
with defendant in good faith as required by the implied covenant of
good faith contained within the mortgage.

EFFECTS OF PRESENT LAW WHICH THIS BILL WOULD ALTER:
Amends CPLR 3212
(a); creates a new CPLR (j); amends CPLR 3215 (f); amends CPLR 3408
(a) and (f); amends RPAPL 1302; creates a new RPAPL 1302-a.

JUSTIFICATION:
There exists in all contracts, and in all mortgages, an
implied covenant to act in good faith and to deal fairly. Gordon v
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 30 N.Y.2d 427, 437, cert denied 410 U.S. 931;
Security Pacific National Bank v. Evans, 62 A.D.3d 512 (1st Dept
2009); DiBlanda v. ADC Pinebrook, LLC, 44 A.D.3d 702 (2nd; Dept
2007). Unfortunately, it would appear that numerous residential
properties have been foreclosed upon without any showing that the
foreclosing mortgagee has lived up to this requirement in law. Given
that the great majority of foreclosure judgments result from either
applications for summary judgment or default judgment, it is
important that there be a demonstration to the Court that this
covenant has been abided by. The bill would also clarify that the
duty of all parties to negotiate in good faith at settlement
conferences required by CPLR 3408 includes the duty to abide by the
covenant of fair dealing, and that this obligation shall continue
throughout the pendency of the action.

Likewise, numerous residential properties have been foreclosed without
an adequate showing that the mortgagee-plaintiff owns and physically
possesses the note and mortgage, and can demonstrate a chain of
custody from mortgage inception through to the commencement of the
action. This bill would require plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure
action to make such a showing.

This bill would also require that a plaintiff demonstrate standing and
capacity to bring the action, and that plaintiff has attended the
mandatory settlement conference required by CPLR 3408, all as a
condition precedent to the entry of summary judgment, or a default
judgment.

Finally, the bill would also require that standing and capacity be
affirmatively demonstrated in order to successfully adjudicate a
mortgage foreclosure action. Further, the bill would amend the CPLR
to provide that failure to timely raise standing as a defense would
not result in waiver of same.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
New bill, 2011.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS:
None.

EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately, except that portion of the bill which
states requisites for the quantum of proof necessary in order to
prevail in a mortgage foreclosure action shall become effective on
the 90th day after the bill shall become law.

S5636-2011 Text

source: http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S5636-2011

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

I was wondering why this site blew up with hits today!

THIS INVOLVES 65 MILLION LOANS…it was ’62’ !!! I have a source that confirmed this.

“The Curse Of The MERS”

READ ALL ABOUT MERS HERE…MERS 101

.

.

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