robo signers - FORECLOSURE FRAUD - Page 4

Tag Archive | "robo signers"

A STATEMENT ON MORTGAGE FRAUD THAT EVERY ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD ISSUE TODAY

A STATEMENT ON MORTGAGE FRAUD THAT EVERY ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD ISSUE TODAY


False Statements

Limited Purpose Corporate Officers

Action Date: August 31, 2011
Location: TALLAHASSEE, FL

A STATEMENT ON MORTGAGE FRAUD THAT EVERY ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD ISSUE TODAY

There has been widespread, well-documented abuse of corporate officer titles by banks, mortgage companies and mortgage servicing companies on mortgage-related documents. Individuals who are not corporate officers have been directed to sign as if they were corporate officers, particularly on documents used as evidence in mortgage foreclosure cases.

These individuals most often lack education, experience and training that would otherwise qualify them to be a corporate officer.

These individuals often list addresses directly underneath their signatures where they are not and never have been physically located.

In many cases, a designee of the board of directors authorizes such signing by issuing a corporate resolution authorizing this very limited use of the corporate officer title.

In many cases, a corporate resolution is also used to authorize non-employees (individuals employed by other corporations) to sign as officers of banks, mortgage companies and mortgage servicing companies.

The individuals signing as corporate officers are not disclosed as corporate officers on corporations’ annual filings with the state Division of Corporations.

The individuals signing as corporate officers are not disclosed as corporate officers to insurance companies that issue Director & Officer policies or other insurance policies.

In the mortgage industry, MERS (the Mortgage Electronic Registration System) allows corporate officers of its members to sign as corporate officers of MERS.

The Limited Purpose Corporate Officers often sign as MERS officers. EXAMPLE: Linda Green, a former employee of a mortgage servicing company, Lender Processing Services, signed thousands of mortgage documents as a corporate officer of American Home Mortgage, American Brokers Conduit, American Home Mortgage Acceptance, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Judges, county recorders, homeowners, home buyers, title insurers and others have given undeserved credence to mortgage documents that have been signed by these Limited Purpose Corporate Officers, not knowing that an individual signing as an officer of a bank or mortgage company was not, in fact, even a clerical employee of that bank or mortgage company.

It is the determination of the Attorney General that such use of Limited Purpose Corporate Officer titles on mortgage documents is an Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice and must cease immediately.

All individuals signing mortgage-related documents:

1. must sign their own names using a full signature (not a check mark, initials or other symbol);

2. must set forth immediately underneath their signature the name of their actual employer and the address of their employer where they were located when they signed the document;

3. no corporate officer title may be used unless such officer is an officer for all purposes.


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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

‘MERS morass’ is hanging up negotiations on foreclosure settlement

‘MERS morass’ is hanging up negotiations on foreclosure settlement


MERS was “PLANNED OUT” and it’s now blowing up in their fraudster faces. It was created in order to hide the fraud they all conspired to keep private (members only) and from the public. This is a veil that needs a good piercing…if any judge would allow.

In re: Agard

“This court does not accept the argument that because MERS may be involved with 50 percent of all residential mortgages in the country, that is reason enough for this court to turn a blind eye to the fact that this process does not comply with the law.”

WAPO-

State and federal officials negotiating a settlement with the nation’s biggest banks over shoddy foreclosure practices are hung up on how they should deal with a Reston-based company that has acted as a proxy for financial firms throughout the country for more than a decade.

Some officials refer to the dilemma as the “MERS morass,” referring to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, whose vast but controversial registry contains roughly 65 million mortgages.

[WASHINGTON POST]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

After The Storm – Foreclosure Fraud & Robo-Signing Continues by Nye Lavalle

After The Storm – Foreclosure Fraud & Robo-Signing Continues by Nye Lavalle


Foreclosure
Fraud
&
Robo-­Signing
Continues…

A Year Ago, A Storm of Allegations And Reports Highlighting Robo-­Signing And Foreclosure Fraud Swept Across America Causing Major Banks To Halt Foreclosures Nationwide While Congressional, State, And Federal Investigations Were Launched. A Year Later, While Investigations Are Still Ongoing, Regulators Have Failed To Correct The Underlying Issues Behind Foreclosure Fraud And Robo-­Signing. The Overwhelming Evidence Presented In This Paper Is That Not Only Were American Homeowners And Borrowers Defrauded In The World’s Greatest Financial Scam, But American’s Wealth And Security Were Placed At Risk. To Date, There Has Been Only One Criminal Conviction Of An Executive Of A Major Mortgage Company And Other Criminal Convictions Have Been Halted. Still, As Shown In This Paper, Foreclosure Fraud And Robo-­Signing Continue While Some Courts Address The Issue And Others Ignore The Ramifications Of This Massive Fraud. What Is Now Known Is That These Scams Were Not Unique, But Industry-­Wide. The Mortgage-­Backed Securities Turned Out To Be Non-­Mortgage & Note Backed Empty Trusts. To Conceal This Massive Ponzi Scheme Perpetuated Against Americans, The Nation’s Mortgage Industry Continues To Manufacture, Fabricate, & Destroy Evidence, Despite The Inherent Risks And Ramifications Since Over 90% of Borrowers Don’t Challenge Their Foreclosures.

[ipaper docId=62650988 access_key=key-xyy1xa7r8lfgy2qi6jj height=600 width=600 /]

[image: flicker]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

COMPLAINT | Knights of Columbus v. Bank of New York Mellon “Did not acquire residential mortgage-backed securities, but instead acquired securities backed by nothing at all”

COMPLAINT | Knights of Columbus v. Bank of New York Mellon “Did not acquire residential mortgage-backed securities, but instead acquired securities backed by nothing at all”


SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
——————————————————-
KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
Defendant.
——————————————————-
AMENDED COMPLAINT

SUMMARY

1. This action originally requested the Court to order an immediate accounting of

two trusts known as CWALT 2005-6CB and CWALT 2006-6CB. These trusts hold

residential mortgage loans for the benefit of investors such as Plaintiff. The original

Complaint was not directed at the Defendant Trustee, but information obtained after the

filing of the Complaint demonstrates that the Defendant Trustee has violated its

contractual and other obligations to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to hold the

Defendant Trustee liable for Plaintiff’s damages in all of the following trusts ….


[…]


BACKGROUND – DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO ACQUIRE THE TRUST CORPUS

36. Based on the following allegations, it is apparent that the Defendant knowingly

failed in its obligation to receive, process, maintain, and hold all or part of the Mortgage

Files as required under the PSA. As a consequence, Plaintiff did not acquire residential

mortgage-backed securities, but instead acquired securities backed by nothing at all.

37. In a case styled Kemp v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 440 B.R. 624 (D.N.J.

Bankr. 2010), the Master Servicer, identifying itself as the servicer for Defendant, filed a

secured claim in the bankruptcy of homeowner and debtor Kemp. Kemp filed an

adversary complaint against the Master Servicer asserting that “the Bank of New York

cannot enforce the underlying obligation.” Id. at 626.

38. At trial, a supervisor and operational team leader for the Litigation Management

Department for the Master Servicer testified that “to her knowledge, the original note

never left the possession of Countrywide, and that the original note appears to have been

transferred to Countrywide’s foreclosure unit, as evidenced by internal FedEx tracking

numbers. She also confirmed that the new allonge had not been attached or otherwise

affixed to the note. She testified further that it was customary for Countrywide to

maintain possession of the original note and related loan documents.” Id. at 628.

39. Summarizing the record, the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court found that:

[W]e have established on this record that at the time of the filing of the proof of

claim, the debtor’s mortgage had been assigned to the Bank of New York, but that

Countrywide did not transfer possession of the associated note to the Bank.

Shortly before trial in this matter, the defendant executed an allonge to transfer

the note to the Bank of New York; however, the allonge was not initially affixed

to the original note, and possession of the note never actually changed. The

Pooling and Servicing Agreement required an indorsement and transfer of the

note to the Trustee, but this was not accomplished prior to the filing of the proof

of claim. The defendant has now produced the original note and has apparently

affixed the new allonge to it, but the original note and allonge still have not been

transferred to the possession of the Bank of New York. Countrywide, the

originator of the loan, filed the proof of claim on behalf of the Bank of New York

as Trustee, claiming that it was the servicer for the loan. Pursuant to the PSA,

Countrywide Servicing, and not Countrywide, Inc., was the master servicer for

the transferred loans. At all relevant times, the original note appears to have been

either in the possession of Countrywide or Countrywide Servicing.

Id. at 629.

40. “With this factual backdrop”, the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court turned “to the

issue of whether the challenge to the proof of claim filed on behalf of the Bank of New

York, by its servicer Countrywide, can be sustained”, and found that:

Countrywide’s claim here must be disallowed, because it is unenforceable under

New Jersey law on two grounds. First, under New Jersey’s Uniform Commercial

Code (“UCC”) provisions, the fact that the owner of the note, the Bank of New

York, never had possession of the note, is fatal to its enforcement. Second, upon

the sale of the note and mortgage to the Bank of New York, the fact that the note

was not properly indorsed to the new owner also defeats the enforceability of the

note.

Id. at 629-630.

[ipaper docId=62469942 access_key=key-2bvzo523qnrk8qu0w8yu height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

NY Post finds in 92% of NY area foreclosures, banks fail to prove ownership to foreclose

NY Post finds in 92% of NY area foreclosures, banks fail to prove ownership to foreclose


NY POST-

The banks still just don’t get it.

In a staggering 92 percent of the claims brought by creditors asserting the right to foreclose against bankrupt families in New York City and the close-in suburbs, banks and mortgage servicers couldn’t prove they had the right to kick the families out on the street, a three-month probe by The Post has shown.

But that didn’t stop the banks from trying.

By robosigning documents and pressing foreclosures without the proper paperwork, banks have attempted to steamroll their way over sometimes-outgunned homeowners, The Post has uncovered.

But homeowners and the courts are starting to fight back.

Read more:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/house_of_cards_hNdx5fNGt6oOl1U9mTW0HN#ixzz1V3P5SA00

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

GMAC LLC vs. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN Battle it out in Federal Court

GMAC LLC vs. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. STERN Battle it out in Federal Court


Mortgage Fraud

GMAC Mortgage, LLC
Law Offices of David J. Stern

Action Date: August 12, 2011
Location: FT. Lauderdale, FL

GMAC Mortgage, LLC filed counterclaims in a federal court lawsuit brought against GMAC by its former lawyers, The Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. (“Stern”). The case, No. 11-CV-61526, was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida, where Stern’s offices were located.

GMAC accuses Stern of gross legal malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act and Misrepresentation/Suppression. GMAC seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

GMAC alleges that Stern:

1. caused or permitted Stern employees to execute, witness and/or notarize assignments of mortgage that were back-dated;

2. caused or permitted Stern’s employees to witness and/or notarize assignments of mortgages, affidavits of indebtedness and/or other affidavits on a daily basis prior to and without actually witnessing execution of the document by the person whose signature was to be witnessed and/or notarized;

3. caused or permitted Stern’s employees to prepare and execute affidavits of indebtedness for submission to the foreclosure court that failed to follow appropriate professional practices and procedures;

4. caused or permitted Stern’s employees to sign the name of another person on various foreclosure-related documents without any indication of that fact on the documents;

5. charged GMAC substantial fees and costs for legal services that Stern knew or should have known fell below the minimum standard of professional care owed by Stern to GMAC; and

6. committed acts or omissions that have subjected GMAC to claims, losses and liabilities of third-parties.

Essentially, GMAC claims that Stern’s malpractice carrier should be held responsible for all of the allegedly fraudulent acts of Stern’s office manager, Cheryl Samons, and other Stern employees who signed mortgage assignments and affidavits to push through foreclosures at record-breaking speed.

On July 27, 2011, Stern filed its Answer to these GMAC claims including the following:

“ 9. GMACM’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands because of GMACM’s: breach of contract; failure to retain replacement counsel in a timely manner; signing inaccurate affidavits; affidavits that were not properly notarized; not confirming whether loan and mortgage documents were properly endorsed; assigned or in possession of the appropriate party; and other misconduct identified in the Consent Order entered on April 13, 2011 by Order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the FDIC, and because, to the extent DJSPA committed legal malpractice, which is expressly denied, any such malpractice was the result of GMACM’s own actions and/or instructions.”

Homeowners and investors are lost in this battle of the giants. Tens of thousands of Florida homeowners lost their foreclosure cases because of the fraudulent documents produced by GMAC.

These documents most certainly came from Stern, but they also came from GMAC’s own employees, including master-signer Jeffrey Stephan, and employees in many other major foreclosure mills used by GMAC. The Stern defense that “Everybody was doing it” is unfortunately true.

An important question for homeowners and investors is whether GMAC has instructed its new lawyers to advise the Courts and homeowners of these findings.

Malpractice insurance carriers throughout the country could not imagine a more ominous case. Copies of the Counterclaim and Answer are available in the Pleadings section of Fraud Digest.


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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Mortgage Servicers Gratutitously Screw Up Foreclosures By Using Obsolete Scans

Mortgage Servicers Gratutitously Screw Up Foreclosures By Using Obsolete Scans


All-in-One [Copier, Scanner, Printer, Fabricator]


Abigail C. Field-

By now I imagine that everyone recognizes a pandemic of legally flawed foreclosures has infected America’s land records. But not everyone realizes how deep the greed and “corner cutting” goes. For example, a significant percentage of the flawed proceedings tainting our hundreds-year-healthy system of tracking land ownership may reflect nothing more than mortgage servicers’ unwillingness to get the original promissory note, mortgage and assignments from the vault. That is, using the real, accurate documents (and complying with the rules and law) is too expensive.

(Sorry officer, I recognize I was going 80 in a 35 mile an hour zone. It was costing me too much money to drive the speed limit. Time is money.)

[REALITY CHECK]


We are extremely fortunate to have Abigail continue to focus on these issues!

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

MERS: The Unreported Effects of Lost Chain of Title on Real Property Owners

MERS: The Unreported Effects of Lost Chain of Title on Real Property Owners


By: David E. Woolley

HARBINGER ANALYTICS GROUP

FORWARD

It has been widely reported that MERS1 has broken or severely diluted2 the chain of title for real property records, but what does this mean? To understand the importance of the chain of title to a property and the complexities of land boundaries we need to look no further than the advice given to practicing attorneys.

“To properly evaluate a case, counsel and survey experts often must examine chains of title for all properties subject to the dispute. In the case of a boundary dispute, it may be necessary to search the chain of title back to a patent to determine paramount title or to locate true boundaries.” 3

As is readily apparent, a broken chain of title will have adverse effects on adjoining properties and in many instances the boundaries of properties within an entire neighborhood. Attorneys are advised to “seriously consider not taking the case or withdrawing from it.” If attorneys are advised to “seriously consider” withdrawing, how will the common victim of MERS (by proxy) get relief?

The complexity of the problem is obvious. As lenders and title insurers pass responsibility back and forth, property owners who purchased a foreclosed property that had been in the MERS system (and now have broken chains of title) and their neighbors will be forced into expensive and complex litigation in order to determine their boundaries.

Who will be financially responsible for the litigation to quiet title?
This White Paper documents the importance of a chain of title and the far reaching effects of a lost chain of title.

[ipaper docId=61582207 access_key=key-nwuvl3v86jxwul57xco height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Side Deal With Bank Of America Would Cede Liability In Exchange For Homeowner Relief

Side Deal With Bank Of America Would Cede Liability In Exchange For Homeowner Relief


HuffPO-

WASHINGTON — Federal and state prosecutors are in advanced negotiations with Bank of America in pursuit of a settlement that would forgive the bank for a broad range of past mortgage abuses in exchange for fines that would finance a significantly expanded relief program for struggling homeowners, according to three people with direct knowledge of the matter.

The negotiations are separate from ongoing talks between the nation’s five largest mortgage handlers and the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and all 50 state attorneys general. Those talks, led by Justice and involving all five companies, are seeking a settlement to resolve allegations of past wrongdoing like so-called “robo-signing,” in exchange for lower payments and reduced mortgages for potentially millions of troubled borrowers.

[HUFFINGTONPOST]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Petition the Inspector General: Investigate Attorney General Bondi’s Firings

Petition the Inspector General: Investigate Attorney General Bondi’s Firings


Progress Florida

Friends,

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi seems to think her first duty is to protect some of Gov. Scott’s biggest corporate pals – the banks – instead of hard working Floridians. Recently Bondi fired Florida’s two leading attorneys investigating the epidemic of foreclosure fraud ravaging our communities.

The attorneys investigating foreclosure fraud said they were forced out. Join me and sign this petition calling for an immediate investigation: http://www.progressflorida.org/bondi

June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards were tasked by then-Attorney General Bill McCollum last year to investigate allegations of widespread fraud taking place in foreclosures occurring around the state. They did their jobs well…perhaps too well for Pam Bondi.

The investigation by Clarkson and Edwards produced a blockbuster presentation entitled “Unfair, Deceptive and Unconscionable Acts in Foreclosure Cases. ” The presentation demonstrated numerous outrageous examples of blatant fraud and deception by banks and law firms initiating foreclosures known as “foreclosure mills.” Clarkson and Edward’s work was so effective it was used in other states in prosecuting foreclosure fraud . Then in May, despite a recent glowing performance evaluation, both attorneys were suddenly told by a supervisor to immediately step down or be fired.

Sign the petition calling for an investigation of Attorney General Bondi’s actions:

http://www.progressflorida.org/bondi

Thank you for your help.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

The One Hundred Billion Dollar Problem in Small Claims Court: Robo-Signing and Lack of Proof in Debt Buyer Cases

The One Hundred Billion Dollar Problem in Small Claims Court: Robo-Signing and Lack of Proof in Debt Buyer Cases


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.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

MASS Attorney General Martha Coakley to Investigate Key Player “MERS” in Foreclosure Mess

MASS Attorney General Martha Coakley to Investigate Key Player “MERS” in Foreclosure Mess


Will NOT sign any agreement with other State AG’s and Banks to let MERS off the Hook!

In a letter dated Monday, Coakley said, “We have focused particularly on creditors’ reliance on MERS and whether MERS conforms to the requirements of Massachusetts Law, in the context of foreclosures and otherwise.”

Stay tuned for more info as it develops.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

GASTINEAU v. GIFFORD, BANK OF AMERICA | VERIFIED SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

GASTINEAU v. GIFFORD, BANK OF AMERICA | VERIFIED SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

DORIS GASTINEAU, an individual,
Plaintiff,

vs.

CHARLES K. GIFFORD, THOMAS J.
MAY, BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN,
CHARLES O. HOLLIDAY, JR.,
MUKESH D. AMBANI, SUSAN S. BIES,
FRANK P. BRAMBLE, SR., VIRGIS W.
COLBERT, D. PAUL JONES, JR.,
MONICA C. LOZANO, DONALD E.
POWELL, CHARLES O. ROSSOTTI,
ROBERT W. SCULLY, WILLIAM P.
BOARDMAN, BARBARA J. DESOER
and KENNETH D. LEWIS,
Defendants,

and

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
Nominal Defendant.

[…]

This is a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf and for the benefit of Bank of America against certain of its current and former directors. Bank of America is a global financial services company, and provides consumers, corporations, governments and institutions with a range of financial products and services. Plaintiff seeks to remedy the serious financial and reputational harm that Bank of America has suffered, and will continue to suffer, from the inadequate servicing of its troubled residential mortgage loans. Plaintiff also seeks redress for the Company’s false and  misleading Schedule 14A definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on March 30, 2011 (the “Proxy”).

[…]

[ipaper docId=60830442 access_key=key-2ojzndxj7anp8ae5fs0v height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Bank Settlement in Mortgage Mess May Hinge on MERS

Bank Settlement in Mortgage Mess May Hinge on MERS


NY Times- Gretchen Morgenson

HOW should banks atone for those foreclosure abuses — all the robo-signing and shoddy recordkeeping that jettisoned so many people from their homes?

It has been four months since a deal to remedy this mess was floated. Not much has happened since — at least not publicly.

Last week, banking executives and state attorneys general met in Washington to try to settle their differences. At issue was how much banks should pay, and how and to whom, to make this all go away. The initial terms, which emerged in March, were said to carry a $20 billion price tag.

But here is a crucial question […]

[NEW YORK TIMES]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Bank Foreclosure Practices Deal Said to Be Held Up Over Liability Releases

Bank Foreclosure Practices Deal Said to Be Held Up Over Liability Releases


BLOOMBERG

A push by U.S. banks to win broad liability releases has become one of the main obstacles in talks to resolve a nationwide probe of mortgage-servicing and foreclosure practices, two people briefed on the matter said.

The mortgage servicers want protection from additional state and federal claims over their mortgage practices as part of reaching a settlement that may exceed $20 billion, according to the people, who declined to be named because the talks are private. The banks are seeking releases that go beyond servicing of mortgages to include lending and securitization of loans, one of the people said.

Continue reading [BLOOMBERG]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Cantwell Calls on Federal Agencies to Release Records on Banks’ Foreclosure Practices

Cantwell Calls on Federal Agencies to Release Records on Banks’ Foreclosure Practices


With nearly 30,000 Washington state properties in foreclosure, Cantwell calls on federal agencies to improve transparency in effort to root out ‘robo-signing’

Wednesday, July 20,2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) joined Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and eight other senators in urging for increased transparency among mortgage servicers’ practices to prevent illegal foreclosures. In a letter sent today to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the senators urged the agencies to release information regarding each mortgage servicer’s performance to the public to prevent illegal foreclosure practices. The letter arrives in the wake of recent reports that illegal foreclosure “robo-signing” by banks is still rampant.

Rooting out illegal foreclosure practices would help ensure that Washington state homeowners are not being unfairly forced to leave their homes. Through the first six months of 2011, Washington state had the 15th highest foreclosure rate in the country. RealtyTrac reports that the state had 4,450 new foreclosure filings in June and that overall, there were 29,398 foreclosure properties.

“We believe it is essential that the items listed above be made available to the general public or the public will lack confidence in both the foreclosure review process and results,” said Cantwell and other Senators in the letter sent today. “This is particularly the case because the foreclosure reviews are being performed by consultants who are chosen by the mortgage servicers themselves, and those consultants often have conflicts of interest in that they are not prohibited from getting future business from those same mortgage servicers.”

Enforcement actions were initiated by federal regulators because of the “robo-signing” scandal from last year that revealed many servicers were wrongfully foreclosing on homeowners and not following existing foreclosure procedures and laws.  Robo-signing is when banks falsely swear that they have reviewed property documents that are necessary to foreclose on a homeowner’s house.  Recently both the Associated Press and Reuters reported that despite regulators’ assurances to the contrary, illegal robo-signing allegedly remains rampant in both foreclosure and non-foreclosure cases.

The request for disclosures is also based upon concern over the fact the consultants performing foreclosure reviews have conflicts of interest since they are chosen by the mortgage servicers they are hired to investigate and have done past or future business with those same mortgage servicers.  The Senators are requesting public release of Engagement Letters, Action Plans, Foreclosure Reviews, and other plans, policies, or processes submitted by mortgage servicers or third-party servicers to ensure that abuses in foreclosure practices are not being ignored by the review process.

The letter sent today was also signed by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Al Franken (D-MN), Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), Mark Begich (D-AK), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jon Tester (D-MT), John D.  Rockefeller IV (D-WV), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH). All three regulators to whom the letter is addressed will appear before the Senate Banking Committee for a hearing at 10 a.m. tomorrow on the one-year anniversary of the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. John Walsh
Acting Comptroller of the Currency
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
System Independence Square
250 E Street SW
Washington, DC 20219-0001

The Honorable Ben S. Bernanke
Chairman
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
20th Street and Constitution NW
Washington, D.C. 20551

Mr. Martin Gruenberg
Acting Chairman
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Washington, D.C. 20429

Dear Acting Comptroller Walsh, Chairman Bernanke, and Acting Chairman Gruenberg:

We write today to urge you to make public critical information related to enforcement actions taken against mortgage servicers regarding their improper foreclosure practices.  This is especially important given this week’s allegations that mortgage servicers continue to engage in widespread “robo-signing” despite your assurances that these illegal actions would not continue.  Specifically, we request that you make public the following items related to the April 12, 2011 Consent Orders issued by your offices:

•           All “Engagement Letters” governing the mortgage servicers’ contracts with the consultants hired by the servicer to review that servicer’s foreclosure actions;

•           All “Action Plans” that mortgage servicers and third-party service providers are required to provide to regulators and that will outline the financial resources, organizational changes, measurement systems, governance controls, and timelines that will be adopted to correct improper foreclosure practices;

•           All “Foreclosure Reviews” completed by consultants for each bank, which will outline the results of their investigations into whether ownership of promissory notes or mortgages were properly documented, whether foreclosures were undertaken in accordance with state and federal law, whether calculations under the Home Affordable Modification Program and proprietary loan modification programs were done correctly, whether borrowers were charged excessive or improper fees and penalties related to delinquency, and whether any errors identified caused financial injury to borrowers, among other items;

•           Any other plans, policies, or processes submitted to your offices by mortgage servicers or third-party service providers pursuant to the April 12, 2011 Consent Orders whose disclosure is important to instill public confidence in the process and results of the foreclosure reviews.

We believe it is essential that the items listed above be made available to the general public or the public will lack confidence in both the foreclosure review process and results.  This is particularly the case because the foreclosure reviews are being performed by consultants who are chosen by the mortgage servicers themselves, and those consultants often have conflicts of interest in that they are not prohibited from getting future business from those same mortgage servicers.   The information we are requesting is therefore necessary for the public to determine the independence of the consultants being engaged to perform the foreclosure reviews, the accuracy of the foreclosure reviews, the adequacy of the “Action Plans” in responding to your findings, whether servicer performance meets the goals they have established, and whether those homeowners who experienced harm (such as being improperly foreclosed upon or denied mortgage modifications when they should have been granted under existing criteria) are given appropriate remedies.  Based on a legal analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, we also believe that it is well within your regulatory discretion under existing laws to disclose this information in the public interest.  This is consistent with your previous determination in April that release of the Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices, which was essentially an examination report of foreclosure practices, was also in the public interest.  We understand concerns about not revealing mortgage servicers’ proprietary information, but also believe that some disclosure can be done on a bank by bank basis without compromising proprietary information.

Furthermore, we believe that the full disclosure of these documents to the public is necessary given the recent reports by both the Associated Press and Reuters of the continued widespread practice of “robo-signing” among mortgage servicers.  Both have alleged that servicers continue to file thousands of property documents that appear to be fabricated. Reuters also quoted a top representative from the mortgage servicing industry saying that the Consent Orders have “not put a stop to questionable practices.”  David Stevens, president of the Mortgage Bankers Association, tellingly said that some loan servicers “continue to cut corners” and “the real question is whether the servicer complied with all legal requirements.”

We respectfully request that all documents be made public and sent to Congress within one week of your office receiving them from mortgage servicers or third-party service providers.  If you have any questions about this request, please contact Amanda Fischer at (202) 225-2201 or Michael Passante at (202) 224-4744.  We appreciate your swift attention to this important matter.


###

source: http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=333561

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

ROBO-GATE | States negotiating immunity for banks over foreclosures

ROBO-GATE | States negotiating immunity for banks over foreclosures


* Negotiations continue despite evidence of continuing irregularities

* Reuters report helps prompt senators to demand information


REUTERS-

NEW YORK, July 20 (Reuters) – State attorneys general are negotiating to give major banks wide immunity over irregularities in handling foreclosures, even as evidence has emerged that banks are continuing to file questionable documents.

A coalition of all 50 states’ attorneys general has been negotiating settlements with five of the biggest U.S. banks that would include payment of up to $25 billion in penalties and commitments to follow new rules. In exchange, the banks would get immunity from civil lawsuits by the states, as well as similar guarantees by the Justice Department and Department of Housing and Urban Development, which have participated in the talks.

continue reading [REUTERS]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Lawmakers call for hearings on robo-signing

Lawmakers call for hearings on robo-signing


By MICHELLE CONLIN, AP Business Writers –

NEW YORK (AP) — Lawmakers and enforcement agencies called for hearings and further investigation Tuesday after learning that the illegal practice known as robo-signing has continued in the mortgage industry.

The Associated Press reported on Monday that county officials in at least three states — Massachusetts, North Carolina and Michigan — say they have received thousands of mortgage documents with questionable signatures since last fall. That’s when forged signatures and false affidavits — also called robo-signing — led to a temporary halt to foreclosures. Banks and mortgage processers promised to stop the practice. But the findings of the county officials indicate that robo-signing is still a widespread problem.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio., chair of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, said the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the robo-signing issue.

“Wall Street and some in Washington want us to believe that robo-signing is a thing of the past,” said Brown. “But the same risky practices that put our economy on the brink of collapse continue to infect the housing market.”

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., a senior member of the House Committee on Financial Services said the lenders who continue the practice “need to be investigated and prosecuted.” She told The Associated Press that she believed regulators should step in and that the absence of stronger regulation is “the reason why the system broke down in the first place.” She said the county officials’ findings show lenders will not stop practices like robo-signing on their own.

“(The lenders) have complete disregard for the damage they have already caused and have no intention of changing their ways,” said Waters, who also called for more hearings on the issue.

County officials who are responsible for keeping land records, including property deeds, say that they have received thousands of robo-signed documents filed in their offices since October.

In Essex County, Mass., the office that handles property deeds has received almost 1,300 documents since October with the signature of “Linda Green,” but in 22 different handwriting styles and with many different titles.

In Guilford County, N.C., the office that records deeds says it received 456 documents with suspect signatures from Oct. 1, 2010, through June 30. And in Michigan, a fraud investigator who works on behalf of homeowners says he has uncovered documents filed this year bearing the purported signature of Marshall Isaacs, an attorney with foreclosure law firm Orlans Associates.

Early Tuesday, an official from the office of Minnesota attorney general, Lori Swanson, contacted the Essex County’s John O’Brien to get more information for its own investigation into robo-signing. The Massachusetts attorney general’s office also confirmed that it is meeting with several of the state’s 21 registers of deeds to assess the extent of robo-signing in the state.

Also on Tuesday, nine recorders of deeds in Illinois held a press conference to say they will assist the state’s attorney general Lisa Madigan who is investigating robo-signing in her state.

Rep. Waters, meanwhile, says the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or the OCC, is the main federal regulator for banks. As such, it’s the OCC’s responsibility to investigate the banks.

The OCC has been criticized by lawmakers and consumer advocates for going easy on banks in the past. The same criticism has resurfaced since the robo-signing scandal broke in September. Last fall, The Associated Press found that robo-signed documents led to banks wrongfully foreclosing on people who had paid their mortgages in full. When asked about the issue, an OCC spokesman flatly denied that any such thing had ever occurred.

The OCC partnered with other federal regulators and conducted a review of bank procedures including robo-signing in December. In April, the 14 largest national banks entered into a consent decree with the OCC in which they vowed to submit action plans as to how they would address such systemic issues as robo-signing.

Last week, the banks delivered those action plans to the OCC, which is now reviewing them, a spokesman said.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

AP Exclusive: Mortgage ‘robo-signing’ goes on

AP Exclusive: Mortgage ‘robo-signing’ goes on


By MICHELLE CONLIN, AP Business Writers –

Mortgage industry employees are still signing documents they haven’t read and using fake signatures more than eight months after big banks and mortgage companies promised to stop the illegal practices that led to a nationwide halt of home foreclosures.

County officials in at least three states say they have received thousands of mortgage documents with questionable signatures since last fall, suggesting that the practices, known collectively as “robo-signing,” remain widespread in the industry.

The documents have come from several companies that process mortgage paperwork, and have been filed on behalf of several major banks. One name, “Linda Green,” was signed almost two dozen different ways.

Lenders say they are working with regulators to fix the problem but cannot explain why it has persisted.

Last fall, the nation’s largest banks and mortgage lenders, including JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and an arm of Goldman Sachs, suspended foreclosures while they investigated how corners were cut to keep pace with the crush of foreclosure paperwork.

Critics say the new findings point to a systemic problem with the paperwork involved in home mortgages and titles. And they say it shows that banks and mortgage processors haven’t acted aggressively enough to put an end to widespread document fraud in the mortgage industry.

“Robo-signing is not even close to over,” says Curtis Hertel, the recorder of deeds in Ingham County, Mich., which includes Lansing. “It’s still an epidemic.”

In Essex County, Mass., the office that handles property deeds has received almost 1,300 documents since October with the signature of “Linda Green,” but in 22 different handwriting styles and with many different titles.

Linda Green worked for a company called DocX that processed mortgage paperwork and was shut down in the spring of 2010. County officials say they believe Green hasn’t worked in the industry since. Why her signature remains in use is not clear.

“My office is a crime scene,” says John O’Brien, the registrar of deeds in Essex County, which is north of Boston and includes the city of Salem.

In Guilford County, N.C., the office that records deeds says it received 456 documents with suspect signatures from Oct. 1, 2010, through June 30. The documents, mortgage assignments and certificates of satisfaction, transfer loans from one bank to another or certify a loan has been paid off.

Suspect signatures on the paperwork include 290 signed by Bryan Bly and 155 by Crystal Moore. In the mortgage investigations last fall, both admitted signing their names to mortgage documents without having read them. Neither was charged with a crime.

And in Michigan, a fraud investigator who works on behalf of homeowners says he has uncovered documents filed this year bearing the purported signature of Marshall Isaacs, an attorney with foreclosure law firm Orlans Associates. Isaacs’ name did not come up in last year’s investigations, but county officials across Michigan believe his name is being robo-signed.

O’Brien caused a stir in June at a national convention of county clerks by presenting his findings and encouraging his counterparts to investigate continued robo-signing.

The nation’s foreclosure machine almost came to a standstill when the nation’s largest banks suspended foreclosures last fall. Part of the problem, banks contended, was that foreclosures became so rampant in 2009 and 2010 that they were overwhelmed with paperwork.

The banks reviewed thousands of foreclosure filings, and where they found problems, they submitted new paperwork to courts handling the cases, with signatures they said were valid. The banks slowly started to resume foreclosures this winter and spring.

The 14 biggest U.S. banks reached a settlement with federal regulators in April in which they promised to clean up their mistakes and pay restitution to homeowners who had been wrongly foreclosed upon. The full amount of the settlement has not been determined. But it will not involve independent mortgage processing firms, the companies that some banks use to handle and file paperwork for mortgages.

So far, no individuals, lenders or paperwork processors have been charged with a crime over the robo-signed signatures found on documents last year. Critics such as April Charney, a Florida homeowner and defense lawyer, called the settlement a farce because no real punishment was meted out, making it easy for lenders and mortgage processors to continue the practice of robo-signing.

Robo-signing refers to a variety of practices. It can mean a qualified executive in the mortgage industry signs a mortgage affidavit document without verifying the information. It can mean someone forges an executive’s signature, or a lower-level employee signs his or her own name with a fake title. It can mean failing to comply with notary procedures. In all of these cases, robo-signing involves people signing documents and swearing to their accuracy without verifying any of the information.

Most of the tainted mortgage documents in question last fall were related to homes in foreclosure. But much of the suspect paperwork that has been filed since then is for refinancing or for new purchases by people who are in good standing in the eyes of the bank. In addition, foreclosures are down 30 percent this year from last. Home sales have also fallen. So the new suspect documents come at a time when much less paperwork is streaming through the nation’s mortgage machinery.

None of the almost 1,300 suspect Linda Green-signed documents from O’Brien’s office, for example, involve foreclosures. And Jeff Thigpen, the register of deeds in North Carolina’s Guilford County, says fewer than 40 of the 456 suspect documents filed to his office since October involved foreclosures.

Banks and their partner firms file mortgage documents with county deeds offices to prove that there are no liens on a property, that the bank owns a mortgage or that a bank filing for foreclosure has the authority to do so.

The signature of a qualified bank or mortgage official on these legal documents is supposed to guarantee that this information is accurate. The paper trail ensures a legal chain of title on a property and has been the backbone of U.S. property ownership for more than 300 years.

The county officials say the problem could be even worse than what they’re reporting. That’s because they are working off lists of known robo-signed names, such as Linda Green and Crystal Moore, that were identified during the investigation that began last fall. Officials suspect that other names on documents they have received since then are also robo-signed.

It is a federal crime to sign someone else’s name to a legal document. It is also illegal to sign your name to an affidavit if you have not verified the information you’re swearing to. Both are punishable by prison.

In Michigan, the attorney general took the rare step in June of filing criminal subpoenas to out-of-state mortgage processing companies after 23 county registers of deeds filed a criminal complaint with his office over robo-signed documents they say they have received. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office has said it is conducting a banking probe that could lead to criminal charges against financial executives. The attorneys general of Delaware, California and Illinois are conducting their own probes.

The legal issues are grave, deeds officials across the country say. At worst, legal experts say, the document debacle has opened the property system to legal liability well beyond the nation’s foreclosure crisis. So someone buying a home and trying to obtain title insurance might be delayed or denied if robo-signed documents turn up in the property’s history. That’s because forged signatures call into question who owns mortgages and the properties they are attached to.

“The banks have completely screwed up property records,” says L. Randall Wray, an economics professor and senior scholar at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

In the Massachusetts case, The Associated Press tried to reach Linda Green, whose name was purportedly signed 1,300 times since October. The AP, using a phone number provided by lawyers who have been investigating the documents since last year, reached a person who said she was Linda Green, but not the Linda Green involved in the mortgage investigation.

In the Michigan case, a lawyer for the Orlans Associates law firm, where Isaacs works, denies that Isaacs or the firm has done anything wrong. “People have signatures that change,” says Terry Cramer, general counsel for the firm. “We do not engage in ‘robo-signing’ at Orlans.”

To combat the stream of suspect filings, O’Brien and Jeff Thigpen, the register of deeds in North Carolina’s Guilford County, stopped accepting questionable paperwork June 7. They say they had no choice after complaining to federal and state authorities for months without getting anywhere.

Since then, O’Brien has received nine documents from Bank of America purportedly signed by Linda Burton, another name on authorities’ list of known robo-signers. For years, his office has regularly received documents signed with Burton’s name but written in such vastly different handwriting that two forensic investigators say it’s highly unlikely it all came from the same person.

O’Brien returned the nine Burton documents to Bank of America in mid-June. He told the bank he would not file them unless the bank signed an affidavit certifying the signature and accepting responsibility if the title was called into question down the road. Instead, Bank of America sent new documents with new signatures and new notaries.

A Bank of America spokesman says Burton is an assistant vice president with a subsidiary, ReconTrust. That company handles mortgage paperwork processing for Bank of America.

“She signed the documents on behalf of the bank,” spokesman Richard Simon says. The bank says providing the affidavit O’Brien asked for would have been costly and time-consuming. Instead, Simon says Bank of America sent a new set of documents “signed by an authorized associate who Mr. O’Brien wasn’t challenging.”

The bank didn’t respond to questions about why Burton’s name has been signed in different ways or why her signature appeared on documents that investigators in at least two states have deemed invalid.

Several attempts by the AP to reach Burton at ReconTrust were unsuccessful.

O’Brien says the bank’s actions show “consciousness of guilt.” Earlier this year, he hired Marie McDonnell, a mortgage fraud investigator and forensic document analyst, to verify his suspicions about Burton’s and other names on suspect paperwork.

She compared valid copies of Burton’s signature with the documents O’Brien had received in 2008, 2009 and 2010 and found that Burton’s name was fraudulently signed on hundreds of documents.

Most of the documents reviewed by McDonnell were mortgage discharges, which are issued when a home changes hands or is refinanced by a new lender and are supposed to confirm that the previous mortgage has been paid off. Bank of America declined comment on McDonnell’s findings.

In Michigan, recorder of deeds Hertel and his counterparts in 23 other counties found numerous suspect signatures on documents filed since the beginning of the year.

In June, their findings led the Michigan attorney general to issue criminal subpoenas to several firms that process mortgages for banks, including Lender Processing Services, the parent company of DocX, where Linda Green worked. On July 6, the CEO of that company, which is also under investigation by the Florida Attorney General’s office, resigned, citing health reasons.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

Joint Hearing entitled “Mortgage Servicing: An Examination of the Role of Federal Regulators in Settlement Negotiations and the Future of Mortgage Servicing Standards”

Joint Hearing entitled “Mortgage Servicing: An Examination of the Role of Federal Regulators in Settlement Negotiations and the Future of Mortgage Servicing Standards”


The electronic world has been the main cause of this all. This confusion would not have been made possible if they never created MERS and gave anyone (20,000+) a license to sign. No supervision, no guidance, lack of regulations…no excuses.

Two Financial Services subcommittees held a joint hearing on Thursday, July 7 to review the role of Federal regulators in the ongoing mortgage servicing settlement negotiations and the development of new mortgage servicing standards.  Witnesses included regulators from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and two state attorneys general.

@ 3:12:30 Mr. Stevens: on Document Mills and Robo-Signing “Laws were violated” “Legal Violations” “Card Table with Burger King Kids” “Laws Broken by some Institutions not all”

@ 3:17:50 Mr. Manzullo: on Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) “By-Pass local recorder” “That’s the reason now a lot of people who don’t know who owns the NOTE, don’t know who owns the mortgage” “Automation thing made it worse”

Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit
Oversight and Investigations

Click here for the Archived Webcast of this hearing.

WITNESS LIST

Panel I

Ms. Julie Williams, First Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief Counsel, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Mr. Mark Pearce, Director, Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Mr. Raj Date, Associate Director of Research, Markets and Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, U.S. Department of the Treasury

Hon. Luther Strange, Alabama Attorney General

Panel II

Mr. David Stevens, President, Mortgage Bankers Association

Mr. Michael Calhoun, President, Center for Responsible Lending

************

Joint Hearing To Examine Mortgage Servicing Negotiations

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

“Stunned” AG Eric Schneiderman opposes foreclosure deal, Finds own probe much deeper problem

“Stunned” AG Eric Schneiderman opposes foreclosure deal, Finds own probe much deeper problem


Democrat and Chronicle-

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman expects to lead opposition to what he called a “quick, cheap settlement” of a 50-state investigation into foreclosure practices. Schneiderman put the monetary settlement being discussed with the largest U.S. mortgage servicers at $20 billion to $25 billion and said he will take “the hardest line” against it.

The probe began in October. New York launched its own investigation two months ago and, Schneiderman said, has found the problem is much deeper. He said he was “stunned” to find the multi-state probe so lacking that no documents or witness depositions had been obtained.

continue reading [DEMOCRAT AND CHRONICLE]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

Legal authority of Registers of Deeds in Massachusetts to reject document(s) and/or instrument(s) for recording in their registries

Legal authority of Registers of Deeds in Massachusetts to reject document(s) and/or instrument(s) for recording in their registries


MEMO

TO: John O’Brien
Register of Deeds Southern Essex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

FROM: Jamie Ranney, Esq.
Jamie Ranney, PC
4 Thirty Acres Lane
Nantucket, MA 02554
508.228.9224 (tel)
508.228-4752 (fax)

DATE: June 18, 2011

RE: Legal authority of Registers of Deeds in Massachusetts to reject document(s) and/or instrument(s) for recording in their registries

QUESTION PRESENTED

What legal authority does a Register of Deeds in Massachusetts have to reject for recording (unregistered land) or registration (Land Court registered land) document(s) and/or instrument(s) in his Registry and where is such legal authority derived from?

SUMMARY

It is without question that a Register of Deeds has an important and fiduciary relationship and responsibility – especially in the Commonwealth where his position is elected – to all of his constituents, as well as to the public at large, all of whom rely and who should be able to rely on the Register’s efforts, supervision, and oversight in assuring, maintaining and promoting the integrity, transparency, accuracy, and consistency of a County’s land records.
The Register’s work and supervision of his registry most often revolves around tasks and responsibilities that are generally ministerial in nature. The Register is typically concerned with the daily task of recording of legal document(s) and/or instrument(s) affecting real property where such document(s) and/or instrument(s) are properly presented to the registry for recording on the public land records.

However, the Register’s fiduciary duty goes well beyond these usual ministerial acts in circumstances where the Register has actual knowledge or a subjective good-faith belief/basis for believing that document(s) and/or instrument(s) being presented for recording or registration in the registry for which he has responsibility are fraudulent or otherwise not executed or acknowledged under applicable law. In such cases the Register may lawfully refuse to record such document(s) and/or instrument(s).

[ipaper docId=58631180 access_key=key-kcf86schpznmahuys8q height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Advert

Archives