Decided on January 10, 2012

 Federal National Mortgage Association A/K/A FANNIE MAE, Petitioner(s)

LT-003567-11

Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., Attorneys for Petitioner, 51 East Bethpage Road, Plainview, NY 11803, 516-741-2585; Jeffrey A. Siegel, Esq., Volunteer Lawyers Project, Attorneys for Respondent, One Helen Keller Way, Hempstead, NY 11550, 516-292-8100.

Scott Fairgrieve, J.

Petitioner Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) commenced this holdover action to recover possession of 74 a/k/a 72 Laurel Avenue, Hempstead, New York from the respondents Mary Williams and Lisa Williams.

Petitioner contends in paragraph 6 of the petition, dated June 16, 2011, that it became the owner of said premises pursuant to a public sale on March 2, 2010 when a referee’s deed was duly executed to petitioner.

Respondent Mary Williams has moved pursuant to CPLR Sec. 3211(A)(1), (3) and (7), and RPAPL Sections 713(5), 721 and 741 to dismiss the petition. Respondent Mary Williams contends that petitioner lacks standing to commence this summary proceeding due to defective assignment of the note and mortgage in the underlying foreclosure.

Respondent states that Michael Eastman and Veronica Eastman executed a note and mortgage, both dated May 12, 2006, in favor of Cambridge Home Capital LLC.

Cambridge Home Capital LLC appointed Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as its nominee with respect to recording of said mortgage executed by Michael Eastman and Veronica Eastman; this language is reflected in said mortgage as follows:

FOR PURPOSES OF RECORDING THIS MORTGAGE, MERS IS THE MORTGAGEE OF RECORD.

On August 13, 2007, plaintiff Countrywide Home Loans filed the summons and verified complaint in the Office of the Nassau County Clerk. The verified complaint dated August 10, 2007 alleges in paragraph 3 that:

On or about May 12, 2006, MICHAEL EASTMAN; VERONICA EASTMAN executed and delivered to MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. ACTING SOLELY AS NOMINEE FOR CAMBRIDGE HOME CAPITAL, LLC., a note bearing date that day, whereby MICHAEL EASTMAN; VERONICA EASTMAN covenanted and agreed to pay the sum of $342900.00, with interest on the unpaid balance thereof, at the rate of 7.25 percent per annum, to be computed from the date of said note, by payments of $2,071.69 on July 1, 2006 For the first 120 months and thereafter in payments of $2,710.20 on the like date of each subsequent month, until said note is fully paid, except that the final payment of principal and interest remaining due, if not sooner paid, shall become due and payable on June 1, 2036.

A review of the note executed by Mr. & Mrs. Eastman reveals no reference of the note being executed and delivered to MERS or to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Paragraph 4 of the verified complaint alleges:

As collateral security for the payment of said indebtedness, the aforesaid defendant(s) MICHAEL EASTMAN; VERONICA EASTMAN, also executed, acknowledged and delivered to MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. ACTING SOLELY AS NOMINEE FOR CAMBRIDGE HOME CAPITAL, LLC., a mortgage dated May 12, 2006 and recorded in the County of Nassau on June 7, 2006 in Liber/Reel D30580 of Mortgages, at page 979-995. The mortgage tax was duly paid. The aforesaid instruments were thereafter assigned to Plaintiff.

Said mortgaged premises being known as and by street address: 72 Laurel Avenue, Hempstead, NY 11550 bearing tax map designation: Dist:Section: 34Block: 377Lot(s): 146-147

which premises are more fully described in Schedule “A,” annexed hereto and made a part hereof.

Plaintiff claims in paragraph 4 of the verified complaint that the note and mortgage were assigned to plaintiff prior to commencing the foreclosure action. This statement may be unfounded. The said note executed by the Eastmans was endorsed in blank by Craig J. Hyman, Vice President/Member of Cambridge:

Pay to the Order of Without Recourse

CAMBRIDGE HOME CAPITAL LLC [*2]

/s/ Craig J. Hyman

BY: CRAIG J. HYMAN

VICE PRESIDENT/MEMBER

However, there is no evidence to demonstrate that this note was in fact assigned to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. prior to or at the time it commenced the foreclosure action.

The said mortgage was assigned from MERS as nominee for Cambridge Home Capital, LLC to Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. on January 8, 2008, which is 5 months after Countrywide began the foreclosure action.

The said property was purchased on March 2, 2010 at the foreclosure sale by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. for the sum of $470,090.47.

On March 2, 2010, Rosicki, Rosicki and Associates, on behalf of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., assigned the bid for said property to Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae. Rosicki, Rosicki and Associates accepted the bid on behalf of Federal National.

Petitioner became the owner pursuant to a referee’s deed in foreclosure dated March 8, 2010 and recorded on May 18, 2010.

Petitioner points out that respondent Mary Williams was served personally on September 11, 2007 with the summons and complaint in the foreclosure action, but was sued as a “Jane Doe No.1.” Respondent Mary Williams defaulted in answering the summons and complaint.

The evidence demonstrates that Mary Williams was originally sued as a Jane Doe with no effort being made to ascertain if she resided at the said premises as a tenant. Petitioner did a search of the Nassau County Clerk records but no recorded lease was found.

Petitioner moved to amend the pleadings in February of 2008 to substitute the name Mary Williams for Jane Doe by the submission of the affirmation of Josephine Sangiorgio, Esq., dated February 1, 2008. Thereafter, the judgment of foreclosure and sale was served upon the Eastmans and Mary Williams. No explanation is provided by Countrywide as to how it discovered that Mary Williams was a tenant at the premises and why this information was not ascertained when the action for foreclosure was commenced in the Supreme Court.

Respondent Mary Williams is a Section 8 tenant who has lived at the premises since July 2006. Ms. Williams recertified in June of 2011 and is effective until July 1, 2012.

The issue for this court to decide is whether it has jurisdiction to decide any of the issues raised by respondent in connection with the foreclosure. [*3]

The court agrees that service upon Mary Williams in the foreclosure action was probably invalid. It does not appear that Plaintiff Countrywide made “timely efforts” to ascertain the identity of Mary Williams prior to commencing the foreclosure action. See Porter v. Kingsbrook OB/Gyn Assoc., 209 AD 497, 618 NYS2d 837 (2nd Dept 1994); Tucker v. Lorieo, 291 AD2d 261, 738 NYS2d 33 (1st Dept 2002); and Countrywide Home Loans v. Williams, 20 Misc 3d 1111(A), 867 NYS2d 16 (NY Dist Ct 2008).

Furthermore, it is highly questionable whether Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. had a valid assignment of the note at the time of commencement of the suit. See Bank of New York v. Silverberg, 86 AD3d 274, 926 NYS2d 532 (2nd Dept 2011) holding that a plaintiff which never was an actual assignee or holder of note at the time of commencement of the suit lacked standing to commence the foreclosure action.

If Countrywide lacked standing to bring the foreclosure action due to not being an assignee of the note or holder of same, then any subsequent transfer of title to Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae would be a nullity.

However, the foregoing issues raised by respondent cannot be addressed in this court. See Nassau Homes Corp. v. Shuster, 33 Misc 3d 130(A), 2011 WL 4952990 (App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011) holding that:

The District Court properly found that petitioner had established its ownership of the subject premises, as evidenced by a certified copy of the referee’s deed, and that petitioner had properly served occupant with a notice to quit. Occupant’s only challenge to this proceeding appeared to be based upon objections to the foreclosure proceeding itself. However, the judgment of foreclosure and sale was final as to all issues and defenses that might have been litigated in the foreclosure action (see Cherico v. Bank of NY, 211 AD2d 961 [1995]), and the Supreme Court’s determination is not subject to collateral attack in the District Court (see Banker’s Trust v. Corbin, 14 Misc 3d 136[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50239[U] [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007]). Thus, as occupant has shown no basis to disturb the final judgment, the final judgment is affirmed.

Based upon the foregoing, since respondent has raised serious issues concerning the foreclosure, this court will stay these proceedings until March 15, 2012, to afford respondent an opportunity to address all issues in the Supreme Court Nassau County. Unless the Supreme Court has granted a stay to respondent Mary Williams or has vacated the foreclosure judgment, then this case will proceed to trial on March 19, 2012.

So Ordered:

/s/ Hon. Scott Fairgrieve

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE [*4]

Dated:January 10, 2012

CC:Volunteer Lawyers Project

Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C.

SF/mp

[ipaper docId=77980254 access_key=key-1r7j07874ki06go4pen height=600 width=600 /]

SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS
TRUSTEE THE STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT
LOAN 2005-10,
Plaintiff,

-against-

SOLEDAD MURILLO, LUIS DUQUE, BANK
UNITED, FSB,
Defendants.

EXCERPTS:

The process server, Gary Cardi, testified that he was a six-year “self employed”
former Police Officer, and that he received service assignments from A&J Process
Service, which was located on the same floor, at the same address, as the local business
office of plaintiff’s counsel , Steven J. Baum, PC. Mr. Cardi stated that on April 5, 2008
at approximately 11 :30 a. , he served the Summons and Complaint upon Soledad Murilo
personally pursuant to CPLR 308(1) and upon the co-mortgagor Luis Duque by
substituted service pursuant to CPLR 308(2). According to Mr. Cardi, service was made
at defendants ‘ home, 934 Southern Drive , Franklin Square, New York, with additional
mailings to the same address.

[…]

In response, Mr. Spinell argued, essentially, that the failure to keep or produce
records is of no consequence. “Since Nassau County, as I am aware of, does not require a
process server to be licensed, the process server cannot be mandated or penalized for
failng to maintain records required of licensed process servers. As a matter of law, failure
to keep records shall not automatically void purported service and this can be found in the
Appellate Division case Feierstein versus Mullan under 120 Misc2d 574, 467 NYS2d 478
Appellate Term 1983.

Mr. Spinell is wrong. Article 8 and Article 8-A of the General Business Law
govern the duties of process servers. GBL Artcle 8 applies to all process servers (who
meet the statutory definition), and GBL Article 8-A (not applicable here) applies to all
process servers in eities having a population of one milion or more. Under GBL Article
, a process server is defined as a person, other than an attorney or a par to an action
acting on his own behalf, who (a) derives income from the service of papers in an action;
(b) has effected service in five or more actions or proceedings in the twelve month
period immediately preceding the service in question. GBL ~89-t. The definition does not
distinguish between licensed or unlicensed process servers. Thus, even if Nassau County
does not presently require a process server to be licensed, all process servers are subject to
the State s record keeping mandate, and may be penalized for non-compliance. GBL ~
89-u requires each process server to maintain a legible record of all service made by him
as prescribed by that section, and specifies the information required in the log. Compliance
with GBL ~89-u is subject to enforcement by the attorney general, and civil penalties may
be imposed. GBL 89-v. (The licensing requirement, imposed upon process servers by
local ordinance, mayor may not coincide with the more stringent statutory requirements
applicable to process servers in cities having a population of one milion or more. See
GBL Article 8-A; GBL 89-cc.

Mr. Spinellj’ s legal argument – that the failure to maintain records does not void
purported service — is invalid. The case cited by Mr. Spinell, a 1983 decision of the
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Deparment, is neither controllng nor relevant.
That case held that non-compliance with the licensing provisions of the New York City
Administrative Code was not grounds for dismissal.

See Feierstein v. Mullan, 120
Misc.2d 574. The Feierstein case did not deal with the record-keeping requirements of
GBL Article 8 or Article 8-A. Mr. Spinell has not cited, and the Court’ s own research
has not revealed, any authority for the proposition proffered by Mr. Spinell, nor any
controllng authority on the issue at bar.

This Court holds – seemingly for the first time – that the failure, at a traverse
hearing, to produc( records kept in accordance with the requirements of GBL 89-u may
result in dismissal of the action. The Court adopts the reasoning articulated by its
companion court in First Commercial Bank of Memphis v. Ndiaye, 189 Misc.2d 523
(Sup. Ct., Queens Co., 2001). See also Inter-Ocean Realty Assoc. v. JSA Realty Corp.,
152 Misc.2d 901 (Civ. Ct., NY County, 1991). In First Commercial Bank, a foreclosure
action, the licensed process server produced a computer-generated log book at a traverse
hearing. The Court found that this method of record-keeping failed to comply with the
precise requirements of GBL 89-cc and local regulations applicable to licensed process
servers in New York City. The Court noted that the purpose of these record-keeping
requirements was ‘C combat the continuing problem of process serving abuse, known as
sewer service,” and to ensure the reliabilty of the records presented in support of
jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court held that the testimony of the process server who
failed to keep records in accordance with the statutory requirements could not be credited.
This failure to keep appropriate records was considered a failure to comply with the rules
of the court regarding the production of records at a traverse hearing.
See 22 NYCRR ~20S.29. The Court held that, absent a showing of good cause for non-compliance, the
underlying cause of action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

[…]

ORDERED, that the application of defendant Soledad Murilo, to vacate the
Judgment in this action pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) (4) is granted. The court determines
that the purported service upon defendants is null and void, and the matter is dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction. This constitutes the Order of the Court.

[ipaper docId=77837320 access_key=key-1e1wuu0gk8r2rancr6o7 height=600 width=600 /]

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2011

CATHERINE PAIGE PARKER, et. al.,
Appellants,

v.

LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF THE STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION, STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST, MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES M SERIES 2003-BC8,
Appellee.

EXCERPT:

This case is more akin to Demars v. Village of Sandalwood Lakes
Homeowners Association, 625 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In that
case, a homeowners association filed suit to foreclose o n a lien for
unpaid assessments and obtained judgment. The association attempted
personal service twice at the homeowner’s residence. A tenant at the
residence did not know how to contact the homeowner. To establish a
diligent search for constructive service, the association’s attorney called a
mortgage holder a n d th e power company. Neither would divulge
information over the phone, and the association’s attorney did not follow
up with a letter. The court held the association’s search did not meet the
standards of reasonable diligence because the attorney for the
association did not follow up on any of his inquiries. Therefore, the
constructive service was defective, rendering the judgment of foreclosure
voidable.

In this case, the record reflects only one return of service. According
to the affidavit of diligent search and inquiry, Harris next searched credit
information, directory assistance, motor vehicle records, the post office,
property tax records, national death records, and prison records to try
and locate Parker. However, the affidavit shows the search for Parker
was less than diligent. Regarding efforts to locate Parker at her last
known address (the subject property) is a statement that “Process Server
stated: Tenant occupied.” No indication exists as to when the process
server went to the premises or how h e determined it was “tenant occupied.”

Further, no indication exists that the process server inquired
of the tenant the whereabouts of Parker. Under the section of the
affidavit titled “Inquiry of Neighbors at Last Known Address,” it merely
states: “Unable to contact neighbors,” with no statement as to who made
attempt, or on what dates or any description of any attempt made.
Under the section “Freedom of Information Act Inquiry Made to US Postal
Service,” it says “Requested change of address or boxholder information
[at property address] on 2/19/09. Upon receipt of their response, will
promptly revert,” with no follow-up of any information received from the
post office.

“[P]roof of a few attempts at service of process are insufficient to prove
diligent search.” Demars, 625 So. 2d at 1221. In this case, personal
service was attempted only once. As in Demars, the affidavit of diligent
search filed in this case displays a pattern of failure to follow up on
inquiries and leads that could have revealed Parker’s location. Therefore,
we find LaSalle’s search did not meet the standards of reasonable
diligence. Further, this case is distinguishable from Reina in that Parker
was diligent in pursuing the motion to quash. Parker’s trial counsel filed
a special limited appearance to attack the service of process fourteen
days after entry of final judgment and filed an emergency motion to
quash six days later. Therefore, we reverse, finding the final judgment
entered in this case voidable, and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

[ipaper docId=62109063 access_key=key-n7iqfzh60o7h00a6tw7 height=600 width=600 /]

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 /]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

MONIQUE SYKES et al.,
Plaintiffs,

– against –

MEL HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES, LLC,
-et al.,
Defendants

APPEARANCES: (See last page)

CHIN, Circuit Judge:

In this case, eight plaintiffs allege that a debt buying
company, a law firm, a process service company, and others
engaged in a “massive scheme to fraudulently obtain default
judgments against them and more than 100,000 other consumers in
state court. Plaintiffs allege that defendants did so by
engaging in “sewer servicer” — the practice of failing to serve a
summons and complaint and then filing a fraudulent affidavit
attesting to service. When the debtors failed to appear in court
because they did not have notice of the lawsuits, defendants
obtained default judgments against them.

Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated. Their second amended complaint (the
“Complaint”) asserts claims under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (the “FDCPA”)1,5 U.S.C. 5 1692 et sea., the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18
U.S.C. 5 1961 et sea., New York General Business Law (“GBL”) §
349, and New York Judiciary Law 5 487. Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages.
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to
Rules 9 (b) , 12 (b) (1) , and 12 (b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, challenging the sufficiency of every claim and the
subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. For the reasons that
follow, the motions to dismiss are denied in part and granted in
part.

Continue below to the decision…

[ipaper docId=46299681 access_key=key-5agcnkn7aipcco9kw1w height=600 width=600 /]

Posted by SUItheGATOR on May 24, 2010 ForeclosureHamlet.org

Another area that should be investigated in the foreclosure mill process is the “process serving” Mills such as ProVest LLC.

I worked at ProVest for 7 months a few years ago, as jobs are scarce. There were some issues there of some of the servers just “drop serving” the summons, (just leaving at the door and saying they gave it directly) or Sewer serves, (saying it was served and they never even left at the door). A few borrowers obtained legal counsel and executed their rights, as they were never properly served, but there are probably more borrowers unaware they have been “had”.

If Improperly served, the court dates cannot be set.

Due to ProVest’s aggressive style, and high volume of work, it is possible many servers, not direct employees, were forced to do the serves this way due to the volume and ProVest’s unrealistic expectations. They wanted a serve within 10 days of it being filed at the court house. As an employee, server or not, if you did not meet their outrageous timeframes it provoked what I call “public floggings” of employees. Not a nice place to work.

ProVest does process serving for many of the foreclosure mills such as Stern and FDLG… And for the record, when I was there, a husband worked for FDLG, and the wife worked for ProVest…

So, if you want more dirt for your compaign, here it is.. Check to see if the borrowers were properly served.

RELATED STORY:

Lender Processing Services LPS and ProVest: Resemblance is uncanny

Wanted: Envelopes like below which Foreclosing Mills are omitting postage meter dates. Here is an example.  Remember together we can make a difference.

Please send to StopForeclosureFraud@gmail.com

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

WHOA! …before any of this BS happens. Who is going to address the Perpetual Fraud that exist? Is anyone from the government even doing any due diligence on any of the TOP FORECLOSURE HELP sites? WE HAVE DONE MOST OF YOUR WORK FOR YOU. Who is going to rescue the homeowners buying these fraudulent issues encumbered in these homes? In our illegal foreclosures today and yesterday? May I please have 1 day in the White House to fix all this because apparently they are digging all this up, even further. In order to fix this crap this needs to be fixed first. I think the government has learned a thing or 2 from these bankers (a bird in a hand is worth two in a bush). They are running with their heads in the dark! Go HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE…you see I did it for you!  For a start…YOU MUST FIX THESE ISSUES BEFORE ANYTHING!

If you feel like this is not enough then go here:
http://www.frauddigest.com
http://www.msfraud.org/
http://www.foreclosurehamle…
http://livinglies.wordpress…
http://4closurefraud.org/
http://stopforeclosurefraud…

Program Will Pay Homeowners to Sell at a Loss

By DAVID STREITFELD Published: March 7, 2010 NYTimes

In an effort to end the foreclosure crisis, the Obama administration has been trying to keep defaulting owners in their homes. Now it will take a new approach: paying some of them to leave.

This latest program, which will allow owners to sell for less than they owe and will give them a little cash to speed them on their way, is one of the administration’s most aggressive attempts to grapple with a problem that has defied solutions.

More than five million households are behind on their mortgages and risk foreclosure. The government’s $75 billion mortgage modification plan has helped only a small slice of them. Consumer advocates, economists and even some banking industry representatives say much more needs to be done.

For the administration, there is also the concern that millions of foreclosures could delay or even reverse the economy’s tentative recovery — the last thing it wants in an election year.

Taking effect on April 5, the program could encourage hundreds of thousands of delinquent borrowers who have not been rescued by the loan modification program to shed their houses through a process known as a short sale, in which property is sold for less than the balance of the mortgage. Lenders will be compelled to accept that arrangement, forgiving the difference between the market price of the property and what they are owed.

“We want to streamline and standardize the short sale process to make it much easier on the borrower and much easier on the lender,” said Seth Wheeler, a Treasury senior adviser.

The problem is highlighted by a routine case in Phoenix. Chris Paul, a real estate agent, has a house he is trying to sell on behalf of its owner, who owes $150,000. Mr. Paul has an offer for $48,000, but the bank holding the mortgage says it wants at least $90,000. The frustrated owner is now contemplating foreclosure.

To bring the various parties to the table — the homeowner, the lender that services the loan, the investor that owns the loan, the bank that owns the second mortgage on the property — the government intends to spread its cash around.

Under the new program, the servicing bank, as with all modifications, will get $1,000. Another $1,000 can go toward a second loan, if there is one. And for the first time the government would give money to the distressed homeowners themselves. They will get $1,500 in “relocation assistance.”

Should the incentives prove successful, the short sales program could have multiple benefits. For the investment pools that own many home loans, there is the prospect of getting more money with a sale than with a foreclosure.

For the borrowers, there is the likelihood of suffering less damage to credit ratings. And as part of the transaction, they will get the lender’s assurance that they will not later be sued for an unpaid mortgage balance.

For communities, the plan will mean fewer empty foreclosed houses waiting to be sold by banks. By some estimates, as many as half of all foreclosed properties are ransacked by either the former owners or vandals, which depresses the value of the property further and pulls down the value of neighboring homes.

If short sales are about to have their moment, it has been a long time coming. At the beginning of the foreclosure crisis, lenders shunned short sales. They were not equipped to deal with the labor-intensive process and were suspicious of it.

The lenders’ thinking, said the economist Thomas Lawler, went like this: “I lend someone $200,000 to buy a house. Then he says, ‘Look, I have someone willing to pay $150,000 for it; otherwise I think I’m going to default.’ Do I really believe the borrower can’t pay it back? And is $150,000 a reasonable offer for the property?”

Short sales are “tailor-made for fraud,” said Mr. Lawler, a former executive at the mortgage finance company Fannie Mae.

Last year, short sales started to increase, although they remain relatively uncommon. Fannie Mae said preforeclosure deals on loans in its portfolio more than tripled in 2009, to 36,968. But real estate agents say many lenders still seem to disapprove of short sales.

Under the new federal program, a lender will use real estate agents to determine the value of a home and thus the minimum to accept. This figure will not be shared with the owner, but if an offer comes in that is equal to or higher than this amount, the lender must take it.

Mr. Paul, the Phoenix agent, was skeptical. “In a perfect world, this would work,” he said. “But because estimates of value are inherently subjective, it won’t. The banks don’t want to sell at a discount.”

There are myriad other potential conflicts over short sales that may not be solved by the program, which was announced on Nov. 30 but whose details are still being fine-tuned. Many would-be short sellers have second and even third mortgages on their houses. Banks that own these loans are in a position to block any sale unless they get a piece of the deal.

“You have one loan, it’s no sweat to get a short sale,” said Howard Chase, a Miami Beach agent who says he does around 20 short sales a month. “But the second mortgage often is the obstacle.”

Major lenders seem to be taking a cautious approach to the new initiative. In many cases, big banks do not actually own the mortgages; they simply administer them and collect payments. J. K. Huey, a Wells Fargo vice president, said a short sale, like a loan modification, would have to meet the requirements of the investor who owns the loan.

“This is not an opportunity for the customer to just walk away,” Ms. Huey said. “If someone doesn’t come to us saying, ‘I’ve done everything I can, I used all my savings, I borrowed money and, by the way, I’m losing my job and moving to another city, and have all the documentation,’ we’re not going to do a short sale.”

But even if lenders want to treat short sales as a last resort for desperate borrowers, in reality the standards seem to be looser.

Sree Reddy, a lawyer and commercial real estate investor who lives in Miami Beach, bought a one-bedroom condominium in 2005, spent about $30,000 on improvements and ended up owing $540,000. Three years later, the value had fallen by 40 percent.

Mr. Reddy wanted to get out from under his crushing monthly payments. He lost a lot of money in the crash but was not in default. Nevertheless, his bank let him sell the place for $360,000 last summer.

“A short sale provides peace of mind,” said Mr. Reddy, 32. “If you’re in foreclosure, you don’t know when they’re ultimately going to take the place away from you.”

Mr. Reddy still lives in the apartment complex where he bought that condo, but is now a renter paying about half of his old mortgage payment. Another benefit, he said: “The place I’m in now is nicer and a little bigger.”

If self nominating officers signing on

behalf of MERS, et al~ wasn’t good

enough…

The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C., February 24, 2010:  Although only bankers are aware of it, there is a second wave of economic disaster starting to build up that will make the earlier one pale into insignificance. Let us start out with MERS, shall we?

MERS = Mortgage Electronic Registration Inc.holds approximately 60 million American mortgages and is a Delaware corporation whose sole shareholder is Mers Corp. MersCorp and its specified members have agreed to include the MERS corporate name on any mortgage that was executed in conjunction with any mortgage loan made by any member of MersCorp. Thus in place of the original lender being named as the mortgagee on the mortgage that is supposed to secure their loan, MERS is named as the “nominee” for the lender who actually loaned the money to the borrower. In other words MERS is really nothing more than a name that is used on the mortgage instrument in place of the actual lender. MERS’ primary function, therefore, is to act as a document custodian. MERS was created solely to simplify the process of transferring mortgages by avoiding the need to re-record liens – and pay county recorder filing fees – each time a loan is assigned. Instead, servicers record loans only once and MERS’ electronic system monitors transfers and facilitates the trading of notes. It has very conservatively estimated that as of February, 2010, over half of all new residential mortgage loans in the United States are registered with MERS and recorded in county recording offices in MERS’ name

MersCorp was created in the early 1990’s by the former C.E.O.’s of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Indy Mac, Countrywide, Stewart Title Insurance and the American Land Title Association. The executives of these companies lined their pockets with billions of dollars of unearned bonuses and free stock by creating so-called mortgage backed securities using bogus mortgage loans to unqualified borrowers thereby creating a huge false demand for residential homes and thereby falsely inflating the value of those homes. MERS marketing claims that its “paperless systems fit within the legal framework of the laws of all fifty states” are now being vetted by courts and legal commentators throughout the country.

The MERS paperless system is the type of crooked rip-off scheme that is has been seen for generations past in the crooked financial world. In this present case, MERS was created in the boardrooms of the most powerful and controlling members of the American financial institutions. This gigantic scheme completely ignored long standing law of commerce relating to mortgage lending and did so for its own personal gain. That the inevitable collapse of the crooked mortgage swindles would lead to terrible national repercussions was a matter of little or no interest to the upper levels of America’s banking and financial world because the only interest of these entities was to grab the money of suckers, keep it in the form of ficticious bonuses, real estate and very large accounts in foreign banks. The effect of this system has led to catastrophic meltdown on both the American and global economy.

MERS, as has clearly been proven in many civil cases, does not hold any promissory notes of any kind. A party must have possession of a promissory note in order to have standing to enforce and/or otherwise collect a debt that is owed to another party. Given this clear-cut legal definition,  MERS does not have legal standing to enforce or collect on the over 60 million mortgages it controls and no member of MERS has any standing in an American civil court.

MERS has been taken to civil courts across the country and charged with a lack of standing in reposession issues. When the mortgage debacle initially, and inevitably, began, MERS always routinely brought actions against defaulting mortgage holders purporting to represent the owners of the defaulted mortgages but once the courts discovered that MERS was only a front organization that did not hold any deed nor was aware of who or what agencies might hold a deed, they have routinely been denied in their attempts to force foreclosure.  In the past, persons alleging they were officials of MERS in foreclosure motions, purported to be the holders of the mortgage, when, in fact, they not only were not the holder of the mortgage but, under a court order, could not produce the identity of the actual holder. These so-called MERS officers have usually been just employees of entities who are servicing the loan for the actual lender. MERS, it is now widely acknowledged by the courts, has no legal right to foreclose or otherwise collect debt which are evidenced by promissory notes held by someone else.

The American media routinely identifies MERS as a mortgage lender, creditor, and mortgage company, when in point of fact MERS has never loaned so much as a dollar to anyone, is not a creditor and is not a mortgage company. MERS is merely a name that is printed on mortgages, purporting to give MERS some sort of legal status, in the matter of a loan made by a completely different and almost always,a totally unknown entity.

The infamous collapse of the American housing bubble originated, in the main, with one Angelo Mozilo, CEO of the later failed Countrywide Mortgage.

Mozilo started working in his father’s butcher shop, in the Bronx, when he was ten years old. He graduated from Fordham in 1960, and that year he met David Loeb. In 1968, Mozilo and Loeb created a new mortgage company, Countrywide, together. Mozilo believed the company should make special efforts to lower the barrier for minorities and others who had been excluded from homeownership. Loeb died in 2003

In 1996, Countrywide created a new subsidiary for subprime loans.

• Countrywide Financial’s former management
• Angelo R. Mozilo, cofounder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer
• David S. Loeb, cofounder, President and Chairman from 1969 to 2000
• David Sambol, president, chief operating officer, director
• Eric P. Sieracki, chief financial officer, executive managing director
• Jack Schakett, executive managing director, chief operating officer
• Kevin Bartlett, executive managing director, chief investment officer
• Andrew Gissinger, executive managing director, chief production officer, Countrywide Home Loans[14]
• Sandor E. Samuels, executive managing director, chief legal officer and assistant secretary
• Ranjit Kripalani, executive managing director and president, Capital Markets
• Laura K. Milleman, senior managing director, chief accounting officer
• Marshall Gates, senior managing director, chief administrative officer
• Timothy H. Wennes, senior managing director, president and chief operating officer, Countrywide Bank FSB
• Anne D. McCallion, senior managing director, chief of financial operations and planning
• Steve Bailey, senior managing director of loan administration, Countrywide Home Loans

The standard Countrywide procedure was to openly solicit persons who either had no credit or could not obtain it, and, by the use of false credit reports drawn up in their offices, arrange mortgages. The new home owners were barely able to meet the minimum interest only payments and when, as always happens, the mortgage payments are increased to far, far more than could be paid, defaults and repossessions were inevitable. Countrywide sold these mortgages to lower-tier banks which in turn, put them together in packages and sold them to the large American banks. These so-called “bundled mortgages” were quickly sold these major banking houses to many foreign investors with the comments that when the payments increased, so also would the income from the original mortgage. In 1996, Countrywide created a new subsidiary for subprime loans.

At one point in time, Countrywide Financial Corporation was regarded with awe in the business world. In 2003, Fortune observed that Countrywide was expected to write $400 billion in home loans and earn $1.9 billion. Countrywide’s chairman and C.E.O., Angelo Mozilo, did rather well himself. In 2003, he received nearly $33 million in compensation. By that same year, Wall Street had become addicted to home loans, which bankers used to create immensely lucrative mortgage-backed securities and, later, collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.s—and Countrywide was their biggest supplier. Under Mozilo’s leadership, Countrywide’s growth had been astonishing.

He was aiming to achieve a market share—thirty to forty per cent—that was far greater than anyone in the financial-services industry had ever attained. For several years, Countrywide continued to thrive. Then, inevitably, in 2007, subprime defaults began to rocket upwards , forcing the top American bankers to abandoned the mortgage-backed securities they had previously prized. It was obvious to them that the fraudulent mortgages engendered by Countrywide had been highly suceessful as a marketing program but it was obvious to eveyone concerned, at all levels, that the mortgages based entirely on false and misleading credit information were bound to eventually default. In August of 2007, the top American bankers cut off.   Countrywide’s short-term funding, which seriously hindered its ability to operate, and in just a few months following this abandonment,  Mozilo was forced to choose between bankruptcy or selling out to the best bidder.

In January, 2008, Bank of America announced that it would buy the company for a fraction of what Countrywide was worth at its peak. Mozilo was subsequently named a defendant in more than a hundred civil lawsuits and a target of a criminal investigation.  On June 4th, 2007 the S.E.C., in a civil suit, charged Mozilo, David Sambol, and Eric Sieracki with securities fraud; Mozilo was also charged with insider trading. The complaint formalized a public indictment of Mozilo as an icon of corporate malfeasance and greed.

In essence, not only bad credit risks were used to create and sell mortgages on American homes that were essentially worthless. By grouping all of these together and selling them abroad, the banks all made huge profits. When the kissing had to stop, there were two major groups holding the financial bag. The first were the investors and the second were, not those with weak credit, but those who had excellent credit and who were able, and willing to pay off their mortgages.

Unfortunately,  just as no one knows who owns the title to any home in order to foreclose, when the legitimate mortgage holder finally pays off his mortgage, or tries to sell his house, a clear title to said house or property cannot ever be found so, in essence, the innocent mortgage payer can never own or sell his house. This is a terrible economic time bomb quietly ticking away under the feet of the Bank of America and if, and when, it explodes, another bank is but a fond memory.

Readers wishing to find out if their title is secure should write to www.ChinkintheArmor.net, leave a comment on any article and ask for contact information for legal advice.

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a3019.htm

Full Deposition of the Infamous Erica Johnson Seck RE: Indymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff, Vs. Israel a. Machado – 50 2008 CA 037322xxxx Mb

SOON TO BE FAMOUS ROGER STOTTS & DENNIS KIRKPATRICK VP’s, MERS, ATTORNEY in FACT, ONEWEST, INDYMAC, Deutsche BANK et al~~

BOGUS ASSIGNMENTS 3…Forgery, Counterfeit, Fraud …Oh MY!

Lets connect this Pyramid: Erica Johnson-Seck, Roger Stotts, Dennis Kirkpatrick. The Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A. seem to have the same players by “virtue” hereof?

“WALLSTREET is our AMERICAN TERRORTIST”

What these people have done is no different than the 9/11 acts, they did not use planes

they used our homes to destroy us financially! They are killing us s..l..o…w..l..y!

This time the government is rewarding their behavior!

WE WILL NEVER FORGET 9/11

But…I thought he is an Attorney in Fact for IndyMac above? But Now VP for MERS?

COMPARE HIS SIGNATURES

I EVEN HAVE THEM SIGNING onbehalf of the FDIC!

They are in my stash will post when I find em’.

All three together as Attorney In Fact for OnesWest

Below is a sale that happened in DC all in 1 single day! I am still trying to understand it all.

HHHmmm more investigating….

So there you have it..I can show plenty more but it will take many years truthfully to put all the documents they signed all in one room!

See Erica’s Master Pieces here…

Full Deposition of the Infamous Erica Johnson Seck RE: Indymac Federal Bank Fsb, Plaintiff, Vs. Israel a. Machado – 50 2008 CA 037322xxxx Mb

“A ex-employee of the Law Offices of David J. Stern of Plantation has contacted me, Bill Warner, in response to the article I posted on Monday, May 18, 2009, that followed up on the Tampa Tribune article of April 2008, (see above), it appears that what I had claimed about “sewer service” by ProVest LLC in Tampa Fl (working for the Stern law office) is just the tip of the iceberg.

It appears from this ex-employee of the Law Offices of David J. Stern of Plantation that ProVest, the process service company in Tampa, also had an office in the same building as the Law Offices of David J. Stern in Plantation and that “sewer service’ was done all the time and if needed Provest would pre-date the service of summons to make it appear that you had already been served and allow Stern to put your foreclosure case on a “rocket docket’ to get the house up for sale on the Court House steps (David J. Stern Law Office appears to have severed ties to Pro Vest).

Then the sales girls in the Stern office (a lot of the associate attorneys at the Stern Law firm have real estate licenses) would contact outside buyers and inform them of the exact time and date of the “court house steps sale” and tell the outside buyers what the correct amount to bid that would be approved by the bank and the court,(this is ”bid rigging”).

A recent hire by the Law office of David J. Stern is Attorney Vivien Leora Lurlene who also has a Real Estate Sales License in the State of Florida, I have no knowledge of her involvement in the ”bid rigging”or any other illegal activity at the Law Office of David J. Stern. These outside buyers contacted by the sales girls at the Stern Law office would resell these super low bargain houses purchaed on the Court House Steps for a profit and pay off the sales girls in the Stern Law office for the tip. “

It appears from this ex-employee of the Law Offices of David J. Stern of Plantation that she was told to make up false documents for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae when they came around to check their Foreclosure files, she was also instructed to lie to the banks when they requested a chronology report which is the foreclosure time-line on a file, there appears to be Federal violations that would necessitate an FBI investigation, the ex-employee is afraid to talk.

Continue HERE