A Cook County Circuit Court judge has taken the unusual step of temporarily halting at least 1,700 mortgage foreclosures after a law firm told the court that the cases contained altered documents, the Tribune has learned.
Fisher and Shapiro LLC, one of the top three law firms used by mortgage servicers to handle their local foreclosure actions, reported to the court that, in a breach of protocol, affidavits in the cases were changed. Among other things, fees were added after the documents were signed by servicers.
[…]
“It’s similar to robo-signing in that it’s a high-volume pattern and practice of cutting corners, expediting the process through making false representations,” said Daniel Lindsey, an attorney at the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago, which is not directly involved in the matter. “The fallout is this order and some delay, and maybe (it will) help some people figure out some alternatives.”
Linda Green is/was an employee of DocX a subsidiary of Lender Processing Services located in Alpharetta, Georgia. Her signature was forged on key sensitive documents relating to county land records.
Below is a document that Shapiro & Fishman filed as a CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE.
What about the Satisfactions? In DOCX’s website they said:
“DOCX has built its solid reputation at not only managing large assignment projects, but satisfactions as well“.
Exactly how many documents were signed by Green’s name as VP for MERS between these dates?
Who do we contact to make this a nationwide recall alert like the recent “egg recall” containing salmonella?
Exactly who is being notified if there is any title issues on your homes?
Has there been a recall notice sent to County Recorders on this issue?
Are there more VP’s of MERS who had no authority to execute documents?
The Law Offices of David J. Stern took its fight against the attorney general’s investigation to court on Tuesday, moving to quash the state’s subpoena.
The battle between Attorney General Bill McCollum and four law firms accused of shoddy foreclosure practices continued in Broward County Court on Tuesday, with the Law Offices of David J. Stern challenging the state’s subpoena.
Jeffrey Tew, legal counsel for Stern’s Plantation-based firm, argued that the attorney general’s office does not have jurisdiction to investigate law firms under the Federal Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, or FDUTPA.
That statute — the basis of McCollum’s case — only applies in cases where goods and services are being transferred between the accused and the alleged victim, Tew said.
“The alleged quote-unquote `victims’ in this case are the borrowers,” said Tew, presenting a motion to “quash” the subpoena. “FDUTPA requires that the law firm be exchanging goods and services of monetary value with the borrowers.”
Tew said that the law firm was exchanging its services with the banks, not the borrowers.
The judge, Eileen O’Connor, said she would rule in a couple of days.
The case is crucial to the state’s investigation, because it comes on the heels of another ruling in which a Palm Beach judge quashed the state’s subpoena of the Shapiro & Fishman law firm. That judge said the Florida Bar and the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to sanction lawyers, not the attorney general.
O’Connor indicated that she would judge independently.
“That’s not your better argument,” she told Tew after he referenced the Palm Beach case.
Lawyers Peter Ticktin, left, and Josh Bleil, of The Ticktin Law Group, are shown with depositions from 150 robosigners, alleging that the court documents reveal an industry-wide banking scheme to defraud homeowners, in Deerfield Beach, Fla. Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2010. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)
Robo-signers: Mortgage experience not necessary
Banks hired hair stylists, teens to process foreclosure documents, workers’ testimony shows
Michelle Conlin, AP Real Estate Writer, On Tuesday October 12, 2010, 9:21 pm EDT
NEW YORK (AP) — In an effort to rush through thousands of home foreclosures since 2007, financial institutions and their mortgage servicing departments hired hair stylists, Walmart floor workers and people who had worked on assembly lines and installed them in “foreclosure expert” jobs with no formal training, a Florida lawyer says.
In depositions released Tuesday, many of those workers testified that they barely knew what a mortgage was. Some couldn’t define the word “affidavit.” Others didn’t know what a complaint was, or even what was meant by personal property. Most troubling, several said they knew they were lying when they signed the foreclosure affidavits and that they agreed with the defense lawyers’ accusations about document fraud.
“The mortgage servicers hired people who would never question authority,” said Peter Ticktin, a Deerfield Beach, Fla., lawyer who is defending 3,000 homeowners in foreclosure cases. As part of his work, Ticktin gathered 150 depositions from bank employees who say they signed foreclosure affidavits without reviewing the documents or ever laying eyes on them — earning them the name “robo-signers.”
The deposed employees worked for the mortgage service divisions of banks such as Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, as well as for mortgage servicers like Litton Loan Servicing, a division of Goldman Sachs.
Ticktin said he would make the testimony available to state and federal agencies that are investigating financial institutions for allegations of possible mortgage fraud. This comes on the eve of an expected announcement Wednesday from 40 state attorneys general that they will launch a collective probe into the mortgage industry.
“This was an industrywide scheme designed to defraud homeowners,” Ticktin said.
The depositions paint a surreal picture of foreclosure experts who didn’t understand even the most elementary aspects of the mortgage or foreclosure process — even though they were entrusted as the records custodians of homeowners’ loans. In one deposition taken in Houston, a foreclosure supervisor with Litton Loan couldn’t define basic terms like promissory note, mortgagee, lien, receiver, jurisdiction, circuit court, plaintiff’s assignor or defendant. She testified that she didn’t know why a spouse might claim interest in a property, what the required conditions were for a bank to foreclose or who the holder of the mortgage note was. “I don’t know the ins and outs of the loan, I just sign documents,” she said at one point.
Until now, only a handful of depositions from robo-signers have come to light. But the sheer volume of the new depositions will make it more difficult for financial institutions to argue that robo-signing was an aberrant practice in a handful of rogue back offices.
Attorney General McCollum I applaud you for STANDING UP for Florida!
Assistant AG’s June M. Clarkson and Theresa B. Edwards what an amazing job! Thank you.
Investigate the law suit Shapiro and Stern had against each other…You might just find missing pieces there.
The facts are the facts…crystal clear. This glass is not half full but spilling out the rim of the glass!
Attorney General Bill McCollum today filed a Motion for Rehearing on last week’s ruling by Circuit Judge Jack Cox that the Attorney General could not investigate the Shapiro & Fishman law firm for the firm’s alleged involvement in presenting fabricated documents to the courts in foreclosure actions to obtain final judgments against homeowners. The Attorney General is currently investigating four law firms, The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.; Shapiro & Fishman, LLP, the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A., and Florida Default Law Group, PL for allegedly engaging in these practices.
Glazy Ruscalleda and Jose Ruscalleda, Appellants,
v.
HSBC Bank USA, etc., Appellee.
No. 3D09-997.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Opinion filed September 15, 2010.
John H. Ruiz and Karen Barnet-Backer, for appellants.
Shapiro & Fishman and Heidi J. Weinzetl (Boca Raton), for appellee.
Before WELLS, ROTHENBERG, and LAGOA, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION.
ROTHENBERG, J.
Upon consideration of the appellee’s motion for rehearing or clarification, we withdraw our previous opinion filed on June 9, 2010, and substitute the following opinion in its stead.
This is an appeal of a final summary judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action entered in favor of plaintiff, HSBC Bank USA (“HSBC”), and against the defendants, Glazy Ruscalleda and Jose Ruscalleda. Based on the unique circumstances of this case, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The unique circumstances surrounding this case involve a rather confusing situation caused by two banks—the appellee, HSBC, and American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“American Home Mortgage”)—because they were simultaneously attempting to foreclose the same mortgage. On October 8, 2008, American Home Mortgage filed a foreclosure action against the defendants.[ 1 ] A week later, HSBC filed an action to foreclose the same exact mortgage. The complaint filed by HSBC falsely alleged that it was the current owner and holder of the mortgage and note, when, in reality, American Home Mortgage was still the holder of the note and mortgage.[ 2 ] On October 28, 2008, due to the actions of American Home Mortgage and HSBC, the defendants, who were acting pro se at that time, filed an answer and affirmative defenses only in the foreclosure action filed by American Home Mortgage, which was the holder of the mortgage and note, because they mistakenly believed that the complaints involved the same foreclosure action.
After filing their pro se answer and affirmative defenses, the defendants retained counsel. Continuing in their mistaken belief, they did not inform their attorney of the action filed by HSBC. On November 13, 2008, counsel filed an amended answer and affirmative defenses on behalf of the defendants in the American Home Mortgage action, but took no action on the HSBC complaint.
Although the defendants did not file an answer in response to HSBC’s complaint, HSBC never moved for a default judgment.[ 3 ] Instead, on January 22, 2009, HSBC moved for summary judgment, scheduling the hearing for March 24, 2009. When the defendants received the motion for summary judgment in the HSBC action, it sent the motion to their counsel. It was at that point, that the defendants and their counsel realized that two separate banks were attempting to simultaneously foreclose on the same mortgage, but that they only had been defending the initial action filed by American Home Mortgage.
On February 23, 2009, the defendants filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the affidavit of Glazy Ruscalleda, and a motion to transfer the case to the division where the foreclosure action filed by American Home Mortgage was pending (“Motion to Transfer”). On February 25, 2009, the defendants filed a request for production, request for admissions, and notice of interrogatory. American Home Mortgage waited until the day before the scheduled hearing to file its notice of voluntary dismissal, although it had executed the assignment of mortgage almost three months earlier.
At the scheduled hearing, the trial court heard the arguments raised by HSBC in its motion for summary judgment and by defense counsel in his memorandum of law filed in opposition. Although it is undisputed that the defendants’ discovery was still pending, the trial court entered final summary judgment on the same day as the hearing, March 24, 2009, in favor of HSBC.[ 4 ]
Based on the unique circumstances set forth above, we conclude that the order under review must be reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, with directions to allow the defendants to file an answer and affirmative defenses and to require HSBC to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests. The record clearly demonstrates that the defendants’ failure to file a timely answer and affirmative defenses in the action filed by HSBC was due to the confusion caused by American Home Mortgage and HSBC when they were simultaneously attempting to foreclose on the same exact mortgage in two different divisions of the circuit court.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq.
The Metropolitan, PH 2-5
403 S. Sapodilla Avenue
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
(szymoniak@mac.com)
Mr. Ed Albrigo
Senior Vice President
FREDDIE MAC
8200 Jones Branch Drive MS 200
McLean, Virginia 22102
Mr. R.K. Arnold, President and CEO
Merscorp, Inc.
1595 Spring Hill Road, Suite 310
Vienna, Virginia 22182
Marianne Sullivan
Senior Vice President
FANNIE MAE
3900 Wisconsin Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20016
September 6, 2010
Re: Abuses and Forgeries By MERS Officers in Mortgage Foreclosures
Dear Mr. Albrigo, Mr. Arnold and Ms. Sullivan:
I am writing to you in your capacity as members of the Board of Directors of MERS.
This letter concerns certain widespread abuses by individuals using MERS titles. After extensive research regarding Mortgage Assignments prepared in Alpharetta, Georgia, purportedly signed by MERS certifying officers, it is apparent that:
1. there were widespread forgeries by individuals who signed over a million Mortgage Assignments as MERS officers with many different individuals signing the same four names;
2. the individuals signing these names also used many different MERS titles,with Linda Green, Korell Harp and Tywanna Thomas claiming to be authorized by many different lenders to convey mortgages as MERS
officers;
3. the information on the Mortgage Assignments is false particularly regarding the dates on which mortgages were conveyed. In several hundred thousand cases, Assignments to Residential Mortgage-Backed Securitized
Trusts state that the Trusts acquired the mortgages AFTER foreclosure litigation was filed by the Trusts. This has resulted in a tremendous backlog of cases as the wrong parties often file the foreclosure actions.
These Mortgage Assignments are being used extensively in foreclosure actions in Florida and other states. Because of the apparent authority of MERS, these assignments are most often assumed to be correct by judges. Because so many foreclosure litigants are unrepresented by counsel, these Mortgage Assignments
are going unchallenged even though they are obvious forgeries.
Please carefully examine the attached mortgage assignments signed by Linda Green, Korell Harp, Tywanna Thomas and Jessica Ohde as MERS officers as these examples plainly show many variations of the Green, Harp, Ohde, and Thomas signatures.
Many of the MERS job titles that have been attributed to Linda Green are listed in Schedule A attached hereto. Many of the MERS job titles that have been attributed to Korell Harp are listed in Schedule B. Many of the MERS job titles that have been attributed to Tywanna Thomas are listed in Schedule C.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. There were nearly 11,000 mortgage foreclosures granted in Palm Beach County, Florida in the last six weeks. Many of these foreclosures were granted based on these Mortgage Assignments signed by individuals using MERS titles. It is apparent that these signatures and MERS titles are misleading judges and homeowners. The Palm Beach County experience is occurring throughout the country.
The Florida Attorney General is investigating fraudulent documents used to “facilitate” foreclosures.
Most often, in Florida, these fraudulent Assignments are used by the same law firms that are hired by Lender Processing Services, in its role as a foreclosure management company. In Florida, the firms that most often use these documents to foreclose are the Law Offices of David J. Stern, Florida Default Law Group, Shapiro & Fishman, and the Law Offices of Marshall Watson.
All four of these law firms have also been named by the Florida Attorney General as being under investigation for using fraudulent documents in foreclosures.
I am prepared to brief you or your designees fully on my research.
Thank you for your attention to this most serious matter.
Linda Green
Lender Processing Services
Shapiro & Fishman
Action Date: August 26, 2010 Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
On August 11, 2010, the Florida foreclosure mill law firm of Shapiro & Fishman (S&F) filed a “corrective” mortgage assignment (copy available in the “Pleadings” section herein). According to S & F, this “corrective” assignment was necessary because previous assignments filed by S & F were signed by Linda Green “who at that time did not have signing authority on behalf of MERS.” The day before, on August 10, 2010, the Florida Attorney General’s office issued a press release identifying S & F as one of the Florida law firms under investigation for unfair & deceptive trade practices involving improper documentation used to speed foreclosure proceedings. When Linda Green signed the prior assignments as a MERS officer, she was actually employed by Lender Processing Services in its Alpharetta, Georgia offices. Lender Processing Services decides which law firms get assigned foreclosure cases by the banks in hundreds of thousands of cases. Lender Processing Services hires the law firms and provides these firms with the documents they might need – using its own employees to sign the documents – without authority from MERS. The “corrective” assignment was signed by Kathy Smith and Joseph Kaminski who were identified as Assistant Secretaries of MERS, as nominee for American Brokers Conduit ( a company in bankruptcy since 2007). Smith & Kaminski are not actually employed by MERS or by American Brokers Conduit – so S&H may need another “corrective assignment.” The original assignment was dated October 17, 2008 – over two weeks AFTER the Lis Pendens was filed, but the “corrective” assignment attempts to solve the obvious lack of standing by a provision that states that the actual delivery of the documents took place on an unspecified date “and that such delivery of documents had occurred before default and before the filing to the lis pendens…” Courts and homeowners can expect a few more corrections from Shapiro & Fishman.
Law firm Shapiro & Fishman has accused Attorney General Bill McCollum of pre-election grandstanding and “abuse of power” in connection with McCollum’s recent announcement that his office is conducting a foreclosure fraud investigation into that firm and two others.
The allegations are in response to a coordinated investigation announced by McCollum during an Aug. 10 press conference. McCollum said his office is looking at whether the three South Florida firms engaged in unfair and deceptive actions in their handling of foreclosure cases.
The other firms were the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson in Fort Lauderdale and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. in Plantation.
The firm’s response came Friday in a motion to quash a subpoena in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.
“As a result of this economic crisis and political climate, politicians have joined in the blame game in an effort to demonstrate their concern for ‘consumers,’” the firm’s petition states.
The petition said the attorney general’s news release mentioned issues that are not even covered in the state’s subpoena, and that the subpoena is overly broad – requesting documents apparently unrelated to the investigation.
Marcia Heroux Pounds, Sun Sentinel
August 20, 2010
After months of wrangling with CitiMortgage, Dennis and Joyce Brown got fed up and hired an attorney to fight CitiMortgage’s foreclosure on their Lauderdale Lakes home. The Browns claim they are victims of fabricated documents used to foreclose after CitiMortgage failed to credit them for mortgage payments.
“They ran my blood pressure up so bad,” said Dennis Brown, who hired Fort Lauderdale lawyer Kenneth Eric Trent to fight the foreclosure.
CitiMortgage and its lawyers, David Stern Law Offices, voluntarily withdrew the case against the Browns in Broward County Circuit Court on June 16. But the Browns can’t rest easy. Recently, they’ve received newforeclosure letters from another lawyer representing CitiMortgage.
The Browns’ story is just one example of foreclosures resulting from allegedly fraudulent mortgage assignments and other tactics that “eliminate due process for the homeowner,” Trent said.
He also is suing Stern and his Plantation law firm in federal court in a separate foreclosure case with similar allegations.
In that lawsuit, on behalf of Oakland Park homeowner Ignacio Damian Figueroa, Trent contends that Stern and a mortgage registration firmgenerated fraudulent mortgage documents that are intentionally ambiguous to cloud the real ownership of the Figueroa’s mortgage note.
The foreclosure practices of Stern and two other law firms are under investigation by the Florida Attorney General’s Office. The attorney general recently requested records going back to Jan. 1, 2008, from Stern as well as The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., and Shapiro & Fishman, LLP.
Thousands of Florida homeowners may have lost their homes as a result of improper actions by the firms under investigation. In announcing the probe, Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican who is a running for governor, said the law firms may have presented fabricated documents in court to speed the foreclosure process and obtain judgments against homeowners.
Jeffrey Tew, a Miami attorney who represents Stern’s firm, said while the attorney general may have received complaints, there “will not be evidence of fraud.” Due to the large volume of foreclosures, there may have been clerical mistakes, he said. “In past two to three years, the Stern law firm has processed probably 100,000 foreclosures.”
But he disputes that Stern’s law firm fabricated any documents. “I haven’t seen any example where a bank didn’t have a mortgage in default,” Tew said.
Stern represents well known mortgage lenders including Bank of America, Chase, CitiMortgage, Inc., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, HSBC, SunTrust, and Wells Fargo. These lenders also are the shareholders of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS).
MERS is at the heart of the matter for Trent and other lawyers trying to stop what they view as illegal foreclosures in the nation.
The mortgage registry was created by lenders in the early 1990s to track home loans, including those repackaged as securities and sold to investors. When such loans were in foreclosure, MERS – not the original lender — was often the entity foreclosing. Some lawyers have successfully fought foreclosures by contending that MERS doesn’t own the note, or the borrower’s obligation to repay.
University of Utah law professor Christopher Peterson said MERS mortgage processing system goes against long-standing principles of property law in assigning rights to a note or mortgage. He said the “owner” of a mortgage can’t be the same as the “agent” representing the homeowner, for example.
Yet MERS records “false documents” with names of people who are not executives of the registry system, but often paralegals and clerks of law firms, he said. “It’s an extremely controversial and arguably fraudlent practice,” Peterson said.
Merscorp spokeswoman Karmela Lejarde declined to comment on the criticism of MERS or Trent’s lawsuit, citing company policy not to comment on pending lititgation.
Tew, who represents Stern’s Law Offices, called Trent’s lawsuit “fiction.” He points to Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal that ruled in July against a homeowner who tried to fight foreclosure on the basis that MERS didn’t own the note or mortgage.
For the Browns’, foreclosure troubles began with not getting credit for their payments fromCitiMortgage, their mortgage servicer.
The couple says they couldn’t clear it up with the lender. “They were claiming I was behind in payment, but I was paying every month,” said Brown, a carpenter who works for the Broward County School System and whose three children and four grandchildren also live in his Lauderdale Lakes home.
They stopped paying on their mortgage in late 2007 and sought legal help.
Another issue in Browns’ case isthe signature on the assignment of Brown’s mortgage, giving rights to CitiMortgage, Trent said. The signature is by Cheryl Samons, who is identified as “assistant secretary of Merscorp.” In reality, Samons is an employee of Stern’s law office.
Tew confirmed Samons’ employment by Stern, but said “it’s very common for companies to appoint a registered agent. That process is absolutely legal and normal.”
But Trent contends that mortgage assignments need to be made on personal knowledge, not hearsay, to be admissible in court.
The Browns could be facing another foreclosure action, but Trent said he is confident he can fight it again. “They don’t have the basis to foreclose,” he said.
CitiMortgage spokesman Mark Rodgers said privacy restrictions prevent the financial institution from discussing a customer’s foreclosure action. But Rodgers said procedures may resume in cases “where, despite our best efforts, we have been unable to arrive at a satisfactory resolution acceptable to all the parties involved.”
Tew said foreclosure defense lawyers are portraying homeowners who have defaulted on their mortgages as helpless victims. “Everyone is sympathetic, including us, for the homeowner who can’t pay his mortgage. But it’s not fair to paint the banks and law firms that represent them as wearing the black hats.”
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. GRG [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]
DinSFLA here: In my opinion this is trying to throw the towel and put the spot light on McCollum even when this was an investigation prior to…The AG did not instigate The Class Actions currently on the table against DJSP. It is the AG office job to protect the public and to look into the matter of the fraud that is coming out of DJSP and the other mills.
White-Collar Crime
Fla. AG Probe: Did 3 Law Firms Get 1,000s of Foreclosure Judgments By Possible Wrongdoing?
“On numerous occasions, allegedly fabricated documents have been presented to the courts in foreclosure actions to obtain final judgments against homeowners,” says a press release from Attorney General Bill McCollum announcing the investigation.
“Thousands of final judgments of foreclosure against Florida homeowners may have been the result of the allegedly improper actions of the law firms,” it continues.
“There is a terrific problem with the collapse of the market and David, who is representing banks legitimately trying to foreclose on a property, gets fingers pointed at him,” Tew told the newspaper. “David doesn’t do anything outside of the circuit court where a circuit judge supervises everything that happens.”
He also wondered aloud whether McCollum, who is a Republican candidate for state governor, could have been influenced by political considerations.
It is alleged that the firms, which were hired by loan servicers to begin foreclosure proceedings when homeowners were behind on their mortgages, may have fabricated mortgage assignments in order to speed up the foreclosure process.
“Thousands of final judgments of foreclosure against Florida homeowners may have been the result of the allegedly improper actions of the law firms under investigation,” said McCollum, who is running for governor.
“We are seeing a paperwork trail where law firms, through a mill, prepared paperwork with signatures from lenders who had assigned the mortgage,” he said.
All they have to do is look into several blogs and attorney sites to see the evidence of fraud including this one.
________________________________________
Here is Stern’s subpoena below…
Excerpts:
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to produce at said time and place all documents, as defined above, relating to the following subjects:
1. A list of all employees, independent contractors and/or subcontractors of the Law Offices of David J. Stern (DJS) for the past 5 years (former and current employees, independent contractors and/or subcontractors) including their job title(s), their duties and responsibilities and the length of their employment with DJS, including any contracts DJS has or had with them.
2. For the past five years, the names and addresses of any and all lawyers and/or law firms that DJS hires/uses throughout the State to represent their clients in foreclosure cases and in what capacity said lawyers/law firms serve DJS, including any contracts between DJS and the lawyer(s) and/or law firm(s).
3. The names and addresses of the lending institutions that DJS has represented in foreclosure cases over the past 5 years, including any contracts between DJS and said institutions.
4. The names and addresses of any and all companies used by DJS to draft and/or execute Assignments of Mortgage or Affidavits for the past 5 years, including any contracts between the lending institutions and DJS allowing for the use of the companies to draft and/or execute said Assignments of Mortgage.
5. The names and addresses of any and all persons and/or companies hired and/or used by DJS to perfect service of process on foreclosure defendants for the past 5 years, including their relationship to DJS and/or David J. Stern, individually including any and all contracts between the person or persons and/or company and DJS.
6. The names and addresses of any and all servicing companies DJS represents or represented for the past 5 years.
7. For the past 5 years, the names and addresses of any corporations, companies, partnerships or associations that David J. Stern and/or DJS has any interest in, including any foreign corporations, and detail what the business does and what type of interest is held by Stern and/or DJS.
9. List all notaries for the past 5 years that worked or works for DJS who notarized Affidavits as to fee and Assignments of Mortgage, include their names and addresses.
10. Copies of all non-disclosure agreements that DJS has or had over the past 5 years with any and all of its employees, subcontractor or independent contractors.
11. Copies of all checks and/or evidence of any other form of payment(s) from the plaintiffs that DJS represents in court in foreclosure cases to DJS and/or any of DJS’s affiliates and/or subsidiaries for services rendered in foreclosure cases.
12. Documents, including emails, that evidence what the pay scales, pay grades and/or bonuses paid by DJS to employees, subcontractors or independent contractors for completion of foreclosure cases within a certain time period.
13. Documents, including emails, that evidence what the pay scales, pay grades and/or bonuses paid by lenders to DJS or its employees, subcontractors or independent contractors for completion of foreclosure cases within a certain time period
Recent Comments