DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
January Term 2011
STATE OF FLORIDA,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Appellant,
v.
SHAPIRO & FISHMAN, LLP,
Appellee.
No. 4D10-4526
[April 27, 2011]
Excerpt:
At oral argument, the Attorney General conceded it had decided to proceed exclusively under this one particular statutory provision. It could have proceeded under another statutory provision, such as a criminal investigative subpoena if other relevant criteria were satisfied, which would not require the subpoena to qualify as connected to “trade or commerce” under FDUTPA. This was exclusively the choice of the state.
Action Date: April 4, 2011 Location: West Palm Beach, FL
On April 3, 2011, CBS’ 60 MINUTES aired a segment showing massive fraud by banks and mortgage-backed trusts in foreclosures. The segment focused on one particular document mill, Docx, LLC, owned by Lender Processing Services, Inc., a company that works for over 51 banks. One former employee confessed to forging 4,000 documents each day.
What mortgage servicing companies used the Docx forged documents in hundreds of thousands of cases? The major mortgage servicer involved was American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. in Coppell, TX. Other mortgage servicers that used forged documents from LPS include Saxon Mortgage Services in Fort Worth, TX and Select Portfolio Servicing in Salt Lake city, Utah.
What bank/trustees most often used the Docx forged documents in foreclosures? Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Citibank and Bank of America were the top five users of these forged documents, but other banks were also involved.
American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. knew about the forgeries, but never disclosed to courts or homeowners their widespread use of forged documents.
In thousands of cases across the country, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company continues to push these documents upon the courts as proof that they own mortgages and have the right to foreclose, despite overwhelming evidence and even admissions of forgeries.
These servicing companies and bank need to begin the process of admissions, disclosures and reparations.
What law firms pushed and continue to push these fraudulent documents upon Courts and homeowners? In Florida, the firms that used these documents and continue to use these documents are: Law Offices of David Stern; Florida Default Law Group; Law Offices of Marshall Watson; Shapiro & Fishman Law Firm and Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. Lawyers who used and continue to use these Docx forgeries in court should, at a minimum, lose the right to practice law.
The government focus must be on protecting the rights of homeowners and shareholders and the court system and holding the banks and securities companies accountable.
Q. Would Litton have reached out to — I’m going to
13 call it MERS in place of Mortgage Electronic
14 Registration Systems. Would Litton have reached out to
15 MERS to execute this assignment?
16 A. Actually, Marti Noriega and Denise Bailey are
17 employed by Litton Loan Servicing. They have authority
18 to sign on behalf of MERS.
19 Q. Does either of those parties have authority to
20 sign on behalf of Accredited Home Lenders?
21 A. No, not to my knowledge.
22 Q. Do you know if Accredited Home Lenders was still
23 in place on the date that this assignment of mortgage
24 was executed?
THE WITNESS: I’m not certain of Accredited
2 Home Lenders’ status at this time.
3 BY MR. KORTE:
4 Q. As of April of 2009, are you aware if Accredited
5 Home Lenders was in bankruptcy?
6 A. I don’t know what their status was.
7 Q. Are there any other assignments of mortgage other
8 than this one as Composite Exhibit C that you’re aware
9 of?
10 A. No.
<SNIP>
Q. Well, is this Allonge a copy of the Allonge; or
3 is this the original Allonge copied with the correct
4 endorsement?
5 A. The only way I could verify that is to see the
6 actual, original note which is on file with the court.
7 Q. Do you know why the Allonges are different from
8 the one that was filed with the complaint and the one
9 that was filed with the court several months later?
10 A. No, I do not.
The Florida attorney general’s office has confirmed the names of three law firms added to its foreclosure investigation, including Kahane & Associates, which handles hundreds of home repossessions in Palm Beach County.
The Plantation-based company, as well as the Tampa firms of Daniel C. Consuegra, and Albertelli Legal received letters of inquiry in December from the Economic Crimes Division of the attorney general’s office.
All of the firms are part of mortgage giant Fannie Mae’s retained attorney network in Florida. Consuegra was just added to the list in November following Fannie Mae’s decision to stop using the Law Offices of David J. Stern, which is also under investigation.
The Dec. 2 letter to the three firms says the attorney general has opened a preliminary investigation regarding complaints the state has received of “unfair, deceptive and unconscionable practices” in how defaulted mortgages have been handled.
Investigators give the firms 45 days to hand over all consumer complaints received in a two-year period beginning in April 2008, employee directions as to the handling of foreclosures, and correspondence regarding remedies taken to assure proper methods are being followed in filing foreclosures.
For you to understand a little more about “the 4 minute foreclosure” you first have to know some key players in the controversy surrounding the foreclosure process today. I included a few excerpts from an article written by Gerlad B. Alt for DS News March of 2007 that you will find at the end. I only wish MERS was included in this article because without this device none of this would have been made possible.
The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac, is a public government sponsored enterprise (GSE), headquartered in the Tyson’s Corner CDP in unincorporated Fairfax County, VirginiaFreddie Mac, one of America’s biggest buyers of home mortgages, is a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1970 to keep money flowing to mortgage lenders in support of home-ownership and rental housing.
Freddie Mac was the first investor to improve on the so-called standard timeframes by tightening the noose and imposing what seemed at the time like draconian and arbitrary standards for completion of legal actions for foreclosure and bankruptcy. To reinforce its point, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation adopted a designated counsel program under which the attorneys chosen to participate were expected to meet and be graded against these more stringent dates.
LOGS Network is a multi-state network of title companies and law firms and connecting them via a proprietary web-hosted software system. They developed a proprietary statistical program called ASAP (Attorney Scorecard and Performance) to help manage the more than 250 law firms its outsourcing division. By introducing , invented the field counsel industry that serves residential mortgage banking. LOGS Network was co-founded by Gerald M. Shapiro of Shapiro & Fishman PA a law firm who handles foreclosures for the financial industry. His network held a virtual monopoly on all foreclosure and bankruptcy work nationwide until the early 1990s. In addition, he preempted the entire industry by creating the “cradle to grave” concept through business developments in title, closing, document preparation, foreclosures, REO, outsourcing, collection, and debt acquisition businesses.
Fidelity National, a national default outsourcing and information provider, was one of the first in the industry to implement time-frames a high priority instead of a guideline standards. It instituted a policy recognizing and rewarding those attorneys who did work for its clients in a consistently shorter time than their competition. Fidelity mentality was the faster the better and by publicizing and comparing the time to completion of various legal tasks among the hundreds of law firms doing work for its client base. It created a demand for attorneys to keep up with their business practices in the same sequence that other industries have had to in the sense of “recreating the wheel” so to speak to keep up with growing competition.
By having a goal of recovering nonconforming assets for the servicers this put pressure on the time frames they had in order to recover title.
Of course, when the only acceptable
test for quality becomes a simple test
of speed, it is inevitable that some of
the participants will feel compelled
to cut corners to stay in the game.
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?
We’ve described in various posts how evidence is growing that the participants in mortgage securitizations sometime early in this century appear to have ignored the requirements of a variety of laws and their own contracts. We believe the most serious and difficult to remedy problem results when the parties involved in the creation of a mortgage securitization failed to take the steps necessary to convey the loans to the legal entity, a trust, which was set up to hold them. As we wrote:
…. there is substantial evidence that in many cases, the notes were not conveyed to the trust as stipulated. As we have discussed, the pooling and servicing agreement, which governs who does what when in a mortgage securitization, requires the note (the borrower IOU) to be endorsed (just like a check, signed by one party over to the next), showing the full chain of title. The minimum conveyance chain in recent vintage transactions is A (originator) => B (sponsor) => C (depositor) => D (trust).
The proper conveyance of the note is crucial, since the mortgage, which is the lien, is a mere accessory to the note and can be enforced only by the proper note holder (the legalese is “real party of interest”). The investors in the mortgage securitization relied upon certifications by the trustee for the trust at and post closing that the trust did indeed have the assets that the investors were told it possessed.
Published: Tuesday, November 9, 2010 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, November 8, 2010 at 10:04 p.m.
.
( page of 4 )
Appellate courts in Tallahassee and West Palm Beach have admonished lower courts for allowing foreclosures to proceed without the proper paperwork and kicked the cases back to circuit judges in a move some experts say could further complicate the foreclosure crisis.
At issue is the use of sworn affidavits that convinced circuit judges the borrower’s original promissory note had been lost in the shuffle but that the lender still had a right to foreclose. Experts likened it to a used car dealer selling a vehicle using a photocopy of the title.
Circuit court judges have been using such promises to issue summary judgments, which have sped cases along at a time when the courts have been inundated.
Observers say the rulings from the 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee and the 4th District Court of Appeal in West Palm Beach could become templates for more challenges.
It is unclear just how many cases could be affected — the chief judge in this region’s circuit says foreclosure paperwork is carefully scrutinized by teams of case managers — but the rulings come as the system already is dealing with disruptions from self-imposed bank moratoriums to deal with questionable paperwork.
“It is the culmination of the worst civil procedure nightmare we’ve ever imagined,” said Anne L. Weintraub, a real estate attorney at Sarasota’s Syprett Meshad law firm, referring to the recent appellate rulings.
What happens next could have widespread implications for the more than 200,000 Floridians who have lost their homes to foreclosure since January 2007, including the more than 12,000 in Manatee, Sarasota and Charlotte counties.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2010
GUISEPPE SERVEDIO
a/k/a Joseph Servedio,
Appellant,
v.
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Indenture Trustee, on behalf of
the holders of Terwin Mortgage Trust 2007-AHL1, Asset-Backed
Securities Series 2007-AHL1,
Appellee.
No. 4D10-1898
[October 27, 2010]
PER CURIAM.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in
granting a final summary judgment of foreclosure where appellee failed
to file with the court a copy of the original note and mortgage prior to the
entry of judgment. Because the absence of the original note created a
genuine issue of material fact regarding appellee’s standing to foreclose
on the mortgage, summary judgment was not proper. We reverse.
In November 2008, appellee filed a n unverified complaint against
appellant, seeking both foreclosure of the mortgage and reestablishment
of the lost promissory note. Appellant attached to the complaint a copy
of the mortgage it sought to foreclose, but this document identified
Bankers Express Mortgage, Inc. as the lender and mortgagee. An
adjustable rate rider a n d prepayment penalty rider also identified
Bankers Express as the lender and mortgagee.
Appellant answered and denied all of the allegations in appellee’s
complaint. In addition, appellant asserted affirmative defenses that
appellee was not “in privity” with the lender and mortgagee and that
appellee lacked standing to seek foreclosure.
Appellee filed for summary judgment on the foreclosure count alone.
In support of its motion, appellee filed an affidavit from a representative
of the loan servicing company who stated the total amount due on the
mortgage. The affidavit did not indicate that appellee was an owner or
holder of the mortgage and note, and no documentary evidence was
appended to the affidavit. The trial court granted appellee’s motion for
summary judgment. The record on appeal contains no indication that
appellee filed the original note with the trial court.1
Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130
(Fla. 2000). The court may consider “affidavits, answers to
interrogatories, admissions, depositions, and other materials as would be
admissible in evidence” o n which the parties rely. Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.510(c). The court must draw “every possible inference” in favor of the
non-moving party. Edwards v. Simon, 961 So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2007). The facts must be “so crystallized that nothing remains but
questions of law.” Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla. 1985.) The
moving party bears the burden of showing the complete absence of
genuine issues of material fact. Frost v. Regions Bank, 15 So. 3d 905,
906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Moreover, the “party moving for summary
judgment must factually refute or disprove the affirmative defenses
raised, or establish that the defenses are insufficient as a matter of law.”
770 PPR, LLC v. TJCV Land Trust, 30 So. 3d 613, 618 (Fla. 4th DCA
2010) (quoting Leal v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 21 So. 3d 907, 909
(Fla. 3d DCA 2009)). We review de novo an order granting summary
judgment. Frost, 15 So. 3d at 906.
“The party seeking foreclosure must present evidence that it owns and
holds the note and mortgage in question in order to proceed with a
foreclosure action.” Lizio v. McCullom, 36 So. 3d 927, 929 (Fla. 4th DCA
2010). A plaintiff must tender the original promissory note to the trial
court or seek to reestablish the lost note under section 673.3091, Florida
Statutes. State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Lord, 851 So. 2d 790, 791 (Fla.
4th DCA 2003). Moreover, if the note does not name the plaintiff as the
payee, the note must bear a special indorsement in favor of the plaintiff
or a blank indorsement. Riggs v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 36 So. 3d 932,
933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Alternatively, the plaintiff may submit evidence
of a n assignment from th e payee to the plaintiff or a n affidavit of
1 Appellee has twice moved this court to supplement the record on appeal to
include a copy of the original note and mortgage it claims to have filed at the
summary judgment hearing. This court denied the motions with leave for
appellee to seek relinquishment of jurisdiction to the trial court to recreate the
record. Appellee has not sought leave to recreate the record in the court below.
Likewise, appellee has not designated any transcripts to support its position.
ownership to prove its status as a holder of the note. Verizzo v. Bank of
N.Y., 28 So. 3d 976 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Stanley v. Wells Fargo Bank, 937
So. 2d 708 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
The record on appeal does not contain the original note, evidence of
an assignment of the mortgage and note to appellee, or an affidavit of
ownership by appellee. Appellee filed no other admissible “pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, affidavits, and other
materials” to support its contention that it owns and holds the note and
mortgage. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). “[I]t is apodictic that summary
judgments may not be granted . . . absent the existence” of admissible
evidence in the record. TRG-Brickell Point NE, Ltd v. Wajsblat, 34 So. 3d
53, 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Without evidence demonstrating appellee’s
status as holder and owner of the note and mortgage, genuine issues of
material fact remain, and summary judgment was improper.
Appellee argues on appeal that it presented to the trial court a copy of
the original note and an affidavit of ownership at the summary judgment
hearing. Appellee concedes, however, that the documents were not filed
with the clerk of the court until several days after the entry of summary
judgment. The documents were not part of the record at the time the
motion for summary judgment was granted, so we cannot determine
whether the trial court considered those documents in rendering its
decision. See Poteat v. Guardianship of Poteat, 771 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2000) (noting that a n appellate court may review only items
considered by the trial court). Because appellant does not stipulate that
the documents were considered at the hearing, and because appellee has
not sought relief in the trial court to recreate the record, we must reverse
the order granting summary judgment. We cannot rely o n the
representations of counsel alone. Wright v. Emory, 41 So. 3d 290, 292
(Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“[An] attorney’s unsworn, unverified statements do
not establish competent evidence.”).
Even if the trial court considered the note and mortgage at the
hearing, the documents were not authenticated, filed, and served more
than twenty days before the hearing as required by Rules 1.510(c) and
1.510(e). Appellee’s failure to abide by these rules also necessitates
reversing the order granting summary judgment. Verizzo, 28 So. 3d at
977-78; Mack v. Commercial Indus. Park, Inc., 541 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1989).
Accordingly, we reverse the entry of final summary judgment in favor
of appellee a n d remand for further proceedings. We note that a
summary judgment motion may b e filed “at any time” under Rule
1.510(a), and “this opinion does not preclude a re-filing of such motion if
and when the necessary legal documents are before the court.” Mack,
541 So. 2d at 800.
Reversed and remanded.
WARNER, POLEN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
* * *
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm
Beach County; Thomas H. Barkdull, III, Judge; L.T. Case No.
502008CA037754XXXXMB.
Peter J. Snyder of Peter J. Snyder, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant.
Heidi J. Weinzetl of Shapiro & Fishman, LLP., Boca Raton, for
appellee.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Today the Florida Attorney General issued Subpoenas Duces Tecum’s to both Lender Processing Services Inc. and to a subsidiary DOCX. This involves employees past or present, the four foreclosure firms currently being investigated.
Both Assistant AG’s “McCollum’s Angels” June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards are doing an outstanding job!
STATE OF FLORIDA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
______________________________________
ECONOMIC CRIMES
INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
“You,” “Your” or “DOC X” as used herein means DOCX, L.L.c. and any ofthe respondents, their agents and employees or any “affiliate” of the aforementioned entities, as that term is herein defined. Your agents include but are not limited to your officers, directors, attorneys, accountants, CPA’s, advertising consultants, or advertising account representatives. Any document in the possession ofyou, your affiliates, your agents or your employees is deemed to be within your possession or control. You have the affirmative duty to contact your agents, affiliates and employees and to obtain documentation from them, if such documentation is responsive to this subpoena.
B. Unless otherwise indicated, documents to be produced pursuant to this subpoena should include all original documents prepared, sent, dated, received, in effect, or which otherwise came into existence at any time. If your “original” is a photocopy, then the photocopy would be and should be produced as the original.
C. This subpoena duces tecum calls for the production of all responsive documents in your possession, custody or control without regard to the physical location ofsaid documents.
D. “And” and “or” are used as terms of inclusion, not exclusion.
E. The documents to be produced pursuant to each request should be segregated and specifically identified to indicate clearly the particular numbered request to which they are responsIve.
F. In the event that you seek to withhold any document on the basis that is properly entitled to some privilege or limitation, please provide the following information:
1. A list identifying each document for which you believe a limitation exists;
2. The name of each author, writer, sender or initiator of such document or thing, if any;
3. The name of each recipient, addressee or party for whom such document or thing was intended, ifany;
4. The date of such document, if any, or an estimate thereof so indicated if no date appears on the document;
5. The general subject matter as described in such document, or, if no such description appears, then such other description sufficient to identify said document; and
6. The claimed grounds for withholding the document, including, but not limited to, the nature of any claimed privilege and grounds in support thereof.
G. For each request, or part thereof, which is not fully responded to pursuant to a privilege, the nature of the privilege and grounds in support thereof should be fully stated.
H. If you possess, control or have custody of no documents responsive to any of the numbered requests set forth below, state this fact in your response to said request.
1. For purposes of responding to this subpoena, the term “document” shall mean all writings or stored data or information ofany kind, in any form, including the originals and all nonidentical copies, whether different from the originals by reason of any notation(s) made on such copies or otherwise, including, without limitation: correspondence, notes, letters, telegrams, minutes, certificates, diplomas, contracts, franchise agreements and other agreements, brochures, pamphlets, forms, scripts, reports, studies, statistics, inter-office and intra-office communications, training materials, analyses, memoranda, statements, summaries, graphs, charts, tests, plans, arrangements, tabulations, bulletins, newsletters, advertisements, computer printouts, teletype, telefax, microfilm, e-mail, electronically stored data, price books and lists, invoices, receipts, inventories, regularly kept summaries or compilations of business records, notations of any type of conversations, meetings, telephone or other communications, audio and videotapes; electronic, mechanical or electrical records or representations of any kind (including without limitation tapes, cassettes, discs, magnetic tapes, hard drives and recordings to include each document translated, if necessary, through detection devices into reasonably usable form).
1. For purposes of responding to this subpoena, the term “affiliate” shall mean: a corporation, partnership, business trust, joint venture or other artificial entity which effectively controls, or is effectively controlled by you, or which is related to you as a parent or subsidiary or sibling entity. “Affiliate” shall also mean any entity in which there is a mutual identity of any officer or director. “Effectively controls” shall mean having the status of owner, investor (if 5% or more of voting stock), partner, member, officer, director, shareholder, manager, settlor, trustee, beneficiary or ultimate equitable owner as defined in Section 607.0505(11)(e), Florida Statutes.
K. The term “Florida affiliates” shall mean those of your affiliates which do business in Florida or which are licensed to do business in Florida.
L. If production of documents or other items required by this subpoena would be, in whole or in part, unduly burdensome, or if the response to an individual request for production may be aided by clarification of the request, contact the Assistant Attorney General who issued this subpoena to discuss possible amendments or modifications of the subpoena, within five (5) days of receipt ofsame.
M. Documents maintained in electronic form must be produced in their native electronic form with all metadata intact. Data must be produced in the data format in which it is typically used and maintained. Moreover, to the extent that a responsive Document has been electronically scanned (for any purpose), that Document must be produced in an Optical Character Recognition (OCR) format and an opportunity provided to review the original Document. In addition, documents that have been electronically scanned must be in black and white and should be produced in a Group IV TIFF Format (TIF image format), with a Summation format load file (dii extension). DII Coded data should be received in a (Comma-Separated Values) CSV format with a pipe (I) used for multivalue fields. Images should be single page TIFFs, meaning one TIFF file for each page of the Document, not one .tifffor each Document. Ifthere is no text for a text file, the following should be inserted in that text file: “Page Intentionally Left Blank.”
Moreover, this Subpoena requires all objective coding for the production, to the extent it exists. For electronic mail systems using Microsoft Outlook or LotusNotes, provide all responsive emails and, if applicable, email attachments and any related Documents, in their native file format (i.e., .pst for Outlook personal folder, .nsf for LotusNotes). For all other email systems, provide all responsive emails and, if applicable, email attachments and any related Documents in OCR and TIFF formats as described above.
P. The relevant time period for the present request shall be from January 1, 2006 to present unless otherwise specifically stated. YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to produce at said time and place all documents, as defined above, relating to the following subjects:
1. Copies ofall “Network Agreements” between DOCX and any law firm with offices located in the State of Florida.
2. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Linda Green to sign documents in the following capacities:
a. Vice President of Loan Documentation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. successor by merger to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; ;
b. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.;
c. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing as successor-in-interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;
d. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for American Brokers Conduit;
e. Vice President & Asst. Secretary, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as servicer for Ameriquest Mortgage Corporation;
f. Vice President, Option One Mortgage Corporation;
g. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for HLB Mortgage;
h. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.;
1. Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for Family Lending Services, Inc.;
J. Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as Successor -ininterest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;
k. Vice President, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC by Citi Residential Lending, Inc., attorney-in-fact;
m. Vice President, Amtrust Funsing (sic) Services, Inc., by American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as Attorney-in -fact;
n. Vice President, Seattle Mortgage Company.
3. Copies of every document signed in any capacity by Linda Green.
4. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Korell Harp to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.
5. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Jessica Ohde to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.
6. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Pat Kingston to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.
7. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Christina Huang to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.
8. Copies of any and all underlying documentation that allows for your employee or ex-employee, Tywanna Thomas to sign documents in any capacity for any lender and/or servicing company.
9. All policy and procedure manuals and/or training materials regarding the methods and timing that DOCX uses, including without limitation relating to the drafting and/or execution of foreclosure and mortgage related documents, including but not limited to Assignments of Mortgage, Satisfactions ofMortgage and Affidavits ofany and all kind.
10. A list ofall employees, dates ofhire and termination, and their duties, including whether or not they provide any notary services for DOCX.
11. All documents in your possession regarding any contracts with Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. and The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A., including contracts regarding payments to or from any of those entities.
12. Documents relating to the relationship between DOCX and NewTrac and/or NewInvoice, including but not limited to, documents relating to the types ofdocuments that are or can be generated or are requested to be generated.
13. Any price lists published in any manner to prospective customers, whether by printed or electronic means.
14. All communications between DOCX and Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. or The Law Offices ofMarshall C. Watson, P.A. relating to procedures, policies, instructions or performance ofthe creation, backdating, modification, amendment, or other alteration ofany real property-related transactional document or records, including assignments, satisfactions ofmortgage, affidavits, notes, allonges, or other documents filed in any court.
15. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and Florida Default Law Group, P.L., The Law Offices of David J. Stem, P.A., Shapiro & Fishman, L.L.P. or The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P .A.
16. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and any title company, recording service, process server, or any other entity that provides payments to DOCX in connection with any services rendered in connection with any residential foreclosure.
17. Ledgers ofall financial transactions between DOCX and any title company, recording service, process server, or any other entity to whom DOCX provides payment(s) in connection with any services rendered in connection with any residential foreclosure.
WITNESS the FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 13th day of October, 2010.
June M. Clarkson
Assistant Attorney General
Florida Bar Number: 785709
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 110 S.E. 6th Street, 10th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: 954-712-4600
Facsimile: 954-712-4658
Theresa B. Edwards
Assistant Attorney General
Florida Bar Number: 252794
NOTE: In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing a special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact George Rudd, Assistant Attorney General at (954) 712-4600 no later than seven days prior to the proceedings. Ifhearing impaired, contact the Florida Relay Service 1-800-955-8771 (TDD); or 1-800-955-8770 (Voice), for assistance.
AUTHORITY
Florida Statute 501.206
501.206 Investigative powers of enforcing authority.(
1) If, by his own inquiry or as a result ofcomplaints, the enforcing authority has reason to believe that a person has engaged in, or is engaging in, an act or practice that violates this part, he may administer oaths and affinnations, subpoena witnesses or matter, and collect evidence. Within 5 days excluding weekends and legal holidays, after the service ofa subpoena or at any time before the return date specified therein, whichever is longer, the party served may file in the circuit court in the county in which he resides or in which he transacts business and serve upon the enforcing authority a petition for an order modifying or setting aside the subpoena. The petitioner may raise any objection or privilege which would be available under this chapter or upon service of such subpoena in a civil action. The subpoena shall infonn the party served of his rights under this subsection.
(2) If matter that the enforcing authority seeks to obtain by subpoena is located outside the state, the person subpoenaed may make it available to the enforcing authority or his representative to examine the matter at the place where it is located. The enforcing authority may designate representatives, including officials ofthe state in which the matter is located, to inspect the matter on his behalf, and he may respond to similar requests from officials ofother states.
(3) Upon failure ofa person without lawful excuse to obey a subpoena and upon reasonable notice to all persons affected, the enforcing authority may apply to the circuit court for an order compelling compliance.
(4) The enforcing authority may request that the individual who refuses to comply with a subpoena on the ground that testimony or matter may incriminate him be ordered by the court to provide the testimony or matter. Except in a prosecution for perjury, an individual who complies with a court order to provide testimony or matter after asserting a privilege against selfincrimination to which he is entitled by law shall not have the testimony or matter so provided, or evidence derived there from, received against him in any criminal investigation proceeding.
(5) Any person upon whom a subpoena is served pursuant to this section shall comply with the tenns thereof unless otherwise provided by order of the court. Any person who fails to appear with the intent to avoid, evade, or prevent compliance in whole or in part with any investigation under this part or who removes, destroys, or by any other means falsifies any documentary material in the possession, custody, or control of any person subject to any such subpoena, or knowingly conceals any relevant infonnation with the intent to avoid, evade, or prevent compliance shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.
Below is a document that Lender Processing Services, Inc. or it’s many subsidiaries submits by wire transmission to the foreclosure mill with instructions NOT to name the actual owner of the note on the foreclosure but in the name of the servicer!
“FORECLOSURE SHOULD BE IN THE NAME OF ”
It clearly states the names of the real parties:
SERVICER
TRUST
TRUSTEE/NOTE-OWNER
BORROWER
A foreclosure is rarely commenced under the “Real Entity.” So why do they keep this from us when they knew all along the real parties of interest? This was only discovered during an actual case or we would have never found this.
Coakley begins probe, calls for foreclosure moratorium
By Herald Staff
Saturday, October 2, 2010 –
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley called on Bank of America and other major creditors to delay all foreclosure proceedings and pledged to begin her own investigation in light of recent revelations that they may not have complied with the law.
Bank of America announced Friday it was delaying foreclosures in 23 states, not including Massachusetts, as it examines whether it rushed the foreclosure process for thousands of homeowners without reading the documents.
“Our office has been extremely active in holding major banks and Wall Street firms accountable during this foreclosure crisis. We are concerned about the revelations that Bank of America and other major lenders have failed to properly review foreclosure documentation,” Coakley said yesterday in a statement. “Our office is now investigating this apparent failure of major creditors to follow state foreclosure law to ensure that Massachusetts homeowners are properly protected. In light of these revelations, we are asking Bank of America and other major creditors to cease foreclosure proceedings for Massachusetts homeowners until they can demonstrate that they have complied with Massachusetts law.”
“They have no personal knowledge of the issue and they are supposed to. That is what these judges rely on when they issue judgments against homeowners,” said Matt Englett, KEL Law Firm.
(I-Newswire) October 2, 2010 – CENTRAL FLORIDA — Thousands of Floridians may soon be rescued from foreclosure. Last week KEL Attorneys filed a motion with the Supreme Court asking Chief Justice Canady for a stay on foreclosure cases being handled by law firms currently under investigation for document fraud.
The State Attorney General launched a formal investigation against Shapiro & Fishman, Marshall Watson and David Stern last month. Lenders hired the three big law firms, which handle 80 percent of all foreclosures in Florida, now accused of fraudulently signing documents to speed up the foreclosure process.
“They have no personal knowledge of the issue and they are supposed to. That is what these judges rely on when they issue judgments against homeowners,” said Matt Englett, KEL Law Firm.
Attorney Matt Englett has testimony from one of the people hired to just sign documentation. He describes a conference room with thousands of documents. He testified he would sign one affidavit after another, taking no more than a minute on each one.
“Time is money. The longer it takes to get the property back and sell the property, the more money they lose on that loan,” Englett said.
Englett hopes the motion will stop wrongful foreclosure it its tracks. He estimates that tens of thousands of homes may have already been wrongfully foreclosed upon, and about 80-percent of pending foreclosure actions contains fraudulent documents.
If Englett is successful, homeowners who have already lost their homes could collect thousands from their lender. And for the hundreds of others in Central Florida in the middle of foreclosure, it would buy time to save their home.
About KEL Attorneys:
Our law firm has had the honor to represent clients all over the country. We are also licensed in federal courts throughout the country and we are able to represent your case in state or federal court. In either venue, rest assured that our law firm will pursue your case aggressively and in the most cost effective manner possible.
We are not just your ordinary law firm, we operate as a full-service law firm that provides legal services nationwide and have a strong presence, with a law firm in Orlando and a law firm in Tampa. Due to size, legal expertise and handling client matters for over ten years, we can handle any legal issue or situation you may have.
Company Contact Information KEL Attorneys
Jennifer Warriner
111 N Magnolia Ave
Suite 1600
32801
Phone : 4075131900
Documents submitted to a court are supposed to be true as submitted. As an attorney, If I file a document with a court in which I swore I personally verified that the information contained within the document is true, and I didn’t actually do that, I’d get in real trouble. It’s simple: That’s fraud in the eyes of the court.
GMAC, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America recently admitted that their employees routinely sign thousands of documents without verifying what they’re signing. Those documents are then submitted to courts as if the documents were true, to enable the banks to foreclose on delinquent properties. Wells Fargo and CitiMortgage told the New York Times their employees do not engage in similar practices. Yet new evidence shows they do.
Confusion at Wells Fargo
Herman John Kennerty of Wells Fargo has given a deposition describing the department he oversees for Wells Fargo. It’s a department dedicated to simply signing documents. Kennerty testified that he signs 50 to 150 documents a day, verifying only the date on each. What else might he want to verify? Well, in one document he signed, he supposedly transferred the mortgage from Washington Mutual Bank FA to Wells Fargo on July 12, 2010. But that’s impossible, since Washington Mutual Bank FA changed its name in 2004, and by any name WaMu ceased to exist in 2008, when the FDIC took it over. Making the document even less comprehensible, the debtor had declared bankruptcy a month earlier, according to Linda Tirelli, who represented the debtor. Why would Wells Fargo want a mortgage from someone in bankruptcy? Finally, Tirelli pointed out that the papers Wells Fargo filed included a different transfer of the mortgage dated three days before the debtor took out the loan. The documents are a mess, yet Kennerty signed them regardless. Legal Nonsense at CitiMortgage
Similarly, one M. Matthews signed a number of documents that CitiMortgage has used to try to foreclose on properties. While Matthews may or may not sign hundreds of documents a day — I have not yet found a deposition in which he swears that he does — he certainly does not verify the contents of the documents he’s signing. For example, he signed a document supposedly transferring a mortgage from Lehman Brothers to Citi in 2009. It’s hard to see how that’s possible, since Lehman had already ceased to exist. When confronted with its nonsensical filing, Citigroup decided not to foreclose. Instead, it gave the homeowner a meaningful mortgage modification–$15,000 principal reduction, plus a 30 year fixed mortgage at 3%. Tirelli, who represented the debtor in that case too, notes that she sees bad documents in the vast majority of cases, and she keeps files of “robosigned” documents.
It’s true that in both the WaMu and Lehman Brothers documents, the signers were officially representing an entity called MERS and acting as the “nominee” of WaMu and the “nominee” of Lehman Brothers. But that doesn’t change the fraudulent nature of the documents as filed. MERS can’t continue to be the nominee of an entity that doesn’t exist. Moreover, MERS can’t assign something it doesn’t have, and MERS itself will admit it doesn’t own the underlying note or mortgage.
Possible Sanctions for JPMorgan Chase
Wells Fargo and CitiMortgage aren’t the only big banks to misrepresent their practices in the media; JPMorgan Chase told the New York Times that it had not withdrawn any documents in a pending case. However, Chase has in fact withdrawn robosigned documents in a case Tirelli is currently defending. Chase now faces possible sanctions in the case.
Why are the big, sophisticated banks submitting such problematic documents to the courts? The key reason is that sometimes when a bank wants to foreclose, it has to prove it actually has the right to foreclose — that it owns the note and accompanying mortgage. Unfortunately for the banks, the securitization of mortgages and the changes in property ownership documentation that accompanied it make it hard for the banks to establish clean chains of title and produce original documents. Hard, that is, in an environment where a massive number of foreclosures must be started and completed in a timely manner.
JOHN KENNERTY a/k/a Herman John Kennerty has been employed for many years in the Ft. Mill, SC offices of America’s Servicing Company, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. He signed many different job titles on mortgage-related documents, often using different titles on the same day. He often signs as an officer of MERS (“Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.”) On many Mortgage Assignments signed by Kennerty, Wells Fargo, or the trust serviced by ASC, is shown as acquiring the mortgage weeks or even months AFTER the foreclosure action is filed.
Titles attributed to John Kennerty include the following:
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for 1st Continental Mortgage Corp.;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for American Brokers Conduit;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for American Enterprise Bank of Florida;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for American Home Mortgage;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Amnet Mortgage, Inc. d/b/a American Mortgage Network of Florida;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Bayside Mortgage Services, Inc.;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for CT Mortgage, Inc.;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for First Magnus Financial Corporation, an Arizona Corp.;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for First National Bank of AZ;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Fremont Investment & Loan;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Group One Mortgage, Inc.;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Guaranty Bank;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Homebuyers Financial, LLC;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for IndyMac Bank, FSB, a Federally Chartered Savings Bank (in June 2010);
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Irwin Mortgage Corporation;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Ivanhoe Financial, Inc., a Delaware Corp.;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Mortgage Network, Inc.;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Ohio Savings Bank;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Paramount Financial, Inc.;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Pinnacle Direct Funding Corp.;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for RBC Mortgage Company;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Seacoast National Bank;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Shelter Mortgage Company, LLC;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Stuart Mortgage Corp.;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Suntrust Mortgage;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Transaland Financial Corp.;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Universal American Mortgage Co., LLC;
Asst. Secretary, MERS, as Nominee for Wachovia Mortgage Corp.;
Vice President of Loan Documentation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.;
Vice President of Loan Documentation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. f/k/a Norwest Mortgage, Inc.
The Associated Press
Friday, October 1, 2010; 4:28 PM
WASHINGTON — A Bank of America official acknowledges in a legal proceeding that she signed up to 8,000 foreclosure documents a month and typically didn’t read them.
The executive’s admission adds the nation’s largest bank to a growing list of mortgage companies whose employees signed documents in foreclosure cases without verifying the information in them.
Two other companies, Ally Financial Inc.’s GMAC Mortgage unit and JPMorgan Chase, have halted tens of thousands of foreclosure cases after similar problems became public.
The Bank of America executive said in a February deposition in a Massachusetts bankruptcy case that she signed 7,000 to 8,000 foreclosure documents a month.
“I typically don’t read them because of the volume that we sign,” the executive said.
The disclosure comes two days after JPMorgan said it would temporarily stop foreclosing on more than 50,000 homes so it can review documents that might contain errors. Last week, GMAC halted certain evictions and sales of foreclosed homes in 23 states to review those cases after finding procedural errors in some foreclosure affidavits.
After GMAC’s announcement, state attorneys general in California and Connecticut told the company to stop foreclosures until it proves it’s complying with their state laws. The Ohio attorney general this week asked judges to review GMAC foreclosure cases.
And in Florida, the state attorney general is investigating four law firms, two with ties to GMAC, for allegedly providing fraudulent documents in foreclosure cases.
In some states, lenders can foreclose quickly on delinquent mortgage borrowers. But 23 states use a lengthy court process for foreclosures. They require documents to verify information on the mortgage, including who owns it. Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois are the biggest states with this process.
By Ariana Eunjung Cha | October 1, 2010; 2:41 PM ET
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on Friday ordered a moratorium on all foreclosures by all banks for 60 days–the most radical action taken by a state on issue of document irregularities.
California also expanded the moratorium on foreclosures it announced last week on Ally Financial foreclosures to include those by J.P. Morgan Chase.
Calling the companies’ review of key foreclosure documents “a ruse,” California Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) ordered J.P. Morgan to prove it is following the law before it continues foreclosures in the state.
Both J.P. Morgan Chase and Ally have frozen foreclosures in 23 states because some employees had signed off on foreclosure paperwork without properly reviewing the files.
Colorado and Illinois have stopped foreclosures by Ally and at least seven other states have launched probes into the issue. But Connecticut is the first to institute an industry-wide ban.
The attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, also said he is investigating JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) over its foreclosure practices. He previously said he was investigating Ally Financial Inc and its GMAC Mortgage unit.
“Banks that lured consumers into loans they couldn’t afford now seek to stampede them into foreclosure,” Blumenthal said in a statement. “This freeze should stop a foreclosure steamroller based on defective documents and enable effective remedies.”
The decisions came after borrowers’ lawyers released affidavits suggesting that some lenders’ employees are submitting documentation in foreclosure proceedings without understanding the contents.
Investigators in at least six U.S. states are examining foreclosure practices at GMAC, JPMorgan or both, and calling for such practices to be defended or halted.
Blumenthal, a Democrat, is running for the U.S. Senate. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by John Wallace)
Continue to REUTERS
.
Press Release
Attorney General Asks CT Courts To Freeze Home Foreclosures 60 Days Because Of Defective Docs October 1, 2010
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today asked the state Judicial Department to freeze all home foreclosures for 60 days because of defective document filings and institute measures to assure the integrity of future filings.
Blumenthal made the request after a second bank, JP Morgan Chase, acknowledged filing defective foreclosure documents. Like GMAC/Ally, JP Morgan admitted that so-called “robo-signers” signed affidavits without verifying the information in them. The GMAC robo-signer said under oath that he signed 8,000 to 10,000 foreclosure affidavits a month while a robo-signer for JP Morgan testified to spending less than two minutes on each affidavit.
Blumenthal is investigating GMAC/Ally and JP Morgan, as well as whether other banks may have engaged in similar practices.
Submitting defective documents is a possible fraud upon the court, potentially undermining foreclosures and underlying mortgages.
“This freeze should stop a foreclosure steamroller based on defective documents and enable effective remedies,” Blumenthal said. “The actions of GMAC/Ally and JP Morgan are inexcusable, a possible fraud on the court undermining the integrity of the legal process and consumers’ ability to fight foreclosures. Banks that lured consumers into loans they couldn’t afford now seek to stampede them into foreclosure. We must stop this runaway foreclosure train, restoring proper procedure and property owner rights.
“The Judicial Department should take additional measures — including requiring signers to state the basis for verifying information in affidavits — to restore the integrity of foreclosure documents. This appalling practice must be stopped before it poisons the legal system and unfairly evicts families from their homes.”
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – An outcry over questionable foreclosures by GMAC Mortgage and other lenders is likely to hit some states more than others because of major differences in real estate law across the nation.
But ramifications for federal taxpayers and investors will depend on the costs of clearing up the problem, the latest fallout from the bursting of the U.S. real estate bubble.
GMAC Mortgage announced last week that it had suspended evictions and post-foreclosure closings in 23 states due to concerns over paperwork. In order for a lender to foreclose on a property, it must prove that it actually checked the borrower’s loan agreements, and that the homeowner defaulted.
But the unit of Ally Financial, which is 56.3 percent owned by the U.S. government after a $17 billion bailout, said employees preparing foreclosures had submitted affidavits to judges containing information they did not personally verify.
“It’s a real mess,” said Justice Arthur Schack, a jurist on foreclosure issues who sits on the New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn.
GMAC’s announcement has raised doubts about whether some people lost their homes without good reason. Attorneys general in several states, including California, Colorado, Illinois and Ohio, are investigating.
“The law demands that lenders prove their case in foreclosure actions,” Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said last week.
But Ally characterizes the problem as merely technical, arguing that the underlying facts in each foreclosure are accurate.
“We are confident that the processing errors did not result in any inappropriate foreclosures,” it said in a statement last week.
GMAC landed in its predicament after one of its employees testified in a December 2009 deposition that he signed off on tens of thousands of affidavits containing information he did not verify.
The company said it has “substantially increased” the number of employees to verify documents, provided additional training, and suspended evictions out of an “abundance of caution.”
Ally isn’t the only firm under the microscope.
JPMorgan Chase & Co is delaying its current foreclosure proceedings and has begun to systematically re-examine related documents after discovering that some employees may have signed affidavits in some cases without personally reviewing the files.
Lawyers in Florida are questioning JPMorgan’s practices after discovering one of its executives did not check the details of its claims against a homeowner.
The executive said she had been part of an eight-person team that signs 18,000 documents a
Dear Judge XXXXX, I write you, and the other presiding and administrative judges of the Ohio Courts of Common Pleas, to draw your attention to an issue that may be of interest to you.
As you are aware, when a plaintiff in a foreclosure case moves for default or summary judgment, it will attach an affidavit from the lender or mortgage servicer attesting to the ownership and default status of loan. During the last week, questions have arisen about the validity of the foreclosure affidavits filed by a large servicer, GMAC Mortgage. GMAC (also operating as “Ally Financial”) issued a press release on September 20, 2010 announcing that it had directed certain of its vendors to suspend evictions and REO closings because of “a potential issue that was raised in a number of existing foreclosures challenging the internal procedure we used for executing one or more judicially required forms.”
A number of media outlets, including The Washington Post and The New York Times, reported on this statement. The news articles suggest that GMAC’s actions are related to a Florida deposition and a Maine deposition given by one of its employees, Jeffrey Stephan. Mr. Stephan signed thousands of foreclosure affidavits for GMAC, but in his depositions stated that he does not have knowledge of how the information in the affidavit is determined (Deposition of Jeffrey Stephan, June 7, 2010, p 30), does not know how the accuracy of the information is verified (Id.), does not review the exhibits attached to the affidavit (Id., p 54), does not read every paragraph of the affidavit (Id. p 61), and does not have the affidavit notarized in his presence (Id., p 56).
The depositions were not taken by my office, so I do not opine on their accuracy, but I wanted to draw your attention to this issue. At least one court has found that filing affidavits that falsely claim personal knowledge is a violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act when filed in connection with consumer transactions. Midland Funding, LLC v. Brent, 644 F. Supp. 2d 961, 977 (N.D. Ohio, 2009).
More broadly, I urge you as administrators to share this letter with your colleagues and urge them to exercise caution when approving any foreclosure orders involving GMAC. Further, I encourage you to consider whether additional administrative procedures need to be established to protect homeowners who are facing the threat of foreclosure. Issues similar to those surrounding GMAC have arisen in Ohio. For example, my office filed an amicus brief in an appellate case where a foreclosure affidavit averred that it was executed in Florida but the jurat and notarization stated that it was executed in New Jersey. The 2nd District Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking the faulty affidavit. HSBC Bank USA v. Thompson, 2010-Ohio-4158.
Please feel free to contact me or my Consumer Protection Section Chief, Susan Choe, at 614.466.1305, if we can be of any assistance regarding this letter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard Cordray
Ohio Attorney General
CC:
Sarah Lynn, Deputy Chief Counsel, Ohio Attorney General
Susan Choe, Consumer Protection Section Chief, Ohio Attorney General
Chase Home Finance, LLC
Whitney Cook
Beth Cottrell
Margaret Dalton
JPMorgan Chase
Lender Processing Services
Long Beach Mortgage
Stacy Spohn
Christina Trowbridge
Washington Mutual Bank
Action Date: September 30, 2010
Location: New York, NY
On September 29, 2010, financial giant JP Morgan Chase announced it was suspending 56,000 foreclosures because its documents may have been “submitted without proper review.” To assist JPMorgan Chase, Fraud Digest suggests that it dismiss those actions where the Affidavits or Mortgage Assignments were signed by the following robo-signers: Beth Cottrell, Whitney Cook, Christina Trowbridge and Stacy Spohn from the Chase Home Finance office in Franklin County, OH; Margaret Dalton and Barbara Hindman from the Jacksonville, FL office of JPMorgan Chase; and any of the Lender Processing Services robo-signers from the Dakota County, MN office including Christina Allen, Liquenda Allotey, Christine Anderson, Alfonzo Greene, Laura Hescott, Bethany Hood, Cecelia Knox, Topako Love, Jodi Sobotta, Eric Tate, Amy Weis and Rick Wilken. In particular, JP Morgan Chase should look at those cases where the bank has supposedly assigned mortgages to WaMu, WMALT, Long Beach Mortgage Company and NovaStar trusts years after the closing dates of these trusts. The number of questionable or fraudulent documents is likely to be much closer to 560,000 than to 56,000, and that will only be a good beginning.
See full article from DailyFinance: 
Washington Post
Recent Comments