Oregon Live-

A Columbia County judge has blocked U.S. Bank from evicting a Vernonia woman whose home it purchased in foreclosure, concluding in a case with far-reaching implications that her lenders had not properly recorded mortgage documents.

Last week’s action appears to be the first in which an Oregon judge has halted an eviction and declared a foreclosure sale void after the fact. The ruling, if it stands, raises questions about the validity of other recent foreclosures in the state and could create serious problems for lenders and title companies, as well as for buyers of such properties.

continue reading [OREGONLIVE]

[ipaper docId=59029308 access_key=key-ocrwyidzhe3rjfjpk9a height=600 width=600 /]

H/T Michelle

STATE OF MICHIGAN
WASHTENAW COUNTY TRIAL COURT

JAMES HENDRICKS, et al

v.

US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO BANK
OF AMERICA

EXCERPT:

The Court finds that the “Assignment”, recored on Decmeber 30, 2009 in the Washtenaw County Register of Deeds, serves to transfer nothing. The alleged conveyance failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the PSA and the New York Trust Law which governs the PSA. The alleged conveyance stated MERS assigned the mortgage and Promissory Note to USB, however, there has been no evidence presented to support the chain of the required assignments and endorsements of the mortgage and note as required by the terms and conditions of the PSA.

[…]

Therefore, the purported transfers, endorsements or assignments are void ab initio or never properly transferred into the trust. The only defendant with standing to proceed is First Franklin, the originator and original Lender of the Note and Mortgage.

[ipaper docId=57341599 access_key=key-12pk63ursiztqrul41ni height=600 width=600 /]

In re: MICHELIN ALCIDE, Chapter 7, Debtor.

Bky. No. 10-15489 ELF.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

May 27, 2011.

MEMORANDUM

ERIC L. FRANK, Bankruptcy Judge

Excerpts:

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A.

In order to place the present dispute in the proper procedural perspective, it is helpful to summarize certain background information regarding this chapter 13 case.

On July 27, 2010, less than four weeks after the commencement of the case, Everhome, as Servicer for Everbank, filed a proof of claim (Claim No. 3) (“the Proof of Claim”). The Proof of Claim is in the amount of $103,973.26 and states that the claim is secured by the Property. The Proof of Claim also states that instalment payments on the loan are delinquent from March 1, 2005 at $677.07 per month and that the total pre-petition delinquency on the loan is $63,703.80.^[6]

The Debtor filed his bankruptcy schedules on August 3, 2010 and a chapter 13 plan on August 4, 2010. (Doc. #’s 15, 16).

In his bankruptcy schedules (“the Schedules”), the Debtor disclosed a one-half ownership interest in the Property. (Doc. # 15, Schedule A).^[7] He disclosed the current value of his one-half interest in the Property as $50,000.00. I infer from the Debtor’s disclosure that he calculated the value of his interest in the property by dividing in half the value of the entire Property (i.e., $100,000.00 divided by two).

In his bankruptcy schedules, the Debtor also disclosed that the Property is encumbered by a mortgage in the amount of $103,973.26. In Schedule D, the Debtor identified three creditors as mortgage holders:

(1) MERS, Inc. as Nominee for Everhome Mortgage Co.;^[8]

(2) Michael J. Clark, Esquire; and

(3) Everhome Mortgage Co., Inc.

(Doc. # 15, Schedule D).

In Schedule D, the Debtor also disclosed that the Property was encumbered by three municipal liens (two in favor of “Philadelphia Gas Works” and one in favor of “Water Revenue”) in the aggregate amount of $12,364.30.

The Debtor filed a chapter 13 plan (“the Plan”) on August 4, 2010. (Doc. # 16). In substance, the Plan proposed for the Debtor to pay $5.00 per month for 60 months ($300.00 total) to the Chapter 13 Trustee. In addition, the Plan provided for the Debtor to sell the Property and distribute the proceeds in full satisfaction of the allowed secured claim of the holder of the note and mortgage on the Property and the other claims secured by the Property, with any remaining sale proceeds to be turned over to the Trustee.

The Plan made no reference to value the of the Property or the fact that the total amount due on the secured claims, as disclosed on his Schedules, exceeds the value of the Property. The Plan did not explain how the Debtor would be able to consummate the proposed sale or how any net proceeds would be available to the Trustee from the sale of a $100,000 asset encumbered by more than $116,000.00 in liens. The Plan set no deadline for the sale of the Property. But see In re Erickson, 176 B.R. 753, 757 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1995) (suggesting that a chapter 13 plan that features the sale of the debtor’s property must state the terms and time of the contemplated sale).

B.

I find the following facts based on the testimony presented and the documents introduced into evidence at the March 17, 2011 hearing.

Everhome and Everbank

1. Everhome and Everbank are separate entities.

2. Everbank is the parent company of Everhome.

3. Everhome “services” mortgages held by Everbank, by accepting payments from borrowers and tracking those payments and any defaults that arise under the mortgage.

the Mortgage

4. On November 18, 1998, the Debtor entered into a mortgage loan transaction (“the Original Transaction”) with Home Mortgage, Inc. (“HMI”).

5. The mortgage loan transaction was guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration.

6. In the Original Transaction, the Debtor signed a note (“the Note”) and a mortgage (“the Mortgage”) against the Property in favor of HMI. (See Ex. M-2).

7. The Mortgage states that it secures repayment of a debt evidenced by the Note. (Id.).

8. On June 30, 2000, HMI, acting through its Vice President, Teresa N. Jones, executed a written assignment, assigning the Mortgage to PrimeWest Mortgage Corporation (“PrimeWest”).

9. The HMI — PrimeWest assignment was recorded in the Philadelphia Department of Records on July 28, 2000. (Ex. M-4).

10. On June 1, 2005, PrimeWest, acting through its Vice President, Tanya Ault, executed a written assignment, assigning the Mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), “as nominee for Everhome Mortgage Company.” (Ex. M-5).

11. The PrimeWest — MERS/Everhome assignment was recorded in the Philadelphia Department of Records on October 25, 2005. (Ex. M-5).

12. On March 8, 2011, MERS, again as “as nominee for Everhome Mortgage Company,” and acting through Ann Johnson, Assistant Secretary, and Marcie Metcalf, Vice President, executed a written assignment, assigning the Mortgage to Everbank. (Ex. M-7).

13. The March 8, 2011 MERS — Everbank mortgage assignment was unrecorded as of March 17, 2011, the date of the hearing in this contested matter.

the Note

14. Attached to the Note is a blank endorsement executed by an individual purportedly acting on behalf of PrimeWest.

15. Everhome does not have physical possession of the Note.

16. U.S. Bank has physical possession of the Note.

17. Everhome considers U.S. Bank to be acting as Everhome’s “custodian” in maintaining physical possession of the Note.^[9]

18. The record does not reflect when U.S. Bank came into possession of the Note.^[10]

the foreclosure Complaint

19. On September 14, 2005, MERS, acting in its own name (and without the qualifying reference “as nominee”) filed a complaint in mortgage foreclosure (“the Complaint”) against the Debtor in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, docketed at No. 1150, Sept. Term 2005. (Ex. D-1).

20. In the Complaint, MERS alleged, without any qualification, that it is “the original Mortgagee named in the Mortgage, the legal successor in interest to the original Mortgagee, or is the present holder of the mortgage by . . . Assignment(s).” (Ex. D-1, Complaint ¶2).^[11]

21. As of July 2, 2010, MERS’ motion for summary judgment, which the Debtor contested, was pending.

the bankruptcy case

22. The Debtor commenced this chapter 13 bankruptcy case on July 2, 2010.

23. On July 27, 2010, Everhome, acting “as servicer for Everbank,” filed a proof of claim, asserting a claim secured by the Property in the amount of $103,973.26, with pre-petition arrears of $63,703.80.

24. On October 4, 2010, Everhome, again acting “as servicer for Everbank,” initiated this contested matter by filing the Motion, alleging that it is the “holder of a secured claim” against Debtor, secured by a first mortgage on the Property.

25. The Motion requests that the court grant Everhome relief from the automatic stay “to foreclose upon and to otherwise exercise its rights with respect to the [Property].”

26. Since the commencement of this bankruptcy case, the Debtor has made no payments to Everhome or Everbank.

[…]

C. Everhome Has Not Established that It Is A Party In Interest

On the present record, Everhome has not established that it is a party in interest entitled to seek relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. §362(d) in order to prosecute a foreclosure action against the Property. Everhome has not presented sufficient evidence to permit a finding that it is either: (1) the holder of the mortgage, with the concomitant right to enforce it under Pennsylania law or (2) an agent authorized by the holder of the Mortgage to initiate court proceedings to enforce the Mortgage on the holder’s behalf.

1.

When it filed the Motion, Everhome had a record interest in the Mortgage in the form of the 2005 mortgage assignment from PrimeWest to MERS “as nominee for Everhome.”^[20] As stated above, Pennsylvania law unequivocally provides that a mortgage holder may enforce the mortgage in a judicial foreclosure proceeding. See Part III.B.2., supra. Thus, at first blush, Everhome would have appeared to be a party in interest when it filed the Motion. However, other evidence presented conclusively contradicted Everhome’s apparent status as the mortgage holder.

Most significantly, during the hearing, Everhome made no claim that it is the mortgage holder. All of the evidence it presented, through Mr. Ricketson’s testimony, was designed to prove that Everhome is servicing the Mortgage on behalf of its parent company, Everbank. Everhome made no effort to harmonize this position with the inconsistent language in the 2005 mortgage assignment from PrimeWest to MERS — Everhome. Everhome’s own position in the litigation, by itself, makes it impossible to accord it “party in interest” status as the holder of the Mortgage.

Further, by the time the hearing was held in this contested matter, another mortgage assignment had been executed, which on its face removed Everhome as the beneficial mortgagee. Although the March 2011 assignment from MERS to Everbank was not recorded, under Pennsylvania law, the allegation that a party is the owner of a mortgage that is not yet recorded is sufficient to permit that party to proceed as a plaintiff in an action in mortgage foreclosure. Mallory, 982 A.2d at 993. Thus, Everhome’s own evidence tended to prove that Everbank, not Everhome, is the party in interest with the right to enforce the Mortgage under applicable nonbankruptcy law.^[21]

Everbank has not made a preliminary showing that it is a holder of the Mortgage with a right of enforcement. Therefore, Everhome may be a party in interest only if the evidence shows that Everhome has been authorized by the party that has the right to enforce the Mortgage to initiate legal proceedings on its behalf.

2.

Everhome’s position is that the Mortgage is held by Everbank and that as the servicer of the Mortgage, it has authority to file a motion for relief from the automatic stay. The Debtor does not concede this.

A number of courts have upheld the authority of a mortgage loan servicer to file a proof of claim on behalf of the mortgage holder.^[22] Most of the reported decisions also hold that a mortgage loan servicer has standing and is a party in interest entitled to prosecute a motion for relief from the automatic stay.^[23]

After reviewing the relevant case law, I conclude that a servicer’s financial interest in the debtor’s unpaid stream of mortgage payments satisfies the initial, and most fundamental, requirement for “party in interest” status (“injury in fact”), but does not automatically meet the prudential requirement that the movant assert its own legal rights, not that of a third party.

Most commonly, as in this case, a motion for relief from the automatic stay requests that the bankruptcy court authorize the movant to initiate or resume a foreclosure against the secured property. The purpose of the foreclosure action is to subject the secured property to sale, thereby permitting the secured creditor to realize its collateral. In Pennsylvania, it is the mortgage holder that has the right to pursue an action in mortgage foreclosure. Therefore, even though the servicer has an economic interest in the revenue stream generated by the mortgage, the relief requested in a stay relief motion — the right to pursue foreclosure proceedings against the collateral — involves the enforcement of the rights of the mortgage holder, not the servicer. Thus, the servicer’s economic stake in the mortgage does not necessarily mean that the servicer is a party in interest that may seek relief from the automatic stay in order to proceed with foreclosure.

That said, even though the in rem rights to be enforced following the grant of relief from the automatic stay may be those of the mortgage holder and not the servicer, the servicer may nonetheless be a party in interest in the bankruptcy case, with the right to prosecute a stay relief motion, if the servicer is acting within the scope of its authority as the mortgage holder’s agent. Whether it has such authority depends on the content of the servicing agreement between the mortgage holder and the servicer. That agreement may or may not be broad enough in scope as to delegate to the servicer the authority to initiate and manage foreclosure litigation on the mortgage holder’s behalf.^[24]

A servicer can establish its authority to initiate the legal action if it demonstrates that its contractual duties to the mortgage holder include not just the collection of payments, but also the conduct of mortgage foreclosure and other legal proceedings on the holder’s behalf. Such authority includes the power to move for relief from the automatic stay in the bankruptcy court. See Martinez, 2011 WL 996705, at *5; Jacobson, 402 B.R. at 367; Woodbury, 383 B.R. at 379. Stated in slightly different terms, a servicer may have standing and be a party in interest if it files the motion for relief from the automatic stay in its capacity as the holder’s attorney-in-fact. See Hwang I, 396 B.R. at 767.^[25]

Reduced to its essence, to establish its status as a party in interest entitled to seek relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. §362(d) in order to enforce legal remedies for a default under a mortgage, a mortgage servicer must demonstrate that:

(1) the initiation of the stay relief motion in the bankruptcy court is within the scope of authority delegated to the servicer by its principal and

(2) the principal itself is a party in interest (i.e., its principal is a party with the right to enforce the mortgage).

In this case, assuming arguendo that the record supports a finding that Everbank is the mortgage holder with the authority to enforce the Mortgage in foreclosure proceedings, but see n. 21, supra, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the scope of Everhome’s authority as servicer. The parties’ servicing agreement was not introduced into evidence; nor were its particulars described by Everhome’s trial witness. In his testimony, Mr. Ricketson described Everhome as having the authority to collect payments, track payments and determine when an the account is in default. There was no evidence that Everbank has appointed Everhome as its agent for the purpose of initiating legal proceedings to enforce the Mortgage.

This is a fatal gap in the evidence. I am unwilling to assume that the mere label of “servicer” is sufficient to cloak Everhome with authority to file a legal action on Everbank’s behalf.

Given the Debtor’s denial of Everhome’s asserted party in interest status in his written response to the Motion, some evidence of Everhome’s authority was necessary and that evidence was not offered. As the Wilhelm court stated

At the pleading stage, plaintiffs in federal court may rely on the allegations of their complaint to establish standing. Similarly, stay relief movants may initially rely upon their motion. But if a trustee or debtor objects to a stay relief motion based upon lack of standing, the movant must come forward with evidence. Additionally, if the stay relief motion itself reveals a lack of standing, movants cannot rest on the pleadings.

407 B.R. at 400 (citation omitted); see also Jacobson, 402 B.R. at 370 (“At a minimum, there must be an unambiguous representation or declaration setting forth the servicer’s authority from the present holder . . . to collect on the note and enforce [the mortgage]”).

Accordingly, the Motion must be denied.^[26]

IV. CONCLUSION

This is a case in which the Debtor was substantially in arrears on his home mortgage when he commenced this bankruptcy case, has not paid his monthly mortgage payment over a number of months since filing the case and proposed a chapter 13 plan that contemplates the sale of his residence and that, on its face, is of questionable feasibility due to the apparent lack of equity in the Property. Without prejudging the merits of the motion for relief from the automatic stay, there is no question that the mortgagee has a good faith basis for pressing a motion for relief from the automatic stay.

At the same time, however, it is understandable why the Debtor responded to the Motion by demanding proof that Everhome was the proper party to come before the court. From his perspective, Everhome’s role in the mortgage relationship is, at best, opaque. Prior to the bankruptcy filing it was MERS (purporting, at least initially, to act in its own right), not Everhome or Everbank, that filed the foreclosure action against Debtor in state court. And, as the evidence revealed, Everhome holds itself out as merely the mortgage servicer and not the mortgage holder. There is no doubt that the Debtor acted in good faith in disputing Everhome’s status as a party in interest. In fact, the Debtor’s position was meritorious. At trial, Everhome failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to establish its party in interest status, resulting in the denial of the relief Everhome requested from this court.

To the extent that the outcome in this matter may appear anomalous due to the apparent merits of the request for stay relief and the seemingly technical nature of the issue regarding the identity of the proper moving party, the fault lies with the moving party. When a party claiming to be a secured creditor seeks relief from the automatic stay, the Debtor and the bankruptcy court are entitled to insist that the moving party show that it is the holder of the secured claim or that it is the authorized agent of the holder. This imposes an evidentiary burden “that is not difficult to meet,” requiring only “present[ation of] the rudimentary elements of its claim.” In re Salazar, 2011 WL 1398478, at *2, 3 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2011). Indeed, in this case, the evidentiary shortfall does not appear to have been insurmountable.

In the age of mortgage securitization, meeting the evidentiary burden imposed by the “party in interest” requirement of 11 U.S.C. §362(d) may be a somewhat more cumbersome task for certain stay relief movants than it was for residential mortgagee—movants in the past, but that does not justify diluting the fundamental constitutional and statutory requirement that a party be a “party in interest” before it may obtain redress from a federal bankruptcy court. Any added burden is a product of the business model chosen by the mortgage finance industry and therefore, is simply part of the mortgage loan industry’s cost of doing business. Presumably, the cost is offset by the benefits of the mortgage securitization system.

Furthermore, while a moving creditor may believe that its status as a party in interest is self-evident, the court cannot rule based on factual assumptions or evidentiary leaps. Our legal system is governed by the core principle that court decisions are based on the evidence presented to the court. That principle cannot be compromised because a particular industry has chosen a business model that complicates its legal affairs and makes it inconvenient to come forward with the evidence needed to establish its status as a proper party. In the final analysis, the Motion must be denied to protect the integrity of the legal process.

For these reasons, I will deny the Motion without prejudice.

….

[ipaper docId=56885255 access_key=key-6hxqncjknkseqequgbj height=600 width=600 /]

Baltimore Sun-

Baltimore Rep. Elijah E. Cummings on Wednesday requested that the House Oversight Committee issue subpoenas to six banks he said have refused to voluntarily provide documents detailing their role in the mortgage foreclosure meltdown.

Cummings, the top-ranking Democrat on the committee who has made the foreclosure issue a top priority, said the documents are needed to help the committee determine how the foreclosure crisis unfolded. He said it is his first request for subpoenas since starting in the position in January.

This is when those placeholders “A Bad Bene, Bogus Assignee” might come in handy… Maybe AG Harris will put a stop to this madness.

MSNBC–

Not according to Deutsche or other banks. They say they aren’t really the owners, despite the fact that their name appears on the property title. They also say they are not responsible for maintenance.

Representatives of Deutsche, as well as U.S. Bank, BNY Mellon and HSBC — three other major lenders that Los Angeles is investigating with an eye to suing, all said that loan servicers are responsible for property upkeep, as well as tasks such as sending default notices, modifying loans, selling homes, and collecting rent and mortgage payments.

“We’re there in name only,” said Teri Charest, spokeswoman for U.S. Bank. “We’re trustees. We have a very limited role.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1422-09T2

WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GREGORY WRIGHT a/k/a
GREG WRIGHT, MRS. GREGORY
WRIGHT, his wife, and
LAKES AT LARCHMONT
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
Defendants,
and
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________

EXCERPT:

PER CURIAM

U.S. Bank National Association (US Bank), as successor in interest to defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), appeals from a Chancery Division order denying its request to vacate the default judgment against it and foreclosing the interest of MERS in residential realty.1 We affirm.

These facts are taken from the motion record. Defendant Gregory Wright purchased real property on Albridge Way in Mt. Laurel Township (the subject realty) on September 2, 2003. On December 2, 2005, Wright contracted with JP Morgan Chase, N.A. (Chase) for a mortgage and a line of credit secured by a second mortgage on the subject realty. On August 9, 2006, Wright refinanced the Chase debts and withdrew additional equitable value from the realty. He borrowed $210,000 from MERS through its agent, Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. (AHL). Inexplicably, the MERS mortgage was not recorded for over a year, until September 17, 2007.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=55377966 access_key=key-1qw2p4hv6ghvp2jsvhr7 height=600 width=600 /]

COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

~

U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE

Plaintiff-Appellee
-vs-

GIUSEPPE GULLOTTA, ET AL.

Defendant-Appellant

EXCERPT:

{¶24} Based on the foregoing, we find the two-dismissal rule of Civ.R. 41(A) applies and res judicata barred U.S. Bank’s complaint in this case. We find the practical effect of the same precludes U.S. Bank from pursuing any further action on the note. Because the mortgage draws its essence from the note, we find it unenforceable. We find the trial court erred in not granting Appellant’s motion for summary judgment to quiet title.2

{¶25} Appellant’s two assignments of error are sustained.

{¶26} The judgment of the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is reversed.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=55153519 access_key=key-2obzgx79r0dnpjk3s2kp height=600 width=600 /]

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

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

IN RE PHILLIPS

In re: RICK ALLEN PHILLIPS and REBECCA RUTLAND PHILLIPS, Debtors.
RICK ALLEN PHILLIPS, Plaintiff,

v.

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC and U.S. BANK, AS TRUSTEE FOR STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-10.

Case No. 08-11442-MAM-7, Adv. Proc. No. 11-00027.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Alabama.

May 9, 2011.

Mindi C. Robinson, Adams and Reese, LLP, Birmingham, Alabama, Attorneys for Defendants.
Scott Hetrick and Nicholas F. Morisani, Adams and Reese, LLP, Mobile, Alabama, Attorneys for Defendants.

Nick Wooten, Auburn, Alabama, Attorney for Plaintiff.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS ADVERSARY CASE

MARGARET A. MAHONEY, Bankruptcy Judge

This case is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this adversary case on various grounds. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the Order of Reference of the District Court. The Court has the authority to enter a final order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). For the reasons indicated below, the Court is granting the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss all grounds for relief, except for the fraud on the court grounds.

FACTS

The Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the documentation of the Phillips’ mortgage and transfer of it were flawed such that the mortgage is avoidable as a preference or fraudulent transfer. The complaint also asserts that the defendants violated the Phillips’ automatic stay and committed a fraud on the Court. The facts that are relevant to this motion are a limited set of the facts alleged in the complaint.

Phillips entered into a note and mortgage with Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB on September 7, 2007, in the amount of $840,000 when he purchased real estate located at 26200 Perdido Beach Boulevard, Condo Unit 1505, Orange Beach, Alabama. The mortgage indicated that the lender was Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB. The mortgage also indicated that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) was “the mortgagee under this Security Agreement.” The document also stated that MERS was “acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.” The note was in the name of Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB as well. The mortgage was recorded in the Baldwin County, Alabama Probate Court records on October 10, 2007. There was no new filing in the Baldwin County Probate Court until July 28, 2009, when an assignment of the mortgage was filed. MERS, “as nominee for Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB,” assigned the mortgage to Aurora Loan Services.

On April 25, 2008, Rick Phillips and his wife filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. On December 30, 2008, Aurora filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay. The motion stated that Aurora was the “holder of the mortgage” and was a “creditor” of Phillips. The motion had a copy of the note and mortgage attached to it. The note stated that Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB was the note holder. The note was not endorsed to any other party or in blank. The mortgage stated that Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, was the lender with MERS being the “mortgagee under this Security Instrument” and stating that MERS was “acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.” Neither the Debtor nor the Trustee objected to the standing of Aurora to seek relief from the stay. In fact, an order to which the Debtor and Trustee consented was entered on February 12, 2009.

There are other facts asserted in the complaint about the mortgage. U.S. Bank had purchased the note and mortgage of Phillips on or about October 30, 2007, and placed the mortgage in a securitized trust of which U.S. Bank was trustee. Aurora was named servicer for U.S. Bank about the same date. The complaint also states that the mortgage was assigned to U.S. Bank in the MERS system of recordation on about October 1, 2007. These facts support Phillips’ claims in the complaint.

LAW

The complaint asserts that Phillips is entitled to: have the mortgage declared null and void as a fraudulent transfer due to 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3); have the transfer of funds to U.S. Bank at foreclosure declared a preference under 11 U.S.C. § 547 and have the funds turned over to the trustee; have the foreclosure and transfer of funds to U.S. Bank declared a violation of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362; have the actions of Aurora and U.S. Bank declared a fraud on the court; and have this court quiet title to the property, declaring title to be in the bankruptcy estate of Phillips. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss prior to answering the complaint as is their right pursuant to Fed. R. Bank. P. 7012.

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations such that it raises a right to relief above the speculative level. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In assessing the merits of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must assume that all factual allegations set forth in the complaint are true. See, e.g. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 508 n.1 (2002). Because all factual allegations are taken as true, the failure to state a claim for relief presents a purely legal question. Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1269 n.19 (11th Cir. 2009).

The defendants assert four grounds upon which the complaint should be dismissed. The grounds are res judicata, judicial estoppel, the fact that Aurora was a creditor, and the fact that the defendants could not have violated the stay. The court concludes that res judicata eliminates all grounds except fraud on the court and therefore Counts One, Two, Three and Five are due to be dismissed.

“Application of res judicata is central to the fundamental purpose of the judiciary — the conclusive resolution of disputes.” Curry v. Baker, 802 F.2d 1302, 1310 (11th Cir. 1986) (citing Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979)). “Finality `relieve[s] parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve[s] judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage[s] reliance on adjudication.'” Id. (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)). “Under res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits bars the parties to a prior action from re-litigating a cause of action that was or could have been raised in that action.” In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 244 F.3d 1289, 1296 (11th Cir. 2001). Claim preclusion bars subsequent litigation when the following conditions are met: (1) the prior decision was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) there was a final judgment on the merits; (3) both cases involve the same parties or their privies; and (4) both cases involve the same causes of action. Id. “In general, cases involve the same cause of action for purposes of res judicata if the present case `arises out of the same nucleus of operative fact, or is based upon the same factual predicate, as a former action.” Israel Discount Bank, Ltd. v. Entin, 951 F.2d 311, 315 (11th Cir. 1992) (quoting Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 904 F.2d 1498, 1503 (11th Cir. 1990)).

With regards to the Relief from Stay Order that was entered on February 12, 2008, this Court’s jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the Order of Reference of the District Court. The order was entered by consent of the parties and, following entry of that order, no party filed a motion to reconsider. The Consent Order Granting Relief from Stay was a final order. The Motion for Relief from Stay lists the Phillips as debtors and Ms. Littleton as the Trustee. All parties received notice of the motion and the mortgage and note were attached to the motion. Neither the Phillips nor the Trustee raised any objection, rather, the stay was lifted by agreement of the parties. The Plaintiff now brings a complaint seeking to avoid the mortgage, quiet title, and turnover the funds liquidated. Permitting such a challenge to go forward would violate the doctrine of res judicata because each of the elements of claim preclusion have been met in this case. The proper time for the Plaintiff to question the mortgage and note was when the Relief from Stay Motion was filed. However, no one challenged or questioned the mortgage and note at that time. It would be improper to permit them to relitigate those issues now.

With regards to Count Four of the Plaintiff’s complaint alleging Fraud on the Court, that issue has not been previously litigated. The complaint alleges that the Defendants filed false pleadings concealing the true mortgage creditor’s identity, thereby violating the bankruptcy rules and perpetrating a fraud on the court. Inappropriate behavior, including litigation abuse and fraud, can be dealt with by a bankruptcy court pursuant to § 105 of the Code as an “abuse of the bankruptcy process.” Under § 105, sanctions may be warranted against parties who willfully abuse the judicial process. In re Gorshtein, 285 B.R. 118 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002). This power is broad enough to empower a court to impose sanctions for “filings [in a case] as well as commencement or continuation of an action in bad faith.” Id. (citing In re Spectee Group, Inc., 185 B.R. 146, 155 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995). Taking the Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true, Aurora claimed in the motion for relief from stay to be a creditor and the holder of the mortgage. There is no document that supports those assertions other than a statement in a Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed with the SEC. This allegation of filing a false pleading is sufficient to raise a right to relief above a speculative level in that the Plaintiff has stated a claim for fraud on the court. The motion for dismissal is due to be denied with regards to Count Four of the complaint.

Therefore it is ORDERED:

1. The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to counts one, two, three, and five is GRANTED;
2. The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to count four is DENIED.

Copy courtesy of LEAGLE

(Reuters) –

Top Massachusetts judges grilled attorneys on both sides of a widely watched foreclosure case that could impact thousands of property owners across the state, and beyond.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on Monday wrestled over whether faulty mortgages and land records should be left in place as the basis for further property sales.

Excellent video…

Question that came up a few times, Why not go after Grantor?

Caveat Emptor ya’ll! Seriously.

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
for the Commonwealth
Case Docket
FRANCIS J. BEVILACQUA, III vs. PABLO RODRIGUEZ
SJC-10880

BRIEF OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, AMICUS CURIAE

.

EXCERPT:

Statement of the Relevant Facts

The relevant facts are set Forth in the Land Court’s Memorandum and Order dismissing plaintiff’s petition [A24-28] and in the plaintiff’s Petition to Compel Adverse Claimant to Try Title [A3-51.

On March 18, 2005, respondent Pablo Rodriguez granted a mortgage securing 126-128 Summer Street, Haverhill, Massachusetts (the “Property”) to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (”MERS”) , as nominee for Finance America, LLC. [A41 In or around April 2006, U.S. Bank, N.A. (“U.S. Bank”) initiated foreclosure proceedings without first obtaining a valid, written assignment of the mortgage from Finance America, LLC or its nominee, MERS. [A41 Indeed it was not until after the foreclosure sale, on July 21, 2006 that MERS assigned the mortgage to U . S . Bank. -Id. On October 17, 2006, Mr. Bevilacqua acquired a quitclaim deed from U.S. Bank. [A3-A41]

Argument

This case exemplifies the continuing harms caused by the securitization of mortgage loans and a secondary mortgage market that ignored state law in an effort to sell and resell mortgages and securities backed by mortgages. As this Court so recently observed in U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (2011), some participants in the secondary mortgage market ignored Long standing requirements of Massachusetts law concerning when and how a mortgage holder may exercise its right to foreclose, resulting in numerous invalid foreclosures. In this case, because U.S. Bank did not hold a valid assignment of the mortgage at the time it initiated foreclosure proceedings, it failed to acquire title through the foreclosure deed. Thus, U.S. Bank’s subsequent conveyance of the Property by quitclaim deed in favor of Mr. Bevilacqua failed to transfer title to the Property to Mr. Bevilacqua. Accordingly, Mr. Bevilacqua has no claim to title to the Property.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=54493024 access_key=key-x5qlmak0td8qjx7ribb height=600 width=600 /]

MUST READ…

EXPLOSIVE

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT
for the Commonwealth
Case Docket
FRANCIS J. BEVILACQUA, III vs. PABLO RODRIGUEZ
SJC-10880

Excerpt:

There is no contention in this case that U.S. Bank, N.A., the trustee of the securitization trust that claimed to hold the Rodriguez note and associated security instrument did not properly foreclose on the Rodriguez property. U . S . Bank, N,A. failed to show that it was the mortgagee, just as it did in United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637 (MaSS. 2011). Accordingly, U.S. Bank, N.A., was no more capable of passing on good title to the Rodriguez property than a common thief.2

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=54450542 access_key=key-tqh3q9cadzv0y8ag2v5 height=600 width=600 /]

Knowing what the world knows now on the way they conduct business. If this was a baby stroller or an air bag, do you think they would even question this at all? Selling defective merchandise usually has a mandatory recall.

Now read this carefully and ask yourself this, was this even sound to begin with?

RULES are RULES…

BLOOMBERG-

A Massachusetts man should be allowed to keep property he bought from U.S. Bancorp even though the bank didn’t have the right to foreclose on the previous owner, a lawyer argued before the state’s highest court.

[…]

“If the decision is upheld, and generally applied, it likely will have adverse implications for hundreds or even thousands of Massachusetts property owners if they find themselves in Bevilacqua’s shoes,” the Mortgage Bankers Association wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.

Read the case below…

Next in the Massachusetts Pipeline: Francis J. Bevilacqua vs. Pablo Rodriguez

Are we seeing a pattern here?

Excerpt:

This case before the court sua sponte. It has come to the court’s attention that the order from which this appeal is taken is not final and appealable, On March 10, 2011, the Erie County Court of Common Pleas dismissed plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failure to allege it was both the owner and holder of the subject note.

Continue reading…

[ipaper docId=53662974 access_key=key-1w3nxnejox2d3s4ap8n8 height=600 width=600 /]

Excerpt:

This case before the court sua sponte. It has come to the court’s attention that the order from which this appeal is taken is not final and appealable, On March 7, 2011, the Erie County Court of Common Pleas dismissed plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice for failure to allege it was both the owner and holder of the subject note.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=53662659 access_key=key-2nkohf3ddpoql02ky9xu height=600 width=600 /]

“MERS System in not an Alternative to Statutory Foreclosure Law”

[ipaper docId=52898750 access_key=key-2jhywofse98k69c693yd height=600 width=600 /]

Via: FindsenLaw

Must read to understand the frustration this single parent, nurse and strong-willed individual was put through. Absolutely NO excuse and this is another reason why HAMP was such a disaster!

Again, where exactly do these “trial payments” go to?

US Bank National Association, as Trustee For CMLTI 2007-WFHE3, Plaintiff,

against

Alejandra Padilla et al., Defendants.

8979/09
Steven J. Baum, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
220 Northpointe Parkway, Suite G
Amherst, New York 14228

Ms. Alejandra Padilla
Defendant, Pro Se
One Vine Street
Beacon, New York 12508

James D. Pagones, J.

Excerpt:

ORDERED that plaintiff is directed to re-open the homeowner’s file and consider her for a modification taking into consideration the bank’s delay in reaching a decision; and it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff is barred from collecting any interest incurred from October 4, 2010, until the date the matter is released from the settlement part; and it is further

ORDERED that any unpaid late fees are waived; and it is further

ORDERED that any loan modification fees are to be either waived or refunded to the homeowner; and it is further;

ORDERED that any attorney’s fees and other bank fees claimed to have been incurred from the date of the default until the date of this matter is released from the settlement part are not to be included in the calculation of the homeowner’s modified mortgage payment or otherwise imposed on the homeowner, but, rather, any request for attorney’s fees is hereby severed and to be submitted to the court for separate, independent review as to their reasonableness; and it is further

ORDERED that a bank representative fully familiar with the file and with full authority to approve and enter into a loan modification appear in person at the next conference, and it is further

ORDERED that an attorney associated with plaintiff’s firm must appear at the hearing (local counsel may not appear); and it is further

ORDERED that the parties appear for a further conference in the Foreclosure Settlement Part on April 25, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. Adjournments are granted only with leave of the Court.

Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions.

The foregoing constitutes the order of the Court.

Dated: Poughkeepsie, New York

April 8, 2011

ENTER

HON. JAMES D. PAGONES, A.J.S.C. [*5]

[ipaper docId=52815350 access_key=key-ci799bsq760x15al7w0 height=600 width=600 /]

From Jacksonville.com

It’s a tale populated with many of the major players in the national foreclosure drama: The law firm of David Stern, the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (better known as MERS) and a mortgage packaged with others and sold into a securitized trust.

Here’s how it happened.

Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A.
American Home Mortgage Servicing
Docx, LLC
Florida Default Law Group
Law Offices of David Stern
Law Offices of Marshall Watson
Lender Processing Services, Inc.
Shapiro & Fishman Law Firm

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.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR
J.P. MORGAN ACQUISITION CORP.
2006-FRE2, ASSET BACKED PASSTHROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2006-FRE2,

V.

ARTHUR SPENCER, MRS. ARTHUR
SPENCER, HIS WIFE; JOHN M.
ALFIS,

Argued: March 18, 2011
Decided: March 22, 2011
Amended: March 28, 2011
Honorable Peter E. Doyne, A.J.S.C.

John Habermann, Esq. appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, U.S. Bank National
Association, as trustee for J.P. Morgan Acquisition Corp. 2006-FRE2, asset backed passthrough
certificates, series 2006-FRE2 (Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, PC).

Gary E. Stern, Esq. appearing on behalf of the defendant, Arthur Spencer (Gary E. Stern, Esq.).

EXCERPT:

Analysis

A. Standing

Defendant’s counsel argued plaintiff did not have standing to sue as there was a break in the chain of title by the U.S. Bank assignment. Counsel specified the Fremont Investment assignment was by Fremont to Fremont Investment; the U.S. Bank assignment was by Fremont to U.S. Bank. The break was said to occur when Fremont, and not Fremont Investment, assigned the note and mortgage to U.S. Bank. Defendant’s counsel contended no explanation or turnover of documentation justified plaintiff’s right to prosecute the current foreclosure proceeding.19 However, the U.S. Bank assignment was from MERS as nominee for FGC d/b/a Fremont and its successors and/or assigns. As Fremont Investment was an assignee of Fremont pursuant to the Fremont Investment assignment, there appears to be no break in title when the mortgage and note were transferred pursuant to the U.S. Bank assignment. Nevertheless, plaintiff has provided no documentation or support for its position it is the trustee for J.P. Morgan, and therefore has not established its right to sue on behalf of JP Morgan.

Of greater import was defendant’s counsel’s argument plaintiff did not have standing as there was no proof the named plaintiff ever took physical possession of the note. Plaintiff’s counsel countered the original note was forwarded to him upon request for the location of the note but was inadvertently returned by counsel to plaintiff. It is though surprising the reply did not set forth, competently, plaintiff possessed the note on filing of the complaint.20

Without establishing physical possession of the note, plaintiff may not be an entity which may foreclose pursuant to the first and second categories in section 301, namely, as a (1) holder of the instrument or (2) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of the holder.21 N.J.S.A. 12A:3-301. As plaintiff has not alleged, let alone established, the loss of possession of the instrument or the instrument was paid or accepted by mistake and the payor or acceptor recovered payment or revoked acceptance, plaintiff may not be a party who may foreclose pursuant to the third category in section 301, namely, a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument. N.J.S.A. 12A:3-301; 12A:3-309(a); 12A:3-418(d). Therefore, plaintiff failed to establish standing as it is not a person entitled to enforce the note.N.J.S.A. 12A:3-301.

Plaintiff has failed to establish standing as its relationship as trustee to JP Morgan was not set forth; more importantly, though, plaintiff has failed to establish it had or has physical possession of the note and/or failed to demonstrate the note was indorsed. As such, summary judgment for plaintiff is denied and the cross-motion for summary judgment is granted. Although both motions may have been decided on the basis of lack of standing alone, for purposes of completeness, the court also shall analyze whether the evidence presented in support of plaintiff’s motion was competent and thereafter whether plaintiff has set forth a prima facie case in foreclosure.

B. Admissibility of evidence

Defendant’s counsel correctly asserted no competent witness has brought forth admissible evidence. Yoder does not claim to be a person with personal knowledge. R. 1:6-6. Furthermore, the exhibits attached to the Yoder Cert. do not fall within the business records exception as Yoder does not claim be a person with actual knowledge or to have produced the exhibits by obtaining information from such a person.22 N.J.R.E. 803(c)(6). Therefore, the exhibits submitted on plaintiff’s behalf were inadmissible hearsay and the court may not consider them. This is particularly perplexing as this issue was squarely put forth in defendant’s opposition and cross-motion, was not addressed in plaintiff’s reply, and follows shortly after the publication of Ford, supra.

As plaintiff has failed to justify the relief sought by competent, admissible evidence, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Lastly, the court shall analyze whether plaintiff has set forth a prima facie case in foreclosure.

C. Material issues in foreclosure proceeding

While plaintiff’s counsel conceded the circumstances surrounding the alleged default were “unfortunate,” he asserted it “did not create the fire to the premises nor . . . change the zoning of the subject property.” Plaintiff’s counsel set forth defendant failed to make payments pursuant to the executed note, and the mortgage was executed and recorded. However, as issues of fact remain concerning the fact-sensitive allegations of (1) unclean hands (2) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,23 and, (3) as restoration was not “feasible,” why the proceeds were not applied to the sums secured, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is further denied.24 Had defendant’s crossmotion for summary judgment been brought solely upon the allegations of unclean hands and breach of the duty of good-faith and fair dealing, the court would have denied the cross-motion and the matter would have proceeded in the normal course to further explore the facts underlying the defenses; however, summary judgment for defendant is appropriate on the basis of lack of standing.

Conclusion

Some are more empathetic than others to mortgagors who are no longer paying their contractual committed amount in a manner consistent with their obligations. Motions for summary judgment or oppositions to motions for summary judgment based on technical deficiencies or defenses are coming before the chancery courts at an ever increasing rate. This case, though, is distinct from the “run of the mill” motion where defendant’s attorney raises “technical objections” in an effort to delay the seemingly inevitable in an attempt to garner for clients as much time in the home as the law will
permit without paying outstanding obligations.

Here, not only has plaintiff failed to establish standing to bring the instant foreclosure action or present admissible evidence by a competent witness, defendant’s competent assertions have also given rise to fact-sensitive defenses.

Defendant’s crossmotion is granted as plaintiff has failed to establish standing and has failed to comply with the court’s January 25, 2011 order.25 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is denied on three grounds: (1) lack of standing, (2) failure to present a prima facie case by presenting admissible evidence by a competent witness, (3) and defenses raised would be in need of further exploration.

The action is dismissed without prejudice.26 The court’s order shall be sent under separate cover.

19At oral argument defendant’s counsel argued there is a hole in the chain of title “big enough to drive a truck through.” Counsel alleged there was no documentation or support indicating the note was assigned by Fremont Investment. This was the same argument counsel made on the papers.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=51863302 access_key=key-13o8p1s6xaf9gjcd95gw height=600 width=600 /]