JUDGE MAYER ECHOES JUDGE SHACK: ANOTHER NY CASE….THINGS ARE CHANGING!!!!

If you can get through the formatting errors, it is worth reading. Judge Mayer clearly states that

“The original lender, WMC Mortgage Corp., apparently had the mortgage assigned to entities other than this plaintiff: however, there is no proof of assignments annexed to the moving papers and no proof that this plaintiff is the proper plaintiff.”

Thus standing comes to the forefront AGAIN as the pretender lenders try as they might, find it increasingly difficult to finesse basic rules of law and basic rules of procedure. The message is clear as is the moral of the story: don’t assume anything and challenge everything. We have seen here at livinglies weblog countless documents demonstrating a pattern of behavior that involves fabrication and forgery of documents, many times right in the office of the attorneys pursuing foreclosure on behalf of “clients” who have no interest in the mortgage and never did. Look closely and you will see notarization before the document is dated, notarization in one place and signing in another, many times thousands of miles apart. If these entities were on the level they would have no problem producing the right documentation in the right place at any time. Instead we find that if the mortgage is NOT delinquent or in default, they don’t have the documents but once they do declare the default, documents start emerging out of nowhere.

Judge Mayer means business. He “gets it” and says that he will dismiss with prejudice on this last chance (similar to Judge Shack), if they don’t prove they are the correct party to bring the foreclosure. My opinion is they probably can’t and they won’t bring such “proof” to court because it will be scrutinized now and could lead someone to be found in contempt or worse.

The cases are coming faster now. The scheme is unraveling and Judges are getting wise to wiseguy tactics of finesse and intimidation.

Thank you Jeff for this contribution. See if you can get a clean copy so we can clean this one up.

ANOTHER NY CASE….THINGS ARE CHANGING!!!!

SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK
I.A.S. PART 17 – SUFFOLK COUNTY
Justice<R. H. MAYER
Justice of the Supreme Court
. X _l_______l___________—__—_—-_———–
WI;I,I S F ARGO BANK NATIONAL
,4SS0(_’1.4 I ION, as trustee for BANK OF
AMERIC’ 2 reclo:;urr: actions, and evidentiary proof of proper service of said special summons; (5) failure
to submit e\ identiary proof, including an affidavit from one with personal knowledge, of compliance with
tlic requirements of CPLR 532 15(g)(3) regarding the additional notice by mail of summonses in
forwlosurrt xtioiis. and proof of proper service of said additional mailing; and it is further
ORDERED that, inasmuch this action was initiated prior to September 1,2008 and no final order
of judgment has been issued, and inasmuch as the plaintiff has identified the loan in foreclosure as a
“cubprimc home loan” as defined in RPAPL $1304, pursuant to 2008 NY Laws, Ch. 472, Section 3-a, the
defendant lionieovmer is entitled to a voluntary settlement conference, which is hereby scheduled for
December 116,2009 at 9:30 am before the undersigned, located at Room A-259, Part 17, One Court Street,
Rikerhead. VY 1 1(>01 (63 1-852- 17601, for the purpose of holding settlement discussions pertaining to the
rights and cibligations of the parties under the mortgage loan documents, including but not limited to,
determining whether the parties can reach a mutually agreeable resolution to help the defendant avoid losing
his or her hcime. and evaluating the potential for a resolution in which payment schedules or amounts may
be ~fiodificdo r other workout options may be agreed to, and for whatever other purposes the Court deems
appropriate and it is further
ORDERED that at any conference held pursuant to 2008 NY Laws, Ch. 472, Section 3-a, the
plaintii’f’ s h~l la ppt’ar in person or by counsel, and if appearing by counsel, such counsel shall be fully
mthorized to dispclse of the case, and all future applications must state in one ofthe first paragraphs ofthe
aitorncy’k afirmation whether or not a Section 3-a conference has been held; and it is further
ORDERED that the piairitiff shall promptly serve a copy of this Order upon the homeowner
delelidant( s ) at all hown addresses via certified mail (return receipt requested), and by first class mail, and
upon all othcr defendants via first class mail, and shall provide proof of such service to the Court at the time
of any schctluled Conference, and annex a copy of this Order and the affidavit(s) of service of same as
exhihits to any niotion resubmitted pursuant to this Order; and it is further
ORDERED that with regard to any scheduled court conferences or future applications by the
plaintiif. if the Court determines that such conferences have been attended, or such applications have been
submitted. ui ithout proper regard for the applicable statutory and case law, or without regard for the required
proofs delinxited herein, the Court may, in its discretion, dismiss this case or deny such applications with
prejudice c i ~ i do r impose sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 5 130-1, and may deny those costs and attorneys
fees atrenda i t mith the filing of such future applications.
[* 2]
bt’ells I.;rrgo Bank v Melgar
l t ~ d t3?0~. 3761 9-2007
P q e .r’
I n tliis foreclosure action, the plaintiff filed a summons and complaint on December 4,2007, which
essentiaIl> Jleges that the defentiant-homeowner(s), Martha L. Melgar and Pedro Reyes, defaulted in
payments u ith reprd to a mortgage, dated May 5,2005, in the principal amount of $258,400.00, and given
by the deteildnnt-homeowner(s) for the premises located at 68 Cranberry Street, Central Islip, New York
1 I722 Tile original lender, WMC Mortgage Corp., apparently had the mortgage assigned to entities other
than this p l i~nt iff: however, there is no proof of assignments annexed to the moving papers and no proof
that this pla ntiff is the proper plaintiff. The plaintiff now seeks a default order of reference and requests
amendmeni of the caption to substitute tenant(s) in the place and stead of the “Doell defendants. For the
reasom set i r t h hereiin, the plaintiffs application is denied.
In slqqx)rt of this application, the plaintiff submits an affidavit from Valerie Clark, Sr. Vice
I’rvsident 01 Saxon Mortgage Services as the alleged attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff, and a non-party to
this action: iowevcr, there is no sufficient evidentiary proof that such person or entity has authority to act
on behall’ 01 the lender-mortgage holder.
In rc levant part, CPLR $32 15(a) states: “When a defendant has failed to appear, plead or proceed
tu trial ofai- action re,ached and called for trial, or when the court orders a dismissal for any other neglect
to proceed. the plaintiff may seek a default judgment against him.” With regard to proof necessary on a
motion for cefault in general, CPLR 32 1 5(f) states, in relevant part, that “[oln any application forjudgment
by default, the applicant shall file proof of service of the summons and the complaint . . . and proof of the
facts constiluting the claim, the default and the amount due by affidavit made by the party . . . Where a
verified complaint has been serveld, it may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim and
h e amount due: in such case, an affidavit as to the default shall be made by the party or the party’s attorney.
Proof‘ot’iiiaili yg the notice required by [CPLR 32 15(g)], where applicable, shall also be filed.”
With regard to a judgment of foreclosure, an order of reference is simply a preliminary step towards
obtaining a default judgment (Home Sav. ojxm., FA. v. Gkanios, 230 AD2d 770,646 NYS2d 530 [2d Depi
1996 1 ) Without an affidavit by the plaintiff regarding the facts constituting the claim and amounts due or,
11-1 the alteri-ative. ‘in affidavit by the plaintiff that its agent has the authority to set forth such facts and
mouiits due, the sfatutory requirements are not satisfied. In the absence of either a proper affidavit by the
party or 3 ccymplairt verified by the party, not merely by an attorney with no personal knowledge, the entry
of judgment by default is erroneous (see, Peniston v Epstein, 10 AD3d 450, 780 NYS2d 919 [2d Dept
2004 1 : Gi.tringu \ * Wrighl, 274 AD2d 549, 7 13 NYS2d 182 [2d Dept 20001; Finnegan v. Sheahan, 269
4D2tl 401. 7G NYS2d 734 [2d Dept 20001; Hazim v. Winter, 234 AD2d 422, 651 NYS2d 149 [2d Dep1
1 996 1 )
In support of’the motion, the movant fails to submit the required affidavit made a party. Further.
uithnut a pioperly of’ered copy of a power of attorney, the Court is unable to ascertain whether or not a
plaintitTs s:rvicin;A agent. for example, may properly act on behalf of the plaintiff to set forth the facts
constituting the claim, the default and the amounts due, as required by statute. In the absence of either a
verijied coiilplalnt x a proper affidavit by the party or its authorized agent, the entry ofjudgment by defauli
IS erroneouj ( \ee iLl’ullins 1’. DiLorenzo, 1 99 AD2d 2 18; 606 NYS2d 16 1 [ 1 st Dept 19931; Hazim v. Winter.
234 1\1)2d -22.65 1 NYS2d 149 [2d Dept 19961; Finnegan v. Sheahan, 269 AD2d 491,703 NYS2d 734
Il!d I k p t r’OOO]). I‘lierefore, the application for an order of reference is denied.
\n‘itli regard to a mortgage assignment which is executed after the commencement of an action and
[* 3]
U’ells Furgo Bmk v Melgar
Index !Vo. 3 761 9-2007
Page 4
which statt s that i t is effective as of a date preceding the commencement date, such assignment is valid
wherc the c elaulting defendant appears but fails to interpose an answer or file a timely pre-answer motion
that assert4 the defense of standing, thereby waiving such defense pursuant to CPLR 321 1 [e] (see, HSBC
13crnk 03‘41 ’ /hmr’noi?d,5 9 AD3d 679, 875 NYS2d 490 1445 [2d Dept 20091). However, it remains settled
that foreclc sure ol’a mortgage may not be brought by one who has no title to it and absent transfer of the
debt. the assignmcnt of the mortgage is a nullity (Kluge v Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537,536 NYS2d 92 [2d Dept
1988 11. I 11-tliermore. a plaintiff has no foundation in law or fact to foreclose upon a mortgage in which the
plaintifl’ha~n o legal or equitable interest (Kutz v East-Ville Realty Co., 249 AD2d 243, 672 NYS2d 308
[ 1” Ilept 1098 1). I f an assignment is in writing, the execution date is generally controlling and a written
dssignment claiming an earlier effective date is deficient, unless it is accompanied by proof that the physical
delivci? of the notc and mortgage was, in fact, previously effectuated (see, Bankers Trust Co. v Hoovis, 26 3
’iDZd 93 7 (338.6’14 NYS2d 245 [1999]). Plaintiffs failure to submit proper proof, including an affidavit
from one with per:,onal knowledge, that the plaintiff is the holder of the note and mortgage, requires denial
01 the plaintiff’s application for an order of reference.
I- or Iinxc1cmu-e actions commenced on or after February 1,2007, RPAPL 5 1303( 1) requires that the
“toreclosin g party in a mortgage foreclosure action, which involves residential real property consisting of
ouner-occupied o qe-to-four-family dwellings shall provide notice to the mortgagor in accordance with the
provi\ions of thi. section with regard to information and assistance about the foreclosure process.”
I’ursumt to KPAPL 1303(2), the “notice required by this section shall be delivered with the summons and
complaint to commence a foreclosure action . . . [and] shall be in bold, fourteen-point type and shall be
printed on I:olorecl paper that is other than the color of the summons and complaint, and the title of the
notice shall be in bold. twenty-point type [and] shall be on its own page.” The specific statutorily required
language afthe nctice is set forth in RPAPL §1303(3), which was amended on August 5,2008 to require
additional language fbr actions commenced on or after September 1, 2008.
I hc plaintiff’s summons and complaint and notice of pendency were filed with the County Clerk
on er after- Februarj 1,2007, thereby requiring compliance with the notice provisions set forth in RPAPL
8 1-30; Plaintiff has failed to submit proper evidentiary proof, including an attorney’s affirmation, upon
which the t ‘ourt may conclude that the requirements of RPAPL 5 I303(2) have been satisfied, specifically
regarding the content. type size and paper color of the notice. Merely annexing a copy of a purportedly
compliant notice does not provide a sufficient basis upon which the Court may conclude as a matter of law
that the plaintiff has complied with the substantive and procedural requirements of the statute. Since the
plaintiff ha: failed to establish compliance with the notice requirements of RPAPL $1303, its application
fix an order of reference must be denied.
I ( pro\ idt additional protection to homeowners in foreclosure, the legislature enacted RPAPL,
1320 to I equire a mortgagee to provide additional notice to the mortgagor-homeowner that a foreclosure
aciion has t)een commenced. I n this regard, effective August 1, 2007 for foreclosure actions involving
rcs~clential property containing not more than three units, RPAPL 5 1320 imposes a special summons
requiremenl. in adJitiion to the usual summons requirements. The additional notice requirement, which
niust be in I-oldfacc type. provides an explicit warning to defendant-mortgagors, that they are in danger of
losing their iome and having a defaultjudgment entered against them ifthey fail to respond to the summons
bv sen ing 611 ansuer upon the mortgagee-plaintiff s attorney and by filing an answer with the court. The
notice also infhrim defendant-homeowners that sending a payment to the mortgage company will not stop
tlic foieclostire act ion, and advises them to speak to an attorney or go to the court for further information
[* 4]
Wells k argo Bank v Mrlgar
Index .No. 3 761 9-2007
Puge i
on ho\\, to answer the summons. The exact form and language of the required notice are specified in the
siaiuie P1aintlft.s failure to submit an attorney’s affirmation of compliance with the special summons
requiremen1 s of RPAPL 5 1320, and proof of proper service of the special summons, requires denial of the
plaintiff%\ application for an order of reference.
\x, itti regard to a motion for a defaultjudgment sought against an individual in an action based upon
nonpa) mcnt of‘a contractual obligation, CPLR $32 15(g)(3)(i) requires that “an affidavit shall be submitted
that additional notice has been given by or on behalf of the plaintiff at least twenty days before the entry
of such judgment. by mailing a copy of the summons by first-class mail to the defendant at his place of
residence 11- an eni!elope bearing the legend ‘personal and confidential’ and not indicating on the outside
of the em elope that the communication is from an attorney or concerns an alleged debt. In the event such
mailing is rt.turned as undeliverable by the post office before the entry of a default judgment, or if the place
ofresideiu ofthe defendant is unknown, a copy of the summons shall then be mailed in the same manner
to the defendant at the defendant’:; place of employment if known; if neither the place of residence nor the
place ofernploynimt ofthe defendant is known, then the mailing shall be to the defendant at his last known
residence Pursuant to CPLR 32 1 5 (g)(3)(iii), these additional notice requirements are applicable to
residential riortgage foreclosure that were commenced on or after August 1 2007. Since the moving papers
fail 1 o establish compliance with the additional mailing requirements of CPLR $32 15(g), the application
for an ordsi ol’refvrence must be denied.
0 ’lhi. constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Ilated tober 5 , 2009

19 Responses

  1. Hello…
    Looking for all or any information regarding WMC “Waterfield Mortgage Company”…

    Im pending foreclosure, my Lender was WMC, but was assigned to MERS for nominee for CitiMortgage, I know Citi is only the servicer. I have no other assignments from WMC stating they sold to AHM (mortgage part of bank) they rest of the bank was sold to Sky Financial October 2006…

    Thanks for all you do Neil,
    Blessings

  2. davidgmills

    You are correct,you still need to file suit to bring it into the courthouse, so to speak

  3. NY JUDGE RULES!! BY APPLYING THE LAW

    Decided on October 29, 2009
    Sweeny, J.P., Buckley, DeGrasse, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

    1333 116318/06

    [*1]HSBC Bank USA, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant,

    v

    A & R Trucking Company, Inc., Defendant, Valia Malamakis, Defendant-Respondent.

    Vlock & Associates, P.C., New York (Steven Giordano of
    counsel), for appellant.

    Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered February 2, 2009, which granted defendant Mamalakis’s motion to vacate a default judgment, directed plaintiff to restore any amounts taken from her checking account, and dismissed this action against her, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

    In moving to vacate the judgment, Malamakis alleged that process was not properly served in accordance with the “nail and mail” provision of CPLR 308(4). After a traverse hearing, the court vacated the judgment and dismissed this action (see NYCTL 2004-A Trust v Faysal, 62 AD3d 409 [2009]) after determining that service had been attempted at an address where Malamakis did not reside.

    Plaintiff argues that in appropriate circumstances defendant may be deemed to have waived her jurisdictional objections, but such circumstances are not present here. Plaintiff’s reliance on Calderock Joint Ventures, L.P. v Mitiku (45 AD3d 452 [2007]) and Lomando v Duncan (257 AD2d 649 [1999]) is misplaced, as the defendants in those cases either explicitly or implicitly participated in the action, thus acknowledging the validity of the judgment, or demonstrated a lack of good faith or delay in asserting their rights.

    Here, there is no suggestion that Malamakis ever acknowledged the validity of the judgment. She only learned of it when her bank account was levied upon. Some 7 to 10 months later, when she allegedly learned that plaintiff was seeking to make a further collection, Malamakis obtained counsel and moved to vacate the judgment. There is no indication in the [*2]record that she demonstrated a lack of good faith, or was otherwise dilatory in asserting her rights.

    THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
    OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

    ENTERED: OCTOBER 29, 2009

    CLERK

  4. A more legible copy of this decision can be found at:

    http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_52154.htm

  5. Dan ,

    Thank you for your comments.

    Its too late for me ,I am far down the road ..19 months in litagation …
    for new foreclosure victims ..it gives them good ideas …

    I am so happy and relieved after reading the recent cases ..where the tide of justice is turning our way.

    I am really excited by the anti-banker and anti politician revolution.. thanks to Michael Moore ..and many others..

    A year ago we the homeowners had no friends …with the Judges and with the general public …we were dead beats..
    We Bought a house we could not afford …,
    we had it coming .. ..on and on it went.

    Thanks to Neil Garfield and many others …I have been motivated to study Florida Statutes… and read every article I could find on foreclosures. That’s why I have not giving up and will not give up…

    Thank you again.. to all you people out there who share your experiences ,so others can learn..

    LF.

  6. L. Fitzgerald,
    In my opinion (and I think Neil has stated this already), the companies seeking to foreclose are NOT authorized by the actual Trustee. In any case, what does it matter? The actual Trustee is NOT the real and indispensible party anyway! This means they do not have standing – if you are involved in a lawsuit you should object to everything they say (as they have no basis or foundation to say anything).

    They may be a party in interest but they lack JOINDER (i.e. they have not joined with the real and indispensible parties). Motion to dismiss for lack of joinder (and lack of standing) should probably be filed before you even respond to the lawsuit (ask for an extension to respond).

    Of course I am not a lawyer and do not really know what I am talking about. This is educational in nature and pertains to how I am proceeding with my case.

    Thanks,
    Dan Edstrom
    dmedstrom@hotmail.com

  7. Dan and ny ,
    Thank you both for responding and giving back ideas to me and the general public.

    The core of my question to Neil Garfield and to others with a similar experience ..
    is …….

    can it be possible that these “Florida Default Law Groups ” and other like them……be partners in another illegal criminal scam…by taking / using a disguise/ mask of a well known Bank/lender to permit their access into the Foreclosure Court …

    With a Rocket Docket [ “R.D”. ] Judges who rubber stamps foreclosure’s in three minutes ….imagine how easy this is .

    Thank God…this method of” R.D.” judges is being challenged ..

    These Law firms could be collecting and foreclosing properties on their “own” …without the authority of the Lender /Bankers.

    When we receive a foreclosure compliant with a Big banks lender’s name in the Plaintiff’s line.

    Do we question the identity / or verify …request evidence ..that the Banker is really involved ??

    ….In 2007 debts sold by the original creditors to debt collectors had risen to $ 110 Billion per year ..
    [ Ref : Daniel A. Edelman ]

    My experience with the ” FDLG ” has been very distressful.

    In my opinion they are a well greased Criminal organization ..
    [ a white collar crime using lawyers to lie, cheat, and steal .. homes in the most fraudulent way possible.]

    LF

  8. QUIET TITLE MOVEMENT- IF our loan is in a trust shouldn;t we be suing for quiet title? Neil or blgo readers lets start a movement and help section of information and templates to do Quiet titles.

  9. L. Fitzgerald,
    YES, I would say without a doubt they are a 3rd party debt collector. I could be wrong. Within 30 days of your first contact from them you should (or should have) sent out a debt dispute letter. Once I was foreclosed on I sent them (they were a debt collection foreclosing company which is also a law firm) and also sent a debt dispute letter to my servicer (and in fact to every party I could identify in the securitization chain). Also, when you rescind (if you did or will), send out a debt dispute letter as the contract is extinguished “ab initio” (from the beginning). This means the debt is now unsecured. It also means that because it is void from the beginning that all credit reporting on the loan must be removed from the credit reporting agencies. Demand they remove this information and dispute it so that your rights are preserved under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). They will deny this and all of the above, but if it turns out you are right, they will have violated all of the above laws (FDCPA, FCRA, TILA, RESPA, etc, etc).

    Also, again, for those in California, identity theft is when somebody uses your identity illegally without your permission OR if you give them permission to use your identity for a valid purpose and they commit an illegal act. To me this means even though you gave them permission to use your identity to give you a “loan”, if they or anyone else after them used your identity and violated the law, that is identity theft. Other states may have similar laws and their may be Federal laws that say this also (I am not sure).

    Anyone who has your personally idenitifiable information (nearly all of the middlemen in the securitization) has to send you yearly notices under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I have only received these notices from the servicer, nobody else (as they are trying to remain hidden). This is a direct violation of the law.

    Plus of course all of the other laws that were broken as idenitifed by Neil and others (or as may apply to your individual case).

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and this is information on what I am doing or learning. It is for educational purposes and is NOT legal advice.

    Thanks,
    Dan Edstrom
    dmedstrom@hotmail.com

  10. L.Fitzgerald, that’s called Champerty and Maintenance. DO NOT trust anything from Default Law Group, they are notorious for falsifying and making up documents. They have changed their name several times because of lawsuits but they’re still owned by Echevarria. They are indeed debt collectors and I wouldn’t put it past that they’re debt buyers. Until this date and time, I have not seen an Affidavit of Merit from the plaintiff claiming an injury. After I beat them at their Summary Judgment they went and got another law firm to litigate. They produced a fake, made up note and are trying to enjoin us from having document inspected by a third party. Default Law Group and their degenerate Mickey Mouse lawyers are the biggest scammers there is. Somebody needs to do something about these pieces of living s—…

  11. Sorry for experimental postings …… Still trying to get a readable page to post here.

    —————————————————————

    [scribd id=21699906 key=key-1mqcnuc613tvxeltm41r]

  12. To: L.Fitzgerald
    Most states have an ethical prohibition against a lawyer also acting as a witness (Model Rule 3.7). I would think that one could/would or should object to most, if not all, of what a suspected debt collector/ creditor attorney would say, related to the underlying facts of the instant matter, based upon hearsay, foundation and cite rule 3.7 to preserve an appeal??

    The logic/standard might be upon what information is the collector/ creditor firm relying in making its’ presentation to the court–is it “testimonial”?

    Does this make sense to anyone else (this point may have been made in an earlier post–if so, please forgive)??

    Stay the course all!!

    Long time lurker, first time poster.

  13. OK Trying to embed this from scribd. Trial and Error.

    ———————————————————————

    CASE FILE Martha L. Melgar 51003761920072sciv

  14. Things are changing indeed! Check out this investor lawsuit that is the other side of the coin to the borrowers lawsuits against the “pretender lenders”. This is huge and goes to the heart of everything Neil Garfield has been saying. Notice they are not going after the borrowers, but the REAL cause of the failed mortgages.

    Excerpt:
    The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements omitted and/or misrepresented the fact that the sellers of the underlying mortgages to JP Morgan Acceptance were issuing many of the mortgage loans to borrowers who: (i) did not meet the prudent or maximum debt-to-income ratio purportedly required by the lender; (ii) did not provide adequate documentation to support the income and assets required for the lenders to approve and fund the mortgage loans pursuant to the lenders’ own guidelines; (iii) were steered to stated income/asset and low documentation mortgage loans by lenders, lenders’ correspondents or lenders’ agents, such as mortgage brokers, because the borrowers could not qualify for mortgage loans that required full documentation; and (iv) did not have the income required by the lenders’ own guidelines to afford the required mortgage payments which resulted in a mismatch between the amount loaned to the borrower and the capacity of the borrower.

    According to the complaint, by the summer of 2007, the amount of uncollectible mortgage loans securing the Certificates began to be revealed to the public. To avoid scrutiny for their own involvement in the sale of the Certificates, the Rating Agencies began to put negative watch labels on many Certificate classes, ultimately downgrading many. The delinquency and foreclosure rates of the mortgage loans securing the Certificates has grown both faster and in greater quantity than what would be expected for mortgage loans of the types described in the Prospectus Supplements. As an additional result, the Certificates are no longer marketable at prices anywhere near the price paid by plaintiffs and the Class and the holders of the Certificates are exposed to much more risk with respect to both the timing and absolute cash flow to be received than the Registration Statements/Prospectus Supplements represented.

    http://www.csgrr.com/csgrr-cgi-bin/mil?case=jpmorgan&templ=cases/case-pr-print.html

    Thanks,
    Dan Edstrom
    dmedstrom@hotmail.com

  15. Dear Mr .Garfield ,

    Thank you for all your work. ” The Times are a -Changing”
    [ B.Dylan ] thanks to you and your partners .

    I want to dissect a issue with you as to it becoming another weapon that will help the homeowner fight this foreclosure war.

    ” Who is Bringing the Foreclosure : Creditor or Debt Buyer ” ???

    My foreclosing Plaintiff was JP Morgan and the law group
    ” Florida Default Law Group “.[ “FDLG” ]

    After over 19 months in litigation …

    the ” FDLG” filed a change of Plaintiff… from JP Morgan

    Chase to The Bank Of New York Mellon Trust Company.

    Is it possible that these LawForeclosure Mills ..like the

    ” FDLG” are nothing more than ” debt collectors ” .

    They the ” FDLG ” state in their letters in the bottom part of the final page .. as follows :

    ” This law firm may be deemed a ” debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

    Any and all information obtained during the prosecution of this lawsuit may be used for the purpose of collecting a debt ”

    So when a homeowner defaults …the Loan Server activates the Law firm to start the foreclosure procedures against the homeowner ..

    Is it possible that these two firms .. ” Law Firm and The Loan Server ” Not being the real Party in Interest “….

    take a “Big Wall Street Banks” name to

    hide behind it .. like a ” Mask ” [ similiar to a Bank robber.].

    to hide behind it and to give the impression ,to the Court .

    .that a Big Wall Street Bank is the party foreclosing. ??.

    Does the Court verify if the Bank-Lender is really involved ?

    I’ve seen that all the Motions and affidavits are done by the law firm . I never see a Banker-Lender letter attached to anything.

    The mortgages they are foreclosing on …most likely has

    been paid by in full by Taxpayer bail-outs, A.I.G.insurance,

    and credit default swaps.

    Could it be that since the Servicers have the list of defaulting

    homeowners … and even though knowing they are paid off ..!

    They partner up with their Law firm to illegally steal homes for

    their own private profit. Never paying the Investors ..

    Or the Wall Street Bankster do become partners in crime with the Servicer & Law Firm to dip two ,three , four times again into the money chest of the American people.

    I have not seen in my case ..any documentary evidence that JPMorgan and ” FDLG” have a legal firm contract .
    Nor have I seen a law firm contract between ” The New York Bank Mellon Trust Company” and the ” FDLG ”

    Can the defendant request to have a copy of the Law contract between the Law firm and the Lender-Banker .. to determine who we are dealing with a
    ” Creditor/Lender .. or a Debt Buyer/Collector” ??

    .
    Thank you Mr. Garfield for your opinion. I am sure this info will help many, many people .

    LF.

  16. I guess while I was doing a bit of “cleansing” at least on
    the title section, others had already done a “look up”
    of the file itself

    Can any body figure out how to make the file
    more legible for posting here? I TRIED, but
    there were to many spurious artifacts in the
    electronic copy for my software to be effective.

    ———————————————–

    INDEX NO. 37619-2007

    SUPREME COURT – STATE OF NEW YORK
    I.A.S. PART 17 – SUFFOLK COUNTY

    PRESENT:

    Hon. PETER. H. MAYER
    Justice of the Supreme Court

    WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL
    ASS0CIATION, as trustee for BANK OF AMERICA ABFC 2005-HE2 BY: SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC. As its attorney-in-fact

    Plaintiff(s)

    against –

    MARTHA L. MELGAR; PEDRO REYES;
    MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
    SYSTEMS, INC.. as nominee for WMC
    MORTGAGE CORP.; “JOHN DOE #1-5” and “JANE DOE #1-5” said names being fictitious, it being the intention of Plaintiff to designate any and all occupants, tenants, persons or corporations, if any. having or claiming an interest in or lien upon the premises being foreclosed herein,

    Defendant(s)

    Mot IUD: 2-9-09
    Adj. Date: 2-10-09
    Mot. Seq. # 002 – RTFC

    Fein, Such & Crane, LLP
    Attorneys for Plaintiff
    747 Chestnut Ridge Road
    Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977-62 16

    Martha L. Melgar
    Defendant Pro Se
    68 Cranberry Street
    Central Islip, New York 1 1722

    Pedro Reyes
    Defendant Pro Se
    68 Cranberry Street
    Central Islip, New York 1 1722

    http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2009oct/51003761920072sciv.pdf

  17. fwiw
    the courts copy of the case is the source of the illegibility in the text.
    it seem only slightly more legible in the org pdf format
    http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2009OCT/51003761920072SCIV.pdf

  18. This entire mortgage market is rife if fraud.

    Is seemed that in Florida, they were/are recording assignments as “bearer paper” lacking proper endorsements. That’s one leg of the fraud. At least in Florida they were clever enough to refrain from signing their name to absolve them from committing the crime.

    But in NON- Judicial foreclosre states, the process is being abused by these servicers who are recording and endorsing these “public auction” documents consisting of “trustee’s deeds upon sale” and “rescissions” and “mortgage assignments” all endorsed under penalty of perjury.

    Now, the CRAZY part is, this is all being endorsed “under penalty of perjury”, yet THEY DON’T EVEN BOTHER to show-up at the “public auctions” on the courthouse steps at all. But, nevertheless, they declare that they do to the country recorder and judges that they did. Hmmm.

    “Endorsing any statement “under penalty of perjury” renders that statement a “matter of fact” in and of itself pursuant the principle of “black letter law”. Endorsing any statement “under penalty of perjury” is equivalent to endorsing a “confession”. Even if civil statues did not require physical presence at “public auctions”, statements endorsed “under penalty of perjury” declaring the endorser’s presence “at sale” serve to establish the grounds that required the endorsers to have been “at sale” where and when the alleged “sale” was said to be conducted. The words “at sale” means that a person was physically present “at sale” otherwise the words “at sale” would be inappropriate; and thereby render the “public auction” a useless and unnecessary civil statue.” –smallz

  19. ah….
    i know these artifacts tooooo well…ocr error.
    pdf pen pro ocr works well.. as does vuescan..adobe acrobat has lame ocr.
    i have everything mac ocr & some window xp.
    if you can email me the doc i’ll give it a once over & upload the text!
    freak4u at comcast dot net

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: