SERVICES YOU NEED
J.P. Morgan Chase freezes 56,000 foreclosures — Washington Post
J.P. Morgan Chase issued a freeze on 56,000 foreclosures on Wednesday, acknowledging that some employees may have signed off on documents submitted in support of them without proper review.
Chase spokesman Tom Kelly said the company has requested that the courts not enter judgments in pending matters until the company has had time to re-examine the filings “to verify that the affidavits and other documents meet the standard of personal knowledge or review where that is required.”
“While Chase does not expect find any factual problems and that customers have been harmed, but if we do find any cases we will take appropriate action,” Kelly said.
In May, a Chase employee named Beth Ann Cottrell said in a sworn deposition that she and her team signed off on up to 18,000 foreclosure affidavits and other documents a month without reviewing them thoroughly.
Another mortgage company, Ally Financial–the nation’s fifth largest lender–on Sept. 20 halted evictions and resale of repossessed homes in 23 states. Jeffrey Stephan, a document processor for the company, admitted that he had signed off on 10,000 pieces of foreclosure paperwork a month without reading them.
State attorneys in at least nine states have announced investigations into the matter.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud |
Liquenda Allotey has been a very busy person for MERS hasen’t he. Also Margaret Dallon from florida. Both on the robo signer’s list. They can’t recreate this mess for the good.
Posted on http://www.StopForeclosureFraud.com
September 30, 2010:
“WAMU ERIKA HERRERA “NOTARY” INVALID 2001-2005
Erika Herrera CA Notary Public No. 1290845 Revocation Cert 9-29-10,
If Erika Herrera Notarized your foreclosure documents the foreclosure is illegal!!
Employed by Washington Mutual and acting as a Notary was not a legal Notary in California where she worked and notarized thousands of foreclosure documents.
She has notarized documents including affidavits and assignments.”
Lisa D.
Currently I do not have case law to avail. If an when it pops up on my radar. I will post. I have a feeling LOTS of good case law will be coming our way VERY SOON.
deontos,
Good job … we need case law, do you have case law regarding assignments bearing fraudulent notarial undertakings being declared “void ab initio”?
The Market Ticker – KaBOOM! Here We Go
from The Market Ticker by genesis
Well well well…
REFERRAL OF CHASE HOME MORTGAGE AND MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. TO FEDERAL PROSECUTOR:
READ!!
Secretary Brunner, in two letters dated Aug. 11, 2010 and Sept. 1, 2010, referred matters of alleged notary abuse in thousands of home mortgage foreclosures by Chase Home Mortgage and the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. to U.S. District Attorney Steven Dettelbach in Cleveland
NOW the game is afoot.
Note that MERS was referred.
They go, this entire shit pile collapses on the heads of the banks and the entirety of this mess is FINALLY unraveled.
More than three years after I started screaming about this on The Market Ticker, we’re getting to the point of critical mass.
Anon,
It was likely sold to a third party – BEFORE you got the loan mod. It was the third party giving you the loan mod – they just never told you this!!!!
I wonder how many more of you are in a similar situation to me – approved for a loan mod and all of a sudden SOLD – and to a third party! Since they sold it to a third party I don’t know what can be done to rescind it, but there is a lawsuit filed and in process.
Chase deserves whatever is coming down their path – and more.
But – I like Anon’s suggestion – It should help strengthen the lawsuits we have against them for selling our homes for absolutely no reason AND after approval of loan mods!
That is – if the loan mod does not mandate that you stay in home for certain number of years.
Just want to say – I am not “Anon” – so there is no confusion to those who have known me for awhile.
The wall is starting to come down??? I am ECSTATIC!!!!
Stay tuned for a big announcement from Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner this AM regarding Chase and its fraudulent notary practices and MERS and its fraudulent process of appointing signing officers.
The wall is starting to come down.
I have a question that has nothing to do with this post, but would like an answer:
If originating lender is defunct/bankrupt, is mers relationship dissolved as nominee?
Editorial
Fair Courts in the Cross-Fire
Published: September 28, 2010
Holding elections to fill important state judgeships is one of those ideas that may sound good in theory but works terribly in practice. As spending in state judicial races by special interests has vastly escalated in recent years, so has the threat to public confidence in judicial neutrality that is fundamental to the justice system.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
* Read All Comments (73) »
Now the lavish spending by interest groups and the politicization of state court judgeships is spreading from races between two or more judicial candidates to the “retention” ballots that were supposed to shield judges from the rough-and-tumble of the election cycle.
More than two dozen states are having active judicial elections this fall. A total of 18 seats are being contested in multicandidate races in 11 states, while 37 sitting state justices are seeking voter approval in up-or-down “retention” elections in 15 states.
Between 2000 and 2009, state supreme court candidates collected more than $206 million in donations, more than doubling the record of the previous decade. States that previously have been home to some of the most expensive and raucous judicial races — Michigan, Alabama, Ohio and Texas — will again have competitive contests this fall.
The stage seems set for record-shattering spending wars, dominated by interest groups bent on influencing judicial decisions and by mud-slinging attack ads that were once limited to contested campaigns for executive or legislative offices. In Michigan, where two seats on the closely divided court are being contested, spending could top $10 million, according to some reform groups.
The exact impact of January’s ruling by the United States Supreme Court allowing free corporate and union spending in political campaigns, including judicial races, will not be known for some time. But the notorious ruling seems destined to further drive up independent expenditures on behalf of judicial candidates and exacerbate conflicts of interest on the bench.
Perhaps the most troubling new development concerns the so-called retention elections. To try to insulate judges from electoral pressures, some states ask voters to cast yes-or-no ballots on whether to grant them another term, in lieu of having judges face opposing candidates in regular multicandidate contests.
The idea is to give voters a say in choosing judges while making the election as apolitical as possible. To date, with a few noteworthy exceptions, retention elections have tended to be less bitter and partisan than contests where two candidates compete. That is changing.
In Iowa, three Supreme Court justices on the November ballot are the targets of a well-financed campaign by right-wing interests for voting in a case to allow same-sex marriage. The aim is to send a chilling message to judges beyond Iowa’s borders to beware of rendering opinions that some voter blocs might dislike.
In Kansas, anti-abortion activists are trying to defeat a sitting justice. In Illinois, business interests are campaigning to defeat the chief justice following a case that removed a cap on malpractice liability. And in Colorado, a conservative outfit called Clear the Bench Colorado is citing several decisions to try to rile up voters to oust the full slate of justices up for retention there. The group’s efforts may be impeded by a new court ruling that requires the group to register as a campaign committee and abide by certain limits on spending.
In all, the money spent on retention elections this year could surpass the total for the entire previous decade, said Adam Skaggs, a lawyer with the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School.
The nation’s system of justice depends on having judges who are fair-minded, independent and unafraid to make unpopular decisions. The onslaught coming this fall will not help.
A version of this editorial appeared in print on September 29, 2010, on page A30 of the New York edition.
Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing the Knowledge
Twitter RSS
* Home
* About
* Contact
* Depositions
* Foreclosure Support
* Judicial Foreclosure
* Message Board
* Resources
* Securitization
* Videos
Can it be True? Fraud Digest – Mortgage Fraud JPMorgan Chase Barbara Hindman et al
Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on September 29, 2010 · Leave a Comment
Chase Home Finance, LLC
Whitney Cook
Beth Cottrell
Stacy Spohn
Christina Trowbridge
JPMorgan Chase
Washington Mutual Bank
Margaret Dalton
Barbara Hindman
Lender Processing Services
Long Beach Mortgage
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.
Lynn Szymoniak
For more on Barbara and others just like her, check out my Foreclosure Fraud Guide that I published last year.
~
4closureFraud.org
~
Here is a question, does changing inadequate (i will use that instead of fraud for arguments sake) affidavits on a large scale change the challenge in court. will the courts turn the other way and let the charade continue now that paperwork has been modified after the original fraud attempted.
Franken to Justice, Treasury: Investigate foreclosure irregularities
franken.JPG
Senator Al Franken at a Senate Judiciary Committee in June.
(Photo Credit: Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) called on the departments of Justice and Treasury and other relevant U.S. agencies to investigate foreclosure actions by Ally Financial and to ensure that homeowners who were wronged receive “proper restitution and compensation.”
Franken said the company’s filing of false affidavits in support of foreclosures “may have resulted in numerous illegitimate foreclosures across the country.” He said the probes should include looking into possible criminal misconduct by Ally and its employees.
In a letter sent Wednesday to Attorney General Eric Holder, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, among others, Franken also asked administration officials to explain what actions the federal government is taking in its oversight role.
pressure your senators and congress men and ladies and start pressuring your state AG’s and legislators, start pressuring your local officials, get into the news media, and the opinion pages. write to your judiciary and start filing complaints to the State bars and gross negligence claims against their errors and omissions.
What about the title insurance companies they continue to underwrite these home purchases. Do we have a claim against those underwriters as well?
It should help strengthen the lawsuits we have against them for selling our homes for absolutely no reason AND after approval of loan mods!
I wonder how this will affect the homes the homes they sold away from homeowners who were approved for loan modifications – just all of a sudden SOLD one day!
Illinois becomes fourth state to suspend Ally Financial foreclosures
The Illinois department of financial regulation on Wednesday called on Ally Financial to stop all foreclosures currently underway and hold off from initiating new ones until the mortgage process can be investigated.
“Home foreclosure is serious business. It is no time to start cutting corners.The department intends to keep a close watch on Ally/GMAC Mortgage to ensure that its processes are fair to homeowners and in compliance with the law,” Brent Adams, the state’s secretary for financial and professional regulation said in a statement.
The state said more than 100,000 loans in Illinois are serviced by Ally and three quarters of those are primary mortgages.
In the past few days, Colorado, Connecticut and California have also asked the company to halt foreclosures. Five other states have opened civil investigations.
The legitimacy of foreclosures handled by the company came into question after Ally said on Sept. 20 that it had found irregularities in the preparation of documents submitted to courts in support of the actions. An employee of the company’s GMAC unit, “robo-signer” Jeffrey Stephan said he signed off on up to 10,000 documents a month without reviewing them thoroughly.
Illinois was already on the list of 23 states in which Ally had halted evictions and resales of homes that were repossessed. The regulator’s request broadens the moratorium to foreclosure actions in the early part of the process.
By Ariana Eunjung Cha | September 29, 2010; 6:59 PM ET
Categories: Housing