Livinglies's Weblog

ONE ON ONE WITH NEIL GARFIELD

COMBO ANALYSIS TITLE AND SECURITIZATION

EDITOR’S COMMENT: This is exactly the problem with securitization that never happened and how our title recording system is being corrupted daily by pretending that securitization actually occurred. The banks created conduit entities to mix and match foreclosures to prevent this sort of thing from happening but people make mistakes. This time it is clear that two institutional are both claiming an interest to the property, and neither one of them can prove it and neither one has one nickle invested in the deal. So under their own theory why don’t we all foreclose on any house we would like? We’ll submit the credit bid, after all the borrower owes the money and we will own a nice house with no encumbrances, obligation or note to pay off.

2 BANKS 1 HOUSE — WHO GETS TO FORECLOSE?

New York Post by Catherine Curan

A house divided cannot stand. A house foreclosure case divided by two banks probably doesn’t have standing — in court — either.

Two banks, Home123 Corporation and US Bank, both lay claim to owning a house in Staten Island, according to a foreclosure filing. The original lender, Home123, is the mortgage holder on the county’s tax rolls, but US Bank and its servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, have filed the court papers, saying they have the right to the action.

US Bank claims that they purchased the mortgage from Home123. But, the bank admits, “due to unforseen circumstances, the original Assignment of Mortgage and Endorsement Note were lost before they could be recorded.”

That doesn’t sit well with Joseph Sant, the lawyer representing the homeowner, who did not wish to be named.

“US Bank is foreclosing on a home without proof that it owns the mortgage. That should not surprise anyone after the revelations of widespread robo-signing and document falsification in foreclosures,” Sant says.

“What does surprise me is that the bank admits that it lacks key evidence needed to foreclose, yet is trying to bulldoze through the legal process anyways,” Sant adds.

A US Bank spokesman said the bank, acting as a trustee, did not bring the action. He said the bank is named so there is a plaintiff to send paperwork to.

As the legal battles over questionable foreclosures heat up, ordinary New Yorkers are gaining new leverage in the fight to keep their homes.

Last fall’s scandal over the widespread use of “robo-signers” — the name given to people who process large amounts of foreclosure documents without verifying the information — put a spotlight on sloppy paperwork by banks and loan servicers.

It also highlighted the central issue of ensuring that lenders initiating foreclosures truly have proper legal standing to do so before kicking a family out of its home.

Now, with thousands of foreclosure cases clogging New York’s courts, local judges are growing increasingly impatient with faulty or erroneous paperwork that further burdens an already overstrained system.

New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman’s requirement — that attorneys for banks and lenders file an affirmation certifying the accuracy of their documents in support of residential foreclosure cases — in October seems to be giving banks and servicers pause from the breakneck pace of 77,815 foreclosures pending last year — a 42 percent jump from 2009.

According to the latest figures released from the court, new foreclosure filings have plunged 90 percent from October to earlier this month.

Meanwhile, the courts are working through thousands of cases begun before Lippman’s requirement.

Attorneys that represent homeowners are still wading through reams of problematic paperwork by lenders and servicers, which are attracting new scrutiny from the judicial bench.

“These banks didn’t follow rules, and have to understand there are consequences,” said New York attorney David J. Babel, who represents local homeowners in foreclosure cases. “If a small guy was to breach the rules, he’d pay for it.”

Home theater

The left-hand side of this Staten Island attached home is under foreclosure, despite the bank not being able to prove it owns the mortgage. From the court filing:

“The Plaintiff (US Bank) is the owner and holder of mortgage . . .

The aforementioned Note and Mortgage were assigned to US Bank . . . Due to unforeseen circumstances the original Mortgage and Note were lost before they could be recorded.”

* Richmond County Clerk’s office has the mortgage holder as another bank, as 123Home Corp.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud |