ESTOPPEL LETTER: CALLING THEIR BLUFF — Interesting Anecdotal Evidence

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

“This reminds me of when we were asking for assignments and indorsements on loans that were not behind in the payments and they couldn’t come up with it. We realized that the only time those documents surfaced was in litigation years after the supposed assignment or indorsement took place and that is what led to the discovery of the LPS, DOCX etc., robo-signers and robotic signers. More importantly it led to the discovery that the failure to assign when (a) the loan was performing and (b) within 90 days of the creation of the “trust” (REMIC/SPV) meant that the trust could not legally accept the assignment years later when (a) the loan was non-performing and (b) it was years after the cutoff date provided in the PSA and REMIC statute.

“In fact, I think these two events are inextricably related, because most of their plan and profits would never have been created if they HAD done things properly. Properly documented mortgage loans and properly and timely execution and recording of documents of transfer would have prevented them from “securitizing” non-existent loans or selling the same loans multiple times or creating synthetic CDO’s creating leverage of 30x-60x betting on failure of the “pool”(which turned out to be completely empty except for the cash it had received from the sale of credit default swaps wherein the pool accepted the position of insurer of toxic waste tranches).

“It is on that basis that I arrived at the opinion that the documents were both prepared and handled intentionally to create ambiguity and to allow for claims of “mistake” or plausible deniability. If you look at the other end of the transaction where the pension fund investor advanced the money and the sophistication of the Wall Street investment banking firms and lawyers that corroboration of an intentional act bubbles up to the top. In order to steal from the investors, steal from the homeowners and take all the money and property bottle-necked in the middle, there could be no apparent privity of contract or even equitable relationship between the actual lender/investor and the borrower.

“This gap created the void that was utilized by investment banks and all the other intermediaries to make claims without notice or consent of either the actual lender or the actual borrower. They took what the real parties (those who were exchanging money and value) and inserted terms and conditions as well as unauthroized patterns of conduct that neither of the real parties knew about — any one of which would have stopped the transaction if the information had been properly disclosed.

“If they actually came up with THE one and only original documents it would prove the fraud of multiple sales of the same loan, or it would prove the fraud of misrepresenting the loan, and it would create a claim for fraud when the Master Servicer declared the downgrade of the value of the pool. Each performing loan set of documents became a ticking time bomb that could explode in the face of Wall Street investment bankers who had created the illusion of securitization and the illusion of compliance with local property and contract law.

“It should have come as no surprise when instead of providing proof of the ownership of the loan, obligation, note and mortgage, they offered “settlements” which were too good to pass up but which kicked the title question down the road. They would rather take LESS money than the amount offered than be required to provide authenticity of the transaction they claimed to won, collect or enforce. So the moral is that we have a whole wave of new title problems and a flood of litigation coming at us as these transactions come up for resale or refinancing and the title companies, stuck between a rock and a hard place, start placing exclusionary remarks in the commitment and the policy, and the real property lawyers actually look at the title record and see the breaks.” — Neil F Garfield

SEE 2-federal-judges-announce-multiple-lenders-with-the-same-original-note





Interesting response from my earlier report that some people were going to the nuclear option. Their premise: either we are right or we are wrong. These intrepid souls were willing to take the risk that we were wrong and pay off the entire mortgage even though the house was under water. So those with money or access to money they deposited more than enough actual “money” into a bona fide real estate escrow agent’s account who issued a standard estoppel letter to the “servicer” and to the “lender of record.”

For those of you who are unfamiliar with law practice an estoppel letter requests the current status of the loan, the current amount due, the payoff amount as of a certain date which usually relates to a pending closing on a refinance or sale of the property. It requires disclosure of the identity of the party to whom the payoff should be sent.

This strategy grew out of innocent transactions involving the sale of property where the mortgage was too low to cause the property to be underwater or where, it was close and the seller was willing to come to the table with money.

In most cases, the response was innocent in its appearance, but some lawyers for the new buyers picked up that it was insufficient, so they made sure that the recipient  of the request for the estoppel letter and the writer of the estoppel letter had actual possession of the original note (2) that they had it because the money was owed to them and (3) they could show with actual evidence the chain of assignments, indorsements etc  in recordable form such that their client would be “seized” with fee simple absolute title, free and clear of the mortgage or Deed of Trust. In other words, they needed the title record to SHOW the chain of title such that their client’s title would be marketable and not subject to questions (clouds on title) or challenges (defects in title).

This is nothing unusual and has been industry practice for hundreds of years.The basic premise behind any law of commerce, or for that matter any law at all is to create certainty in society and certainty in commerce. When you do a real estate transaction where you think you are buying the property, there should be no doubt that you own it after the transaction — if everything was done right.

As any lawyer will tell you a policy of title insurance is NOT a substitute for clear title — it just provides a financial remedy if it turns out that the title was defective and can’t be fixed. That remedy is only as good as the financial condition of the title insurer and the willingness of the title insurer to pay the claim. If the title company refuses coverage because of an allegation of fraud or “rescission” like we have seen with medical insurance, you can easily be stuck with no title, a claim on your property relating to a loan you never signed, and legal bills to defend what you thought was a simple deed transaction. And you can lose and possibly owe the other side their attorney fees and costs and any damages  caused by your claim which turned out to be without merit even though your intent was as pure as the driven snow.

So what happened? Under strict anonymity I have received more than 27 reports of a mere request for an estoppel letter resulting in the abandonment by the pretender lender of any claim on the mortgage, note or obligation in settlements carefully guarded by confidentiality. But 11 people wrote in and reported that the servicer challenged the escrow agent as to whether the money was really there. THAT was because several dozen people reported varying degrees of success of using letters of credit and other cash equivalents in lieu of actual cash in the account of the escrow agent’s account.

While some people were successful in calling the bluff of the pretender lender with “cash equivalent” deals, they are on to this scheme and if the money is not REALLY there they will force you into litigation. 7 people wrote in and told me that even though the cash was present in the escrow agent’s account, and even though the request for an estoppel letter was sent by email, fax and snail mail, the pretender lender went ahead with the foreclosure — eventually resulting in payment of damages to the homeowners as part of the confidential settlement.

I have no received no reports, so far, where the actual original documents and proof of of the title chain was ever offered, which means that even if the case was settled, there is a future title problem to be resolved. I conclude thus far, from this information that 100% of those seeking foreclosure are seeking to profit from self-help and self-serving fraudulent representations to fill the void left by the fact that the trustees and investors want no part of litigation with the individual homeowners.There is of course a question as to whether the investor’s claim exists, and if so, how much of the obligation is left AFTER loss mitigation payments that were made under express waiver of subrogation. But one thing seems “certain” in my opinion, and that is that the ONLY creditor, if one exists, is the party who actually funded the loan or actually funded the purchase of the loan.

With 96% of foreclosures resulting in sales involving a “credit bid” from a non-creditor, it is highly probable, based upon data received thus far, that NONE of the foreclosures are, or ever were valid exercise of rights by a creditor to recover or mitigate actual losses. In ALL cases these were interlopers who had neither loaned the money nor purchased the obligation who were submitting “credit bids” and fraudulently acquiring title.

There are some investor groups who formerly were doing short-sale  purchases that are now looking at using this strategy. If they are right, they need only maintain a balance in the account of the escrow agent, and then make a deal with the current homeowner for a new and valid mortgage, which in turn can be held for investment or sold properly on the secondary market. If they are right, a single deposit of a few hundred thousand dollars into the account of the escrow agent, could yield tens of millions of dollars in new, enforceable, valid mortgages. The yield is infinite since the money in escrow is never actually released because of the failure of the pretender lender to come up with the black letter proof of their status as the creditor and thus the proper party to execute a satisfaction of mortgage or reconveyance of the property.

The possibility for litigation still exists, but the position of the pretender lender is extremely weak.

31 Responses

  1. I was sent here from the Flickr website

  2. Apologies for the double post, but this comments system is hyper sensitive and useless.

    @cubed2k: Get a clue.

    Who’s fault is it if you’re confused–your own, or M.Soliman’s? Having read dozens (if not hundreds) of his posts here, on trulia, and elsewhere, it’s clear that the guy is constantly running into the same problem; people who have zero functional understanding of the players or processes at work, voicing uninformed opinions and giving advice that betrays a total ignorance of the matter at hand. Above all, he is trying to correct what he perceives as a major mistake in the situation assessment (factual errors) and the response (judgment errors) which are causing less than stellar outcomes.

    In a nutshell, here’s the deal:

    –A lot of attention has been paid to the UCC, Trust Laws, RESPA violations, etc. That attention is *not* going to succeed, because among other things, the alleged *facts* are frequently not *facts* as believed.

    –Those mistakes betray a fundamental lack of understanding about how banks (FSB’s, for example) operate, and how mortgage origination and “securitization” fits into that larger operational picture.

    –A proper understanding of banks, their overall business model(s), the specific origination & securitization model, and of the web of accounting rules that govern how a bank operates would provide clarity about all the observed phenomenon that seem baffling, illegal, and crazy.

    I’ll try to elaborate a bit; this is my framing, and not necessarily representative of M.SOLIMAN’s own explanations or understanding (but it might be close).

    –Central to understanding the problem is drawing a distinction between substance and form.

    –Banks are entities where form is the essential element. They deal in abstracts: ledger entries, legal frameworks. There are no tangibles, spoilables, inventory, etc. Just concepts, and the strict adherence to those concepts.

    –Essential to the form is adherence to specific, arcane accounting rules that govern a variety of transaction types.

    –A person who understood those rules would realize that the banks had created a very special arrangement of those abstract concepts which allowed them to make massive profits; but not in the way it is currently believed by most; along with major violations of the law, but again, not the violations that many believe are occurring.

    He consistently outlines specific causes of action (table funding, which is illegal and can be proven via HUD 1 and wire details), facts restricting the actions of parties and related to the disposition of assets (FAS 140), all of which provide a strong alternative to the “lost note” line of defense.

    In fact, his explanation is far more parsimonious in accounting for the wide range of deviant phenomenon related to this giant mess than any other explanation out there. It would seem that M.SOLIMAN is shaving with Occam’s razor, while many of us are still cluelessly wandering the deserts.

    It would be good to see more people working to develop the indicated lines of opportunity. However, I don’t think many people recognize the significance of accounting rules, and the outcome when those rules are violated. If so, there might be more people looking into the requirements of collateral intended for securitization (what are the acquisition requirements?), whether these MBS issues are bonafide sales of whole loans, what assets were acquired via TARP (and why haven’t we heard of the Treasury, FDIC, or FED being involved in any foreclosures if TARP was used to move toxic assets off the books of banks) and why none of those agencies appear in foreclosure proceedings despite the fact that they would seem to be the “beneficial owner” or at the very least, the “holder” of the absolute riskiest MBS portfolios out there . . . .

    M.SOLIMAN is looking at the story from a variety of perspectives, and suggesting the only explanation that seems plausible given his first hand experience.

    Having worked in all areas between origination and secondary myself, I can tell you the guy clearly knows what he is talking about because our conversations regularly involve jargon and concepts that almost nobody–including the vast majority of banking vets–use functionally, let alone fluently. He’s not struggling to get it, he’s struggling to make what feels like/appears to be straightforward to him, make sense to the truly clueless. Thanks would be more appropriate than frustrated condemnation.

  3. @cubed2k


  4. Fannie Freddie the foreclosure mills with attorney groups retained by Fannie the reo network with lender processing puppet master
    the FDIC umbrella of protection. A judas of a government and Jesus Christ on a bike. how to peel an onion so genetically engineered thst it just keeps on giving. I wish I had something to contribute today.

  5. Fannie Defense. Originator assigned note and Fannie owned

    How did Fannie Mae get the loan? Did the y buy it -No. Didi the FDIC give it to them – No If its a stock charged under TARP there is no loan. Fannie Mae is a condition subsequent . Only if the home goes to sale. M.Soliman

  6. Even when a borrower has made a claim for rescission under TILA, banksters tell the court they are entitled to relief from stay to foreclose because the borrower has not “tendered”, or paid, the amts allegedly due on the note. They claim this has to be done before the borrower can actually rescind the loan. One court, in a very significant decision, upheld on appeal, said no, the loan does NOT have to be paid in order to rescind and further the court would not grant the bankster relief to pursue foreclosure until the TILA violation claim had been
    adjudicated. Here is the link:

  7. Jose, please email me either your full name or case number
    This is very interesting, especially if you are saying it’s Lehman’s bk trustee who is after you. Most of Lehman’s assets were bought by Barclays at firesale prices after JP Morgan and the U.S. stopped dropping billions per day into Lehman in 2008. I mean billions – crazy.

  8. Here is the link to a collection of the Robot Signors Deposition transcripts.

  9. Could I use a Estopple Letter in my Chapter 13 Bankr., can get any information from the old servicer who sold the rights to the new servicer back in sept 2010, tryed Demand Letter, no reply, tryed Respa for the last two years, No reply, old and new servicer still charging junk fees all the time, or should I just request a hearing on violations of 362, etc. Thanks

  10. This song safe me one pill :

    In God we still Trust :

  11. Wall Street Bets on Debt That Doesn’t Exist

    Fresh from Wall Street’s alchemy labs: Credit derivatives tied to General Motors Co. debt.

    The rub is, no such debt exists.

  12. john gault

    Yes – agree cannot go “quietly”. But, power is big — would should happen — does not necessarily happen..


    Do not know why that happens as to kicked back — But, your list is great!!

  13. Courts ‘disallowing’ discovery is errant. I know that discovery can actually be started even BEFORE a suit has been filed. I think it’s under rule 26. Course I think that entails talking a judge into your need to know clearance. But, there are truly arguments to be made and that is the art of the deal (unfortunately) – making those arguments. You must make the arguments. If you are already litigating, and discovery is denied you and you have done a good job of articulating your (very real) need to know clearance, then an interlocutory appeal is in order. Don’t go quietly. We have to fight at every stage, and this includes ‘every little thing’ which flies in the face of due process and settled jurisprudence. Accuse your bankster of abuse of process for filing an unsubstantiated claim. I mean, what is this cr–?
    The law actually says (with rare exception like the prima facie factor in bk , but which prima facie-ness can be 86’d simply by objecting to the claim), and we should be saying, “You want my house, Jack, you better prove it yesterday because otherwise you were not entitled to bother me”. Only those who have suffered an actual injury are entitle to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Invoking the jurisdiction of the court when you should not is a sanctionable abuse of process.
    They don’t get to bother us because they said so. They only get to because they said so if we let them. Rules like 3001, 4001, and 17 come to mind. I’m not familiar with state laws akin to these rules. If we all use interlocutory appeals to stand for the proper application of the law, we will ultimately get it, or get closer, anyway. I think it’s use it or lose it.

  14. @curious
    yes, google In re Vargas (CA) – I think it’s on point and also Nosek v Ameriquest (MA) . The banksters AND attorneys were originally sanctioned 750k for not telling the court the loan had been sold to fnma or fhlmc. The court was informed enough to know that if it went to fnma or fhlmc, it had likely been securitized. This will only get you the decision. If you want pleadings, you will need a Pacer account.

  15. Hi Bob,

    I had just heard of an attorney in your state by the name of Matt Hale/Sentinel Law Group LLC. 206-757-9229
    Good Luck.

  16. Does anyone know a good attorney for this challange in the State of Washington? I was told by one attorney that illegal bank foreclosures were hard to prove or enforce in my state. Please respond.

  17. ANONYMOUS- my last email got kicked back, but here I am. Point taken.
    I think that you have to keep hammering home the facts-
    1. A trust is not the creditor
    2. A servicer is rarely, if ever,the creditor
    3.Beware of multiple or changed loan identifying numbers- red flag
    4.Just because a mortgage is listed “satisfied” doesn’t mean that it has been paid. This is hard to swallow, because most people can’t believe that the fraud could run so deep as to have unpaid mortgages listed in the land records as “satisfied” in order to maintain appearances.
    5.Trusts cannot accept defaulted loans. This voids their REMIC status-(HELLO,IRS- ANYBODY THERE?)
    6. Trusts cannot accept loans past the cutoff date.
    7. The PSA is the governing document in a court of law. As soon as the judge,opposing atty mentions “unpaid mortgage,free house” whip out a copy of the PSA and smack them with it.
    8. Throw in robosigners and courts demanding answers and show-cause orders, the judge will most likely knuckle under.
    9. I think that 1 thru 8 covers it.

  18. I’ve revolted. so screw you banks and wall street.

  19. I don’t know, since I defaulted on our $130K credit cards and home mortgage of 550k 1.5 years ago, I feel good. I no longer use credit to live, and they ain’t got me. We are saving money now and live on one income. So far nothing has happened. I ain’t in Jail. So much for your lousy credit money. I’m out, all cash. And it is nice after going thru the worry period. God damn Ponzi system all under the guise of a economy:

  20. Anon, I think Soliman is purposely muddying up the waters and is a plant. He makes things so complicated so as to scare off people who are trying to fight the battle.

  21. Curious

    Not sure what Fannie/Freddie “owned” — and not sure what Fannie/Freddie claims to be “satisfied” by refinances.

    “Satisfied” does not necessarily mean refinance paid off.

    M. Soliman

    Sometimes I think — you have Very important information — and within same of much I state.
    I do not care what I state — other than to help homeowners save their homes. That is, I have no business — and have no other purpose.

    However, I am personally very involved for “people”. And, just wish you would be more clear in your writing.

    Please explain:


    Are you saying that they adjudicate the matter first and then charge-off asset with sale of rights??

    Who are the interlopers???

    You are not giving away your trade secrets – by divulging any inside theory. As you say — “it’s an ugly scene”. Meaning — no easy resolution in courts.

    There is much still not divulged — even more than you are currently aware of.

    Just – for now — please clarify your points that I highlight.

    Appreciate it. Thanks.

  22. Soliman, ANONYMOUS or Brian,

    Any of the three a Fannie or any GSE? I’m in desperate need of Fannie Defense. Originator assigned note and Fannie owned. Same servicer as the assignment. Can you direct me to a link or any case?

  23. Note – this is a great site and valuable tool.

    Houses in the US are generally worth what a lender will lend. But we know the lender can’t or won’t lend, therefore they aren’t worth much.

    If lenders have become weakened by previous reckless lending, other things being equal, they are forced into lending lower amounts on properties, since they have much less capital to risk, and are forced to be far more conservative with what they do have left.

    It’s an ugly scene with no letup in site. My suggestion, is to use this argument with basis accounting and fixed bidding to reflect the first round of discounts are only a fraction of the second coming at time of resale. The tax payer burden is hellish considering a borrower could have stayed in the home

    The next three mos. are big for us in three cases we have held on with going on three years. One of the defendants has never been brought into court per say and…..the date is set. Each case has merit like all the cases we see here. But this is the correct jurisdiction and timing is right as for judicial curiosity into the lender prevailing mind set.

    Good luck to each of the clients and let’s get it on!


  24. OF THE OPINION . . . .

    LL With 96% of foreclosures resulting in sales involving a “credit bid” from a non-creditor, it is highly probable, based upon data received thus far, that NONE of the foreclosures are, or ever were valid exercise of rights by a creditor to recover or mitigate actual losses.


    LL- There are some investor groups who formerly were doing short-sale purchases that are now looking at using this strategy. If they are right, they need only maintain a balance in the account of the escrow agent, and then make a deal with the current homeowner for a new and valid mortgage, which in turn can be held for investment or sold properly on the secondary market.


    If they are right, a single deposit of a few hundred thousand dollars into the account of the escrow agent, could yield tens of millions of dollars in new, enforceable, valid mortgages.


    The yield is infinite since the money in escrow is never actually released because of the failure of the pretender lender to come up with the black letter proof of their status as the creditor and thus the proper party to execute a satisfaction of mortgage or reconveyance of the property.


    In ALL cases these were interlopers who had neither loaned the money nor purchased the obligation who were submitting “credit bids” and fraudulently acquiring title.


    Expert.Witness @live .com

  25. john gault

    Excellent post. One point — not all loans are MERS — and it is those loans – that given the opportunity – can really unravel the fraud – MERS will follow. But discovery – no matter how good a “list” – is extremely difficult. And, even if you get it — docs are easily falsified. .

    Another problem is that reference to loans by Mortgage Schedule/PSA — were never updated — and because of this MERS also failed to update.

    As we all know by now, the fraud is massive. Do not believe multiple sales was not without insurance fraud. No indorsement is valid – with insurance fraud.

    The problem is that because the fraud was so massive — the government/authorities simply do not know how to handle. As a result, one by one, homeowners lose rights to protection from fraud in courts not yet cognizant of the fraud.

    As long as government keeps stock market rising by QE — the government avoids it’s responsibility to investigate because economy appears to be falsely recovering. This will change. .

    This is a “People’s Crisis” — wrongly named “Financial Crisis” from the onset. The people have been victimized, lied to, humiliated, and have been denied any dignity in courts.

  26. I can’t follow the statement that if they come up with the real docs, it will expose anything. What is meant here by the ‘one and only real docs’? If you mean the note, I don’t know what that will really tell us as to bs and multiple sales of that note. Even if they come up with a psa or other docs to establish that a loan is in XYZ trust, without the other psa’s allegedly used to put the same loan in other trusts, we have not evidenced
    the multiple sale, is this not so?
    What do we ask for in discovery? “Every” psa which purports to impact the subject loan? Think they’d fork over such a thing, or even actually know of others along the trail’s actual sale of the same note elsewhere? This is the problem created by the MERS’ private recordation /registration system, which allows registration on the boy scout honor theory.
    This creates a tidy cover for crime whether by design or consequence. If I’m ABC depositor, lender, funder, or any other yeah-hoo along the way, I can sell the note to 10 places and only enter one sale into the MERS computer “records”, if that. Who’s going to stop me, or know? When land records are used, as they should be, each assignment is public record and would thus preclude multiple sales.
    That’s all MERS is – a computer software program with voluntary entry by its members of transfers of notes. It’s name is Mortgage Electronic Registration
    System. What it shoud have been is Mortgage Electronic Voluntary Registration System. No one knows what has not been entered which should have been entered. Then under cover of MERS’ ‘”certifying (straw) officers”, who are in fact members’ employees, members have their own employees assign the deed of trust to themselves as ‘necessary’.
    Like I always say, nice gig if you can get it.
    Another problem is that some psa’s reference to a particular loan is so scant (zip code and date or zip code and loan amount) as to make identification of a particular loan fairly impossible. Maybe when such scant identification is the case, this is one of the multiple psa’s alleging to include a note actually first put in a different psa where it is more fully identified. The point is, while I’m a firm believer that a note was sold to multiple trusts or could be, I don’t see how production of the note will prove this. It will only support that claimant’s claim. There can be no doubt endorsements ‘along the way’ are missing. I concede there must be more to it or notes would more often be produced. The real truth in that is the notes are gone, I think. For all I know, for all we CAN know I think, they’re shuffled around and the bank who needs the dough or like that makes the default claim. But, again, don’t make the mistake of thinking when pressed, they wont’ come up with a note, and one endorsed in blank, because they likely will. And of course, they claim the end in blank makes them a holder entitled to enforce, when the endorsement in blank was actually for the benefit of a totally different party, which is why I often refer to In re Wilhelm and have posted at scribd material on the collusion used for enforcement.
    I think an assault to establish the absolute unreliability of the volunteer-only transfers on the MERS’ software system is in order and is a place to start.

  27. Neil

    Please clarify one small point?

    If I deposit the cash to pay off the note, and ask for the estopple letter, and the bank some how produces absolute proof of ownership (original note plus all assignments, etc) – Am I obliged at that point to complete the transaction? I.e. pay off the note?

    Just want to understand the risk.


  28. how can one defend against a foreclosure in a sate like Virginia where in my case the pretender lender never transferred the promissory note and came to court with it, the DOT is under MERS, there are no assignments on the land records. The original pretender filed for BK and the party pursuing the Foreclosure is the liquidating trustee.

    In the settlement paper I was able to acquire I found the closing instructions where I found several references as to the fact tha the loan had prior to settlement been sold to some Lehman Brothers Mortgage SPV and that the new servicer would be AURORA LOAN SERVICES. For some reason the loan kept being serviced by the original pretender lender until the filed for BK a few moths later.

    IF these people only as per their BK filing sold forward all their loans and on the loans they allegedly funded, they only contributed a haircut of less than 10% OF THE LOAN AMOUNT. How can they come out four years later with some “original Note” when they had been paid for it in advance.

    The judges will look at the “original Note” and say, dear Jose, these people have standing they are the holders, whether they have been paid already or not at that point is not even relevant for the judge

    It is frustrating to know the truth and hit a brick wall anyway..

  29. Posted: 10:29 p.m. Friday, Feb. 11, 2011
    A day after federal mortgage giant Fannie Mae fired the prominent law firm of Ben-Ezra & Katz, a Miami judge found the firm’s founding partner, Marc Ben-Ezra, in contempt of court for filing “sham” foreclosure documents and “wasting the court’s time.”
    On Thursday, Fannie Mae cited document “execution issues” as the reason it terminated the law firm.
    Ben-Ezra & Katz becomes the second south Florida law firm making a mass exodus from the foreclosure business.
    ndex west is in california where there is little oversight

  30. With 96% of foreclosures resulting in sales involving a “credit bid” from a non-creditor, it is highly probable, based upon data received thus far, that NONE of the foreclosures are, or ever were valid exercise of rights by a creditor to recover or mitigate actual losses.


Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: