Matt Weidner Snatches A Victory from Jaws of Defeat

CLE SEMINAR: SECURITIZATION WORKSHOP FOR ATTORNEYS — REGISTER NOW

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis 
& Commentary SEE LIVINGLIES LITIGATION SUPPORT AT LUMINAQ.COM

JUDGE REVERSES HERSELF ON REHEARING

SEE 4.18.2011 Order Vacating Judgement and Sale

EDITOR’S NOTE: Persistence pays. Weidner managed to get the Judge’s attention. The devil is in the details and here the Judge realized that there were inconsistencies in the allegations and exhibits. After entering final judgment of foreclosure, the Judge granted a Motion for Rehearing (very rare) and dismissed the foreclosure. 

As more and more Judges actually LOOK at the pleadings and exhibits, and provided the attorney is sharp enough to direct the Judge’s attention to the key deficiencies and inconsistencies, the obvious fraudulent anture of the foreclosure emerges.

This is now drilling down to the supposed note and mortgage, and upon inspection, reflection and analysis, it becomes increasingly obvious that the borrower does not and never did owe any money to the party seeking foreclosure. The issue of identifying the real party in interest who can show they they actually loaned the money or purchased the loan (under circumstances where the mortgage or security traveled with the note and the liability traveled with the note) remains to be penetrated.

There is no doubt that a transaction occurred. In fact, two of them took place and both were connected in fact, although neither one documented the existence of the two transactions being related. One was the purchase of a bogus mortgage-backed security purporting to represent an interest in a non-existent pool of assets and the other was the purchase of a financial loan product purporting to be based upon property  value in excess of the loan.

Anyone who ACTUALLY LOST MONEY in the securitization illusion should be at the table where some resolution is achieved. Anyone who was duped and dumped into signing deceptive “loan”papers that were in actuality the issuance of a unregistered fraudulent securities should be at the same table.

The servicers and other securitizers should not be at that table to get relief. They are the parties who are receiving outsize benefits from the losses and misery of investors and homeowners. They are the ones who should pay whatever is necessary and do whatever is necessary to unravel the mess that was created in our precious housing marketplace.

30 Responses

  1. Dave Krieger , the author of a book entitled “Clouded Titles”, provided me with the info I lost. Here is the link:

    http://www.genpact.com/home/aboutgenpact/press-releases/genpact-MERS-contract.aspx

    He also informs me Genpact is located in the Bahamas and is rated in the top 20 of INDIA’S high-tech IT firms. India?
    Wait, I have to catch a breath. MERS, the master-mind and or supreme enabler of our current demise, has now contracted with a non-American business utilizing non-American workers to tighten the screws? Even if the intent is not to tighten the screws, this is still numbingly and heinously insulting.

  2. @ john gault
    @ trespass unwanted

    You both told me to check the DOT to find out who could execute the ‘Substitution of Trustee’.

    Heee, heee. Another doozey there. There is one nice SHORT succinct paragraph. It is the LENDER. Also, take a ‘gander’ at the final sentence in that paragraph.

    I think they just excluded any possibility of MERS if the LENDER had even stated what MERS could do as the ‘nominee’ (other than do you know what). Since the contract does NOT state what MERS can do in the role of ‘nominee’ that was already shaping up as a problem. I need to ask for damages for the NOD filed by the invalid Trustee.

    “24. Substitute Trustee. Lender, at its option, may from time to time appoint a successor trustee to any Trustee appointed hereunder by an instrument executed and acknowleged by Lender and recorded in the office of the Recorder of the county in which the Property is located. The instrument shall contain the name olf the original Lender, Trustee and Borrower, the book and page where this Security Instrument is recorded and the name and address of the successor trustee. Without conveyance of the Property, the successor trustee shall succeed to all the title, powers and duties conferred on the Trustee herein and by Applicable Law. This procedure for substitution of trustee shall govern to the exclusion of all other provisions for substitution.”

    OK. I THINK what I just read overrules usage of MERS by the replacement servicer to appoint the successor trustee.

  3. @ john gault

    I have one of the PERMANENT ‘CountryWide AG Mods (the ones they HAD to do per the stipulated settlement).

    Per CW/BofA employees, ‘all’ those mods were ‘canceled’. Substitute the word “BREACHED” for ‘canceled’ and you have the TRUTH.

    In fact I have the one I executed AND the one they sent the prior month. Not that either did any good. They really want to take the house, regardless of how many crooks are in the ‘by hook or by crook’.

  4. Whip – you can find the order at Mr. Weidner’s website.

  5. Where is the DEVIL IN THE DETAILS??????????

    All the article said is MaTT W got a case Vacated??

    SO??

  6. @ john gault: Some people on loansafe have permanent mods and have even posted copies of them – so you might root around there. We received a permanant in-house (they lied and said we didn’t qualify for HAMP because we didn’t turn in paperwork – the standard and usual lie – as we had documented receipts of turning in financials 6 times within a 10 month period) on the same day we filed BK. Our attorney thought it was an awful mod and we did not sign it. We are currently in an AP in the BK court.

  7. Does anyone have an actual modification agreement?
    Not one of those baloney trial modifications, but a ‘permanent’ one?

  8. In the last couple days, while I was researching, I passed a couple articles about MERS that need our attention. One of them was about MERS hiring a PR firm. The other, and more significant, was about MERS this month contracting with a firm starting with the letter “G” to do some “processing”, think it was. There’s a big story there, something we have to get a handle on. Might have been at loansafe, but I can’t find these. Anybody have links to these? Mr. Garfiled? Thanks

  9. @ John Gault…. correct assessment of HAMP and where the money actually went! And the creators the POTUS & GEITHNER etal. all ivy league graduates… humm again.

    No wonder the POTUS is pontificating on a live Face Book Chat , at mid day mind you, to “kids” that have no idea what is happening to Americans all over the country.

  10. @Concerned
    The Mortgage/Deed of Trust would indicate if a substitution can take place. I saw BOA deed of trusts that did not allow for substitutions and they occurred by the Debt Collector, I also had the option in my Deed of Trust to allow for Substitution of Trustee, but that could only occur from the “Lender of Record”…that being the one defined as the “Lender” in the original document or the one who was Assigned Lender status by an Assignment.

    Any action performed that is outside the expressed provisions of that mortgage/Deed by anyone/company/entity/servicer not named or “assigned” that mortgage/Deed is fraudulent activity and unenforceable.

    The Texas Attorney General’s letter to the banks about the foreclosures gave great clues as to what laws could have been violated.

    Someone pointed me to it and it said stuff like violations (all relating to Texas not Federal) of a section of the Deceptive Trade and Practices Act, Debt Collections Act, Penal Code, Property Code, Government Code, Constitution Article 16, Rules of Civil Procedures. (Again, the word Texas goes in front of all those mentioned)

    I haven’t read it in a while. I still have the link to the document and the banks that got the document, so please read it for yourself. It’s not long, but I’m unable to verify what I just stated as an opinion.

    oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=3500

    oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2010/100510_sample_bank.pdf

    oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2010/100510_recipient_banks.pdf

    Hope this bit helps with your discoveries.

    Light and Love.

    Trespass Unwanted, alive, allodial, corporeal, life, live born, born alive, free, whole blood, freeman, in jure divino, in jure proprio, people, adult

  11. @concerned, well, how about you tell us the relevant recitation regarding sub in your dot and we’ll have at it…?.
    I would think the legal analysis would start with your contract (the dot) and then look to your state’s laws. (warning: I’ll personally probably pick at them)

    From the hip: I know of no reason why a sub of trustee can’t be done at any time, provided “nothing’s going on”. It’s my understandiing that the initial trustee in the dot is the title company which closed the loan. The funds were wired to them by Gkw and they likely presented your docs to you. They prob insured in some manner your closing to the Gkw and they did the title work at the time.

    I’m guessing one of two things for the substitition:
    add a layer of insulation and get in bed with that bankster’s buds, whether for legit or not so legit reasons. Contract maybe. Contract probably gets bankster reduced rate.
    I have seen more than one adjudication wherein a court has said no big deal about the statutory or contractual obligations, most specifically when WXY, the sub trustee, has performed some f/c function prior to recordation of the substitution. These bench-law jurists called it “substantial compliance” as long as the sub of trustee is recorded at some point in the f/c process. Grrr. This bench law has got to stop!
    That is cr– and makes me crazy. Didn’t I read somewhere that it is specifically the recordation of the substitute which makes it effective? Have to check your state statutes. “California Revised Statutes Deeds of Trust” google / yahoo / google scholar

    Also, if it can be said that this substitution doc is an instrument which affects an interest in real property, in NV, for instance, one might additionally rely on NRS 111.315. This statute says it’s not binding on you until it’s recorded. This is not found in the ‘dot’ section of statutes – it’s elsewhere. Search your state for mirror statute.
    You sure this forum can take more of me on MERS?! For a take on the REAL situation regarding MERS, MERS’ nominee status in the dot, and securitization, read this:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/53504138/BONY-vrs-Raftogianis-and-Loses

    It”s lengthy. I can’t get a pdf doc to let me cut and paste so can’t paste MERS or MERS’ sub of trustee part. Court said, “Nah!” Don’t try to ‘move’ it til it’s fully loaded and then d/l to read.

    JG? MERS substitituting trustees? Not! Quelle blage! Yes, of course, it’s just the bankster’s own employee donning a bs MERS’ certifying straw officer hat executing the sub for its employer. All that bs is collusive. Courts appear to not get it yet how that deal works and thus how tweaked it is. One of these days we’ll also get around to the illegalities of that straw officer business. From what I’ve read, I’ve surmised that MERS never actually authorized the appointment of these straw officers by whats-his-face. What a can of worms that’s going to be when it finds its way into litigation.

    For my take on MERS cans and cant’s as nominee, read this if you like: http://www.sourceoftitle.com/blog_node.aspx?uniq=783

    Nevada issued a Cease and Desist Order against Quality, stating QLS is an unlicensed debt collector. I haven’t followed it further.

    I don’t know why once a loan is in default it is sometimes turned over to a default servicer. More insulation? Don’t know.
    Weren’t you notified by your ‘old’ servicer of the change in servicers?
    This isn’t legal adivice! I’m just a grunt and can only express my own opinions.

  12. @ john gault,

    Would you care to delve into the murky realm of the generation of a “Substitution of Trustee”? WHEN is it valid to have a substitution? Typically, before the NOD is filed, a substitution is recorded. Funny thing, MERS is used to allow the SERVICER’S personnel to sign that document.

    In my case, the servicer changed after I was supposedly in default. The significance of that is this: The replacement ‘servicer’ is a DEBT COLLECTOR to me. So now the quasi-servicer cum debt-collector signs the document using MERS to replace the original Trustee with the lackeys at Quality (no quality there).

    So the servicer/debt-collector is able to put their pals in as the ‘Trustee’?

    To top it off, apparently CA is so lose about this that Quality generated the NOD on July 28th but the document that appointed them was not even notarized until August 4th.

    As for Quality KNOWING that it was working for the proper party, I do not even know what documents put Litton in as the servicer. You see, Litton personnel used MERS to CREATE the assignment to the TRUST almost a year LATER. I detect a certain aroma about this.

    Does anyone have information on how substitution of Trustee is SUPPOSED to occur? Can it occur AFTER the default? Who SHOULD have the power? My loan docs do not specify what MERS is supposed to do as NOMINEE for the ‘lender’.

    Oh, yeah, that quasi-lender, I should say.

    Substitutions such as mine certainly do not have the Trustee in any semblance of a neutral role.

  13. Investor(s) have not (yet) lost money in the securitization process – unless foreclosures are dismissed. Only sale of collection rights — upon default — were funded — via swaps and other derivatives. The funding for these derivatives was for far less than any notional stated value at fraudulent origination.

    The only money lost to investors – – is when the “investors” cannot collect multiple times value – by homeowner challenge – to the nominal derivative investment – by false foreclosures.

    The subprime securizations were nothing more than fraudulent securitization (violation of securities laws) of collection rights greatly discounted. False foreclosures allow profits greatly multiplied by the stated discounted sale of collection rights.

    This false “investment” has precluded identity of the of the party who claims collection rights, and precluded direct negotiation with that creditor as to false loan – now steeply discounted – that should demand principal reduction by valid modification.

    The only thing that prevents acknowledgment of false securitization and investment is political protection of deregulated entities. The attorneys hired to protect the deregulated entities — do not divulge their actual clients. Actual clients are likely insurance related.

  14. well, obviously the last paragraph doesn’t go there! Sorry..

  15. Hate to sound like a broken record again, but I think this is important enough to risk it. It was the recent reminder of the ‘pre-emption” issue which brings this to mind again. Why? Because in a nutshell, not that many years ago, the deed of trust, which introduced the third party trustee to the matter of collateral documents and has now been abused severely, was legislated at federal level, so lenders could avoid the time and expense of judicial foreclosure. To me, this was a privilege.
    Just a little reminder to the banksters – privileges can be revoked.

    Not all states adopted the use of the deed of trust.. Those states still use mortgages. Many of the states which did adopt its use have mangled the intent so badly that the federal ‘product’ is hardly recognizable. Proving that if bad follks are given an inch, they will take a mile, the Wilson case highlights these abuses. I’ve abbreviated this:

    A deed of trust is a three party instrument (not four party) by definition – the trustor, beneficiary, (by any other names), and the trustee. A Trust is created.

    In ‘title’ states, it is the trustee who holds legal (or ‘bare naked’) title for the benefit of the beneficiary, with the borrower retaining equitable title. Other states, known as ‘lien theory’ states, hold that the borrower retains legal title with the trustee holding an interest for the benefit of the beneficiary.
    There are two forms of title: legal and equitable.

    The trustee’s interest is limited to his duty to the terms of the deed of trust. There are no other rights conferred on the trustee. There is no provision in a deed of trust which allows the trustee to abrogate his duties. An agent may not foreclose statutorily.

    The beneficiary holds nothing in regard to title.

    It is the trustee and the trustee only who is statutorily empowered to garner the collateral in the event of default for the owner of the note. If a deed of trust (or a statute) alleges a beneficiary may foreclose, there is NO such thing as a deed of trust. What there is is a mortgage, sans the judicial f/c mandates, with some bare contingencies, conditions precedent, of notice of default to the borrower. This is entirely inconsistant with the legislative intent in allowing a deed of trust as a collateral instrument. To find otherwise is to say that the legislators, when allowing the document to be used in the place of a mortgage, meant to deprive the borrower of all safeguards and all due process. If a beneficiary could foreclose, the trustee would NOT be a necessary party to a deed of trust, and NO trust would have been created. This means that a challenge to some states’ adaptation of the deed of trust may well be in order.

    This is the essence of how a deed of trust differs from a ‘mortgage’ (the doc prior to the implementation of the deed of trust and still used in some states), and with the deed of trust and hence the ‘trustee’, we saw the advent of the non-judicial foreclosure. Prior to the deed of trust, mortgages were the instruments used to secure a lender’s interest in a property. They generally require judicial foreclosure and in some if not all states involve rights of redemption.
    Lenders found this ‘cumbersome’, so they lobbied for the deed of trust, that is, non-judicial foreclosure.

    Can a trustee act as an agent for the beneficiary? No, he can’t. He’s a trustee, not an agent.

    If the word or meaning of ‘agent’ had been intended, it would have been used. It’s been around a long time. There must be a trustee for a trust, (not an agent). If there were NO trustee, there would be NO deed of ‘trust’. To understand a deed of trust, it might be helpful to think of a line a foot long. The trustor (borrower) is at one end and the beneficiary/lender is at the other. The trustee is in the middle. Where he ISN’T is at one end or the other with either of the other two parties.

    In addition to defining a deed of trust, the fact that ‘trustee’ was used gives creedence to the dual fiduciary of the deed of trust trustee.
    A deed of trust is a special animal, and its trustee is also a special trustee.
    In fact, if a deed of trust trustee does not perform his obligations to the trust, he is acting as an agent and not a trustee. Agents may not foreclose, only duly appointed trustees may. At this point, I feel
    compelled to warn you not to confuse the agent issue here with MERS’ alleged agent status.
    That’s another matter, and is not relevant here, in a discussion regarding the deed of trust trustee.

    To whom does the trustee owe a fiduciary?

    The choice of words, i.e., ‘trustee’ over ‘agent’ in the deed of trust would make it clear it is dual, that is, a deed of trust trustee owes a fiduciary to both the lender and the borrower.

    Case law is scant on the fiduciary of the trustee. One court, in Lewis v Jordan Investment, Inc., 725 A.2d 4955 (1999), recognized the dual fiduciary:

    “A trustee of deeds has the fiduciary obligation to comply with the powers and duties of the trust instrument, as well as the applicable statute under the District of Columbia Code. Perry v. Virginia Mortgage & Inv. Co., 412 A.2d 1194, 1197 (D.C. 1980) (citations omitted). THIS COURT HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THAT TRUSTEES OWE FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO BOTH THE NOTEHOLDER AND THE BORROWER. S&G Inv., Inc. v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 164 U.S. App. D.C. 263, 270-71 n. 21, 505 F.2d 370, 377-78 n. 21 (1974)”

    Another circuit’s case says the trustee’s fiduciary is limited to the beneficiary, a proposition I find absurd for the reasons I have cited. The deed of trust replaced a a mortgage, which had significant protections in it for the borrower. While the legislators allowed the deed of trust, to accomodate the lenders’ complaints regarding the time and cost of judicial foreclosure, it is unimaginable that they intended the borrower to have no safeguards, no due process whatsoever.

    And in that regard, today’s trustees are in fact acting as the ‘agent’ of the beneficiary and not as true trustees. When, in short, a trustee acts at the instance of an alleged beneficiary with no real evidence that the alleged beneficiary has the right to command default / foreclosure, not only is that trustee breaching his fiduciary to the borrower, he is breaching his fiduciary to the true beneficiary (read note-owner) by not ascertaining that he is acting at the behest of the proper party. A trustee cannot be said to be acting within or meeting his fiduciary when he is not demanding and being provided evidence of the instigator’s authority to foreclose.

    He is also violating the tenets of good faith and fair dealing, which are covenants arising in contract (the deed of trust in this case). And even if a trustee’s fiduciary is limited to the lender, (again I say this is absurd) the borrower is an INTENDED beneficiary of the terms of the trust.
    Any party who wrongfully induces a trustee to violate his trust position is guilty of “third party breach of fiduciary”. And, again, it cannot be said that a trustee is performing his fiduciary – to anyone – when he institutes foreclose proceedings with no evidence of the instigator’s authority. And therein lies the story of the day – what documentation provides evidence of that authority to the trustee and what is / has been actually given to the trustee? I suggest the equivalent of zero.

    “Breach of fiduciary” and “3rd Party Breach of Fiduciary” are both actionable.

    Mers is not an agent. Had it been its intent to create agency, it could and would have expressed that intent.
    Their allegedly-tacitly-“implied” agency canNOT be found in its contractual intent, and courts may look to intent in the formation of a contract. They did not want the liability and MERS disingenuous allegations to the contrary are not believable. path back to homes which were snarfed by these buffoons, but the right allegations haven’t been made yet. That’s going to take some work.) Here is the material to which I have previously referred:

  16. Random – it is my belief the only modifications one gets is if you are just missed a payment or 2, if you are in default – forget it –

  17. Pat, there is actually a school in LA that teaches you – pricey –

  18. Please sign me up to receive your daily postings.
    Thank you

  19. LPS Exposed: The Wilson Case Shows Us the Fraud
    by Mike on April 18, 2011
    Every once in a while we get a court opinion that spells out exactly what kind of fraud is happening in foreclosure cases, who is responsible, and how they do it. In Re: Wilson is one of those opinions. Read on and prepare to be shocked—unless you’ve read this kind of thing before.

    An Abuse of Trust by LPS
    This Bankruptcy Court order explains that employees of Lender Processing Services routinely swear under oath that certain facts are true, without confirming that they are, in fact, true, and explains the evil effects of those false affidavits:

    Default affidavits are a lender’s representation as to the status of a loan. They are routinely accepted in both state and federal courts in lieu of live testimony. They are an accommodation to the lending community based on a belief by the courts that the facts they present are virtually unassailable. The submission of evidence by affidavit allows lenders to save countless hours and expense establishing a borrower’s default without the need for testimony from a lending representative. While they can be refuted by a borrower, too often, a debtor’s offer of alternative and conflicting facts is dismissed by those who believe that a lender’s word is more credible than that of a debtor. The deference afforded the lending community has resulted in an abuse of trust.

    What did LPS do to abuse this trust? The Court explains:

    Although the affidavit in this case purported to verify that Option One was the holder of the note owed by Debtors through an assignment, Ms. Goebel does not personally know this to be a fact and made no effort to verify her assertion. Similarly, the affidavit identifies the mortgage and note as exhibits to the affidavit, but Ms. Goebel neither checks the attachments nor verifies that they are correct. In fact, the affidavits she signs never have any attachments when forwarded to her for execution, and she never adds any.

    Full story at http://floridaforeclosurefraud.com/

  20. Wow, that was awesome, John Gault! I love reading your articles on MERS over at sourceoftitle and frequently rebut other “blame the borrower” commenters on major news sites comments sections using your quotes (of course, I always give due credit to you!) Keep up the good work.

  21. Repost
    iI think there is no note, at least zero interest by or availability to the servicers, to modify. I think when loan modification is actually done, it’s a new loan. Servicers can’t modify loans – they just can’t, anymore than I can.

    When that gang signed up for HAMP funds, it was a charade (hate the word fraud because judges dont’ react well to it in cases of bench-perceived white-collar gentility) to get the HAMP funds. Guess to make this clear I’ll have to say it: they ‘pretended’ they could modify loans in order to enter into a contract with a branch of OUR government to get OUR money, that is, they entered into a contract with we the people under false pretenses. Think about the very mechanics of modifying a loan which allegedly went through securitization….. it can’t be done.

    So to continue the charade, they mess around and mess around with most applicants before denying the modification they really can’t make in the first place. The ones they do “make” are new loans. Everything connected to it is a sham. They must be using the HAMP funds 1) to make your new loan and 2) to continue the payment stream on your “old” loan. And given the inane, asanine, doomed-for-failure-on-a-good-day carte blanche-ness of receiving those funds, they sure as hey don’t want to part with them. They want to come after your home to offset their voluntary guarantees on the payment stream and to add inflated fees and alleged costs, which are then credited against the stream.

    What the he– kind of contract is it which even if viable creates such a huge conflict of interest? I’m ABC bankster. I was just handed (another) 25 billion dollars. I’m stuck with the payment stream on your old loan,and if I make you a new one, I have to part with some of that 25 billion, and I have to keep your new loan on my own books – I can’t sell it -no one will take it. I don’t get to collect any fees for selling it once or 5 times. I’m not even a lender, for Pete’s sake (!). I’m probably not even licensed as one.

    Many, many people with similar circumstances try like heck to get modifications with no success. It must be a lottery – some winning application number gets the new loan, and then only so Joe Banksters can claim they’re making them to keep up appearances, that is the charade.
    As usual, there’s no oversight. There was clearly no stinking forethought, either, by the crafters of this
    insipid piece of dog-doobage. Unless the true forethought was to move more taxpayer dollars to the banksters under guise of HAMP.
    Who the heck was it that came up with the HAMP idea? What idiot sticks didn’t do their homework to learn the real mechanics of this – that it can’t be done? And why in the name of the Lord would they give yet more money to the very people who caused this malaria in the first place? Isn’t this like giving a drunken college kid or a drug addict your check book, even if modifications could be done? The drug addict’s going aftermore drugs, just like the banksters, addicted to easy money, want to go that direction.
    What’s to do about it? Can you imagine real audits of all this baloney? Those HAMP funds should be taken back and put into escrow , held by disinterested third (fourth?) parties, if we can find any, where they will be used for their intended purpose. Of course the banksters would sqwuak, but how much when it is shown that they entered into the contracts on false pretenses? Surely there is a big stick to hold over their collective heads.

    In the meantime, I tell you, if I were a HAMP litigant, I would name the jokesters who signed the fraudulent contract for the bankster in my list of parties. I think people have tried suit against the other side, i.e., Geitner, whomever, unsuccessfully. (or was Geitner sued over TARP?) It might be that the proper allegations weren’t made.
    Btw, there are at least two suits being litigated just now wherein it has been determined that HAMP created a right of action by the homeowner since the homeowner was an intended beneficiary of the contracts. (kind of like Judge Todd just ruled that homeowners are intended beneficiaries of securitization)

    There just can’t have been any diligence done before those HAMP contracts were executed. If there had been, those crafters would have known their contract served no legal, intended purpose since modifications can’t really be done.
    Attorneys involved in HAMP actions might do their damnedist to cause the banksters to explain just how these alleged modifications can be done….

    Also, on info and belief, servicers record their modification phone calls. Try to get these recordings in discovery. If it’s not illegal, I would record my own modification phone calls. (RS – about 25.00) And I would keep a log of every person I talked to, what day, what time of day, what number I called and so on, fwiw , which might be something.
    This HAMP business is insult to injury. It’s just SO wrong and deceitful.
    Maybe we need our own national registry of failed modification efforts. Maybe a computer-smartie reader will set one up, bare bones type.
    My sympathies, really, to every American homeowner in this boat. I think we all get it how the banksters actions in the first place negatively impacted an ability to make payments.

    Kudos to Mr. Weidner.

  22. Yep, Matt Weidner is one of my heros and I love his blog. Has anyone seen the Action Alerts for various states/bills over on 4closurefraud? Please help your fellow fraudclosure fighters by calling into your rep & letting them know how you feel.

  23. An opinion – slow torture.

    mises.org/daily/5224/Foreclosure-Water-Torture

    Light and Love.

    Trespass Unwanted, alive, allodial, corporeal, life, live born, born alive, free, whole blood, freeman, in jure divino, in jure proprio, people, adult

  24. Not sure I would say ‘first to go to jail,’ as they only allegedly defrauded a big bank, and their big money, not the average person who has been striped of just about everything by the banks – NONE of those responsible for this have yet to go to jail!

  25. Nice job Weidner. The key is definitely to get the judges to actually look at the stuff

  26. CORRECTION – This judge reversed a “Senior” Judge, NOT herself…………..

  27. I like to let you know , that Lane Houk in Florida did my Forensic Audit and did a super job .If you need one , here is his web : http://www.thepatriotswar.com/

    I never see so much fraud ,started by the Broker
    already and BNC, Option One , AHMSi and Chase got involved. Thanks again Lane.

  28. Pat, very interessting question from a Loan Officer, read TILA and RESPA, review your closings.
    Did the consumer get copies of every page he signed?
    otherwise first violation found….

  29. DOES ANY ONE KNOW WHERE I CAN GET MORTGAGE FORENSIC AUDIT TRAINING.

    I AM NOT N ATTORNEY BUT HAVE A GRADUATE DEGREE IN ECONOMICS AND HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF MORTGAGES AS A PAST LOAN OFFICER
    THANKS
    PAT

  30. finally one done

    Jury convicts exec in $3B mortgage fraud case
    Jury convicts Taylor Bean’s majority owner on all 14 counts in $3B mortgage fraud trial
    ap

    *
    * tweet0
    * Email
    * Print

    *
    Topics:
    o Legal / Law Matters

    FILE – This photo provided by the Marion County, Fla. Sheriff’s Office shows Lee Bentley Farkas. A jury on Tuesday, April 19, 2011 convicted Farkas, the majority owner of what had been one of the nation’s largest mortgage companies, on all 14 counts in a $3 billion fraud trial that officials have said is one of the most significant prosecutions to arise from the nation’s financial crisis. (AP Photo/Marion County Sheriff’s Office, File)
    Matthew Barakat, AP Business Writer, On Tuesday April 19, 2011, 7:35 pm EDT

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A jury on Tuesday convicted the majority owner of what had been one of the nation’s largest mortgage companies on all 14 counts in a $2.9 billion fraud trial that officials have said is one of the most significant prosecutions to arise from the nation’s financial crisis.

    Prosecutors said Lee Farkas led a fraud scheme of staggering proportions for roughly eight years as chairman of Florida-based Taylor Bean & Whitaker. The fraud not only caused the company’s 2009 collapse and put its 2,000 employees out of work, but also contributed to the collapse of Alabama-based Colonial Bank, the sixth-largest bank failure in U.S. history.

    The jury returned its verdict late Tuesday after more than a full day of deliberations.

    Colonial and two other major banks — Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas — were collectively cheated out of nearly $3 billion, prosecutors estimated. Farkas and his cohorts — six of whom entered guilty pleas to related charges and testified against him at the two-week trial in U.S. District Court — also tried to fraudulently obtain more than $500 million in taxpayer-funded relief from the government’s bank bailout program, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).

    While TARP at one point gave conditional approval to a payment of roughly $550 million, ultimately neither Taylor Bean nor Colonial received any TARP money, and investigators from that office, along with the FBI and other agencies, helped uncover the fraud.

    Neil Barofsky, who recently resigned as TARP’s special inspector general, has called the Farkas case “the most significant criminal prosecution to date rising out of the financial crisis.”

    In a conference call Tuesday evening with reporters, the Justice Department’s criminal division chief, Lanny Breuer, said Farkas was “one of the masterminds in one of the largest bank frauds in history” and that his misconduct “poured fuel on the fire of the financial crisis.”

    “TBW was a major, major player in this industry,” perhaps the second largest in the country depending on how it is measured, Breuer said.

    Farkas testified in his own defense at the trial and claimed he did nothing wrong. He claimed he was unfamiliar with details or knowledge of many aspects of the various fraud schemes, testimony prosecutors derided as incredible in their closing arguments.

    Farkas’ lawyer, Bruce Rogow, said the six executives at Colonial and Taylor Bean who struck plea deals skewed their testimony to bolster the government’s case in the hope of receiving lighter prison sentences for their cooperation. Rogow said Farkas and everyone else at Taylor Bean was working honestly and ethically to get control of its finances and perhaps could have done the job if the government hadn’t essentially shut the company down when it raided company headquarters in 2009.

    Rogow said late Tuesday he was disappointed in the verdict and plans to appeal.

    “I had hoped the jury would have accepted our argument that the six people who pled guilty did so not because they felt they were guilty but because they wanted to minimize the sentences that the government threatened them with,” Rogow said.

    U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered marshals to take Farkas into custody immediately following the verdict, a relatively unusual step since most defendants are allowed to remain free until they are formally sentenced. Farkas will be sentenced July 1 and potentially could spend the rest of his life in prison.

    According to prosecutors, the fraud began in 2002, when Taylor Bean overdrew its main account with Colonial by several million dollars. Mid-level executives at Colonial agreed to transfer money into Taylor Bean’s accounts at the end of each day to avoid generating overdraft notices, a process known as “sweeping.”

    As the hole grew to well over $100 million, Taylor Bean and a handful of Colonial executives concocted a scheme in which Taylor Bean sold hundreds of millions in worthless mortgages to Colonial, mortgages that had already been sold to other investors. More than $1 billion in such phony mortgages were eventually sold to Colonial, which listed them on its books and on its quarterly reports as legitimate assets, prosecutors alleged.

    In a related scheme, Taylor Bean created a subsidiary called Ocala Funding that sold commercial paper — essentially glorified IOUs — to banks including Deutsche Bank and BNP Paribas. But prosecutors said the collateral that supposedly backed that commercial paper was worthless, and when Taylor Bean collapsed in 2009, the two banks lost roughly $1.5 billion.

    Prosecutors said Farkas was motivated by greed and a lavish lifestyle that included a private jet, a seaplane, numerous houses including a home on Key West that he paid servants to hand wash with a sponge to prevent salt damage, a collection of several dozen classic cars and an executive dining room at company headquarters that served pheasant and caviar.

    Farkas, 58, was charged with 14 counts of bank fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud and conspiracy.

    Trial testimony revealed that the bankers at Colonial who worked with Farkas felt trapped as the hole in Taylor Bean’s accounts grew exponentially. Cathie Kissick, a vice president at Colonial who did not tell her superiors about the vast majority of Taylor Bean’s problems, testified that she had little leverage over Farkas because of the trouble she would be in if the size of the hole in Taylor Bean’s accounts was discovered.

    Farkas exploited that leverage, telling a colleague: “If I owe you $100, I have a problem. If I owe you $1 million, you have a problem.”

    Follow Yahoo! Finance on Twitter; become a fan on Facebook.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: