DIMON ADMITS MORTGAGES ARE FLAWED: “UNMITIGATED DISASTER”

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

“There have been so many flaws in mortgages that it’s been an unmitigated disaster,” Dimon said during a conference call today. “We just really need to clean it up for the sake of everybody. And everybody is going to sue everybody else, and it’s going to go on for a long time.”

EDITOR’S COMMENT: Straight from the horses mouth. Well maybe not so straight, but Dimon has chosen this moment to admit that the mortgages themselves are flawed. And THAT is why I keep telling everyone to start at the beginning and do the research and examination of each mortgage and each closing carefully. These mortgages, notes and the whole closing transaction are, in my opinion, fatally flawed. Dimon, the head of JP Morgan Chase, agrees.

If the mortgages are flawed, then  how could they be the subject of foreclosures? And an even better question, how can the states allow non-judicial foreclosures of mortgages they know are flawed. At least require the pretender to plead and prove a case!

Dimon Says Mortgage Clash Swells as ‘Everybody Is Going to Sue’

By Rick Green – Jul 14, 2011 12:14 PM MT
JP Morgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon

James “Jamie” Dimon, chairman and chief executive officer of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said clashes over faulty mortgages may drag on as investors and regulators demand compensation for soured loans issued at the peak of the housing market.

“There have been so many flaws in mortgages that it’s been an unmitigated disaster,” Dimon said during a conference call today. “We just really need to clean it up for the sake of everybody. And everybody is going to sue everybody else, and it’s going to go on for a long time.”

JPMorgan disclosed about $2.5 billion in second-quarter costs tied to faulty mortgages and foreclosures. The bank added $1.27 billion to litigation reserves, mostly for mortgage matters, and incurred $1 billion of expenses tied to foreclosures, according to a slide show accompanying today’s earnings report. Repurchase losses were $223 million, according to the company, which ranks second by assets among U.S. banks.

Banks are struggling to stanch losses tied to loans based on missing or wrong data about borrowers and properties and are facing probes of foreclosures that may have used falsified documents. Lenders led by Bank of America Corp. (BAC) have reimbursed investors for losses on mortgages, and New York-based JPMorgan said it has $3.3 billion in costs so far on repurchases from government-backed firms such as Fannie Mae.

JPMorgan’s additional litigation reserve may help cover “fees and assessments related to foreclosure delays and payments for other settlements,” including probes by the U.S. Department of Justice and the state attorneys general, the bank said. Litigation reserves also cover projected costs tied to so- called private-label mortgage bonds that may have contained faulty loans, the lender said.

Private-Label

“The private-label stuff will probably go up a little bit,” Dimon said when asked about future expenses to resolve disputes tied to the securities. “But I doubt it will go up more than the reserves we’re going to have to take down in the next 12 months.”

The litigation reserves aren’t earmarked for liabilities tied to Washington Mutual, the lender that JPMorgan acquired after it collapsed during the financial crisis in 2008. JPMorgan said those are the responsibility of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., adding that the “FDIC has contested this position.”

The outstanding balance of the Washington Mutual loans was approximately $70 billion as of March 31, with about $24 billion overdue by 60 days or more, according to JPMorgan’s first- quarter regulatory filing.

JPMorgan’s second-quarter net income climbed 13 percent to $5.43 billion as investment banking profit surged and more customers paid credit cards on time, the company said today. The lender advanced $1.08, or 2.7 percent, to $40.70 at 2:41 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The bank declined 6.6 percent this year through yesterday.

To contact the reporter on this story: Rick Green in New York at rgreen18@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David Scheer at dscheer@bloomberg.net

81 Responses

  1. Your company JP Morgan and chase is trying to railroad me on my property @the 310 paint road winchester ohio the property is in my name all 14.321 acres there is 2only acres on the documents from my deceased dad but it was never recorded,and when I was current when the note was owned by washington mutual they did not transfer the mortgage as they where suppose to and now I can’t get help for that reason,but also they did not file the proper paperwork,and now your lawyers are trying to lie and say there are separate deeds and there are not.

  2. HERE WE GO–A NEW TOPIC TO CHEW ON-CAMBRIDGE SUES MOST OF WALL STREET!! FRESH NEW LAWSUIT

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/61249376/CAMBRIDGE-INVESTMENTS-SUING-MOST-OF-WALL-STREET-JULY-2011

  3. @johngault,

    I am strictly speaking CC debt. Defaulted, buyers of defaulted CC debt.

    I don’t know for sure the rules nor codes that apply. However, I am extrapolating the data from this, as CC accounts are sold into an ABS,

    http://privateaudio.homestead.com/ForeclosureDefenseHandbook-1.pdf

    And what I have gathered is the accounting rules apply to the CC originator. Once your CC account is sold to a ABS, then the originator of the account no longer has that account as an asset on it’s books. It collects money via servicing the account and makes money by whatever percentage they work out as a servicer to the account – whatever it is 2% plus late fees – whatever, thus they become servicers. And the asset is now on the books of the ABS trust. And it has now become a security or stock.

    And if one defaults on their CC debt or account, why the bank whether it be chase or BofA, plugs in a new account into the ABS to keep the cash flow going to the ABS trust. Why do you think these guys, CHASE, BOFA are constantly running commercials on TV to get new customers. They have to get new accounts to plug into the ABS trusts.

    But you can get all involved into the rules, the CC rules, the FDCPA, all of it, and go round and round trying to figure it out, and it is made complicated for one reason. And that is to keep people from defaulting and keep buying no matter what.

    But, my bottom line is this, the banks and all these debt buyers and collection companies are all business’s. Profit greater than losses and expenses – you stay in business.

    And here is the ultimate bottom line. You got a business going, sell widgets ( and those widgets = credit or money if you are a bank), people pay and get the widget, people can’t pay but want it – so you give them promise to pay back. Some do, some don’t. If more some do’s exceed some don’t , why you are still in business, and you adjust to maximize profit. If don’t’s do not pay back more than do pay back – you are out of business. And your business model is flawed or something went wrong.

    And all I know is that statue of limitations in california is 4 years. And in another 1 year my CC debt is now gone. Why is that?

  4. And to go a step further, any assignment which may have been done (they weren’t) but not recorded is not binding on the homeowner who had no notice. This is true, certainly in any state which has a statute like Nevada’s 111.315 which clearly spells out that notice to a homeowner is required to be binding on the homeowner. Even in the absence of such a statute, “notice” is a requirement of enforceablility.
    MERS may not allege to assign / transfer a deed of trust which has been necessarily already assigned away from it. And when “MERS” (read generally ‘member self-assignment’) tries, to me it’s an admission the assignment /transfers required for the chain of title was not done. In order for MERS to maintain it’s ‘placeholder’ status, each assignee in the chain would have had to assign the placeholder status back to MERS.

  5. We’re still not done with our argument, though, because such an argument would have to include and articulate how MERS couldn’t have ‘solved’ the mandates for a complete chain of title. MERS is about place-holding in public records. Okay. But even so, the assignments would have had to be done by the players in the securitization, even if not recorded – and they weren’t for the bankster and MERS’ own mistaken impression MERS as placeholder obviated the need to do those assignments / transfers of title to real property. If they had been done and not recorded, they would be binding on the parties thereto (a to b to c to d and so on), but they were NOT done. If they had been done, but not recorded, there would be a complete chain of title, but they were not done. The NV SC ruled they must produce those assignment / transfer documents (and as I said, no ‘capsulization’ by way of allegation) and they just don’t exist. They would also have to prove delivery of the assignments / transfer to all the players because absent delivery of that document, just as a deed, there is no transfer.

    The two cases decided together by the NV SC are Pasilla and Levya.

  6. @cubed2 – No, one can’t be a hidc if one took a note with notice of its dishonor. “Hidc” is a term found in art 3 of the UCC and only applies to promissory notes which ARE negotiable instruments. (If promissory notes are not neg instruments per art 3, (because for instance, the note contains other conditions besides a promise to pay), then there is no such thing as a holder because that provision is only found in Art 3 relevant to negotiable instruments. Max Gardner argues all the promissory notes at issue here are not neg instruments for a couple reasons I can’t rattle off from memory but something like the notes contain conditions or recitations other than the promise to pay and they are actually regulated by Article 9. If Art 9 of the UCC applies to these notes, there is no such thing as a ‘holder’ (whether ‘just’ a holder or a hidc) because holder is an article 3 provision, not 9. Max Gardner (as posted here by Neil) asserts these securitized notes are subject to Article 9.

    HIDC or holder one way or another wouldn’t apply to credit card debt because it does not involve a promissory note. With a prom note which IS a neg instrument, even if one took a note with notice of its dishonor or any of the other reasons enumerated in hidc isms, the holder is nonetheless a holder, just not a hidc. A holder who is not a hidc is subject to defenses by the maker not available against a hidc, but nonetheless a holder under Article 3, assuming Article 3 does apply.

    The questions for me , as sophomoric as this may sound, are 1) if Max has it wrong (???) and these notes at issue ARE negotiable instruments, are they regulated by the UCC at all, because the UCC is ‘default law’, to be used in the absence of an expressed agreement. So is there an express agreement to “look at” first before turning to default law (UCC). We need to scrutinize those notes. And Max says one may not agree the note is governed by a particular Article if in fact it would not be in the absence of that agreement, and 2) does a holder who is or is not a hidc receive the benefit of the collateral? To state No. 1 another way, are these notes truly negotiable instruments at all pursuant to article 3? Not all notes are negotiable instruments. If these notes are neg instruments, under what circumstances if any would the holder receive the benefit of the collateral? If they are not governed by Article 3 and therefore there is no ‘holder’ of any kind, then significantly, banksters may not rely on a blank endorsement because that is a provision of Article 3.

    The NV (title-theory state) Supreme Court just ruled that an assignment of the dot, the collateral instrument, is a transfer of title to real property, implicating the statute of frauds which mandates that all transfers of real property must be in writing and there must be an unbroken chain of title.
    So in the absence of an unbroken chain of title to the dot, even a hidc may not have the benefit of the collateral without a valid assignment / transfer of the dot with an unbroken chain of title, as well. This would be true for any state which is a title-theory state as opposed to a lien-theory state.
    Here is a quick link to a map showing what states are title-theory states:

    http://title.grabois.com/

    If your home is in a title-theory state, there must be an unbroken chain of title for the dot, which means there must be one from everyone to everyone in the act in the securitization process. Failing that, there are missing links in the chain which is fatal to your bankster in trying to enforce the dot. Even if a bankster were found to be a holder under Article 3, that bankster would find itself with an unsecured note. The psa’s called for an assignment of the dot to the trust or the absurd ‘in blank’ assignment, and even had this been done (I suspect it wasn’t), it would be of no value if the rest of them weren’t done in the chain of securitization. While we are not new here to the concept of a ‘wild deed’,
    I don’t think we have gotten it as it applies to assignments of the deeds of trust and the full ramifications.
    While the SC of Nevada simply followed existing law, it’s possible one could nonetheless assert this as ’emerging law’ because as far as I know, it is the first head-on interpretation of that existing law. Emerging law is a reason for reconsideration, I think.

  7. @johngault,

    holder in due course is for debt NOT DEFAULTED. Very important to remember that. If you sell a defaulted debt to somebody, the somebody who bought the defaulted debt is NOT A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE. All the somebody is is a name buyer with data of defaulted debt amount, address, original creditor, etc. The defaulted debt buyers are nothing, the debt is written off or paid by insurance.

    You can go here:
    http://debtconnection.com/debtsellers.asp,

    set up a business name, John G. Chump Collections, LLC

    and buy all the defaulted debt you want, start calling people and send letters as well on the list you bought, collect some money. Work the list for 6 months, re sell the list for some income, buy another list, rinse and repeat. It’s a numbers game, make money on the low hanging fruit.

    Hey, guess what, maybe “cubed2k” or johngault name is on the list you bought.

  8. @mih – L.E.S is pretty smart. Please link what you’re talking about.
    Thanks

  9. @Marie
    Yep, you’re exactly right the facts of my case are extremely convoluted, that’s exactly why I believe the judge didn’t want to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

    @johngault
    I slightly remember reading case law stating something to the effect that pro se pleadings should be read liberally. Unfortunately I didn’t use it in my pleading. Best believe, it’ll be used in all of my future pleadings.

    I so wish I could share these documents, its eating me up, but I believe I’ll exercise patience first. When I’m sure that’s not working, I’ll do the Lynn E. Szymoniak on’em!!!

    Debt collection convo is a magnificent read!!

  10. The UCC art 3 states that a holder of a note is entitled to enforce it.
    Okay, But if that holder is not the owner, is that non-owning holder then a debt-collector?

  11. OKAY, YOU GUYS DO REALIZE THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS BANKS PUT PRESSURE ON THE GOVERNMENT RIGHT?

    “everybody is going to sue everybody else, and it’s going to go on for a long time.”

    THAT’S PROBABLY NOT SOMETHING ANY LAWMAKER, JUDGE, DA, BAILIFF ETC… IS GOING TO WANT TO HEAR. THIS IS A PLOY USED TO SPEED THE SETTLEMENT TALKS.

    DON’T LET IT FOOL YOU PRESSURE NEEDS TO BE APPLIED MORE ON GOVERNMENT AND THEIR IMPROPER VESTED INTERESTS IN IT ALL. IT’S BAD ENOUGH OUR TAX MONEY PAYS FOR THEIR SALARIES, BUT THEY’RE TRYING TO HIDE THE FACT THAT ALL OF OUR FRAUDULENT MORTGAGES AND FRAUDCLOSURES PAY FOR THEIR PENSIONS BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT’S WRONG.

  12. Diane Jenkins,
    What city in OC do you live in and which Courts/Judges are doing this?

    I had the same problem and had tendered but the Judge ignored it, even though he never actually “otherwise ordered” that any tender be made.

  13. And who changes the rules and words every year or every bad event? Who influences this?

  14. write off bad debt, get tax credit, then sell names to junk debt buyers, count as income.

    Who owns junk debt buyer companies? Some are public – who invests in them? Some are hedge funds which use OPM.

    To keep it even and sound as if free market and non-monopoly, why you allow independents (includes law firms) to enter the game (FDCPA) – or non public companies or non hedge funds.

    Very complicated and hard to connect the dots for your average citizen, who as Neil pointed out as Editor Comment a while ago, is more moral than the financial industry. And I agree.

  15. sorry

    “Banks, or CC companies, then count the sold names to debt collectors as income, forever the pool of names/data was sold for to the highest bidder. All cool.”

    forever = for whatever

    “Debt buyers that bought defaulted debt, whatever they purchased for, why did is the cost of inventory or whatever you what to call it.”

    did = this

  16. @Ian.

    It’s simple.

    ” what exactly are debt buyers purchasing? ”

    They are buying names and data. They are buying a mailing list of past customers, bank are business’s, traded on the stock exchange as a public company.

    Banks, or CC companies, then count the sold names to debt collectors as income, forever the pool of names/data was sold for to the highest bidder. All cool.

    Debt buyers that bought defaulted debt, whatever they purchased for, why did is the cost of inventory or whatever you what to call it.

    The debt collector industry is hidden under so much complexity that most people go screw it, I don’t want to deal with this anymore (or basically I don’t understand) so I’ll pay or fole for BK.

    The defaulted debt collector industry is like this:

    You buy names/data from original creditor who wrote off debt, for pennies on the original debt defaulted amount. You, so called debt collector, now your job is to get the people to pay you for something you bought. Anyway you can to contact them w/i the FDCPA rules, you must contact them via letter or phone, and get a response. Now, the person is trapped, a new implied debt.

    This is the only industry in which a buyer can somehow force somebody to pay for what they bought.

    It’s like if you buy a 1000 widgets, and nobody buys from you, why any inquiry into the widgets means you bought it so pay up.

    It is all hidden in the complexity of the codes, civil, and the rules and words which are chosen to have opposite meanings.

    Like “fix” – to solve a problem or influence the outcome of.

  17. Speaking of the IRS, I forced myself to call them today because they owe me some money, believe it or not. I got a really swell fellow. He was as thick and self-important as the day is long. He called me ‘stupid’. I was pretty shocked and it just popped out: I said, ‘did you just call me stupid’? “Click”!
    Of course I wish I hadn’t asked that, because with a moment’s pause I would have known he was a (*^@(*& toad and could only dish it out, lived to dish it out. I waited for twenty minutes for this. If Ihe were near me within a couple seconds of his click, I’m pretty sure I would have proved him right. I don’t really mind being called stupid by a moron. I just hate the lost time.

  18. E.Tolle- my thoughts exactly on banks “writing off” their debt as a deductible expense, and then selling the debt to a debt buyer. First of all, when the debt is written off, it fails to exist as a debt. So what exactly are debt buyers purchasing? And how is the income to the banks from sales of written-off debt treated for accounting purposes? Perhaps Maher Soliman can chime in here. Anyone here familiar with the FDCRA’s governing principles? Is this even legal?

  19. That tender law is either unconstitutional and should be challenged yesterday, or there exist ways to fight it on the books we haven’t found yet. In the absence of finding those other ways on the books, I’d say the law has to be challenged because it appears to have that
    clear meaning bar and is not written ambiguously.

    I am not to be made to pay a thief in order to enter the “halls of justice” to reclaim my property from the thief.

    Underlying this ‘law’ is a presumption that the thief wasn’t a thief. So maybe he would be found to be entitled to my property, but I should not be made to pay him the value of my property (trustee sale price, whatever) it may also be determined he stole in order to stinking argue that he stole it.

    I am being made to buy it back before I may argue he stole it.

    Can you imagine having to pay a car thief for your car before you can get him arrested? The only thing here which is different is that assinine and heinously prejudicial assumption that whatever abc did to get (read steal) my house was Hoyle. Having to tender makes me wrong without due process and this is no slight matter, the way I see it.

    That presumption contains a presumption that foreclosure was done right or even if not done right, I could have argued prior to sale. But the one thing I could not argue before sale is the matter of the bid at sale.

    Maybe it would be beneficial to frame or include the essentially post-f/c argument about that bid, especially if it were a credit bid, which it was, and make it about the actual “sale”. If I am to pay abc what he paid (is that it -or is it expressed as the balance due on the note?) then I need to know what he paid. If he paid zero because he was not entitled to a credit bid, then I definitely shouldn’t have to repay abc because abc itself paid nothing, and so there was no compliance on abc’s part at all with the foreclosure rules. Still, there’s that presumption.
    I haven’t framed this as well as some might; it’s just until that bs law is overtuned, and even tho this may be almost if not the same thing, there may be enough wiggle room in this argument to tie it in to survive a motion to deny my right to argue the theft without paying the thief. Obviously it’s ridiculously unfair and prejudicial, and I think the extreme prejudice is in fact a violation of due process.

  20. Diane,

    If there is fraud in the original mortgage, I believe there is NO need to tender, even in CA. I forget the case or the law to cite.

    For example, WHO should I have to provide any TENDER TO? MY LOAN was written in the name of a FICTITIOUS LENDER CORPORATION.

    There is NO PROPER ENTITY to RECEIVE the tender FROM ME, therefore, no tender can be required.

  21. @John Gault,

    here is post from 2 apr 2010:

    http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/credit-card-companies-geting-tougher-fight-back-with-securitization-defenses/

    I wasn’t here back then.

    This is my opinion and my understanding. I will never send a DVL to a collection company nor will I talk to any one of them. And if I accidentally talk to one I will not disclose who I am nor tell them anything and I will state I don’t have a clue such person is nor what they are talking about and just say bye.

    These debt collection letters I get are from some company that names my original creditor and the amount owed, doesn’t matter. These people are debt buyers not debt collectors as defined in the FDCPA. They call themselves debt collectors but they are not. If they collect debts for another and maybe sometimes they do thus they call themselves debt collectors and are within the FDCPA. But, big but, they bought my defaulted charged off debt so for me they are debt buyers. Smoke and mirrors and I can see them for what they are.

    Thus, why would I send a DVL to one of these joints? In doing so, sending them a DVL, I am now telling them that I have a debt, and this is now something they can use against me. But I do not, it was written off or charged off or paid off by insurance.

    So, this is my opinion, I will not send a DVL to a collection company. Nor will I talk to one.

  22. 4 years ago I forget to sign my 1040. The IRS sent it back asking me to sign and return it. Which I did.

    I find that interesting, must have a signature.

    I wonder if I can sent up an account under my dogs name.

  23. E. Tolle,

    if CC company sends me no 1099 on default debt I no report it on my income tax. Afterall, I SIGN THE 1040. Right or wrong, that’s what I’ve done last 2 years. I’m also small potatoes in the amount of money floating around the globe. I’m a molecule in a grain of sand.

  24. John gault,

    I settled on some credit card with discover and cap one I think 6 years ago. they sent me a 1099 which I reported on my income tax. But, at the time I didn’t know about the other form, I think 541 or something, I can find it, that allows if you are insolvent at the time, the 1099 debt can be forgiven.

    But anyways, so if one defaults a CC debt, which I did some 2 years ago now, I have received no 1099 form. So, what if the debt is paid by insurance. It is paid, banks sends no 1099, sells names to debt collector, consumer does not know any of this. To top it off now, the CC debt is actually owned by some investor in an ABS, and the bank is actually just a servicer.

  25. @ John Gault,

    Yes, this is the huge black hole sucking monies from one and all, at the same time defying all of the natural laws that you and I have to adhere to. How, except through the FIRE lobby’s generous funding of campaigns, can a company be allowed to discharge i.e. write off of their taxes a debt, then turn around and sell that debt? That would mean they should then deduct the profit made on that sale from their write-off, no? Not to mention the fact that they no longer have the loss, as the write off is basically an income of sorts, thanks to the IRS, read: the American taxpayers.

    Then, the person whose debt was discharged is sent a 1099, which now makes the IRS the creditor for the debt, now considered income to the borrower. And BTW, many times so I’ve heard, the pretend lenders never send the borrower the 1099, only the IRS. Therefore, if the borrower doesn’t take the initiative to claim any such income, they can be in serious poo with the IRS.

    To make matters worse, and as it relates to foreclosures, by filing the 1099 with the IRS, the supposed creditor is saying that, yes, this is that person’s debt, and we can prove it is. However if they can’t validate they can’t file the 1099. So here we are again back at pretend lenders and such. Are they the true creditor? Can one afford to sue on these grounds? How to get the pretend lenders to prove the debt, short of a lawsuit?

    Add to this that even without their proving up the validity of the debt, they’ll still hit you for at least 50 points on your score for the next 7 years. In my case, they trashed my credit after I had QWR’d them for validation, which is a violation on a violation. But, what do they care? The odds of them getting hit significantly by $1000 fees here and there through RESPA and the like is inconsequential to them. They prefer to deal in billions and even trillions.

    If only the citizens had a lobby. And all the while I believed that that’s what our legislators were in D.C. for. I’m soooo naive!

  26. Well, actually I certainly wouldn’t assume that. And it’s obvious they don’t follows the rules, any apparently, but I am trying to get at what they are supposed to do. And while I’m at it, nobody really wants a stinking 1099
    for debt forgiveness, BUT that 1099 tells you WHO wrote off your debt.
    So in the case where someone might be entitled to issue a l099 and doesn’t, than my suspicious mind wonders why not.

    @Nancy Drewe – I’m good friends with Hannah Gruen….

  27. Jgault

    You assume that the banks operate according to normal rules and procedures. In my personal experience they don’t give a darn about a felony or two. Not when there’s money to be made

  28. @E tolle /cubed2 – when the debt is expensed and written off, there’s nothing to assign to a debt collector. Okay, but you said the debt is also discharged, which makes sense, but whoa. Wouldn’t that be pursuant to election of remedies? Wouldn’t that mean the creditor should be reporting it as such to credit reporting agencies?
    And dang, when we’re talking about notes and dot’s, it seems to me if it has been written off on some books and ‘discharged’, the note has to be marked paid, retired, something. Or is it my naptime again?

    And btw, it is a crime to keep false accounts in private books / records.
    And also btw, officers of corporations may be named and survive dismissal. I know that’s not what the law says at a glance, but piercing the corporate veil can be done, at least sometimes. My first look at this was something about v. Kuhio Tire (been a long, long time).

    Shouldn’t those all show as charge-offs (credit report) instead of open accounts, accounts with o/s balances? I know sometimes they (credit card accounts) show as charge-offs, but it looks like they all should. And what have we decided about debt forgiveness and 1099’s in regard to unsecured debt like charge cards? I know someone went over it, but I got stoned and missed it, so if you wouldn’t mind….

  29. More interesting is when did Linda Green, vp sign the doc

  30. Linda Green is a vice-president of all major corporations in America

  31. usedcarguy –

    I found a transfer document signed by Linda Green, who states she is the Vice President of Wells Fargo Bank, NA. State of MO.

  32. Mih

    Alot to think about but Improper service ousts jurisdiction for starters. If it was improper. Don’t know where you are….thinking. Thinking….

    I once got a judgment vacated due to improper service. Can be an important issue. Your facts are incredibly convoluted. Only Mephistopheles and his gang could have dreamed up such a scenario

    You really need to know your procedure and appeal timing and rules. COLD. Mistakes at this point could be fatal

    Just my uneducated thoughts…not legal advice you know

  33. And btw, case law substantiates that a judge is to apprise a pro-se litigant of deficiences in his pleadings before 86’ing the pro se’s ‘stuff’.

  34. johngault & Marie,

    Thanks again for your insight and input… and yes, this has been a grueling process but I’ve learned to withstand this for my family and everyone who’s in this illegal mess. I didn’t go into great detail b/c this is still an ongoing fight but I’ll try to address your questions. I wish I could post all the documents I have, they are simply UNBELIEVABLE!!!

    This is a non-judicial proceeding and IT IS NOT related to MERS. Remember I mentioned I did a QWR…well the servicer responded to it about a week after the sale and confirmed it was not a MERS loan. And yes, the Assignment of DOT was filed in the Clerk of Courts file but was not recorded with the Register of Deeds although upon the face of the Assignment it states “Recording Requested/Return To.” the Sub. Trustee. Ques: Why would the Sub. Trustee’s name appear on the face of the Assign? Judge doesn’t care its moot & I didn’t timely appeal!!! Why did I receive a NOD in May stating DBNTC was the “owner/creditor/ holder of the note” when the Assignment wasnt executed until June? Judge doesn’t care its moot & I didn’t timely appeal!!! Why was the Assignment executed by servicer as an agent for New Century while similtaneously representing DBNTC as the servicing agent? Judge doesn’t care its moot & I didn’t timely appeal!!!
    If I were in default, why is the payment accounted for in the VOM presented in the court file? Judge doesn’t care its moot & I didn’t timely appeal!!! WHY IS THE NOTE (PRESENTED TO THE COURT BY THE “LENDER”) NOT INDORSED…The questions go on and on… but…Judge doesn’t care its moot & I didn’t timely appeal!!

    You all are right, service of process is an issue. I received the unfiled Notice of Hearing via First Class Mail a few days before the servicer said it suspended the foreclosure…I natually assumed by their statement that meant the whole proceeding halted at that point. I discovered after the rule 60 motion that service of process was improper. The Sheriff’s return states the Sheriff posted the notice on the door of the “VACANT” property..I resided in my home since I bought it and it was very open and anybody who walks to the front door can see the entire fully furnished first floor through 2 side light windows.. I never received this alleged notice… but even if I had, this is considered service by publication when personal service should have been attempted first. I know personal service wasnt attempted b/c the Notice was filed with the Clerk on a Fri.. The Sheriff’s returns states the Sheriff received the Notice on Monday, the Sheriff signed it on Tues (I assume thats the day the Sheriff posted, but it wasn’t specified) and the Sheriff’s Return was filed first thing Weds morning.
    I plan to raise the issue on appeal…I have 7 days to file.

    As far as DBNTC assigning the bid to trust, it is a clear admission that neither party ever owned anything as far as I’m concerned. It appears to be an interchangible use of the names of the two entities to make them appear to be one in the same..but there’s HUGE problems with that. For instance, the chain of title goes in two different directions…AND GET THIS… DBNTC’S address is purported to be in Santa Ana, CA, but the trust’s address ON THE FACE OF THE TRUSTEE’S DEED is 1270 Northland Dr Ste 200 Mendota Heights, MN 55120, that’s LPS’s address…Why is the trust located at that address??? Like I said..the questions go on forever and I learn more and more everyday…it gets exhausting but WE ALL MUST KEEP GOING..WE MUST KEEP THE PRESSURE ON UNTIL THE WAR IS WON!!!

  35. MakeIt happen

    Your experience has made my blood boil. My ousting pales in comparison but i share your agony

    My “too” cents: first what am i missing. Your timeline is fuzzy. Appeal deadline?

    What about omnibus motion/complaint to set aside the sale based on numerous counts of fraud including lack of notice of acceleration of sale(!?), some sort of misrepresentation count, maybe, and the umpteen other species of fraud visited upon you, fraud docs, jurisdictional issues if any. I know tnharry will disagree with me but you need to somehow get the court to revisit this. Cant all be moot. Agree with gault courts enjoy their feelings of annoyance with inartful legal wording

    Not legal advice of course. Just conversat’n

  36. those plastic demons.(or any loan from a bank)

    throw them away,

    or use them you make more money – leverage,

    or use them to consume and carry a balance – you are a chump, why you agreed, chump (they don’t tell you but you are)..

  37. the world is flat and everybody agrees.

    then one day a person says no, the world is round. And in everybodies eyes this person is crazy. And then a few others see that the world is round, and some more, and some more. finally all agree the world is round.

    You owe a “debt collector” (somebody who bought defaulted debt) money and all agree. And then somebody cracks the code and says no you don’t. And he is crazy or stupid in everybodies eyes. And then some more crack the code, and some more. And finally everybody realizes it is a scam.

    You see the banks created a new reality (=agreement) with MERS, and somebody came along and cracked the code.

    And banks created a new reality with credit cards, ABS, MBS.

  38. yes E.Tolle. thanks.

    I don’t mention it for your benefit, or Anonymous benefit, or A Man, or Marie or Carie, or M Soliman, etc.

    I write it for new visitors, or for one searching on the internet and maybe lands here as a result.

    While it is clear in your mind, it is not so clear in other minds and people have been conditioned very thoroughly to think they owe a “debt Collector” money.

    If one does a google search for some such statement as “not paying credit card debt, what happens”, you get results of debt may be written off but you still owe the debt and debt collector will start calling. Or the debt never goes away. Which is all total BS. Plus you got the FDCPA which makes it “offical” for people.

    All this is hard for somebody new to understand. There is a lot of false data in people’s mind that has to be jarred loose.

    And I’m afraid it’s number of times over to finally reach the person. Read it, read it again, read it again, read it again – oh, I get it now. But, now a person might say to himself, “but what about this, or that?” Then it takes confirmation and agreement from others to get past the “but what about that’s”.

  39. mih – what you may have, also, is a case of detrimental reliance. Even tho you maybe didn’t use those words in your rule 60 mtn, if you made the arguments of d.r. all the same, you could include it in an appeal. Please don’t think I am trying to encourage you to keep up what may be an impossible fight, especially without an attorney. On the other hand, you have a right to fight, but remember, as you do, you are going to become more and more emotionally and otherwise invested. Ugly, bs, stinking
    piece of dog-doobage situation average Americans sure the hell shouldn’t find themselves in. On one hand we think we can’t look in the mirror if we fold, and on the other we face large odds of enlargening our wound.

  40. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/robo-signing-foreclosure-banks_n_902140.html

    Banks Continue ‘Robo-Signing’ Foreclosure Practices In Spite Of Promises To Contrary: Investigation

    “…A Deutsche Bank spokesman declined to comment.

    Even if the February document were authentic, it wasn’t recorded until nearly 10 months after OneWest had launched its foreclosure action, which began in May 2010. Real estate law throughout the United States requires that before moving to foreclose, a trust or bank must already own the mortgage and related promissory note. Otherwise, courts have ruled, a forecloser has no right to seize a house.

    OneWest also filed two separate copies of what it said was the 87-year-old homeowner’s original promissory note. The first had an endorsement only from MortgageIT to now-defunct IndyMac Bank. Weeks later, OneWest filed a second copy of the note, with the addition of a “blank” endorsement — an endorsement by IndyMac, but with the name of the payee left empty. OneWest has filed no evidence in the case that the note was subsequently transferred to Fannie Mae.

    OneWest declined to explain the multiple apparent discrepancies in the Gunter foreclosure documents. A spokesman said in an e-mail: “OneWest is dedicated to ensuring that it meets the needs of its customers, acts in accordance with applicable laws, and complies with its contractual mortgage servicing duties to the highest standards.”

    A Fannie Mae spokeswoman said Fannie does own the Gunter note, but declined to explain how the mortgage finance giant obtained it, “due to it being in active litigation.”

    The judge in the Gunter case hasn’t ruled yet on OneWest’s documents. (20th Judicial Circuit Court in Collier County, FL, Case number 10-2982-CA).

    Mrs. Gunter lives in Immokalee, a scrubby town 34 miles inland from Fort Myers on Florida’s Gulf coast. About 40 per cent of the townspeople live below the poverty line, census data show. She shares her home with her three dogs; her one surviving son lives in a nursing home.

    In an interview at her house, on a dusty road off the main highway, Mrs. Gunter said she doesn’t understand why the bank is foreclosing.

    OneWest says that Mrs. Gunter now is delinquent by more than $160,000. Her lawyer, Joseph Klein of the Legal Aid Service of Collier County, argues there are extenuating circumstances.

    Copies of her mortgage application forms show that in December 2006, an agent for Deutsche Bank’s MortgageIT unit signed up Mrs. Gunter for a $149,900 mortgage. The forms, listing her income, show that the agent knew that the monthly payments — $1,151, including insurance — were more than her monthly income of $800 from Social Security plus about $200 in food stamps.

    In an affidavit filed in court, Mrs. Gunter said she had asked the salesman for a “reverse mortgage,” which allows senior citizens to remain in their homes without making mortgage payments, with the value of the house going to the bank when they die. But the documents the salesman gave her to sign were for an ordinary 30-year mortgage.

    Losing her place would be a devastating blow, Mrs. Gunter said. “If they take the house,” she said, “they’ll take me, too.”

  41. mih, I do know one thing about appeals – you may not raise an issue in an appeal not raised in the lower court, so you have to carefully tie anything in the appeal to something you already argued in the lower court.

  42. @makeithappen:
    “NO MENTION OF A SPECIFIC TRUST UNTIL AFTER THE SALE IN AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE BID FROM DBNTC TO THE ALLEGED TRUST THAT CLOSED in 2006”
    Well now that’s interesting. I haven’t kept up on the actual f/c stuff, except the bs credit bids to some extent. And I’m surprised by the assignment of the bid to the trust. This could I guess mean a couple of things and the one which sticks out for me is that DBNTC was theoretically acting on behalf of that alleged trust in making the bid which was probably a credit bid. Following this, if the dot belonged to the trust, then for dbntc to bid would require a contractual relationship with that trust of course. Okay. Where not okay is that I’d bet nowhere along the trail was dbntc made to evidence that contractual relationship. And what’s really puzzling is why if that relationship existed, why wasn’t the bid made in the trust’s name by it’s agent or trustee or w/e, dbntc? Why did dbntc make the credit bid in its own name and then assign the bid? May seem like no great shakes, but there is purpose in everything those guys do. They do make us work. If the bid were a credit bid but the trust had never been assigned the deed of trust,
    not even the trust had a right to a credit bid, I think. So then did dbntc ‘rely’ on the MERS status in the dot as its own (dbntc’s) alleged agent which would make dbntc the principle of that agent, entitled to a credit bid?

    Never mind the above as to your deal. It’s just a general observation.

    In your case there was an unrecorded assignment in the court’s file? I don’t know too much about judicial f/c, btw. This was not a “MERS” dot? If it were, I have to admit, I don’t really understand how they could leave MERS out of the assignment. I guess its alleged principal could do the assignment itself.
    Hey! When assignments are done by MERS from a member to a member, MERS has a contractual relationship with both parties and has no doubt and almost certainly alleged to be the agent of each at different times. Is this any kind of conflict?
    Even when we don’t know the identification of the party for whom MERS ostensibly holds the dot, and then MERS does the assignment, it is a member, or MERS would’ve, should’ve been toast. So MERS is the alleged agent of both the assignor and assignee. Hmmmmmm….

    What you have said here is a repeat of what so many people have gone thru and it’s enough to make one weep. And this is not in any way to make light of your troubles. It’s just sickening. It’s infuriating. It’s oppressive. Who ARE these people? Do they walk and breath among us? What in the hell can be so sweet at such a cost of morals and human dignity? I mean, to pull that kind of crap to take a family’s home? It’s such dirty fighting, it’s
    just depraved.

    I take it you did not go to court for that hearing because you got suckered?
    Nonetheless, if an Order were issued pursuant to that hearing, where’s the certificate of service for the order to you? I would think the bankster would have had to send you a copy and because you were an unrepresented party, the court would send you a copy of the order and there would be one or more certificates of service to you. If there is no cert of service to you, legally you didn’t get it. Did you get it and think you didn’t have to worry about it, relying on lies?
    If there is no certificate of service, you may have a shot, I as a lay person would think. And because I’m not a lawyer, I can only tell you it’s my impression your judge is full of shyt because lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time (this is not to say I know there was no jurisdiction), and also “as far as I know”, it is appropriately raised in a rule 60 mtn. If it were appropriately raised in your rule 60 mtn, then you could file a timely appeal of his denial of the rule 60 mtn – I THINK. I’ve got some appeals stuff on my computer which I haven’t studied – just saved, so I’m no help other than I would be happy to forward them to you.
    As to case law on void ab initio, I can only suggest you use google scholar, findlaw, or pop for a week to a month for lois law ($89 – 184.) I know what it means, but I couldn’t write an argument myself.

  43. PLEASE add my name to your email list so I can get your daily blog postings.
    Thank you,

  44. @ cubed2k,

    You’ve mentioned this simple logic several times now. Here it is spelled out for the pretend creditors or the IRS in Crayon:

    1. When a loan goes into default it gets written off by the REMIC.
    2. Once the asset is written off the debt is discharged.
    3. Since the (pretend) owner of the asset has received compensation for the discharge in the form of tax credits from the IRS, as well as any (additional $$$ in) insurances monies (think AIG/AMBAC), as required in the 424B-5, this means the debt has been settled (many times over), and therefore there is no loss (actually, the gain is many, many times over).
    4. Then, who exactly are these ***holes calling night and day about a loan written off years ago? Criminals, you say?
    5. Could this possibly mean that these people who claim to own the debt due to the fact that they paid $350.00 for a $35K debt are full of ****?

    What about this isn’t clear? Can you say Double (quadruple) Dipping? Can you say SECURITIES FRAUD?

  45. @johngault- Thank you so much for the feedback and insight. Yes, the sale has already happened. When the foreclosure commenced, it was by complete surprise and it was initiated in a name foreign to me…Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee (NO MENTION OF A SPECIFIC TRUST UNTIL AFTER THE SALE IN AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE BID FROM DBNTC TO THE ALLEGED TRUST THAT CLOSED IN 2006), the originator was New Century.

    I was not late on my mortgage, I received a NOD dated May 3 stating I was in default of my April 1 payment, which I supplied proof and the payment was accounted for on the servicers VOM. When I questioned the alleged Servicer about their accounting and this entity I never heard of, they told me they would suspend the foreclosure just days before I received an unrecorded Notice of Hearing (non-judicial state). Unbeknowst to me, they didn’t suspend anything. The hearing commenced and they received the Order to foreclose.

    I spent months corresponding with the alleged servicer, while they were leading me to believe my loan was being “investingated” and the foreclosure was suspended. Finally I received a Notice of Foreclosure Sale…that’s when I knew something seriously wrong. This led me to researching, which led me to sites like this one, which led me to look at the documents filed in the court’s foreclosure file, which led me to an Assignment of DOT directly from New Century to DBNTC (DATED AFTER NEW CENTURY FILED FOR BANKRUPCY PROTECTION). The Assignment was notarized 5 months after it was executed and it was not recorded with the county registry. In addition the Appt of Sub Trustee was executed after the Assignment of DOT was executed but before it was notarized. Even worse, the ALLEGED servicer executed all the documents as AIF. And to top it all off…the Note bears not indorsements whatsoever!!!

    I knew this was terribly wrong, but I didn’t know to what extent. So I did a QWR, I asked the servicer to clarify my findings and I asked them to postpone the sale until we have answers, they agreed. This time I asked for the postponement to be in writing b/c I had already been burned…they sent it in writing…but PROCEEDED with the sale anyway.

    I filed a motion to vacate the foreclosure order pursuant to Rule 60 for lack of jurisdiction and fraud upon the court..it was denied b/c the judge felt I should have appealed the foreclosure order….even though I didn’t know about it for months and he also denied it for being moot b/c the foreclosure sale had already occured and the Sub. Trustees deed was already filed. So now I need caselaw that supports that a judgment void ab initio is a nullity, appealing would have no effect, nor can it be moot. I’ve found many that say appealing would have no effect, but I can’t find any that says it cannot be moot….Sorry I know this is a lot, but thanks in advance for any feedback you can offer.

  46. But WAIT, there’s MORE!

    DOES TOO BIG TO FAIL NOW MEAN TOO BIG TO PROSECUTE?
    July 18, 2011

    (NATIONAL) — After reading what economist Paul Krugman has to say about the mortgage mess in America you may wish you were born a big banker instead of a six-pack Joe or Jill scrambling to hang on to their home in the still grindingly painful Great Recession.

    According to Krugman, the big bankers are the Teflon Dons of the Great Recession. Nothing sticks. They walk no matter what. They get rich no matter what. They get bailed out no matter what. And no matter what they don’t get tried before a jury of their peers.

    What’s going on with the mortgage mess? Krugman says the government is quietly, slowly and surely letting bankers off the hook when many of them were illegally foreclosing on homes — perhaps thousands, maybe tens of thousands of homes.

    Krugman:

    “A word about the current state of the mortgage mess. Last fall, we learned that many mortgage lenders were engaging in illegal foreclosures. Most conspicuously, “robo-signers” were attesting that banks had the required documentation to seize homes without checking to see whether they actually had the right to do so — and in many cases they didn’t.

    How widespread and serious were the abuses? The answer is that we don’t know. Nine months have passed since the robo-signing scandal broke, yet there still hasn’t been a serious investigation of its reach. That’s because states, suffering from severe budget troubles, lack the resources for a full investigation — and federal officials, who do have the resources, have chosen not to use them.”

    That line perhaps should sink in a bit: Krugman says the feds have chosen not to use the vast resources readily available to fully investigate what could be the largest mortgage fraud case in U.S. history when they threw everything at getting mobster John Gotti — a common street thug who never caused near the collective national pain and agony that who knows how many illegal foreclosures caused to the families who were in those houses.

    The government won’t go after these players – some of whom arguably got rich off the housing bubble by peddling fraudulent mortgage loans to people who could never qualify for them – yet it will spare no expense to go after some barely literate 17-year old kid of color to send him upriver for five to ten for using a rusty, non-working .22 caliber pistol to knock off a 7-11 of $182?

    Evidently that is the lay of the land. Instead, says Krugman, the government wants a “settlement” with mortgage companies that would absolve them of “any wrongdoing” in exchange for penalties reaching $30 billion (the price for buying a never-go-to-jail card?) and assurances that the big bankers will be nice boys and promise not do this stuff in the future.

    Krugman maintains that makes no sense. No sense at all. What we should do, he says, is “hold bankers accountable for their actions.”

  47. Let’s see how much longer the lamestream media keeps hiding this. AP article is running on Forbes as well…….

    AP Exclusive: Mortgage ‘robo-signing’ goes on
    By MICHELLE CONLIN, AP Business Writers – 6 hours ago
    Mortgage industry employees are still signing documents they haven’t read and using fake signatures more than eight months after big banks and mortgage companies promised to stop the illegal practices that led to a nationwide halt of home foreclosures.
    County officials in at least three states say they have received thousands of mortgage documents with questionable signatures since last fall, suggesting that the practices, known collectively as “robo-signing,” remain widespread in the industry.
    The documents have come from several companies that process mortgage paperwork, and have been filed on behalf of several major banks. One name, “Linda Green,” was signed almost two dozen different ways.
    Lenders say they are working with regulators to fix the problem but cannot explain why it has persisted.
    Last fall, the nation’s largest banks and mortgage lenders, including JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and an arm of Goldman Sachs, suspended foreclosures while they investigated how corners were cut to keep pace with the crush of foreclosure paperwork.
    Critics say the new findings point to a systemic problem with the paperwork involved in home mortgages and titles. And they say it shows that banks and mortgage processors haven’t acted aggressively enough to put an end to widespread document fraud in the mortgage industry.
    “Robo-signing is not even close to over,” says Curtis Hertel, the recorder of deeds in Ingham County, Mich., which includes Lansing. “It’s still an epidemic.”
    In Essex County, Mass., the office that handles property deeds has received almost 1,300 documents since October with the signature of “Linda Green,” but in 22 different handwriting styles and with many different titles.
    Linda Green worked for a company called DocX that processed mortgage paperwork and was shut down in the spring of 2010. County officials say they believe Green hasn’t worked in the industry since. Why her signature remains in use is not clear.
    “My office is a crime scene,” says John O’Brien, the registrar of deeds in Essex County, which is north of Boston and includes the city of Salem.
    In Guilford County, N.C., the office that records deeds says it received 456 documents with suspect signatures from Oct. 1, 2010, through June 30. The documents, mortgage assignments and certificates of satisfaction, transfer loans from one bank to another or certify a loan has been paid off.
    Suspect signatures on the paperwork include 290 signed by Bryan Bly and 155 by Crystal Moore. In the mortgage investigations last fall, both admitted signing their names to mortgage documents without having read them. Neither was charged with a crime.
    And in Michigan, a fraud investigator who works on behalf of homeowners says he has uncovered documents filed this year bearing the purported signature of Marshall Isaacs, an attorney with foreclosure law firm Orlans Associates. Isaacs’ name did not come up in last year’s investigations, but county officials across Michigan believe his name is being robo-signed.
    O’Brien caused a stir in June at a national convention of county clerks by presenting his findings and encouraging his counterparts to investigate continued robo-signing.
    The nation’s foreclosure machine almost came to a standstill when the nation’s largest banks suspended foreclosures last fall. Part of the problem, banks contended, was that foreclosures became so rampant in 2009 and 2010 that they were overwhelmed with paperwork.
    The banks reviewed thousands of foreclosure filings, and where they found problems, they submitted new paperwork to courts handling the cases, with signatures they said were valid. The banks slowly started to resume foreclosures this winter and spring.
    The 14 biggest U.S. banks reached a settlement with federal regulators in April in which they promised to clean up their mistakes and pay restitution to homeowners who had been wrongly foreclosed upon. The full amount of the settlement has not been determined. But it will not involve independent mortgage processing firms, the companies that some banks use to handle and file paperwork for mortgages.
    So far, no individuals, lenders or paperwork processors have been charged with a crime over the robo-signed signatures found on documents last year. Critics such as April Charney, a Florida homeowner and defense lawyer, called the settlement a farce because no real punishment was meted out, making it easy for lenders and mortgage processors to continue the practice of robo-signing.
    Robo-signing refers to a variety of practices. It can mean a qualified executive in the mortgage industry signs a mortgage affidavit document without verifying the information. It can mean someone forges an executive’s signature, or a lower-level employee signs his or her own name with a fake title. It can mean failing to comply with notary procedures. In all of these cases, robo-signing involves people signing documents and swearing to their accuracy without verifying any of the information.
    Most of the tainted mortgage documents in question last fall were related to homes in foreclosure. But much of the suspect paperwork that has been filed since then is for refinancing or for new purchases by people who are in good standing in the eyes of the bank. In addition, foreclosures are down 30 percent this year from last. Home sales have also fallen. So the new suspect documents come at a time when much less paperwork is streaming through the nation’s mortgage machinery.
    None of the almost 1,300 suspect Linda Green-signed documents from O’Brien’s office, for example, involve foreclosures. And Jeff Thigpen, the register of deeds in North Carolina’s Guilford County, says fewer than 40 of the 456 suspect documents filed to his office since October involved foreclosures.
    Banks and their partner firms file mortgage documents with county deeds offices to prove that there are no liens on a property, that the bank owns a mortgage or that a bank filing for foreclosure has the authority to do so.
    The signature of a qualified bank or mortgage official on these legal documents is supposed to guarantee that this information is accurate. The paper trail ensures a legal chain of title on a property and has been the backbone of U.S. property ownership for more than 300 years.
    The county officials say the problem could be even worse than what they’re reporting. That’s because they are working off lists of known robo-signed names, such as Linda Green and Crystal Moore, that were identified during the investigation that began last fall. Officials suspect that other names on documents they have received since then are also robo-signed.
    It is a federal crime to sign someone else’s name to a legal document. It is also illegal to sign your name to an affidavit if you have not verified the information you’re swearing to. Both are punishable by prison.
    In Michigan, the attorney general took the rare step in June of filing criminal subpoenas to out-of-state mortgage processing companies after 23 county registers of deeds filed a criminal complaint with his office over robo-signed documents they say they have received. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office has said it is conducting a banking probe that could lead to criminal charges against financial executives. The attorneys general of Delaware, California and Illinois are conducting their own probes.
    The legal issues are grave, deeds officials across the country say. At worst, legal experts say, the document debacle has opened the property system to legal liability well beyond the nation’s foreclosure crisis. So someone buying a home and trying to obtain title insurance might be delayed or denied if robo-signed documents turn up in the property’s history. That’s because forged signatures call into question who owns mortgages and the properties they are attached to.
    “The banks have completely screwed up property records,” says L. Randall Wray, an economics professor and senior scholar at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
    In the Massachusetts case, The Associated Press tried to reach Linda Green, whose name was purportedly signed 1,300 times since October. The AP, using a phone number provided by lawyers who have been investigating the documents since last year, reached a person who said she was Linda Green, but not the Linda Green involved in the mortgage investigation.
    In the Michigan case, a lawyer for the Orlans Associates law firm, where Isaacs works, denies that Isaacs or the firm has done anything wrong. “People have signatures that change,” says Terry Cramer, general counsel for the firm. “We do not engage in ‘robo-signing’ at Orlans.”
    To combat the stream of suspect filings, O’Brien and Jeff Thigpen, the register of deeds in North Carolina’s Guilford County, stopped accepting questionable paperwork June 7. They say they had no choice after complaining to federal and state authorities for months without getting anywhere.
    Since then, O’Brien has received nine documents from Bank of America purportedly signed by Linda Burton, another name on authorities’ list of known robo-signers. For years, his office has regularly received documents signed with Burton’s name but written in such vastly different handwriting that two forensic investigators say it’s highly unlikely it all came from the same person.
    O’Brien returned the nine Burton documents to Bank of America in mid-June. He told the bank he would not file them unless the bank signed an affidavit certifying the signature and accepting responsibility if the title was called into question down the road. Instead, Bank of America sent new documents with new signatures and new notaries.
    A Bank of America spokesman says Burton is an assistant vice president with a subsidiary, ReconTrust. That company handles mortgage paperwork processing for Bank of America.
    “She signed the documents on behalf of the bank,” spokesman Richard Simon says. The bank says providing the affidavit O’Brien asked for would have been costly and time-consuming. Instead, Simon says Bank of America sent a new set of documents “signed by an authorized associate who Mr. O’Brien wasn’t challenging.”
    The bank didn’t respond to questions about why Burton’s name has been signed in different ways or why her signature appeared on documents that investigators in at least two states have deemed invalid.
    Several attempts by the AP to reach Burton at ReconTrust were unsuccessful.
    O’Brien says the bank’s actions show “consciousness of guilt.” Earlier this year, he hired Marie McDonnell, a mortgage fraud investigator and forensic document analyst, to verify his suspicions about Burton’s and other names on suspect paperwork.
    She compared valid copies of Burton’s signature with the documents O’Brien had received in 2008, 2009 and 2010 and found that Burton’s name was fraudulently signed on hundreds of documents.
    Most of the documents reviewed by McDonnell were mortgage discharges, which are issued when a home changes hands or is refinanced by a new lender and are supposed to confirm that the previous mortgage has been paid off. Bank of America declined comment on McDonnell’s findings.
    In Michigan, recorder of deeds Hertel and his counterparts in 23 other counties found numerous suspect signatures on documents filed since the beginning of the year.
    In June, their findings led the Michigan attorney general to issue criminal subpoenas to several firms that process mortgages for banks, including Lender Processing Services, the parent company of DocX, where Linda Green worked. On July 6, the CEO of that company, which is also under investigation by the Florida Attorney General’s office, resigned, citing health reasons.
    Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
    Related articles
    Business Highlights
    Sacramento Bee – 5 hours ago
    Business Highlights
    Houston Chronicle – 5 hours ago
    AP Exclusive: Mortgage ‘robo-signing’ goes on
    Forbes – 6 hours ago

  48. marie,

    bingo.

  49. get the code here: As an example

    http://www.americancredit1.com/

    As a premier debt collector, the goal of American Credit Association LLC is to convert your delinquent accounts back into income. Our collection experience dates back to 1953, providing you with outstanding personal service.

    to convert your delinquent accounts back into income

    delinquent

    Collecting past due debts can be time-consuming and distressing

    past due debts

    These statements are for assignment of debt.

    What about debts written off?

    they are forgiven, but nobody tells you, and your name and account data is sold to a debt buyer.

    And they try to get you to pay for the original debt which was written off or collected by insurance. Are they now holder in due course of your debt? No.

    So what gives a debt buyer of your written off debt power? Simple , you answer the phone or write them. You have just confirmed the debt.

    per the IRS rules, any forgiven debt, the original creditor sends a 1099C form for the amount of debt forgiven and you must report it as income.

    Question?????????/

    If you paid a debt collector lets say $1000 for your original defaulted debt of $5000, and your agreement with the debt collector was if you paid $1000, they would settle, call it even, whatever and the debt is gone. So, they need to send you a 1099C form and state $4000 on the form as your defaulted debt which you are supposed to report now as income. So, has a debt collector sent you the 1099C form?

  50. ok, ……………..

    and New York-based JPMorgan said it has $3.3 billion in costs so far on repurchases from government-backed firms such as Fannie Mae.

    ……………

    my refinance was thru sterns lending, but it turns out, JP MORGAN CHASE was the funder, my servicer says it Fannie Mae is the holder of my note.

    NO, no, no, all fannie mae loans are securitized.

    So, JP Morgan repurchases from gov’t backed fannie mae……………

    and where does my servicer sit in all this, per communications from them , they are a debt collector………….

    and in actuallity, they are a debt buyer………………

    lets see, holder in due course is somebody who owns the debt, but not defaulted debt when they got it.

    my servicer got the debt when I was defaulted, thus they are not holder in due course……………

    http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Hilarious-Credit-Card-Debt-Industry-Where-Unbelievable-Insanity-Is-Normal&id=5612350

    so please substitute credit card for mortgage in the article.

    Do you not realize the credit card debt was the beginning and then it was turned into mortgage debt, same scam, same “debt collector” scam.

  51. It means big brother needs to hurry up and “settle” the homeowners’ rights away so the theft can resume

  52. “unmitigated ”

    ““There have been so many flaws in mortgages that it’s been an unmitigated disaster,” Dimon said during a conference call today. “We just really need to clean it up for the sake of everybody. And everybody is going to sue everybody else, and it’s going to go on for a long time.”

    not mitigated; not softened or lessened: unmitigated suffering.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unmitigated

    You better understand the code in the language used.

    Please!!!!!!!!!!

    from above: We just really need to clean it up for the sake of everybody.

    What does that really mean?

  53. @faith – right on and left off.

  54. @makeithappen – if one is arguing the bankster has -present tense – no right to foreclose but the bankster has already foreclosed, such an argument would be moot. You can’t argue against an incident happening which has already happened.
    So, I’m just guessing the argument was framed wrong….? Certainly you can argue what has already happened was void ab initio… the sale? Are you referring to a judgment of foreclosure?
    I think what you are saying is you want the court to rule that the sale was void ab initio? In order for something to be void ab initio, it has to have already happend or there is nothing to render void. Or one could argue that if x happens, it will be void ab initio because yada yada.

    Maybe you could cut and paste that part of the finding…..? I’ve seen that i”t’s moot” before, but can’t remember in what case(s).

  55. Jamie Dimon- I am your age.
    I was born into a different life than yours. I had no choice in the matter.
    Fate takes care of that.
    We will both end up the same. In the ground as worm food.
    I have worked very hard all my life.
    Does the money REALLY matter in the end?
    Look into the faces of other people your age on the streets. You could be one of them.
    Imagine having your home taken from you. What would you be like in another life?
    We all need a hero in this.
    What do you want your legacy to be?

  56. Neil

    Been here a long time — and this comment is one of your best—

    “If the mortgages are flawed, then how could they be the subject of foreclosures? And an even better question, how can the states allow non-judicial foreclosures of mortgages they know are flawed. At least require the pretender to plead and prove a case!”

    Foreclosure fraud is just a fraudulent answer to mortgage fraud — from the onset. To hold borrowers accountable to this fraud is simply incomprehensible. More and more will surface as complaints mount — and government can no longer hide behind the “saving the banks” goal. It will eat away like an uncontrolled growth.

    But, my friends, continue to file your complaints — over and over again.

    Dimon is in the know. Dimon knows there will no longer be a place to hide in the future. .

    Any AG settlement??? Compounds the fraud — unless, they perform a real investigation — and, so far, they are not.

    Step up to the plate Mr. President — you will likely lose next election anyway. Do what you should have done to protect homeowner victims from the onset — maybe, you can possibly save the next election.

    E. Tolle — many books will come out in the future — and, Mr. Dimon…… the truth has not yet near been told.

    Government agencies, administration, Congress — wake-up from your sleepy cove!!!

    It is the mortgages that are flawed — the foreclosure fraud is just an answer to cover the original fraud. Fraud upon fraud — and on and on it goes. But — not forever.

    Legacy — Dimon trying to save his own. Too late.

  57. my mistake in spelling meant satan

  58. Mr. Dimon has no soul. He is the spawn of satin, just like the other banksters. Don’t believe for one minute that this guy has any good intentions. The banksters all know the mortgages are bad, they just didn’t count in the average dumb homeowner catching on. He says that there have been so many flaws in the mortgages, so why not stop the forelosures now, today, immediately? Then why not give the homes that were illegally foreclosed on back to the original homeowner? We all the answer–greed. All the lip service means nothing unless he takes action to correct the wrong done to the homeowners.

  59. @ E. Tolle- I’m right there with you buddy!!!!

    Does anybody know of any case law that addresses a judgment void ab initio cannot be moot for the reason that the foreclosure sale occurred?

  60. […] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, […]

  61. I’m still going to wait and see how much religion Mr. Dimon has really found of late… after having destroyed countless lives and ruined our entire economy. Enough for a serious mea culpa and the tender of his $83M bonus to his victims? Enough to actually step down after having openly admitted to intentional wrongdoing and fraud?

    Remarkably, today, he no longer seems to blame the victims. That’s serious progress. Might we actually be seeing the light at the end of the tunnel?

  62. Isn’t it funny that the banks have fixed their foreclosures issue and the agreement that was supposed to stop any future wrong doing … has not happened. Smoke and Mirrors!111

  63. and the negligence factor goes to failure to supervise employees (where the employee created a fraudulent asset statement and used in underwriting. Therein lies the negligence.

  64. harry, I found it used in some Wisconsin contract claims, and although the window is very narrow (the fraud muxt be extraneous of the contract itself) I think I can meet the burden. Thanks.

  65. “The Washington Mutual loans are the FDIC’s responsibility” Except that the FDIC agreement with JPM Chase says different. They say something like; JPM Chase is responsible for it if they try to pretend they own it. In the document, these are some of the only things that can be translated to English without an interpreter. They go on to describe the “obligor” (GSE’s, et cet.) and the liabilty for acting on one of those loans. What do you figure that covers, 90% of the loans they claim to have received form Wamu?

  66. Tender of the full amount.

    It is a tough bar to mount. That is why a homeowner must have an abundance of evidence to support an unlawful foreclosure. If presented correctly, with allegations of fraud meeting the heightened standard for pleading, then judges will often let tender issues slide.

    Now, if the motion fails, then after the foreclosure, you refile.

  67. that’s a rough requirement and very nearly a bar of access to the courts. if the tender the full amount of the note, or the total of payments in default?

  68. tnharry,

    In CA, to stop a foreclosure, state statutes require that you tender. Some attorneys are arguing that this provides an unfair advantage to the lender in any action. Response has been mixed, to say the least.

    If the home is foreclosed on, then there is not a tender requirement, if you can allege fraud or issues with the foreclosure sale. However, the heightened level of pleading makes it imperative that you have a substantial case, and can show evidence of such.

  69. In the mind of a bankster like Dimon, having years in which to write all of these fraudulent loans unimpeded doesn’t equate to needing as many years to unravel them individually, to seek the proper solutions on each loan. He wants it over and done….now.

    CLEAN IT UP = GLOBAL SOLUTION

    Forget all the individual cases of criminality. Forget the underwriting fraud. Forget the appraisal fraud. Forget the foreclosure mills he hired. Forget the millions already thrown onto the curbs. Get ‘er done Jimmie!

    Screw this guy and his ilk. What needs to happen “for the sake of everybody” is to see this guy hopping from the prison bus in leg irons, on his way to a stay in a federal pen. It was on his watch that all of these crimes took place, ergo pen this guy sooner than later. It’s only mass financial amnesia that allows his kind to walk the streets, period.

    From June 13, 2011:

    “I have a great fear someone’s going to write a book in 20 years and the book is going to talk about all the things that we did in the middle of a crisis to actually slow down recovery.” – Jamie Dimon

    My fear is that the same book will fail to mention that you and yours went unchallenged for your crimes against humanity, leaving future generations to suffer the same fate. You caused it all, and you became wealthier because of it. At the expense of every single man, woman, and child on the planet. No peace.

  70. @usedkar – i’m sure Tony will weigh in here, but I’ve only seen res ipsa used in negligence cases. at the heart of any case involving foreclosure defense is generally a contract, so i’d say using it may not fly. certainly try it – it can’t hurt to try. even if you manage to frame a negligent foreclosure type of case to make it fit better, it’s still questionable because it’s so linked to accident types of claims. the classic example is a plane crash, i.e. planes aren’t supposed to crash, so the thing speaks for itself.

  71. hey harry,

    res ipsa loquitur is an evidentiary pleading. I have seen it used in jury instructions, but can this be used in an MSJ?

  72. The nightmare is continuing and Dimon is now saying it like it is. Writ-off the bank debt and release the economy.

  73. @DIane – are you referring to TILA cases, or just any type of civil case? That’s hard to believe if it applies to all civil cases.

  74. Is time for Jamie Dimon , to find a way , how he handle the business with the FAULTY CORELOGIC AVM . Corelogic knows why the split last year , but properly to late.

  75. The banks know we’re coming for them. We will neither give, nor ask for, quarter. This admission from Dimon shows that he knows what’s going on and that he knows WE know what’s going on. Yes, everybody is going to sue everybody else–or they already have. Don’t let up–resistance is victory! As I have recently discovered, whenever the pretender lenders actually have to make an argument, THEY DON’T HAVE ONE. They’re pathetic. We are going to beat these people!

  76. Dimon, you can use that FORGED deed of trust, KHAM recorded against my home as toilet paper. Or better yet Shove it up your hiney! I am notifying EACH TITLE company, Each neighbor, Each real-estate agent in this damm town, about the STRAW MAN SCAM of Hovnanian!

    How LA County has let them “secretly record the names, of the buyers, and change the APNS AFTER foreclosure!

    Knowlege IS IMPUTED to the ESCROW AGENT.

    You will never find a good faith buyer on ANY of these homes.

    Everyone will know that the true owners names were never recorded publicly, and the wives’ names forged to spousal releases.

    Thinking of buying a foreclosure? Better think twice, as YOU will be sued!

  77. I’m just wondering if Dimon is asking for immunity from the HOMEOWNERS who may sue his company or are suing at this time. Is he going to cover everybody’s losses especially now that he admits to the faulty mortgages? The investors have a right to get compensated for their losses, the counties may get some coverage for lost revenue, what will the homeowners get? Is he willing to work out a deal with every homeowner, or is he thinking that once he settles with the AGs and the investors then he get total immunity from any other liabilities? I am sure that everyone would like to have answers to these questions! It seems to me that what ever deal he may strike with the AGs may not help all parties involved and that’s why he’s asking for immunity. If he was willing to fix the mess and clean it up he would not be so concerned on whether or not the issue is settled! It has been proven that he and other banks CEO’s are not to be trusted, and of course the people are wondering if the AGs are to be trusted to keep the homeowners in mind throughout this whole negotiation process, just saying!

  78. California is the worse state for suing Chase or any other bank. First you have to supply “Tender” before you can even sue. We are thrown out of court because we can’t pay the mortgage in full, discriminates against the middle class. Judges are using it against me and all of my friends. Orange County, Ca.

  79. I STILL NEED AS MANY PEOPLE AS CAN TO CONTACT THE CALIFORNIA STATE AG OFFICE. READ THE LATEST—SHE MAY JOIN THE PROBE……

    THERE IS A LINK TO CHANGE.ORG TO SIGN A PETITION

    WE MUST KEEP THE PRESSURE UP ON THE AGs..

    CHASE WAS A MAJOR PURCHASER OF LOAN POOLS FROM THESE COMPANIES

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/60265695/CA-STATE-ATTORNEY-GENERAL-KAMALA-HARRIS-CALIFORNIA-MAY-JOIN-PROBE-OF-WALL-STREET

  80. What about the borrower whose homes or houses were taken away due to fraud paperwork?
    Stan Wis

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: