Robo-signing continues without consequences


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

No Punishment = Continued Misconduct
Posted on July 19, 2011 by Mark Stopa Esq.
In Maine, a group of drug dealers was caught distributing drugs to local middle schoolers. They confessed, yet the District Attorney declined to press charges, so the drug dealers returned to the school and passed out more drugs.

In Kansas, police apprehender a serial killer, yet, despite his confession, decided to let him go free. Upon his release, he murdered 12 more women.

In Florida, a man confessed to the arson of 14 homes. After law enforcement declined to take any action, the arsonist burned down another 16 houses.

If these stories sound impossible to believe, they are – I made them up. But this one is perhaps just as disturbing, and it’s true … Banks Continue Robo-Signing.

How can this be, you ask? Well, it’s simple (sickening, but simple). Banks admitted to robo-signing foreclosure documents on a widespread, systematic basis. But after they were never punished for that wrongdoing, they, like the drug dealer, murderer, or arsonist in my examples above, saw no reason to stop the fraudulent misconduct.

Here’s the article. …

NEW YORK/IMMOKALEE (Scot J. Paltrow) – America’s leading mortgage lenders vowed in March to end the dubious foreclosure practices that caused a bruising scandal last year.

But a Reuters investigation finds that many are still taking the same shortcuts they promised to shun, from sketchy paperwork to the use of “robo-signers.”

In its effort to seize the two-bedroom ranch house of 87-year-old Margery Gunter in this down-on-its-luck Florida town, OneWest Bank recently filed a court document that appears riddled with discrepancies. Mrs. Gunter, who has lived in the house for 40 years and gets around with the aid of a walker, stopped paying her loan back in 2009, her lawyer concedes. To foreclose, the bank submitted to the Collier County clerk’s office on March 3 a “mortgage assignment,” a document essential to proving who owns a mortgage once the original lender sells it off.

But OneWest’s paperwork is problematic. Among the snags: state law permits lenders to file to foreclose only if they already legally own a mortgage. Yet the key document establishing ownership wasn’t signed and officially recorded until months after OneWest filed to foreclose on Mrs. Gunter. OneWest declined to comment on the case.

Reuters has found that some of the biggest U.S. banks and other “loan servicers” continue to file questionable foreclosure documents with courts and county clerks. They are using tactics that late last year triggered an outcry, multiple investigations and temporary moratoriums on foreclosures.

In recent months, servicers have filed thousands of documents that appear to have been fabricated or improperly altered, or have sworn to false facts.

Reuters also identified at least six “robo-signers,” individuals who in recent months have each signed thousands of mortgage assignments — legal documents which pinpoint ownership of a property. These same individuals have been identified — in depositions, court testimony or court rulings — as previously having signed vast numbers of foreclosure documents that they never read or checked.

Among them: Christina Carter, an employee of Ocwen Loan Servicing of West Palm Beach, Florida, a “sub-servicer” which handles routine mortgage tasks for banks. Her signature — just two “C”s — has appeared on thousands of mortgage assignments and other documents this year.

In a case involving a foreclosure by HSBC Bank USA, a New York state court judge this month called Carter a “known robo-signer” and said he’d found multiple variations of her two-letter signature on documents, raising questions about whether others were using her name. That and other red flags prompted the judge to take the extraordinary step of threatening to sanction HSBC’s chief executive officer.

In a phone interview, Carter acknowledged signing large numbers of mortgage assignments this year, but said they all were legally done. To her knowledge, she added, no one else used her name.


One of the industry’s top representatives admits that the federal settlements haven’t put a stop to questionable practices.

Some loan servicers “continue to cut corners,” said David Stevens, president of the Mortgage Bankers Association. Nearly all borrowers facing foreclosure are delinquent, he said, but “the real question is whether the servicer complied with all legal requirements.” The loss of a home is “the most critical time in a family’s life,” and if foreclosure paperwork is faulty homeowners should contest it. “Families should be using every opportunity they can to protect their rights.”

Federal bank regulators signed settlements in March with 14 loan servicers — banks and other companies that perform tasks for mortgage investors such as collecting payments from homeowners and when necessary, filing to foreclose. The 14 firms promised further internal investigations, remediation for some who were harmed and a halt to the filing of false documents. All such behavior had stopped by the end of 2010, they said.

Of these companies, Reuters has found at least five that in recent months have filed foreclosure documents of questionable validity: OneWest, Bank of America, HSBC Bank USA, Wells Fargo and GMAC Mortgage.

So have half a dozen large servicers that weren’t party to the agreements, including Ocwen Financial Corp and units of Credit Suisse Group AG.

Spokesmen for the banks and servicers named in this article said that they halted any wrongdoing after disclosures last autumn of robo-signing led them to revise their practices, and they denied filing false documents since then.

In general, they said their foreclosure cases were legitimate, but for a small number of exceptions, and that criticism by defense lawyers and judges of some types of documentation is based on misinterpretation of the law.

The persistence of the paperwork mess poses a dilemma for American policymakers and society at large.

The vast majority of homeowners in foreclosure are in fact delinquent on their mortgage payments. Many bankers and judges view the issue as a technicality. Regardless of legal niceties, they say, people should pay up or lose the collateral on the loans — their houses and condos.

Increasingly, though, courts are holding that the trusts suing to foreclose don’t actually own the mortgages. Judges have ruled that foreclosing based on flawed or missing evidence violates longstanding laws meant to protect all Americans’ property rights.

In a landmark decision in January, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court overturned a foreclosure because of a lack of proper documentation.

“The holder of an assigned mortgage needs to take care to ensure that his legal paperwork is in order,” wrote Justice Robert Cordry in a concurring opinion. “Although there was no apparent actual unfairness here to the (homeowners), that is not the point. Foreclosure is a powerful act with significant consequences, and Massachusetts law has always required that it proceed strictly in accord with the statutes that govern it.”

(U.S. Bank National Association, trustee, vs. Antonio Ibanez, 458 Mass. 637.)


Reuters reviewed records of individual county clerk offices in five states — Florida, Massachusetts, New York, and North and South Carolina — with searchable online databases. Reuters also examined hundreds of documents from court case files, some obtained online and others provided by attorneys.

The searches found more than 1,000 mortgage assignments that for multiple reasons appear questionable: promissory notes missing required endorsements or bearing faulty ones; and “complaints” (the legal documents that launch foreclosure suits) that appear to contain multiple incorrect facts.

These are practices that the 14 banks and other loan servicers said had occurred only on a small scale and were halted more than six months ago.

The settlements included the four largest banks in the United States — Bank of America Corp, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase & Co, and Citigroup Inc. The other parties were lending units of Ally Financial Inc, HSBC Holdings PLC, MetLife Inc, PNC Financial Services Group Inc, SunTrust Banks Inc, U.S. Bancorp, Aurora Bank, EverBank, OneWest Bank and Sovereign Bank.

The pacts were struck with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the main regulator of national banks, as well as with the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

Some state and federal officials have called the settlements weak. Authorities are still working out financial penalties to be imposed on the 14 firms. The banks didn’t admit or deny wrongdoing, and many of the practices banned were previously illegal anyway, such as filing false affidavits and making false notarizations. And regulators left it to the banks to oversee their own internal investigations.

The OCC confirmed it has received complaints that questionable practices continue. But spokesman Bryan Hubbard said the settlements “are intended to address many of the root causes of improper foreclosure actions,” thus preventing future harm.


The collapse of the housing boom in late 2006 led to a wave of foreclosures. Federal Reserve data show that some 4.5 percent of U.S. mortgages are in foreclosure. In 2010, 2.5 million foreclosures were initiated, with a similar number expected this year.

In the housing boom, lenders created millions of new mortgages, packaged them into pools, and securitized them rapidly for sale to investors in so-called mortgage-securities trusts.

The agreements setting up the trusts, called “pooling and servicing agreements,” require that key documents, properly executed and endorsed, be turned over immediately for each mortgage when a trust is established. The two most important ones are a promissory note and mortgage assignment.

A mortgage really has two parts. One is the actual mortgage (in some states called a “deed of trust”). Its purpose is to pledge the home as collateral for the loan. To transfer ownership of this collateral pledge, the seller must issue a document called a mortgage assignment. The other is the promissory note, which is the loan agreement itself. The homeowner signs it, promising to pay principal and interest.

The Reuters examination turned up thousands of instances –more than 2,000 in Florida alone — involving recently filed mortgage assignments which ostensibly transferred mortgages to these trusts years after they were formed.

The problem, according to Georgetown University law professor Adam Levitin, an expert on securitization: About 80 percent of all trust agreements provide that New York State law applies, and under New York law, any mortgage assignments made later than specified in the agreements would be void.

Reuters has also uncovered problems with the other key document used in foreclosure cases, the promissory note.

To foreclose, a trust, bank or mortgage finance giant such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac must possess the original “blue ink” signed promissory note. The crucial parts of the note are at the bottom — the endorsements, somewhat like those on the back of a check. The agreements establishing trusts require a proper chain of endorsements showing legal transfers of a note from the original lender, through any intermediary owners, and finally to the trust itself.

Attorneys defending homeowners contend that improper endorsements are rife. Reuters obtained from public court records and defense attorneys more than 100 examples of notes that for various reasons appear to be improper.


One example: The attempt by Credit Suisse unit DLJ Mortgage Capital to foreclose on Mary Arthur of Dobbs Ferry, New York. Mrs. Arthur, 63 and legally blind, works part time as an assistant in a doctor’s office. Originally from Trinidad, Mrs. Arthur became delinquent on her $427,500 loan after her parents and sister died and she ran up debts traveling home for the funerals, according to her attorney, Linda Tirelli.

The loan servicers, Select Portfolio Servicing of Salt Lake City, threatened to foreclose on DLJ’s behalf. Mrs. Arthur arranged with Select Portfolio a trial mortgage modification to see if she could keep up with the reduced payments. She made the payments but, Tirelli said, Select Portfolio filed to foreclose.

DLJ filed in two separate court cases what it said were authentic copies of Mrs. Arthur’s promissory note. Because they were supposed to be copies of the same document, the endorsements filed with both courts should be identical.

But a look at the documents shows that the version filed in state court and the one filed in bankruptcy court had completely different endorsements on them — naming different owner banks and signed by different people. Tirelli said she has brought this to the attention of the bankruptcy judge and is awaiting a ruling.

Credit Suisse, which owns both DLJ Mortgage Capital and Select Portfolio Servicing, declined to comment, as did Casey Howard, the lawyer representing DLJ in the bankruptcy case.

Bank of America, meanwhile, is coming under fire from a New York federal bankruptcy judge.

Last Tuesday, Judge Robert Drain ordered an investigation involving a foreclosure case brought by the bank. Two earlier copies of a promissory note filed in court had lacked any endorsement, but then one appeared on the note when bank lawyers produced the original.

The judge said the sudden appearance of an endorsement, and his own close look at it, raised questions about whether it had been added illegally to make the note look legitimate.

It “raises a sufficiently serious issue as to when and more importantly by whom this note was endorsed,” the judge said.

A Bank of America spokesman said the bank will produce evidence that “will demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction that the endorsement is proper.”


These banks aren’t alone in filing doubtful documents. Reuters found cases in which Wells Fargo didn’t obtain mortgage assignments — and hence the right to foreclose — until well after it had filed foreclosure cases.

Wells Fargo, as a trustee, has moved to foreclose on homeowners who have mortgages from now-defunct Option One Mortgage Corp. In June, a bankruptcy appellate panel of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a decision to allow Wells Fargo to foreclose on an Option One mortgage. It said that there was no evidence that the note and mortgage had ever been turned over to Wells Fargo as trustee.

In court files of Florida foreclosure cases by Wells Fargo on Option One mortgages, none of the promissory notes filed as exhibits in 10 cases found by Reuters had any endorsements on them.

A Wells Fargo spokeswoman said it is possible that proper endorsements exist but were omitted from the copies of the promissory notes filed in court.

In other cases reviewed by Reuters, Wells Fargo and GMAC Mortgage, a unit of Ally Financial, this year assigned mortgages from defunct lender New Century Mortgage Corp., which went under in 2007. Securitization lawyers say it is technically impossible for a defunct company to directly assign a mortgage over to another owner.

Mark Stopa Esq.

41 Responses

  1. I loved as much as you will receive carried out right here.
    The sketch is attractive, your authored subject matter stylish.
    nonetheless, you command get got an shakiness over that you wish be delivering the following.
    unwell unquestionably come more formerly again since exactly the same
    nearly a lot often inside case you shield this increase.

  2. I am looking for documents signed by Rick Wilken. I have one wherein he represents himself as Attorney in Fact for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. successor in interest to Washington Mutual. I desperately need him signing as an officer for other entities. Where would I find copies.


  3. […] 22 Jul MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE No Punishment = Continued Misconduct Posted on July 19, 2011 by Mark Stopa Esq. In Maine, a group of drug dealers was caught distributing drugs to local middle schoolers. They confessed, yet the District Attorney declined to press charges, so the drug dealers returned to the school and passed out more drugs. In Kansas, police ap … Read More […]

  4. Just got off the phone with my County Registrar of Deeds. Several Registrars are meeting with our AG Martha Coakley in 2 weeks to ask
    if they she will prosecute Notaries and MERS.

    Please contact YOUR Registrars and ask them what they are doing to stop the fraud.

  5. They find money to build bridges to nowhere. They spend endless money prosecuting marijuana smoking. They love to prosecute easy crimes; the jails are full somehow.

    This is caving to the banks. Money talks and has been speaking quite effectively it seems. Anyway I’m worried about private rights to sue

  6. my detective says no man-power to investigate robo-signed public record assignment
    also other illegal notary acts

  7. Just read an article, by Scott Paltrow, I think that the banks will be given immunity for robosigning

  8. This is how you bring down the mills:

    § 1692f. Unfair practices

    A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

    (A)there is no present right to possession of the property claimed as collateral through an enforceable security interest;

    Show that the security interest is anything but enforceable, and it’s off to the races. Say a prayer for the pretenders.

  9. tnharry,
    yes, you are right a law firm can also be a debt collectors under FDCPA and they have to disclose that they are a debt collectors attempting to collect a debt in behalf of the owner of the note, but the problem with the collectors law firm they don’t admit they are a debt collectors even if they disclosed they are one.

    nothing wrong with a law firm whose business is to collect a defaulted payment but , their conduct to mislead the consumers of how much a debtors owed and to whom it owed. if the law firm misrepresented the true creditor and the amount of the debts owed then the law firm violates under the FDCPA Act. a debt collectors has to follow FDCPA Act which protects the consumers. there are court decisions that you need to read. i read some of them but not on the 9th court of appeal but on the 5th & 4th court of appeal decision. i still have a pending case at the 9th circuit court of appeal against the loan servicer, the substituted trustee, and the law firm in violation of FDCPA. i hope the 9th circuit court should decide in favor of me and it will have a big impact of us homeowners to sue these debt collectors for violation of FDCPA and Rosenthal Act.

  10. thanks Boots for your posts.

  11. “a law firm can also be a debt collectors if the nature of their business are collecting a defaulted debts.”

    of course they can boots. but i said that conducting a nonjudicial fc alone, does not make one a debt collector under the FDCPA according to several courts

  12. @usedkarguy i know about the swaps, and mine wasnt one of them. i researched this top to bottom. the assignment to the trust (which a 2006 trust) in my land records is dated 2010. once everyone realizes the fraud is an attempt to clean up the mess they made when they sold investors an empty box the sooner the economy can recover. the fraud against the homeowner today is to cover the fraud on the investor yesterday. its a big game. fraud to cover up fraud.

  13. boots

    Odds are — if you have already proven your case — they will not come back. Too much risk o f perjury.

    Of course, you never know — but, they are not in good shoes.

  14. Good for you, boots—give ’em hell…

  15. a law firm can also be a debt collectors if the nature of their business are collecting a defaulted debts.

  16. carrie,

    yes, i have two properties that were zeroed out in my credit report. there is one from Chase home loan that wrote me a letter that they are now a new beneficiaries of my property and I wrote them a letter saying that it was discharged thru my BK any attempt to collect will be a violation of bankruptcy laws and after that I never heard from them at all.

    since, I owed nothing to them when it comes to the promissory notes, they cannot foreclosed under the deed because there is no obligation to pay. the deed is not in default only the promissory note is in default when you separate the note and the deed.
    in my case, i have proven that the beneficiary is not the beneficiary i owed money for the promissory notes secured by a deed of trust so it becomes unsecured. how could a lender foreclose on a deed without an obligation to pay? They could, but probably I will fight it thru the u. s. supreme court.

  17. @boots—I remember a while back you mentioned something about one of your properties where you said that when you found out that your “fake loan” wasn’t in a trust, you treated it as unsecured debt in your BK and it was zeroed out…any backlash from that?

  18. copy of info published in 2011-02-25 02:48:54 quote 1 floor Wissner Karen KNOWN ALLEGED BANKSTERS FRAUDSTERS WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS And other assorted co-conspirators to FORECLOSURE FRAUD a.k.a. FRAUDCLOSURE You left out Michael Ackerman of the foreclosu …Wissner Karen


    And other assorted co-conspirators to


    You left out Michael Ackerman of the foreclosure mill

    Zucker Goldberg and Ackerman.

    Pam January Robo signer for CR Title and CitiMortgage

    Lisa Markham signs for Deutsche Bank and for CitiMortgage and CR Title

    Has anyone drilled down on Pite Duncan the California equivalent of David Stern in FL?

    Do you have anything on Pam January? If so please send. THanks a million!

    do you have a copye of Pam January signature??

    would love to get more info on her

    You left out Tishana S. Gibbs/Tishana Gibbs and

    G. Soberanis for Deutsch bank National Trust and Carrington Mortgage Services that represented by fraudclosure mills in NY & NJ. They are the worst.




    Read the deposition of Beth Ann Cottrell Chase Home Finance LLC. Does anyone have a link to her being an employee of LPS ? Thanks

    I see the name of my signer all through the place like a robo-signer Treva Moreland however what is there that I show a judge that she is a robo-signer? Has anyone seen a deposition? Thanks. Signed; Dave Justian

    Other Court Sample Docs Topaka MERS EmployeeOther Court Sample Docs Topaka MERS Employee. Icon_archives_35 35 &.. Cecelia Knox Josh Lade Topako Love Reginald Lynch Greg Lyons Nathan Miller Bill & Cached

    Control find lade (in the scribd doc) will receive you to the last page of the doc listing a host of MERS robo-signers youll certainly recognize.

    this mylandrecords link provides a list of robo-signers for Fidelity National Solutions.

    What kind of solutions? If youre in-a-pinch and without for a legal assignment affidavit poa for your case not to worry: these people will sign anything:

    Control find lade (in the scribd doc) will take you to the last page of the doc listing a host of MERS robo-signers you ll certainly recognize.

    this mylandrecords link provides a list of robo-signers for Fidelity National Solutions.

    What kind of solutions? If you re in-a-pinch and without a real assignment affidavit poa for your case not to worry: these people will sign anything:

    My colleague and I truly enjoyed visiting on this site I was just itching to understand if you barter featured posts? I am often seeking to find somebody to make deals with except its only a consideration I would call for.

    these busy people..

    cardless dixon lisa gerard jerrie moton rashonda lynn turner kimley godfrey carolyn mcleod van johnson beverly clark

  19. that is exactly my points, loan servicer will turn down your loan modification even if you are paying them because they cannot modify a loan that has been securitized, they could accept and collect payment in behalf of the trustee but have no legal rights to modify it unless they have to gain possession by fraudulent bidding thru notice of trustee sale, then the loan servicer or the trustee of the trust becomes the buyer, once the trustee deed upon sale has been recorded. the assignment of deed is the first step for the alleged beneficiary to acquire interest on the deed of trust and the same buyer or beneficiary that credit bid at the auction.

    so, from the inception of foreclosure procedure, the debt collectors will record a notice of default and will give the inflated amount of your debt and it says you have 30 days to dispute the amount and if you did not dispute the amount, it means you agreed on the debts. and , on NOD notice that we are ” attempting to collect a debt ” so it means that they are defined under FDCPA that they are a debt collectors.

    Now, if you just ignore the NOD after 90 days, then the debt collectors becomes the ” substituted trustee” and they will record ” a substitution of trustee” naming them as “substituted trustee” and have they right to foreclosed on behalf of the beneficiary, but the problem is the beneficiary named on substituted trustee was not a beneficiary at the time the NOD and NOTS( notice of trustee sale) were executed, acknowledged and recorded. so, how could these debt collectors have the right to foreclosed? they screwed up the assignment of deed, NOD, NOT and trustee deed upon sale.

    i have several properties that the alleged ” substituted trustee” record a NOD first before recording the assignment of deed, the substitution of trustee, Notice of trustee sale and trustee deed upon sale.
    this is the biggest mistakes a debt collectors made during the rush of foreclosing the property, to record a NOtice of Default naming the loan servicer or the trustee of the trust as beneficiary without first executing the assignment of deed. these debt collectors OR THE LAW FIRM ARE STUPIDS, they thought that homeowners are stupid enough not to understand their scheme or just doesn’t know the state law that protects homeowners. review all your docs. such as the assignment of deed the execution date, the notary date and the recording date. the NOD, Substitution of Trustee, Notice of Trustee Sale and the Trustee deed upon sale are not in compliance of state foreclosure proceedings. i am still fighting against the pretender lenders and pretenders trustees who are actually a debt collectors. it is hard to fight in court if you do not know how to plead properly when it comes to quite title and fraud. i am in Ca. and I used Ca. Civil Code 2924 et seq. to plead that paper works were not in order and the foreclosure is null and void due to the fact that the beneficiary at that time of the foreclosure becomes beneficiary after the fact.

  20. well heaven forbid

    today in a heated conversation with our local detective where I had provided an affidavit from a california notary which admits to not doing the notarization legally, the detective tried to tell me to report it to the SEC!! this same detective did not even know that Kamala Harris was our CA State Attorney General!!
    I am shocked….guess they only like to investigate murders & stuff like that.

  21. nothing prevents an atty with the foreclosing law firm from being the trustee. that’s standard practice in fact. and you might be surprised to hear that there’s a good bit of case law out there saying that a law firm conducting a nonjudicial FC is not a debt collector, or at least not one within the meaning of the FDCPA

  22. ? If the substitute of trustee is employed by the foreclosure law firm would that be a conflict of interest. My understanding is a substitute of trustee or trustee cannot be a debt collector.

  23. dan-o, there is a “clean-up” period that runs 90 days beyond the closing date. Your loan could have been added as a “qualified replacement mortgage” to replace a loan file found to be defective.

  24. and here’s something is is often overlooked dan – perfection of security interest doesn’t really determine whether something is secured or unsecured. perfection becomes important as to third parties and determines priority. perfection of a deed of trust or mortgage is generally done by recording it with the local registry.

  25. @dan, i think you’re only using part of the recent cases on the issue. was it Veal or one of the others, I don’t remember, but didn’t the court determine that the loan never made it into the pool so the trustee couldn’t enforce but MAYBE the originator still could? I could be misremembering that, but it’s really sticking out in my mind.

  26. also @tnharry, i found the trust my mortgage supposedly belongs to, and the cut off and closing dates are 2 months before i even signed the loan. i think what they did was created account numbers ahead, sold them into pools and then attached loans to them as they came up. how could my loan be in a pool that was cut off in may when i didnt sign the mortgage until the end of july?

  27. @tnharry – i see your logic, but it is faulty. there is no one who could come forward at a later date with a valid claim. the psa was never perfected therefor the trust, and the investors, have no claim against the homeowner. no mortgages in the pool means no pool. the mortgages were never perfected because they didnt name the real lender, so the homeowner at worst has an unsecured loan on his house. someone loaned the money, but it will never be known who is owed. mers made sure of that. the servicers are the ones behind the fraud. they are on the hook to pay these trusts whether the homeowner pays or not. the reason the trusts are being dragged into court by investors is because the entire “investment” they made was based on bullsh@#. they dont want to go after the homeowner, its the servicers who are doing that. honestly, i dont even know if the servicers are really on the hook because as i said, if the loans never made it to the pools and there is no valid executed psa then they arent even on the hook. in short, this is one giant mess. its a mess from top to bottom. can anyone deny that with a straight face?


    Well so much for promises from the banks to be good in the future.
    I know this news will be hard on the 50 state AGs investigation on fraud,
    It’s like your in the process of getting your client and master off with no jail time ” it has to be no jail time for everybody, or the patsies will squeal” and a small manageable fine, from the loot they stole, and they screw up and get caught again, and now what? Ignore, or if confronted plead that some servicers are still confused on the rules and laws ‘ignorance” and reassert that they will do better in the future.
    And Pam Bondi just fired the two attorneys who were investigating foreclosure/document fraud in Florida, claiming they resigned, ” with a gun to their heads ” and that they ” unnamed assistant DAs ” will be even more aggressive.
    My father had a saying that applies.

    What we have here is governmental ANARCHY, where prosecutors refuse to enforce the laws, courts ” Lee county FL” who refuse to hear arguments, and follow the civil rules of procedure and the law itself.

    The good news for me is my case has been set for trial. and it’s pretty rare here in FL ” I am told”, only 0.06% of foreclosures go to trial.
    I credit Neil, and this website with keeping myself in my home, along with Chip Parker for the need to investigate the assignment of mortgage, Matt Weidner whose pleadings I have plagiarized, Lynn Szymoniak for work on exposing DOCX and giving me a affidavit, for the court, and all the posters on this blog, whose info has been even more helpfull.
    Thanks everybody.

  29. well it doesn’t make sense to me. but i actually wanted to discuss how we’re defining robo-signing and no one responded. is it solely based on volume, or has it become like porn and you “know it when you see it”?

  30. Boy, you’re on it today, tn—stir it up and slam it down!

  31. @boots – that doesn’t make sense. if the sale has taken place, there’s nothing to modify and nothing to short-sale. if your whole theory is based on these things happening after the sale I don’t see how that works

  32. to Mark Stopa,

    My theory about this trial loan modification is also a fraud enticing homeowners to make the lower payment in order for the homeowners to get a permanent modification. The debt collection agency who received the payment is an alleged ” substituted trustee”, on the other side, while the homeowners made a payment to the debt collectors, the Loan Servicer will foreclosed the property. The reasons, the loan servicer and the alleged “substituted trustee” have to conduct a fraudulent auction of the property and allow the loan servicer to credit bid the property in the amount of default and transfer the name of the loan servicer or the trustee of the trust by virtue of Trustee Deed Upon Sale, once it was recorded in the county where the property is located, the loan servicer or the trustee of the trustee have the absolute power either to modify, to short sale or to sell the property. remember, these devils already owned our house by trustee deed upon sale recorded.

    How could these loan servicer modify or short sale if they don’t have the authority to do so. They have to force the foreclosure first , then fake the auction so their names could be on record and assumed beneficial interest on homeowners property.

    We think only a robo- signers could possibly do this fraudulent paper works, but the people who works as an auctioneers are also part of this fraud which was done in front of the the City or County Hall. I have attended many auctions here in the City & County and talked to the auctioneers. The City & County has been cheated for several millions of dollars that is supposed to go to our county by allowing the transfer of the property without paying any transfer tax.

  33. @dan-o i would think the better remedy would be to decree that the payments previously made be credited against anyone who ultimately does prove standing to enforce the note and/or deed of trust. from an equity perspective, you were living in the property for all those months that you made the payments, so you were getting a benefit for them. more equitable to apply those payments to an eventual obligee than to return them. that would play into the “house for free” concept. again, these are just my thoughts on application of the equity issues in a case

  34. @tnharry – the tax evasion and money laundering issues werent meant to help anyone, but i was looking at it from this angle: if the trusts werent entitled to receive payment, and the servicers werent entitled to collect and disburse the payment, then the homeowner got screwed by paying the wrong party who in turn paid the wrong party(the trust). if the loans didnt make it into the pools then the rights granted under the PSA to the servicers is moot. they are only entitled to service the mortgages that are in the pools and under the trusts control/ownership. if the mortgages didnt make it into the pools the the trusts have no right to collect. no ownership means no right to assign the servicing rights exists meaning your servicer shouldnt be collecting from you if your loan didnt make it into the pool. follow me? basicly, all the payments made to the servicer that went to the pool, who had no authority to collect, should be paid back to the homeowner. with interest. am i wrong here? if you pay the wrong person they should have to pay it back lol, how can anyone argue this?

  35. and how are we defining robo-signing now anyway? I myself sign my name many times a day. does that alone make me a robo-signer? no, although that is exactly what it has turned into. robo-signing stemmed from signing affidavits in such a volume that there was no way the signer was actually verifying the truth of the matter asserted within the affidavit, generally the amount owed, ownership of note, etc. signing assignments or endorsements in bulk can require virtually no verification. if Mr X is a vp at first american mortgage and they assign all of the mortgages they originate to Bank Z, then there’s nothing to verify. sign as fast as you can and as many as you can Mr X. somewhere along the way, anyone who signs their name more than twice a day is now a “robo-signer” because that gets a lot more attention for the author of the story

  36. @dan-o, how does worrying about laundering money and tax evasion help you with your home? this site has somehow morphed away from assisting self-help into the broad stroke issues that really don’t matter to individuals. all the talk about banks lending their credit and straw men just won’t help anyone keep their home.

    why aren’t we focusing on well pled complaints, discovery issues, and arguments. compare notes about claims that work and ones that don’t survive motions to dismiss, discuss strategy and procedure, and celebrate results. so much talk about these big picture issues that won’t and don’t help YOU keep YOUR house. if the IRS wants to go after the remics or the servicers, great. but that doesn’t help one single person here.

  37. heres a question that is slightly off topic that hopefully someone with some legal knowledge may answer: if the pools didnt own the mortgages as we all know they didnt, but the funds flowed to the end investors as if it did, enjoying remic tax exemptions etc, werent the servicers essentially laundering the money? that money was collected and passed through the trust but it legally shouldnt have been, it also passed through untaxed, so to me that means there is also tax evasion involved. when you knowingly do these things, in example: pass the funds untaxed knowing they should be taxed, and passing the funds knowing full well the end user is not entitled to receive them under those circumstances it seems to me that a list of crimes has been committed in the process. any thoughts?

  38. is anyone surprised by this? i went to my local and state police, showed them 4 copies of my mortgage that the servicer forged and numerous documents the foreclosure mill forged and they all said to call my attorney general. i then call my attorney general who tells me they wont investigate because it isnt widespread enough to investigate, and this sounds like s civil matter not a criminal matter… and asked if i considered a loan modification…seriously? forgery and fraud are both crimes. why should i modify anything with someone who has already defrauded me?!! redress can be sought in criminal and civil court. john obrien uncovered 75% of the documents in the southern essex county registry of deeds here in massachusetts are fraudulent. 75% are fraudulent!!!! and thats in one county. im willing to bet that number holds up when they audit the entire state. but the ag thinks the problem isnt widespread enough to act? the only answer is to lawyer up people. i have spent the better part of 3 years going in circles and getting no where. being told to modify my loan with the same criminals who defrauded me is the same as the police telling me to modify my checkbook after ive been robbed at gun point. the difference here is the homeowner is continuously held at gun point with the threat of foreclosure looming or in the works. they have no choice but to work with these crooks. these loan mods are bullsh@# and they are being used to reaffirm debts with the wrong party, and convey paperwork to the trusts who never held anything to begin with. they are a tool for the fraudsters to cover up their fraud. dont modify a thing without a lawyer and a legitimate forensic title examine. dont be fooled into signing something that gives these scumbags legitimacy without the guidance of a competent attorney.

  39. Still “cutting corners?” No — still covering-up.

    And, as to Ann’s post — Gee, I though it was the homeowners who were falsifying documents — that is what Fed Res and Treasury officials told the public at the onset of crisis.

  40. I’ll vouch for the accuracy of this article. We just received copies of a sub of trustee and a reconveyance on behalf of Wells Fargo, all signed by MERS officers and dated after the fact. It’s pathetic. And here we are sleeping in someone else’s house because the bank kicked us out of our own house. We have no choice but to sue. The bank has forced that choice on us.

  41. Press Release

    Release Date: July 20, 2011

    For immediate release
    The Federal Reserve Board on Wednesday issued a consent cease and desist order and assessed an $85 million civil money penalty against Wells Fargo & Company of San Francisco, a registered bank holding company, and Wells Fargo Financial, Inc., of Des Moines. The order addresses allegations that Wells Fargo Financial employees steered potential prime borrowers into more costly subprime loans and separately falsified income information in mortgage applications. In addition to the civil money penalty, the order requires that Wells Fargo compensate affected borrowers.

    The $85 million civil money penalty is the largest the Board has assessed in a consumer-protection enforcement action and is the first formal enforcement action taken by a federal bank regulatory agency to address alleged steering of borrowers into high-cost, subprime loans.

    Wells Fargo Financial–a once-active, non-bank subsidiary of Wells Fargo–made subprime loans that primarily refinanced existing home mortgages in which borrowers received additional money from the loan proceeds in so-called cash-out refinancing loans. The order addresses allegations that Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel steered borrowers who were potentially eligible for prime interest rate loans into loans at higher, subprime interest rates, resulting in greater costs to borrowers. The order also addresses separate allegations that Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel falsified information about borrowers’ incomes to make it appear that the borrowers qualified for loans when they would not have qualified based on their actual incomes.


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: