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

EDITOR’S COMMENT: While finding that the affidavits were false and agreeing the conduct was disturbing and reprehensible the Court held that GMAC should not be held in contempt. What? The dissenting opinion is correct. Neither the trial Judge nor the Supreme Court should have even considered the question without a hearing in which evidence was submitted.

Nevertheless the Court’s opinion is further ratification of what we have been saying on these pages. The fraudulent foreclosures (26,000 of them in Essex County, Mass alone) are a cancer growing on our society. The corruption of title registries is already taking its toll, but we have only seen the tip of the iceberg.

The interesting thing about this case is off the record. GMAC dropped the foreclosure and the homeowner is still in her home. It goes without saying that her title is corrupted by the fraudulent foreclosure. Perhaps she has a cause of action for slander of title, quiet title and other claims? The point is that by paying attention to details it was obvious that the papers being used to foreclose were false and GMAC couldn’t fix it because they were simply not true.

Third party reports and analyses will help you get your point across. That is why I created the COMBO TITLE and SECURITIZATION REPORT. (see above for link)

Maine high court declines to hold GMAC in contempt over ‘robo-signing’ of foreclosure records


PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s highest court has declined to find GMAC Mortgage in contempt for signing off on home foreclosures without first verifying documents — a practice referred to as “robo-signing.”

In a 5-1 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld a decision by a lower court last year. A district judge stopped short in that ruling of finding GMAC in contempt, though he did find that the company submitted a foreclosure affidavit on behalf of Fannie Mae in bad faith.

The case involved a Maine woman who fell behind on mortgage payments after losing her job.

During the lawsuit, her attorneys deposed a GMAC employee in Florida who testified that he signed 8,000 documents a month without personally verifying the mortgage information.

The deposition helped to spur investigations by all 50 states into allegations that mortgage companies mishandled documents and broke laws in thousands of foreclosures.

Writing for the majority, Justice Ellen Gorman didn’t mince words in her criticism, but she noted that there’s no precedent for a contempt finding under the circumstances.

“The affidavit in this case is a disturbing example of a reprehensible practice. That such fraudulent evidentiary filings are being submitted to courts is both violative of the rules of court and ethically indefensible,” she wrote in Tuesday’s ruling. The conduct, she added, “displays a serious and alarming lack of respect for the nation’s judiciaries.”

One of the justices, Jon Levy, issued a dissenting opinion, writing that the district judge should have conducted a full hearing into the contempt issue before rendering his decision.

Thomas Cox, who represented the woman who nearly lost her home, said it was satisfying to shed light on GMAC’s practices but disappointing that the court didn’t require a fuller inquiry and whether those practices were egregious enough to warrant a contempt finding.

“The issue has been exposed and it’s out in the open but to have the supreme court not act more strongly is a disappointment,” Cox said Wednesday.

As for the plaintiff, GMAC ultimately dropped its foreclosure action against Nicolle Bradbury, who remains in her Denmark, Maine, home, Cox said.

GMAC’s lawyer, John J. Aromando, had no immediate comment Wednesday. Gina Proia, spokeswoman for GMAC’s parent company, Ally Financial in New York, said the company is pleased with the court ruling but had no further comment. The company remains the target of a separate class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of Maine homeowners.


14 Responses

  1. someone spell check the prior argument – Im busy…

  2. Not sure a Quiet Title will work either.

    MS – It will if you show the court why the cloud your seeking to remove is moot.Title rest disturbed from the cut off date forward. Title is rendered defect from the filing of a claim by a third party lawyer engaged by a Real estate Broker for god’s sake and uner the FDCPA .

    We’ve had a QT going for over a year now and the Colorado Judge won’t even rule on it.

    MS -There you go …

    The Lender on record doesn’t even exist anymore and their BK trustee sent a letter to the court telling them they won’t stand in our way or contest it.

    MS – No th lender does not exist if he is a TPO – and…his successor is a srvicers and not a seller. So how i teh hell did the real seler in teh deal get to be transferee. Merit here

    But still, the judge won’t rule on the Default Judgment!!

    MS – Why on what arguments?

    To add insult, the judge has simply “closed” our case! No responses to motions, no explanations, no nothing! Just stamps it “closed!”

    MS – The claims lack merit – what is he to repsond to . Why is your argyuments fail to address otherwise meritable claims.

    He’s completely blown us off and HSBC thinks they own our property, although there is still the Lis Pendens recorded that they are doing nothing about.

    MS – HSBC by their own admission in public filings does not own the home. MS – They own the collateral used for which the home is subjectmater for the counter complaint. But they did not “miove” on the home as collateral and cannot by operation of law.

    What happened to our due precess rights????
    MS – No due process here and no cigar. Get the facts straight as to whay HSBC Bank is pursuing a claim and the rescourse (“parties”) in the deal are circumventig you from laws which supoort your calims as old as the nation itself.

    Any comments are welcomed.
    FDIC, MERS Corp IRS = Joinder with the title


    CC: File

  3. . . . .finding that the affidavits were false and agreeing the conduct was disturbing and reprehensible the Court held that GMAC should not be held in contempt. What? The dissenting opinion is correct. Neither the trial Judge nor the Supreme Court should have even considered the question without a hearing in which evidence was submitted.


    Gibberish – Canon fodder…You cannot be found held to sanctions for acts of endorsing something you already own .Ahhh – Now you have it.

    The title holders counsel may be found the culprit confusing the court. Is it bearer paper or not? If the later then your arguing title theory over lien theory and etc etc

    THERE ARE NO ROBO SIGNITURE’S AND NO FALSE ASSIGMENT’S WHERE THE SELLER IS THE BEFEFACTOR. Do a QWR and reference the Pooling and Servicing and you lost your case.

    Guesswork crafting a moot argument that bears nothing arguable to support claims to release the lien is wasted days and wasted nights.

    Now the IRS and conflicts in reporting the transfers from true seller who is successors to the original assets…there is a demonstrable claim not yet to make it into one of the 400 pleadings I have read.


  4. I find the Maine high court’s behavior reprehensible! Their nuts are what need roasting.

  5. Donna,

    Did you do BK AND lis pendens AND quiet title? In what order?

  6. Unfortunately it is believable. Par for the course in the age of no ethics and total corruption.

  7. And I should point out that in his rulings, the judge agrees with me that the defendants HAVE in fact violated the rules of civil procedure, but still, it doesn’t prejudice me just because he says it doesn’t. It’s really quite something because again, I was told that a number of cases can be won or lost on procedural issues. Well, apparently my case is one of the exceptions. And this is from a judge who violated a standing order that a judge that holds stock in a company or a subsidiary thereof MUST recuse himself if one of the parties to the case is one of those companies or their subsidiaries. The order explicitly says that a judge must recuse himself when the case is assigned to the judge, not sell the stock later, which is what this judge ultimately did.


  8. I agree with Chris. Throughout my case, I have been told by a number of people who should know that “The judge can do whatever he/she wants.” If that’s true–and I’m certainly finding out for myself that it does seem to be the case–then if these judges had WANTED to hold GMAC in contempt, THEY COULD HAVE. But even the judges know that the law doesn’t apply to the big boys, especially a nationalized company like GMAC/Ally. So they don’t hold them in contempt.

    Leonard Cohen summed up this state of affairs beautifully in “Everybody Knows”:

    “Everybody knows that the dice are loaded/everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
    Everybody knows the war is over/everybody knows the good guys lost
    Everybody knows the fight was fixed/the poor stay poor and the rich get rich
    That’s how it goes and everybody knows”

    This fight IS fixed. The judge in my case keeps ruling that nothing the defendants do can prejudice me (like violating the rules of civil procedure over and over) and not explaining why their actions don’t prejudice me, he just says they don’t and voila–I’m not prejudiced. It’s just that simple. It’s really mind-boggling–screaming into a void.

  9. Let’s focus on the issue before the [Supreme] Curt of Maine. The trial-level Court made a Decision that it would not hold GMAC (apparently the company, not the attorneys) in contempt. That Decision was then appealed. To succeed on appeal, the Supremes have to find that the trial-level Judge engaged in “abuse of discretion.” In cases like this, the trial Judge has broad latitude as to what he does – known as “judicial discretion.” Hence that Decision does not get disturbed unless there is clear and convincing evidence of an “abuse” of that discretion. There was no evidence set before the Supremes of “abuse of discretion.” Thus, the Supremes had no judicial basis for overturning the trial-court Decision.

    Nonetheless, by using such harsh language, the Supremes made clear their disgust with GMAC. Left unresolved is the issue of the liability, and the responsibility, of the GMAC lawyers [which in my view is substantial, at least leading to a Reprimand at the Bar Grievance level, in turn leading to damages suits]. I would have sued them. But that’s just me. Mr. Cox is going after the deep pocket, GMAC [Ally Financial] in a class-action suit. Don’t be surprised when he gets a big-bucks Judgment. I predict GMAC is going to get really hammered. I also notice that they are too stupid [or too arrogant] to settle, so it will continue to get worse for them.

  10. Justice Jon Levy wrote a dissenting opinion, noting that a Florida court had sanctioned GMAC in 2006 for “engaging in the very same practices” and concluding that “the court should have conducted a hearing before it determined that a finding of contempt was not warranted.” (Source:

  11. Robo sign a check and see what happens when they haul your ass in front of a judge.

    In accordance with this decision, guess we’ll have a chance to see a whole lot more of that going on. May the word go out!

    Fine- fine work judge. Drop me a line and let me know in precisely what instance, I mean like: what would it take for you to categorize something as contemptuous/contemptible if NOT this? Judge ELLEN GORMAN! Just what WOULD IT TAKE?

  12. Good to see someone doing something even if it isn’t enough.Should have roasted someone chestnuts on an open fire imo.

  13. “there’s no precedent for a contempt finding under the circumstances”

    Well, create one. That easy, your honor! There are criminal penalties for everyone else for Fraud, obtaining goods/services under false pretenses, racketeering violations, perjury, forgery, TILA violations, RESPA violations, breach of fiduciary duties, stealing from investors, PSA breaches, etc…the list is very long. The judges are full of it and protecting these parasites. More lies and cover ups!

  14. This decision affirms that the rule of law is no more. And there is no appeal from the holding that “might is right.”

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: