FLORIDA HOMES OWNED BY 8 LARGEST BANKS ON 1-24-2012

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

Editor’s Note: As Lynn knows, these are the official figures. But the properties were deeded based upon false premises. First the credit bid wasn’t submitted by a creditor. Second the foreclosure process was defective, fraudulent and filled with forged or incomplete documents. And third, the mortgage documents themselves were defective because they failed to properly recite the terms of the transaction — from the identity of the creditor to the use of proceeds from securitization and how that would impact the amount due when third parties made payments to the creditor. Accounting for creditors (investors) is always absent.
Anyone who buys an REO property assumes the risk that the chain of title is so defective that the old homeowner can come back and claim it.

BIG BANK HOMEOWNERS

Lynn E. Szymoniak, Esq., Ed., Fraud Digest, January 28, 2012

In most counties, the records of the county property appraiser identify the homeowners in the county.

In January, 2012, in Palm Beach County, Florida, for example, 11 banks, FANNIE and FREDDIE and one mortgage servicer were the biggest homeowners, with 2,907 homes owned in total. Palm Beach County is the third largest county, by population, in Florida.

The banks and servicer owned 2,284 homes; FANNIE & FREDDIE owned 623 homes.

Three of the banks, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Deutsche Bank, owned more homes than FANNIE.

Wells Fargo (including Wachovia) was the largest homeowner, owning 551 homes.

Bank of America and Deutsche Bank were close second and third largest, owning 496 homes and 454 homes, respectively. (The Bank of America total represents homes owned by Bank of America, BAC Home Loans Servicing and Countrywide.)

FANNIE owned 441 homes; FREDDIE owned 182 homes.

Bank of New York, the trustee for hundreds of Countrywide trusts, owned 338 homes.

U.S. Bank, the trustee for many Bear Stearns trusts, owned 196 homes

HSBC bank, the trustee for almost all of the Deutsche Bank Securities trusts, owned 175 homes.

JP Morgan Chase, including the homes owned by Chase Mortgage, and the Chase subsidiaries, Homesales, Inc. and Homesales of Delaware, Inc., owned a relatively low 174 homes.

Aurora Loan Services, keeper of most of the Lehman Brothers loans, was in 10th place among the large homeowners, with 149 homes.

Citibank, including Citimortgage, was the only other bank owning over 100 homes, with 111 homes.

Suntrust owned 82 homes; IndyMac/OneWest owned 54 homes; and GMAC owned 31 homes.

Home ownership in Florida’s 33 counties with population of 100,000 or greater as of January 24, 2012, is set forth below. The 34 counties with populations under 100,000 have a combined population of 1,278,080, approximately the population of Hillsborough County. The home ownership of Hillsborough has been used to approximate the ownership in these 34 counties.

FLORIDA HOMES OWNED BY 8 LARGEST BANKS ON 1-24-2012: 22,112

FLORIDA HOMES OWNED BY FANNIE & FREDDIE ON 1-24-2012: 7,170

FL HOMES OWNED BY BANK OF AMERICA ON 1-24-2012: 5,143

FL HOMES OWNED BY WELLS FARGO ON 1-24-2012: 4,727

FL HOMES OWNED BY DEUTSCHE BANK ON 1-24-2012: 3,114

FL HOMES OWNED BY BANK OF NEW YORK ON 1-24-2012: 2,855

1 – MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (pop. 2,496,435)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 650
BANK OF NEW YORK: 367
CHASE: 254
CITIBANK: 222
DEUTSCHE BANK: 676
FANNIE: 515
FREDDIE: 213
HSBC: 324
U.S. BANK: 121
WELLS FARGO: 579
BANKS: 3,193/F & F: 728

2 – BROWARD COUNTY (pop. 1,748,066)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 624
BANK OF NEW YORK: 479
CHASE: 157
CITIBANK: 99
DEUTSCHE BANK: 445
FANNIE: 712
FREDDIE: 188
HSBC: 205
U.S. BANK: 489
WELLS FARGO: 493
BANKS: 2,991/F & F: 900

3 – PALM BEACH COUNTY (pop. 1,320,134)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 497
BANK OF NEW YORK: 338
CHASE: 180
CITIBANK: 111
DEUTSCHE BANK: 454
FANNIE: 441
FREDDIE: 182
HSBC: 175
U.S. BANK: 196
WELLS FARGO: 551
BANKS: 2,502/F & F: 623

4 – HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY (pop: 1,229,226)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 220
BANK OF NEW YORK: 116
CHASE: 40
CITIBANK: 30
DEUTSCHE BANK: 152
FANNIE: 265
FREDDIE: 83
HSBC: 84
U.S. BANK: 138
WELLS FARGO: 197
BANKS: 977/F & F: 348

5 – ORANGE COUNTY (pop. 1,145,956)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 278
BANK OF NEW YORK: 31
CHASE: 102
CITIBANK: 49
DEUTSCHE BANK: 130
FANNIE: 500
FREDDIE: 126
HSBC: 83
U.S. BANK: 120
WELLS FARGO: 216
BANKS: 1,009/F & F: 626

6 – PINELLAS COUNTY (pop. 916,542)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 166
BANK OF NEW YORK: 99
CHASE: 16
CITIBANK: 28
DEUTSCHE BANK: 113
FANNIE: 47
FREDDIE: 0
HSBC: 40
U.S. BANK: 143
WELLS FARGO: 181
BANKS: 786/F & F: 47

7 – DUVAL COUNTY (pop. 864,263)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 208
BANK OF NEW YORK: 116
CHASE: 93
CITIBANK: 30
DEUTSCHE BANK: 93
FANNIE: 204
FREDDIE: 93
HSBC: 40
U.S. BANK: 90
WELLS FARGO: 240
BANKS: 910/F & F: 297

8 – LEE (pop. 618,754)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 357
BANK OF NEW YORK: 208
CHASE: 52
CITIBANK: 48
DEUTSCHE BANK: 112
FANNIE: 411
FREDDIE: 100
HSBC: 52
U.S. BANK: 157
WELLS FARGO: 190
BANKS: 1,176/F & F: 511

9 – POLK (pop. 602,095)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 210
BANK OF NEW YORK: 79
CHASE: 38
CITIBANK: 30
DEUTSCHE BANK: 86
FANNIE: 153
FREDDIE: 58
HSBC: 34
U.S. BANK: 93
WELLS FARGO: 130
BANKS: 697/F& F: 211

10 – BREVARD (pop. 543,376)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 127
BANK OF NEW YORK: 67
CHASE: 25
CITIBANK: 10
DEUTSCHE BANK: 44
FANNIE: 144
FREDDIE: 42
HSBC: 18
U.S. BANK: 53
WELLS FARGO: 108
BANKS: 452/F& F: 186

11 – VOLUSIA (pop. 494,593)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 95
BANK OF NEW YORK: 88
CHASE: 26
CITIBANK: 14
DEUTSCHE BANK: 59
FANNIE: 50
FREDDIE: 43
HSBC: 26
U.S. BANK: 61
WELLS FARGO: 99
BANKS: 468/F& F: 93

12 – SEMINOLE (pop. 422,718)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 107
BANK OF NEW YORK: 81
CHASE: 24
CITIBANK: 11
DEUTSCHE BANK: 48
FANNIE: 146
FREDDIE: 41
HSBC: 23
U.S. BANK: 25
WELLS FARGO: 76
BANKS: 395/F& F: 187

13 – PASCO (pop. 464,697)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 102
BANK OF NEW YORK: 53
CHASE: 21
CITIBANK: 17
DEUTSCHE BANK: 64
FANNIE: 174
FREDDIE: 28
HSBC: 33
U.S. BANK: 74
WELLS FARGO: 95
BANKS: 459/F& F:202

14 – SARASOTA (pop. 379,448)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 110
BANK OF NEW YORK: 81
CHASE: 16
CITIBANK: 13
DEUTSCHE BANK: 51
FANNIE: 157
FREDDIE: 46
HSBC: 23
U.S. BANK: 38
WELLS FARGO: 134
BANKS: 466/F& F: 203

15 – MARION (pop. 331,298)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 90
BANK OF NEW YORK: 18
CHASE: 19
CITIBANK: 9
DEUTSCHE BANK: 31
FANNIE: 87
FREDDIE: 28
HSBC: 16
U.S. BANK: 38
WELLS FARGO: 98
BANKS: 319/F& F: 115

16 – MANATEE (pop. 322,833)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 117
BANK OF NEW YORK: 40
CHASE: 8
CITIBANK: 14
DEUTSCHE BANK: 37
FANNIE: 77
FREDDIE: 18
HSBC: 22
U.S. BANK: 52
WELLS FARGO: 396
BANKS: 686/F& F: 95

17 – COLLIER (pop. 321,520)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 121
BANK OF NEW YORK: 54
CHASE: 18
CITIBANK: 16
DEUTSCHE BANK: 33
FANNIE: 120
FREDDIE: 33
HSBC: 25
U.S. BANK: 28
WELLS FARGO: 79
BANKS: 374/F& F: 153

18 – ESCAMBIA (pop. 297,619)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 30
BANK OF NEW YORK: 27
CHASE: 3
CITIBANK: 10
DEUTSCHE BANK: 26
FANNIE: 62
FREDDIE: 23
HSBC: 17
U.S. BANK: 46
WELLS FARGO: 40
BANKS: 199/F& F: 85

19 – LAKE (pop. 297,052)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 51
BANK OF NEW YORK: 38
CHASE: 12
CITIBANK: 5
DEUTSCHE BANK: 28
FANNIE: 91
FREDDIE: 35
HSBC: 14
U.S. BANK: 40
WELLS FARGO: 75
BANKS: 263/F& F: 126

20 – ST. LUCIE (pop. 277,789)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 110
BANK OF NEW YORK: 47
CHASE: 27
CITIBANK: 9
DEUTSCHE BANK: 59
FANNIE: 132
FREDDIE: 40
HSBC: 33
U.S. BANK: 65
WELLS FARGO: 76
BANKS: 426/F& F: 172

21 – LEON (pop. 275,487)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 23
BANK OF NEW YORK: 12
CHASE: 7
CITIBANK: 2
DEUTSCHE BANK: 9
FANNIE: 44
FREDDIE: 12
HSBC: 4
U.S. BANK: 16
WELLS FARGO: 33
BANKS: 106/F& F: 56

22 – OSCEOLA (pop. 268,685)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 134
BANK OF NEW YORK: 3
CHASE: 30
CITIBANK: 6
DEUTSCHE BANK: 10
FANNIE: 103
FREDDIE: 29
HSBC: 7
U.S. BANK: 10
WELLS FARGO: 55
BANKS: 255/F& F: 132

23 – ALACHUA (pop. 247,336)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 36
BANK OF NEW YORK: 9
CHASE: 6
CITIBANK: 4
DEUTSCHE BANK: 11
FANNIE: 39
FREDDIE: 14
HSBC: 3
U.S. BANK: 19
WELLS FARGO: 40
BANKS: 128/F& F: 53

24 – CLAY (pop. 190,865)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 39
BANK OF NEW YORK: 16
CHASE: 7
CITIBANK: 2
DEUTSCHE BANK: 17
FANNIE: 43
FREDDIE: 7
HSBC: 11
U.S. BANK: 22
WELLS FARGO: 29
BANKS: 143/F& F: 50

25 – ST. JOHNS (pop. 190,039)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 40
BANK OF NEW YORK: 33
CHASE: 6
CITIBANK: 11
DEUTSCHE BANK: 14
FANNIE: 56
FREDDIE: 31
HSBC: 8
U.S. BANK: 29
WELLS FARGO: 58
BANKS: 203/F& F: 87

26 – OKALOOSA (pop. 180,822)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 35
BANK OF NEW YORK: 27
CHASE: 2
CITIBANK: 8
DEUTSCHE BANK: 19
FANNIE: 50
FREDDIE: 12
HSBC: 8
U.S. BANK: 24
WELLS FARGO: 16
BANKS: 139/F& F: 62

27 – HERNANDO (pop. 172,778)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 53
BANK OF NEW YORK: 41
CHASE: 13
CITIBANK: 3
DEUTSCHE BANK: 24
FANNIE: 82
FREDDIE: 26
HSBC: 15
U.S. BANK: 30
WELLS FARGO: 47
BANKS: 226/F& F: 108

28 – BAY (pop. 168,852)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 43
BANK OF NEW YORK: 39
CHASE: 13
CITIBANK: 2
DEUTSCHE BANK: 25
FANNIE: 70
FREDDIE: 18
HSBC: 7
U.S. BANK: 21
WELLS FARGO: 21
BANKS: 171/F& F: 88

29 – CHARLOTTE (pop. 159,978)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 110
BANK OF NEW YORK: 59
CHASE: 15
CITIBANK: 4
DEUTSCHE BANK: 29
FANNIE: 22
FREDDIE: 23
HSBC: 18
U.S. BANK: 41
WELLS FARGO: 56
BANKS: 332/F& F: 45

30 – SANTA ROSA (pop. 151,372)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 30
BANK OF NEW YORK: 13
CHASE: 1
CITIBANK: 5
DEUTSCHE BANK: 8
FANNIE: 34
FREDDIE: 10
HSBC: 3
U.S. BANK: 10
WELLS FARGO: 33
BANKS: 103/F& F: 44

31 – MARTIN (pop. 146,318)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 22
BANK OF NEW YORK: 6
CHASE: 5
CITIBANK: 2
DEUTSCHE BANK: 18
FANNIE: 53
FREDDIE: 9
HSBC: 11
U.S. BANK: 15
WELLS FARGO: 33
BANKS: 112/F& F: 62

32 – CITRUS (pop. 141,236)
HOMES OWNED BY 8 MAJOR BANKS, FANNIE & FREDDIE

BANK OF AMERICA: 50
BANK OF NEW YORK: 27
CHASE: 6
CITIBANK: 3


 

 

34 Responses

  1. This Obama agreement will not stop you from filing your individual lawsuit in reference to any of the fraud involved in your particular case. Scroll down to the 16th paragraph, the last 2 sentences about filing individual lawsuits and MERS.
    As Neil stated, this agreement between Obama and the banks only makes the banks admit to the fraud and could hurt them and not help them. It will help the banks if you the homeowner accept the agreement. According to my PA Attorneys General office, over the next several months homeowners in trouble will receive letter or notification of this agreement deal. I highly recommend NOT to sign it or accept it, if you plan to file lawsuit against your mortgage servicer. And with all the fraud, you can win. Robo-signing perjury, missing assignments, no ownership of note, quiet title action, etc. You can still file lawsuit for this fraud even with Obama agreement in place as long as you do not accept the agreement plan.
    Please review below, letter from the United States Department of Justice:

    Department of Justice
    Office of Public Affairs
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEThursday, February 9, 2012
    Federal Government and State Attorneys General Reach $25 Billion Agreement with Five Largest Mortgage Servicers to Address Mortgage Loan Servicing and Foreclosure Abuses
    $25 Billion Agreement Provides Homeowner Relief & New Protections, Stops Abuses
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller and Colorado Attorney General John W. Suthers announced today that the federal government and 49 state attorneys general have reached a landmark $25 billion agreement with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers to address mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure abuses. The agreement provides substantial financial relief to homeowners and establishes significant new homeowner protections for the future.

    The unprecedented joint agreement is the largest federal-state civil settlement ever obtained and is the result of extensive investigations by federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, HUD and the HUD Office of the Inspector General (HUD-OIG), and state attorneys general and state banking regulators across the country. The joint federal-state group entered into the agreement with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers: Bank of America Corporation, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Company, Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial Inc. (formerly GMAC).

    “This agreement – the largest joint federal-state settlement ever obtained – is the result of unprecedented coordination among enforcement agencies throughout the government,” said Attorney General Holder. “It holds mortgage servicers accountable for abusive practices and requires them to commit more than $20 billion towards financial relief for consumers. As a result, struggling homeowners throughout the country will benefit from reduced principals and refinancing of their loans. The agreement also requires substantial changes in how servicers do business, which will help to ensure the abuses of the past are not repeated.”

    “This historic settlement will provide immediate relief to homeowners – forcing banks to reduce the principal balance on many loans, refinance loans for underwater borrowers, and pay billions of dollars to states and consumers,” said HUD Secretary Donovan. “ Banks must follow the laws. Any bank that hasn’t done so should be held accountable and should take prompt action to correct its mistakes. And it will not end with this settlement. One of the most important ways this settlement helps homeowners is that it forces the banks to clean up their acts and fix the problems uncovered during our investigations. And it does that by committing them to major reforms in how they service mortgage loans. These new customer service standards are in keeping with the Homeowners Bill of Rights recently announced by President Obama – a single, straightforward set of commonsense rules that families can count on.”

    “This monitored agreement holds the banks accountable, it provides badly needed relief to homeowners, and it transforms the mortgage servicing industry so now homeowners will be protected and treated fairly,” said Iowa Attorney General Miller.

    “This settlement has broad bipartisan support from the states because the attorneys general realize that the partnership with the federal agencies made it possible to achieve favorable terms and conditions that would have been difficult for the states or the federal government to achieve on their own,” said Colorado Attorney General Suthers.

    The joint federal-state agreement requires servicers to implement comprehensive new mortgage loan servicing standards and to commit $25 billion to resolve violations of state and federal law. These violations include servicers’ use of “robo-signed” affidavits in foreclosure proceedings; deceptive practices in the offering of loan modifications; failures to offer non-foreclosure alternatives before foreclosing on borrowers with federally insured mortgages; and filing improper documentation in federal bankruptcy court.

    Under the terms of the agreement, the servicers are required to collectively dedicate $20 billion toward various forms of financial relief to borrowers. At least $10 billion will go toward reducing the principal on loans for borrowers who, as of the date of the settlement, are either delinquent or at imminent risk of default and owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. At least $3 billion will go toward refinancing loans for borrowers who are current on their mortgages but who owe more on their mortgage than their homes are worth. Borrowers who meet basic criteria will be eligible for the refinancing, which will reduce interest rates for borrowers who are currently paying much higher rates or whose adjustable rate mortgages are due to soon rise to much higher rates. Up to $7 billion will go towards other forms of relief, including forbearance of principal for unemployed borrowers, anti-blight programs, short sales and transitional assistance, benefits for service members who are forced to sell their home at a loss as a result of a Permanent Change in Station order, and other programs. Because servicers will receive only partial credit for every dollar spent on some of the required activities, the settlement will provide direct benefits to borrowers in excess of $20 billion.

    Mortgage servicers are required to fulfill these obligations within three years. To encourage servicers to provide relief quickly, there are incentives for relief provided within the first 12 months. Servicers must reach 75 percent of their targets within the first two years. Servicers that miss settlement targets and deadlines will be required to pay substantial additional cash amounts.

    In addition to the $20 billion in financial relief for borrowers, the agreement requires the servicers to pay $5 billion in cash to the federal and state governments. $1.5 billion of this payment will be used to establish a Borrower Payment Fund to provide cash payments to borrowers whose homes were sold or taken in foreclosure between Jan. 1, 2008 and Dec. 31, 2011, and who meet other criteria. This program is separate from the restitution program currently being administered by federal banking regulators to compensate those who suffered direct financial harm as a result of wrongful servicer conduct. Borrowers will not release any claims in exchange for a payment. The remaining $3.5 billion of the $5 billion payment will go to state and federal governments to be used to repay public funds lost as a result of servicer misconduct and to fund housing counselors, legal aid and other similar public programs determined by the state attorneys general.

    The $5 billion includes a $1 billion resolution of a separate investigation into fraudulent and wrongful conduct by Bank of America and various Countrywide entities related to the origination and underwriting of Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured mortgage loans, and systematic inflation of appraisal values concerning these loans, from Jan. 1, 2003 through April 30, 2009. Payment of $500 million of this $1 billion will be deferred to partially fund a loan modification program for Countrywide borrowers throughout the nation who are underwater on their mortgages. This investigation was conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, with the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch of the Department of Justice, HUD and HUD-OIG. The settlement also resolves an investigation by the Eastern District of New York, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency-Office of the Inspector General (FHFA-OIG) into allegations that Bank of America defrauded the Home Affordable Modification Program.

    The joint federal-state agreement requires the mortgage servicers to implement unprecedented changes in how they service mortgage loans, handle foreclosures, and ensure the accuracy of information provided in federal bankruptcy court. The agreement requires new servicing standards which will prevent foreclosure abuses of the past, such as robo-signing, improper documentation and lost paperwork, and create dozens of new consumer protections. The new standards provide for strict oversight of foreclosure processing, including third-party vendors, and new requirements to undertake pre-filing reviews of certain documents filed in bankruptcy court.

    The new servicing standards make foreclosure a last resort by requiring servicers to evaluate homeowners for other loss mitigation options first. In addition, banks will be restricted from foreclosing while the homeowner is being considered for a loan modification. The new standards also include procedures and timelines for reviewing loan modification applications and give homeowners the right to appeal denials. Servicers will also be required to create a single point of contact for borrowers seeking information about their loans and maintain adequate staff to handle calls.

    The agreement will also provide enhanced protections for service members that go beyond those required by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). In addition, the four servicers that had not previously resolved certain portions of potential SCRA liability have agreed to conduct a full review, overseen by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, to determine whether any servicemembers were foreclosed on in violation of SCRA since Jan. 1, 2006. The servicers have also agreed to conduct a thorough review, overseen by the Civil Rights Division, to determine whether any servicemember, from Jan. 1, 2008, to the present, was charged interest in excess of 6% on their mortgage, after a valid request to lower the interest rate, in violation of the SCRA. Servicers will be required to make payments to any servicemember who was a victim of a wrongful foreclosure or who was wrongfully charged a higher interest rate. This compensation for servicemembers is in addition to the $25 billion settlement amount.

    The agreement will be filed as a consent judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Compliance with the agreement will be overseen by an independent monitor, Joseph A. Smith Jr. Smith has served as the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks since 2002. Smith is also the former Chairman of the Conference of State Banks Supervisors (CSBS). The monitor will oversee implementation of the servicing standards required by the agreement; impose penalties of up to $1 million per violation (or up to $5 million for certain repeat violations); and publish regular public reports that identify any quarter in which a servicer fell short of the standards imposed in the settlement.

    The agreement resolves certain violations of civil law based on mortgage loan servicing activities. The agreement does not prevent state and federal authorities from pursuing criminal enforcement actions related to this or other conduct by the servicers. The agreement does not prevent the government from punishing wrongful securitization conduct that will be the focus of the new Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group. The United States also retains its full authority to recover losses and penalties caused to the federal government when a bank failed to satisfy underwriting standards on a government-insured or government-guaranteed loan. The agreement does not prevent any action by individual borrowers who wish to bring their own lawsuits. State attorneys general also preserved, among other things, all claims against the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), and all claims brought by borrowers.

    Investigations were conducted by the U.S. Trustee Program of the Department of Justice, HUD-OIG, HUD’s FHA, state attorneys general offices and state banking regulators from throughout the country, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado, the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of North Carolina, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, SIGTARP and FHFA-OIG. The Department of Treasury, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture made critical contributions.

    For more information about the mortgage servicing settlement, go to http://www.NationalMortgageSettlement.com. To find your state attorney general’s website, go to http://www.NAAG.org and click on “The Attorneys General.”

    The joint federal-state agreement is part of enforcement efforts by President Barack Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. For more information about the task force, visit: http://www.stopfraud.gov.

    ~
    ~
    12-186Attorney General

  2. .
    Great posts, Anonymous and Sue Preem

    Isn’t the objective to chase the impostors out of town with rockets instead of trying to use our blunt plastic picnic knives, even if most of the money goes to the class action lawyers?

    Although bad lawyers treated Katheryn the way they did, isn’t the point that hopefully, more good law firms will see the incredible opportunity so that eventually, their good lawyers will move into the foreclosed mansions of the mill/bad lawyers?

    Did I mention the word bank here? Shouldn’t we all first focus on self-dealing “bad” law firms?
    .

  3. Sue Preem

    Nice observation. You are right.

    Problem with class actions is that the attorneys take much. Class actions do not accomplish what they should for the victims. As to individuals, AG settlement, it will destroy credibility. Will take years to decipher, in courts, what is intended by the settlement. Years.

  4. Hi Katheryn,

    There might be a rule in your State requiring that they coordinate the dates and times for depositions with you; and not harass you with unreasonable, unduly burdensome demands.

    We heard of a similar situation someone was in. They filed Objections and a Motion for Protective Order.

    They included that they were seeking counsel for special representation at the depositions. The judge granted them a 30 day stay to seek counsel. During this time they found a large contingency consumer law firm to file a class action suit against the bank and its alleged law firm for basic debt collection violations. (state and/or federal.)

    The depositions were canceled.

    Good Luck!

  5. I notice LS mentions Aurora in the article. I’ve always wondered about that Lehman – Aurora deal. Aurora apparently did service the securitized stuff for Lehman, a once-removed parent. But sort of but not quite like B of A ended up with CW’s stuff didn’t Barclay’s end up with Lehman’s when it filed the biggest bk in US history on September 15 2008? Anyone know what Barclay did with it if so?

  6. Enraged

    Just trying to wake sleeping dogs. Now is the time for urgency — not later. Been fighting for years, I never give up — no matter what.

    But, this is very serious. Done deeds are extremely hard to undo. And, NO weigh in yet from Neil.

    Another question, will the settlement mandate that all robo-signing, all servicer errors, all origination fraud, all documents, are to be corrected?? And, will it mandate that the creditor finally be identified in compliance with the law??

  7. Of course there should be no settlement without investigation. It goes without saying! And there should be no investigation without, first, a nationwide moratorium on foreclosures. We all have to push for that.

    What irks me, though, is to decide beforehand that homeowners are doomed. And even if people decide that they are doomed, to spread it is counterproductive and will yield only one result: rather than engage in the fight, they’ll throw in the towel. Telling people that their fight will amount to nothing demoralizes them ahead of time.

    What if everuone was running around town repeating day in, day out, “it is hopeless!”. We’ve made progress because people believed in fighting. We can’t tell them to stop now based on fears of the unknown future!

    We all create the future. We sure don’t create any if we sit on our thumbs, showing down oreo cookies, so petrified of what hasn’t happened yet that we forget that the fight is here and now!

  8. Anonymous is correct, much damage will result from a settlement. Yes, you’ll still be able to litigate, but, and it’s a huge but, the judges will simply blow over anything that would appear to have been resolved by agreement. That’s why I’ve become a potted plant at my AG’s office, spending what I’m sure they think is an inordinate amount of time there insisting on borrower’s rights.

    We here know and understand that robo-signing isn’t about tidying up loose ends or studying the monitor more closely….simply said it’s the creation of fraudulent documents that allows the taking of homes by those that have no right to the taking. But, if the judges agree that issues concerning robo-signing have been “dealt with” by these “official powers” (IT’S OBAMA APPROVED!), your wildest rant to the contrary no matter how well supported will be falling on deaf ears.

    However, Anonymous, much could be said about the constant “invalid investor” argument without any semblance of anything that will turn a case in court, or at the minimum persuade a judge into hearing more. These judges haven’t a clue, and they don’t really care about these issues, or so it would seem. To them, the deadbeats have no business talking high finance, they signed a mortgage doc and didn’t pay. What rights do they have to an argument concerning the truth behind NY trust law and the resulting bad actors? Unless of course Anonymous can blow the lid off of this argument and make it main stream…..

  9. all—neither ANONYMOUS or myself are being alarmists!
    take heed and do it pronto

  10. DO NOT LET WASHINGTON DC TAKE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AWAY- USE THIS WORD TEMPLATE TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHTS TO FIGHT ROBO-SIGNING AND DEFEND YOUR PROPERTY IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/79983969/FORECLOSURE-VICTIMS-CALL-TO-ACTION-PROTECT-YOUR-RIGHTS-USE-THIS-TEMPLATE-TO-FAX

    FEEL FREE TO MODIFY THE TEMPLATE. IT ALSO LISTS KEY FAX NUMBERS FOR WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES

    YOU CAN USE RINGCENTRAL FOR FAX SERVICES $9.99 PER MONTH, NO CONTRACT. YOU SET UP FAX NUMBERS ONCE AND THEN USE OVER AND OVER AGAIN

  11. Enraged,

    With respect to you too, I do not mean to be an alarmist. However, the settlement will be far broader than you think. There should be no settlement without the investigation first. Since the settlement deadline is Feb. 3, that gives us no time to get the state AGs who are signing away our rights. Even if the right to privately litigate is upheld, courts will continue to not give the time of day because of the settlement. The situation is very serious, and, outside of a few AGs who are still questioning, the vast majority of AGs are going to sign off. If the investigation reveals what it should reveal, massive fraud from the onset, the settlement will still stand.

    I have repeatedly stated here, from the beginning, that the only solution is government intervention with a thorough investigation. While we may get some investigation — it will be too little too late. It is going to take the other state AGs to stand up to the settlement. And, by Feb. 3, I do not think this will happen.

    The settlement is “backwards”, should be investigation first — then, settlement.

  12. @Katheryn,

    Try Mandelman anyway and contact Matt Weidner, Max Gardner and Mark Stopa to ask them if they know anyone in DE. Those guys are true crusaders and they actually put their neck out to help homeowners. There has to be someone. Keep telling that to yourself: there has to be someone! The other thing is: you are in an interesting position and the bank is purposely being a hard ass. This is the kind of thing Mandelman loves to write about. I bet he’ll tell that story of your husband being almost forced to quit his job in order for you guys to keep the house. He’ll know what spin to put on it and he’ll make it hilarious and so awful that the bank attorneys and the bank will call off whatever they’re doing. Remember: the game is not to be right at any price but to be so damn convinced that you are that the other party becomes intimidated by your unrelentlessness. That’s how the game is played anywhere, in any court, everywhere.

    I have a tremendous problem with a few people on this site posting such negative things that we might as well take a few pills, go to bed and wait for death. I think it is as criminal to dissuade anyone from asserting his/her rights as it is to take them away. That’s why I get really pissed with sweeping doom and gloom and nothing to back it up. Especially in the richest country in the world, where people have been pampered their entire life and have never dealt with real adversity! Ok, so, we may lose the house. Put the damn thing into perspective!!! Do you eat every day? Do you have running water to drink and take showers? Do you have friends who can help you because not everyone lives in the same slums?

    A lot of BS is posted here day in and day out. AGs CANNOT sign away your rights to fight. It would not only be illegal but completely impracticable. That B.S. settlement with banks CANNOT stop you or anyone else from asserting his/her rights later on and from filing suit. The fact that the settlement may very well waived criminal investigations and prosecutions doesn’t mean crimes were not committed and does not prevent you or anyone from asserting it.

    And, as I wrote elsewhere, look at the numbers, for Pete’s sake! “They” are 1%. We are 99%!!! To post all the time that they “own” everything and they will destroy the world and “they” have built that big, super machine that will take “them” to another planet after “they” done with this one is so ludicrous that it is playing into their hands! Enough with the Soylent Green crap!!! Enough with the systematic demoralization!!!

    Back to finding ways to help each other fight.

  13. Thanks to everyone here for their hard work and most of all, for sharing. @ neidermeyer – I will look at getting my own reporter. Unfortunately, no luck with an attorney. I am 100% on my own. Couldn’t even find one willing to give me consult, paid, of course. Want nothing to do with going against banks. And believe it or not, I am in Beau Biden’s great state of Delaware. Have kept him informed with copies of everything even though I have never gotten a response from him. My cover letter with each up-date always begins with I hope he at least looks at my stuff before depositing in trash can! @ enraged, you are right; they would not treat another attorney that way. I have been doing a little research; has anyone heard of a “motion to object to deposition”? That refused to answer or provide anything in my discovery requests that’s why I filled the motion to compel. Also, my husband can’t take off 3 days in a row to accommodate deposing us separately on the 2 prior days of court. I also need some basic information from my discovery requests, most likely, to be prepared to be deposed. This has been very one-sided and what is the worst that could happen; they’ll have to reschedule the depositions.

    Last thing; @ anonymous; like enraged, why the cryptic warnings? You stated it is over for me, mind giving a little more detail. The worst thing you can do is to discourage those of us who are trying very hard to make a difference by fighting. It is very hard to stand up against criminals who are paying huge bucks to lawyers with law degrees and years of experience representing them against one little pro se person with a limited amount of college and no legal experience. At LEAST I am trying even if it is KILLING me.

    As for the AG settlements; I spent some time writing many of the individual state AGs. I have received a few responses via snail mail, but the AZ AG responded by email. I have posted the letter and my reponse on 4closurefraud if anyone is interested. What you are saying, Anonymous; is not what the AGs are saying with regards to giving up legal rights to further investigate and bring charges as an individual or as a state. Of course this could be all lies, who knows, but I am getting the same story from each AG that responded to my pleas to not settle. Let me know if you want the info. and please just come out and say what you mean with regards to @ Katheryn; it’s over. I will be happy to give you my private email if you prefer, but one never really knows who each of us on these sites are and what it is we are trying to acheive. We all are too well aware that not all people are who or what they represent to be.
    @ carie, thanks for always sharing.

  14. @Anonymous,

    And I say that with all due respect. I’ve read your posts (that I don’t
    get; call it my own limitations but I’m ok with being limited…). I’ve seen people repeat them, repost them throughout this site, swear by them… and lose their house.

    What I haven’t seen is solid, practical advice. The kind anyone can take to the bank (no pun intended).

    So, what gives?

  15. @Anonymous,

    “We are finished — unless someone does something. All of us. You, me, Mandelman, Neil, and everyone else here.”

    “Something”…? Can you be a tad more specific?

    I have to ask… Do you like playing the alarmist? I’m going to tell you what I tell everyone else: either you know something, in which case, say so. Ot you don’t know anything, you’re just playing the fear game to get your adrenaline going, in which case it’s pretty sick but I don’t buy what you want to sell. Sweeping generalities such as “We’re done and over with”, or “We’re finished” are the stuff collective suicides are made off and, again, I don’t buy.

    Can you appeal to our intellect here instead of our emotions or is this a game to you?

    If you have sources, name them or send us the proper link. That would be the mature thing to do now, wouldn’t it? I had to come to this country to discover paranoia. Isn’t that something? A country that was never invaded, has never really had to suffer starvation or lack of anything, a country of pioneers, of daredevils… full of people afraid of their own shadow!

    If there’s danger, tell us what it is with facts, figures, something to sink our teeth in and decide for ourselves whether, indeed danger exists. If it’s your fears you’re trying to dump on us, it ain’t gona work on me.

  16. yes, and then they get arrested…

  17. Hate to sound curt but… then, homeless people should move in those empty houses. They’ve already lost everything. What more can they lose?

  18. 1 IN 7 AMERICAN HOUSES ARE EMPTY.

    1 IN 402 AMERICANS ARE HOMELESS.

    24 EMPTY HOUSES ARE AVAILABLE FOR EACH HOMELESS AMERICAN.

  19. Neil — what are your connections?

    Who has sold us out???

  20. Security investors are NOT the creditor—so WHY does Neil keep saying things like this (from above):

    “Accounting for creditors (investors) is always absent…”

    Why, Neil, why? I just don’t get it…You talk out two sides of your mouth—I don’t think you really want to sincerely help people…otherwise, you wouldn’t keep perpetuating this myth—this LIE—that the investors are somehow the creditor—IT’S NOT TRUE…THIS IS THE LIE THE CRIMINALS USE TO STEAL HOMES…PLEASE STOP. NOW.

  21. Enraged

    OK. Got it –your emphasis is — Mandelman “works.” Look, have liked Mandelman, but I am not here to promote anyone. Many simply do not have the funds to hire experts. Period.

    The major problem is the AG settlement. Mandleman, and every “expert”, will be minced meat. Constitutional rights will be taken away by this settlement. What will Mandelman do about that???

    If you do not understand this, and believe you are knowledgeable, what about the millions of others who are not knowledgeable??

    It is over with this AG settlement. Over.

    Your state laws — and federal law — will be meaningless. MEANINGLESS.

    Oh, and by the way, the major banks — part of the AG settlement, were the MAJOR junk debt buyers. They were the ones who purchased the “junk debt” collection rights — and never disclosed to borrowers that it was NOT a valid mortgage — ie — in default, “non-compliant” – before borrower ever signed the dotted line. Of course, these major junk debt buyer banks, ARE the AG settlement.

    We are finished — unless someone does something. All of us. You, me, Mandelman, Neil, and everyone else here.

  22. @Anonymous,

    Collection rights suppose servicers bought said rights. Show me the money they paid out to buy the “debt”.

    In my state, unless the JDB produces the purchase and sale/transfer documents AND THE CONSIDERATION PAID for same, along with the instrument confirming the payment, the JDB has no standing and can’t collect anything. Motion to dismiss, right of the bat.

    I keep harping on it but the only question in all that mess is: Show me the money.

  23. _

    Hi Katheryn,

    There might be a rule in your State requiring that they coordinate the dates and times for depositions with you; and not harass you with unreasonable, unduly burdensome demands.

    We heard of a similar situation someone was in. They filed Objections and a Motion for Protective Order. They included that they were seeking counsel for special representation at the depositions. The judge granted them a 30 day stay to seek counsel. During this time they found a large contingency consumer law firm to file a class action suit against the bank and its alleged law firm for basic debt collection violations. (state and/or federal.) The depositions were canceled.

    Good Luck!

    _

  24. OneWest Bank and Indymac called off the sale of Lisa’s house in Milford, MA.

    Contacting Mandelman works. Don’t hesitate to have him intervene. The last thing banks want is to be enundated with e-mails, one house at a time. And believe me, what goes around comes around. The more you intervene, the more likely someone will interve for you.

    We’re all in this together.

    http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2012/01/our-doers-did-it-again-one-west-bank-stops-sale-in-east/

  25. Enraged,

    And, as to Katheryn, may have been the case before, but will be no more.

    Over.

  26. Enraged,

    Sorry Enraged, but you are wrong. What we have is ownership of collection rights by the big banks — until they dispose of, which is what they have been doing.

    Money? What money? Subprime renewal of collection rights. All will be discovered by investigation — IF we get that. But, will be too late. Settlement already agreed to.

    Problem here has always been — defending security investors — who are not — never were — your creditor.

    Much to be disclosed, but, again, will be TOO LATE.

  27. @ Katheryn,

    I second Neidermeyer,

    If you had an attorney, they wouldn’t treat you like that. I wouldn’t hesitate sending something to Mandelman Matters and asking him for an attorney. He knows more and more people seriously involved in homeowners’ defense.

    You’ve got nothing to lose by trying. And he already gets’ B of A’s mail…

  28. Not one of those banks owns jack s#^t!

    They illegally appropriated houses they never owned. They used other people’s money to unjustly enrich themselves. It’s called grand theft. Not one investor got paid out of the foreclosed homes.

    And they were highly rewraded for it by bailout money they have yet to repay. If anything, we own thoses houses. States should individually use eminent domain to confiscate those stolen houses and redistribute them to their constituents.

  29. Should be NO settlement without full investigation — FIRST.

    This is all backwards.

  30. Thank you, Carie.

    Yes, everyone’s “loan” went to one of the major banks. What that bank did with it from there — is anyone’s guess. Did they retain collection rights, or sell them? Securitization of cash flows has nothing to do with it — as security investors are NOT the creditor. However, Prospectus tells us WHO securitized your loan, which means — WHO purchased it (parent corporation of security underwriter.)

    Trustees and servicers are not the creditor. And, REMICs not the creditor. Any foreign security underwriter (parent) — US no control over.

    Big problem here is — US AGs are about to sign your rights away. They are about to “settle” your civil litigation for you — and any future litigation. This agreement will NOT be “narrow” — not as construed by the courts. And, even if criminal violations are uncovered by the new mortgage fraud “unit”, this will be meaningless to home owners. Will it “undo” the settlement? No. Will uncovered criminal violations restore your home? No.

    We are about to have our constitutional rights swept away by AGs under political pressure.

    Robo-signing — just the surface of the fraud. Need discovery for robo-signing. But, even robo-signing aside, the settlement will include servicer “errors” and origination fraud. Errors?? Who claims these were errors and not deliberate fraud?? Origination fraud? Your TILA claims. General fraud?? May be investigated by new unit, after which your SOL will have elapsed. The strategy is well thought out.

    Game over. And, every state that went along with this, should, somehow, be held responsible. AGs not immune to fraud — or cover-up of fraud.

  31. Those Fla. numbers are BOGUS! I know, I raised the capital for the first ever windows based default mortgage tracking system. Who ever gave you these numbers if full of B.S.! With Fla. being the heaviest hit state in the national..how can you be so Foolish to believe this crap?

  32. Now for a little review of the true fraud of the “subprime” (thank you, ANONYMOUS):

    First, “certificate purchasers” are the banks themselves (security underwriters), and they only purchase a “pro-rata” share to a “pool” of cash flows —- that is all — they are NOT the mortgagee/creditor—the trust is assigned the loans from which the pass-through cash flows are derived—it is the DEPOSITOR (subsidiary), that owns the collections rights (they are not mortgage loans), and the Trust itself. The “certificate purchasers” (the bank security underwriters (another subsidiary) themselves) then repackage the certificates to “pro-rata” cash flows into CDOs that are marketed to security investors — who are also never the mortgagee/creditor. According to all PSAs — there must be a documented valid sale of the “loans”, with supporting Mortgage Schedule to the Depositor in order for any Trust to be valid. There was never any valid sale of loans — and the loans were never actually loans — they were collection rights.

    Second, since the “loan” refinances (subprime/alt-a), and jumbo new purchases were non-compliant and non-performing manufactured defaults, no funding at all was necessary (except for the cash-out for the loans). The warehouse lines of credit never actually transferred any actual cash for funding. These lines of credit were simply “credit lines” that the “Depositor” would provide to their correspondent lenders. Once the “loan” refinance origination was completed the Depositor would then reverse the “credit” owed by the correspondent (originator). This never involved any actual deposit of cash proceeds —- the “funding” payoff check is never “deposited” into any bank account. The check is routed to a security derivative clearing house — who then simply cancels the credit-line transaction.

    Third, it is not productive to state that since someone else was actually making payments on the “loan”, “albeit” not the borrower, that the loan is not in default. Courts do not care about this — they only care if the borrower is in default. However, if the actual party does not come forward claiming that the debt is owed to them, and the actual party cannot prove how they came to own the collection rights — borrower does not owe the debt to anyone. That party is never going to able to demonstrate that collection rights belong to them because they would have to divulge the above fraudulent process and that the “mortgage loan” from onset was not a mortgage but, instead, collection rights. This admission would also mean that the “debt” is unsecured and can be discharged in BK.”

  33. Katheryn,

    You need to both be working off the same set of facts/notes and both with the same understandings… I would attempt to get some advice from one of the better firms on how to handle this even if it’s just 30 minutes on the phone… but it sure sounds as if you’re doing something right… As a courtesy lawyers would never schedule that way for another lawyer … see if you can demand/request back to back depositions … or file a notice of unavailability with the court if they won’t play .. make them reschedule…. you can make the argument that you wish to hire a court reporter OF YOUR OWN and having hearings on 2 days adds expense with no benefit. YOU NEED YOUR OWN COURT REPORTER… you’d be surprised how your words “change” when it’s not yours.. I’d also make sure I’d a very good understanding of possible objections that could be entered for each question .. what’s permissible.

    What State?

  34. If someone has some input on this I would appreciate. I’m fighting pro se BoA. They are very angry and now turning up the heat because I would not withdraw my motion to compel discovery I filed because they led me around for 4 months then provided nothing. A hearing on my motion is scheduled for February 22. Their lawyer and the court are located 2 hours from our home. I just received notices of depositions. They have scheduled my husband for Feb. 20th, 9:30 then scheduled mine for Feb. 21 at 9:30 and then we have to go back agin on the 22nd for court. First, it is just harassment to not schedule us both together and second, why should I allow them to depose me the day before the hearing? Just like to know how others have handled similar situations? Thanks for any insight.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: