Livinglies's Weblog

What is unique and instructive about this decision from the Montana Supreme Court is that it gives details of each and every fraudulent, wrongful and otherwise illegal acts that were committed by a self-proclaimed servicer and the “defective” trustee on the deed of trust.

You need to read the case to see how many different times the same court in the same case awarded damages, attorney fees and sanctions against Bayview who persisted in their behavior even after the judgment was entered.

*

This case overall stands for the proposition that the violations of federal law by self proclaimed servicers, trusts, trustees, substituted trustees, etc. are NOT insignificant or irrelevant. The consequences of merely applying the law in a fair and balanced way could and should be devastating to the TBTF banks, once the veil is pierced from servicers like Bayview, Ocwen et al and the real players are revealed.

I offer the following for legal practitioners as a checklist of issues that are usually present, in one form or another, in virtually all foreclosure cases and the consequences to the bad actors when the law is actually applied. The interesting thing is that this checklist does not just represent my perspective. It comes directly from the Jacobson decision by the high court in Montana. That decision should be read, studied and analyzed several times. You need to read the case to see how many different times the same court in the same case awarded damages, attorney fees and sanctions against Bayview who persisted in their behavior even after the judgment was entered.

One additional note: If you think about it, you can easily see how this case represents the overall infrastructure employed by the super banks. It is obvious that all of Bayview’s actions were at the behest of Citi, who like any other organized crime figure, sought to avoid getting their hands dirty. The self proclamations inevitably employ the name of US Bank whose involvement is shown in this case to be zero. Nonetheless the attorneys for Bayview and Peterson sought to pile up paper documents to create the illusion that they were acting properly.

1. FDCPA —abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors
2. FDCPA who is a debt collector — anyone other than the creditor
3. FDCPA Strict Liability 
4. FDCPA for LEAST SOPHISTICATED CONSUMER
5. FDCPA STATUTORY DAMAGES
6. FDCPA COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
7. FDCPA PUNITIVE DAMAGES
8. FDCPA INHERENT COURT AUTHORITY TO LEVY SANCTIONS
9. CUMULATIVE BAD ACTS TEST — PATTERN OF CONDUCT
10. HAMP Modifications Scam — initial and incentive payments
11. Estopped and fraud: 90 day delinquency disinformation — fraud and UPL
12. Rejected Payment
13. Default Letter: Not authorized because sender is neither servicer nor interested party.
14. Default letter naming creditor
15. Default letter declaring amount due — usually wrong
16. Default letter with deadline date for reinstatement: CURE DATE
17. Late charges improper
18. Extra interest improper
19. Fees even after they lose added to balance “due.”
20. Notice of acceleration based upon default letter which contains inaccurate information. [Not authorized because sender is neither servicer nor interested party.]
21. Damages: Negative credit rating — [How would bank feel if their investment rating dropped? Would their stock drop? would thousands of stockholders lose money as a result?]
22. damages: emotional stress
23. Damages: Lost opportunities to save home
24. Damages: Lost ability to receive incentive payments for modification
25. FDCPA etc: Use of nonexistent or inactive entities
26. FDCPA Illegal notarizations
27. Illegal notarizations on behalf of nonexistent or uninvolved entities.
28. FDCPA naming self proclaimed servicer as beneficiary (creditor/mortgagee)
29. Assignments following self proclamation of beneficiary (creditor/mortgagee)
30. Falsely Informing homeowner they cannot reinstate
31. Wrongful appointment of Trustee under deed of trust
32. Wrongful and non existent Power of Attorney
33. False promises to modify
34. False representations to the Court
35. Musical entities
36. False and fraudulent utterance of a document
37. False and fraudulent recording of a false document
38. False representations concerning “US Bank, Trustee” — a whole category unto itself. (the BOA deal and others who “sold” trustee position of REMICs to US Bank.) 

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: Bank of America, Bayview, damages, deceptive lending, deceptive servicing, fabrication, false recording, false utterance, FDCPA, forgery, fraud, Least sophisticated consumer, notarization, punitive damages, Sanctions, strict liability, US BANK, Wells Fargo |