BANK OF AMERICA ASSIGNS SAME NOTE TWICE AND GETS PAID TWICE!

Posted on December 21, 2010 by Neil Garfield

submitted by reader

BANK OF AMERICA ASSIGNS SAME NOTE TWICE AND GETS PAID TWICE!

(To prevent further retribution to our family, I post this information under a pseudonym.)

1) In 2001, I closed on a refinancing loan, with XXXX Mortgage Company “A” (“MCA”).
2) “MCA” immediately thereafter assigned the loan to Bank of America (“BOA”).
3) According to the “journey” of the Note as indicated in the endorsement stamps (the Note was just produced last week, yes last week) and a recorded assignment – “BOA” assigned the NOTE to Residential Funding at some point within the immediate 12 week period following the “MCA” assignment to “BOA”.
4) At the time of the assignment “BOA” was paid by Residential Funding.
5) Residential Funding then assigned the NOTE to Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee, also at some point within the 12 weeks immediately following the “MCA” assignment to “BOA”.
6) Residential Funding was paid by Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee
7) Additionally during the same 12 week time frame, “BOA” also assigned the same aforementioned NOTE to Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee.
8) “BOA” at the time of that assignment, was also paid by Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee for the same NOTE.
9) Four years later, “BOA” returned a payment to me as “Misapplied Funds”.
10) I then received correspondence from Litton Loan Servicing indicating the servicing of the loan had been transferred from “BOA” to Litton Loan Servicing.
11) Litton Loan stated they were servicing the loan for “GMAC- RFC”.
12) I had never heard of either Litton or GMAC-RFC.
13) Two months after “Litton Loan” becoming involved, I received notice our home was going to be foreclosed by “Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas”.

[Confused does not begin to state my concern as to whether our payments were being properly applied.]

14) I was fortunate to obtain a reinstatement of loan after payment of over $28,000 to the law firm representing “Deutsche”.
15) The attempts to obtain clarification were not successful, and the foreclosure advertisements continued.
16) In order to protect our home, I was forced to file a Chapter 13 “pro se”.
17) The case came to be converted to a Chapter 7.
18) Our family came to be evicted (despite our request to pay the first mortgage, which was denied) from our home by a real estate agent reportedly acting with the same power as vested in the Chapter 7 Trustee. The Chapter 7 Trustee sent me an email stating, “A failure to cooperate with her is the equivalent of a failure to cooperate with me.”

Any party interested in reviewing partially redacted copies of the Note and BOA assignment showing the transfers to confirm this story or any other comments or suggestions can contact the writer at alvinessel@gmail.com.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 22 Comments »

Conservative NC Court of App: Power of Sale is Not Favored Under the Law

Posted on June 7, 2010 by Neil Garfield

GET LOAN SPECIFIC RECORDS PROPERTY SEARCH AND SECURITIZATION SUMMARY

because a foreclosure under a power of sale is not favored in the law and must be “watched with jealousy,” see In re Foreclosure of Goforth Props., 334 N.C. at 375, 432 S.E.2d at 859 (internal quotation marks omitted), we must conclude that the evidence presented to the trial court was not sufficient to establish that the Note was payable to Deutsche Bank for Soundview, and so was not sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of fact that “Novastar Mortgage, Inc., . . . transferred and assigned its interest in the Note and Deed of Trust to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-4 (`Lender’).”

Conservative NC Court of Appeals says “Show us the note!”

Today, June 07, 2010, 31 minutes ago | admin From Home Equity Theft Reporter:

Another trial court screw-up in a foreclosure action was recently reversed – this time by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which ruled that a lender seeking to foreclose on a mortgage had failed to properly provide sufficient competent evidence that it was the holder of the promissory note secured by the mortgage. Accordingly, it ruled that the lender was not entitled to go forward with a foreclosure

sale.(1)

For the ruling, see In re Foreclosure of Adams, No. COA09-1455 (N.C.

App. June 1, 2010).

(1) An excerpt from the ruling (bold text is my emphasis, not in the original text):

[S]ince the photocopies of the Note and Deed of Trust presented to the trial court indicate that the original holder of both instruments was Novastar, not Deutsche Bank for Soundview, and since these photocopies do not indicate that Novastar negotiated, indorsed or transferred the Note to Deutsche Bank for Soundview, respondents contend the photocopied instruments alone were not sufficient to establish that Deutsche Bank for Soundview is the current holder of the Note.

We recognize that, in the present case, the testimony by affidavit from Ms. Smith, the assistant secretary of Deutsche Bank for Soundview——an out-of-state entity——as well as the in-person testimony offered by Ms. Cole indicated that Deutsche Bank for Soundview is the current holder of the Note and Deed of Trust. However, neither the in-person testimony from Ms. Cole nor the testimony by affidavit from Ms. Smith expressly showed that Novastar transferred or assigned its interest in the Note and Deed of Trust to Deutsche Bank for Soundview.

Moreover, as we discussed above, the photocopied Note and Deed of Trust, which were described in Ms. Smith’s affidavit as “exact reproductions” of the original instruments, do not show that the Note was indorsed, transferred, or otherwise made payable by Novastar, the original holder of the instrument, to Deutsche Bank for Soundview.

Thus, whereas the record in In re Foreclosure of Brown, 156 N.C. App. 477, 577 S.E.2d 398 (2003), also included an Assignment of Deed of Trust as evidence showing that the original holder of the note and deed of trust had assigned its interest in said instruments to the party seeking to foreclose on the respondent—borrowers, the record before the trial court in the present case contained no such additional evidence.

Accordingly, because a foreclosure under a power of sale is not favored in the law and must be “watched with jealousy,” see In re Foreclosure of Goforth Props., 334 N.C. at 375, 432 S.E.2d at 859 (internal quotation marks omitted), we must conclude that the evidence presented to the trial court was not sufficient to establish that the Note was payable to Deutsche Bank for Soundview, and so was not sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of fact that “Novastar Mortgage, Inc., . . . transferred and assigned its interest in the Note and Deed of Trust to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-4 (`Lender’).”

Filed under: CASES, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, Pleading, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: