Matt Weidner Shows Lawyers How to Do Good Lawyering

Posted on September 4, 2013 by Neil Garfield

The difference between Weidner and many other attorneys is that he goes into a case believing he can win it — and he’s right. Other attorneys believe their position is hopeless and seek only delays or modification — and they are wrong. Weidner has resisted the knee jerk reaction to these cases to believe that if the borrower ceases payment that all elements of a foreclosure are presumed met. He understands that the Banks are playing a shell game to conceal the fact that neither the named plaintiff nor the alleged creditor are in fact the real servicer and real creditor.

Matt Weidner has published his summary of essential issues raised in a hearing in which he was the attorney of record for the homeowner. He shows that knowledge of securitization, good preparation and articulate objections that are logically consistent with the proffer of evidence results in a good record and a good result. This transcript — shown on the link below — should be studied, not merely read. Then read it again. Weidner skills are formidable but they can be learned.

Editor’s Note: The background issue here is the conflict between the law permitting the servicer to commence the action and reality. The Servicer might be able to start a foreclosure but they cannot finish it. They can claim they have authority or power of attorney but the fact is they are not a creditor. And only a creditor can submit a credit bid.

So why is this case being brought this way? Is the creditor aware that their right to the title of the house and their right to sue for collection is being stripped from them. Does the creditor have notice? How do we know? Even if the pleading is not required, the proof demands the evidence that the Trustee of the REMIC testify that they have notice, they own the mortgage, they have not resold it, they have received no augments, directly or indirectly to reduce the balance of the account receivable, and that the investor approves of the Servicer/bookkeeper taking title with a credit bid and getting a judgment in its own name despite the obvious fact that the creditor is entitled to judgment. What authority does the Trustee have to let anyone take away property and assets? What reasonable purpose would be served? Doesn’t this show or at least suggest that the Trust does not own the loan? Maybe it never did, but the investors in the “Trust” know it was their money that funded mortgages — they just don’t actually know which loans they funded.

And as this case suggests, the intervention of the investment banks caused a fatal defect in the chain of title. If they wanted to stay out of trouble all they had to do was name the Trust on the note and mortgage or the assignment and record it as such. But they didn’t because they were playing with OPM (Other people’s money) and they still are playing the same game.

Residential funding gets into trouble. This is a very worthwhile read.

Foreclosure Defense Trial SECRETS EXPOSED! A WEIDNER Transcript of a Foreclosure Trial That Shows How A Homeowner Wins Foreclosure!
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/foreclosure-defense-trial-secrets-exposed-a-transcript-of-a-foreclosure-trial-that-shows-how-a-homeowner-wins-foreclosure/

“Materially Less”: The Foreclosure Deficiency Standard in Tennessee
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/materially-less-the-foreclosure-defic-21465/

How the Bank Lobby Loosened U.S. Reins on Derivatives
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-04/how-the-bank-lobby-loosened-u-s-reins-on-derivatives.html

Lending Giant Offers Short Sale Webinar
http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2013/09/03/lending-giant-offers-short-sale-webinar

Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 31 Comments »

OCC Issuing Alert to Consumers About Independent Foreclosure Reviews

Posted on January 6, 2012 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

SEE FULL ARTICLE ON MORTGAGENEWSDAILY.COM

The OCC is rolling out its first public service announcements to alert consumers about the Independent Foreclosure Review announced by it, the Fed, and the OTS in early November.  The campaign follows the distribution of over 4 million letters to potentially eligible borrowers which include forms for submitting requests and instructions on how to use them.

The public service materials include a feature story and two 30-second radio spots in English and Spanish.  These will be distributed to 7,000 small newspapers and 6,500 radio stations throughout the U.S. The announcements inform consumers of the specifics of the program which lets borrowers who faced foreclosure during 2009 or 2010 request reviews of their cases if they believe errors in the procedures used by servicers pursuing foreclosure actions caused them to suffer financial loss. 

The parameters for determining eligibility are explained and borrowers are directed to a starting point for their requests.  Over 20 of the largest servicing companies are mandated to offer and process the reviews:  America’s Servicing Company, Aurora Loan Services, Bank of America, Beneficial, Chase, Citibank, CitiFinancial, Citi Mortgage, Country-Wide, EMC, EverBank/Everhome, Freedom Financial, GMAC Mortgage, HFC, HSBC, IndyMac Mortgage Ser vices, MetLife Bank, National City, PNC, Sovereign Bank, Sun-Trust Mortgage, U.S. Bank, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, and Wells Fargo.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 33 Comments »

Lehman retrieves $60bn for creditors

Posted on September 24, 2010 by Neil Garfield

SERVICES YOU NEED

EDITOR’S NOTE: We are seeing more and more of these “recoveries.” The question we pose and that should be posed IN COURT is to whom this money is paid and more importantly, how is it going to be credited? Why is that important?

ANSWER: If that recovery means that the investors or investor pools recovered money then the obligations to those investors have been mitigated or reduced. Those obligations derived from liabilities that were represented to be principally from borrowers who had taken loans on their homes. If the obligations are reduced, then there should be a credit. That credit should be reported to the borrower but it isn’t. We continue this charade everyday with past, present and future foreclosures claiming amounts due that are overstated. In fact, many if not most of these foreclosures are relying upon the existence of a default that either never happened or was cured by these “recoveries.”

The simple fact is that a default does NOT occur because the named borrower fails to make a payment. The default actually occurs ONLY if the creditor fails to receive payment from ANY source. Think about it.

In commercial transactions, if the creditor has successfully mitigated the obligation without payment from the borrower, the obligation is still obviously reduced since the creditor is not entitled to recover more than the amount that is due. So why are we allowing the creditors and pretender lenders to recover multiples of the amount due in residential home foreclosures?

Note that this effects all Lehman entities which include notably Aurora Loan Servicing, BNC and dozens of other entities.

Lehman retrieves $60bn for creditors

By Telis Demos in New York

Published: September 22 2010 20:58 | Last updated: September 22 2010 20:58

The bankrupt estate of Lehman Brothers has recovered nearly $60bn in value for creditors since September 2008, but a decision on how to distribute the funds will not be finalised until next year at the earliest.

Bryan Marsal, a partner with restructuring firm Alvarez & Marsal and serving as Lehman’s chief executive, presented the bank’s “state of the estate” report in a Manhattan bankruptcy court on Wednesday.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , | 6 Comments »

Signors in Fabricated Documentation reported

Posted on March 23, 2010 by Neil Garfield

This is an example of the information I am requesting that everyone send in so we can pool information. I am entering the names and parties in key words so you can search for them. My goal with HERS is to have an ever increasing database that will speed the research for forensic analysts and lawyers.

The following six orders by Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, of King, should be of interest:

American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 07206/2007 (11 Sep 2007)
In American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, on September 11, 2007, Judge SCHACK denied an application for a judgemnt of foreclosure and sale of a Kings County property without prejudice due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing.  The plaintiff American Brokers Conduit instituted suit on February 28, 2007, but did not receive an interest in the mortgage which is subject of the suit until a March 5, 2007 assignment (CFRN 2007000169450).  This case is a little bizarre in that American Brokers Conduit seems to have assigned the mortgage to ITSELF at a different address in Melville, New York.  The case does have a good discussion of the case authority requiring a plaintiff to have standing.
American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 07206/2007 (28 Jan 2008)
In American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, on January 28, 2008, Judge SCHACK denied an application for an order of reference due to the plaintiff’s failure to include an affidavit of merit by the party.  Rahter than having an officer of American Brokers Conduit execute the affidavit of merit, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of merit excuted by a Robert HARDMAN, who identified himself as Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS).
Aurora Loan Services, LLC v SATTAR, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 15208/2007 (09 Oct 2007)
In Aurora Loan Services, LLC v SATTAR, Judge SHACK denied an application for an order for service by publication and dismissed the complaint by Aurora Loan Services, LLC, due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing.  The plaintiff pled a promissory note and mortgage iin which the promissory note was in favor of First Magnus Financial Corporation and the mortgage was recorded in favor of MERS.  Judge SCHACK notes that there is no evidence whatsoever within the record that the mortgage was assigned in favor of the plaintiff and notes that no such mortgage assignemnt was either pled or recorded.  Judge SCHACK goes on to note that First Magnus Financial Corporation had gone out of business in AUgust 2007 and filed for bankruptcy on August 21, 2007.  The opinion then contains a thorough discussion of the case authority requiring a plaintiff to have demonstrable standing in order to be eligible to maintian a suit.  In addition to dismissing the suit, Judge SCHACK also cancelled the notice of pendency.  Judge SCHACK also found the original complaint and suit to be frivolous, but declined to impose sanctions upon the law firm filing the suit because it was the first instance that the Court had noted such conduct.
Bank of NY NA v OROSCO, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 32052/2007 (19 Nov 2007)
In Bank of NY NA v OROSCO, Judge SCHACK denied an application for an order of reference due to the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate ownership of the mortgage for the subject property.  The plaintiff pled an assignment from MERS to Bank of New York dated August 21, 2007, but Judge SCHACK noted that this assignment had never been recorded.  But Judge SCHACK went on to note that Bank of New York also pled an affidavit executed by a person who is identified as Keri SELMAN.  Judge SCHACK notes that while in her affidavit in the OROSCO case she identified herself as an Assistant Vice President for Bank of New York, in another case before Judge SCHACK Keri SELMAN had signed an affidavit identifying herself as a Vice President of “Countrywide Home Loans, Attorney in Fact for Bank of New York”.  Judge SCHACK ordered that Ms. Keri SCHACK furnish an affidavit describing her employment history for the previous three years. [In point of fact, this would seem to be Keri or Kerri L. SELMAN (b 26 Aug 1969 – Los Angeles, CA), formerly Keri Lynn ATWOOD, of McKinney, Texas.  She seems likely to be an employee of Countrywide, which has a large servicing facility near where Ms. SELMAN lives.]
Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 22375/2006 (11 May 2007)
In Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, on May 11, 2007, Judge SCHACK denied an application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing.  Judge SCHACK noted that the foreclosure was commenced in July 2006 by Deutsche Bank.  After obtaining an order of reference (November 16, 2006) and after preparing an affirmation of regularity (January 10, 2007) and during the pendency of the action, Deutsche Bank seems to have assigned the mortgage to MTGLQ Investors, L.P. on January 19, 2007 (recorded February 7, 2007). Judge SCHACK therefore denied the plaintiff’s application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale without prejudice expressly inviting the Plaintiff to amend its pleadings to appropriately to correct the identity of the plaintiff. Judge SCHACK cites Gretchen Morgenson’s April 6, 2007, New York Times article “Fair Game; Home Loans: A Nightmare Grows Darker” in his opinion.
Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 22375/2006 (14 Jan 2008)
In Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, on May 11, 2007, Judge SCHACK denied a renewed application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing (see case above).  He noted that the defects identified within his May 11, 2007, order remained unaddressed.  In addition, he noted the presence of a affidavit of merit executed by a Mr. Jeff RIVAS, who was identified as Deutsche Bank’s “Vice President Default Timeline Management”.  He then notes the presence of mortgage assignment within the files executed the same date which identifies Mr. Jeff RIVAS as the “Vice President Default Timeline Management” for Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, the assignor of a the mortgage to Deutsche Bank.  Judge SCHACK points out that if Mr. RIVAS was acting as an officer of both the grantor and the grantee of the assignment that this would create a conflict rendering the conveyance VOID.  Judge SCHACK then directs that Mr. RIVAS’ employment history be clarified in any future application for a foreclosure order.  Judge SCHACK then goes on to note that Deutsche Bank and MTGLQ Investors, L.P. are also shown to share the same address at 1661 Worthington lioad, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, where suspicious transactions executed by one Scott ANDERSON seem to be occuring.  Judge SCHACK then also demands an explanation as to WHY so many corporations seem to be sharing the SAME suite in West Palm Beach.

Judge Arthur M. SCHACK is a Justice of the Supreme Court of New York for King County. [See http://www.nycourtsystem.com/Applications/JudicialDirectory/Bio.php?ID=7029077 ]

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 60 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: