California Form Hiding in Plain Sight

Posted on December 10, 2018 by Neil Garfield

In cases where the CA foreclosure is being filed on behalf of the named Trustee (e.g., US Bank, Deutsch Bank etc.) for the certificates or the certificates holders — or where the it is ambiguous as to what or who the named trustee is asserted to be representing, there is a form demanding disclosure of the certificate holders and a requirement that they file an affidavit stating that they are beneficiaries of the deed of trust and agreeing to which other beneficiaries, owning more than 50% of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust may represent all of them.

Where the assertion is clearly that US Bank (or whoever) is trustee for a specifically named Trust, this would not seem to apply — unless you show that they can’t prove the trust exists and owns the subject loan.

In the absence of an agreement then it would appear that all holders of the certificates must be disclosed. If someone claims to represent the holders of certificates that party would need to show the source of its authority to directly represent the certificate holders. Remember that certificate holders are not, contrary to popular error, beneficiaries.

This might be an effective tool to force the pretenders to assert that the vehicle is the trust which is a beneficiary qualifying under the laws of California or any other states that has passed a similar statute.

Remember there is a huge difference between the beneficiary(ies) under the deed of trust and the beneficiaries (nonexistent) of a REMIC Trust (nonexistent).

============================

Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
A few hundred dollars well spent is worth a lifetime of financial ruin.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION. OUR PRIVACY POLICY IS THAT WE DON’T USE THE FORM EXCEPT TO SPEAK WITH YOU OR PERFORM WORK FOR YOU. THE INFORMATION ON THE FORMS ARE NOT SOLD NOR LICENSED IN ANY MANNER, SHAPE OR FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
===========================

information on Majority Action Affidavit -3

Majority Action affidavit form – Exhibit B (1) (1)

california/2013/code-civ/division-3/part-4/title-14/chapter-2/article-1/section-2941.9

2013 California Code
Civil Code – CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS
PART 4. OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM PARTICULAR TRANSACTIONS
TITLE 14. LIEN
CHAPTER 2. Mortgage
ARTICLE 1. Mortgages in General
2941.9
Universal Citation: CA Civ Code § 2941.9 (2013)

(a) The purpose of this section is to establish a process through which all of the beneficiaries under a trust deed may agree to be governed by beneficiaries holding more than 50 percent of the record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the same real property or of undivided interests in a note secured by real property equivalent to a series transaction, exclusive of any notes or interests of a licensed real estate broker that is the issuer or servicer of the notes or interests or any affiliate of that licensed real estate broker.

(b) All holders of notes secured by the same real property or a series of undivided interests in notes secured by real property equivalent to a series transaction may agree in writing to be governed by the desires of the holders of more than 50 percent of the record beneficial interest of those notes or interests, exclusive of any notes or interests of a licensed real estate broker that is the issuer or servicer of the notes or interests of any affiliate of the licensed real estate broker, with respect to actions to be taken on behalf of all holders in the event of default or foreclosure for matters that require direction or approval of the holders, including designation of the broker, servicing agent, or other person acting on their behalf, and the sale, encumbrance, or lease of real property owned by the holders resulting from foreclosure or receipt of a deed in lieu of foreclosure.

(c) A description of the agreement authorized in subdivision (b) of this section shall be disclosed pursuant to Section 10232.5 of the Business and Professions Code and shall be included in a recorded document such as the deed of trust or the assignment of interests.

(d) Any action taken pursuant to the authority granted in this section is not effective unless all the parties agreeing to the action sign, under penalty of perjury, a separate written document entitled Majority Action Affidavit stating the following:

(1) The action has been authorized pursuant to this section.

(2) None of the undersigned is a licensed real estate broker or an affiliate of the broker that is the issuer or servicer of the obligation secured by the deed of trust.

(3) The undersigned together hold more than 50 percent of the record beneficial interest of a series of notes secured by the same real property or of undivided interests in a note secured by real property equivalent to a series transaction.

(4) Notice of the action was sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, with return receipt requested, to each holder of an interest in the obligation secured by the deed of trust who has not joined in the execution of the substitution or this document.

This document shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder of each county in which the real property described in the deed of trust is located. Once the document in this subdivision is recorded, it shall constitute conclusive evidence of compliance with the requirements of this subdivision in favor of trustees acting pursuant to this section, substituted trustees acting pursuant to Section 2934a, subsequent assignees of the obligation secured by the deed of trust, and subsequent bona fide purchasers or encumbrancers for value of the real property described therein.

(e) For purposes of this section, affiliate of the licensed real estate broker includes any person as defined in Section 25013 of the Corporations Code who is controlled by, or is under common control with, or who controls, a licensed real estate broker. Control means the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of management and policies.

(Added by Stats. 1996, Ch. 839, Sec. 3. Effective January 1, 1997.)

 

Filed under: foreclosure, forms, Investor, legal standing, Mortgage, TRUST BENEFICIARIES | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

The West Coast Radio Show with Charles Marshall: California’s revised Homeowner Bill of Rights still offers Homeowner Protections

Posted on December 21, 2017 by Neil Garfield

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the:

The West Coast Foreclosure Show with Charles Marshall

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Attorney Charles Marshall will discuss California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights today on the West Coast Foreclosure Show.

Loan servicers and banks have tried to convince Californians that California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights has been repealed effective on Jan. 1, 2018.   However, this is not completely true.  Only parts of the HOBR will be repealed and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Loss Mitigation Rules still apply.

Sections of the HOBR are being replaced by new rules that go into effect on January 1st, 2018.  Some of the new rules can actually cause compliance issues for loan servicers.

The new rules referred to as “HOBR II” remove no longer distinguishes between servicers conducting more or less than 175 annual servicers.   Civil Code Section 2923.55 will no longer be applicable in 2018, and is replaced with Section 2923.5 that defines all pre-Notice of Default (pre-NOD) contact requirements for Servicers of all sizes.

Although these two statutes are similar, the differences are for the written notice regarding service-members and the statement that borrowers can request a copy of the note, deed of trust, assignment, or payment history starting in 2018 will no longer be required.

The provisions in Section 2923.6 that prohibited dual tracking is replaced by Section 2924.11, which prohibits recording a notice of sale or conducting a foreclosure sale upon receipt of a “complete application for a foreclosure prevention alternative.” In the past, loan servicers were required to stay foreclosure proceedings upon receipt of a completed loan modification application.  Beginning in 2018, the dual tracking prohibition is expanded and now applies to all applications for all foreclosure prevention options.

Section 2924.11 currently does not require an appeal period following a written denial. Instead, the denial of a first lien loan modification application will state “with specificity” the reasons for the denial of the modification and will include a statement that the borrower may obtain additional information regarding the denial decision upon written request to the mortgage servicer. Interestingly, Section 2924.11 does not prohibit recording a Notice of Default when there is a pending complete foreclosure prevention alternative but the CFPB rules do.

Old Section 2923.6(g) allowed servicers to refuse to review multiple loan modification applications that did not involve a “material change in financial circumstances.” That provision was very vague, but was useful to loan servicers who could reject an application by denying that there was a material change in the homeowner’s financial circumstances.   Fortunately, that provision is gone at the end of the year and there is no replacement.

Servicers must now review multiple applications from the homeowner, regardless of whether there is a “material change in financial circumstances”.   However, this provision allows a servicer who finds itself in trouble with an issue of multiple applications an alternative.

Section 2923.7 remains the same as before, and requires that the servicer provide a single point of contact,  to communicate with the homeowner about the loss mitigation options and the application process, obtain documents, notify the borrower of any missing documents, and to provide access to information that accurately informs the homeowner of the current modification status.  This section applies to servicers who conduct more than 175 foreclosures annually.

Section 2924.10 expires, meaning servicers are no longer required to provide a written acknowledgment within five business days of receiving loan modification documents.  However, the CFPB rules still require an acknowledgement letter within five business days.

Under Section 2924(a)(5) Servicers and foreclosure trustees will no longer have to provide notice to the homeowner when a sale is postponed more than 10 business days.

Section 2924.12 allows a private right of action for homeowners to enforce HOBR, but it will now only apply to material violations of “sections 2923.5, 2923.7, 2924.11, 2924.17.”  The homeowner is only allowed injunctive relief prior to the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale recording.

After the servicer records the Trustee’s deed, it is potentially liable for actual economic damages resulting from a material violation of the covered sections and, if those material violations are considered “intentional or reckless, or resulted from willful misconduct by a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent,” the greater of treble actual damages or $50,000. This section allows for attorney’s fees for the homeowner if they prevail.

Section 2924.17 remains in effect, and states that all servicers, regardless of size, prior to recording or filing a declaration pursuant to section 2923.5, including a notice of default, notice of sale, assignment of deed of trust, substitution of trustee, or a declaration or affidavit in court relative to a foreclosure proceeding, must declare that it has reviewed reliable and credible evidence that substantiates the homeowner’s default and the right to foreclose.  This provision includes the borrower’s loan status and loan information, but some government enforcement provisions also expire at the end of 2017.

Servicers will be challenged to handle completed modification packages that are received shortly before a foreclosure sale, but must comply with the new HOBR sections that require that all foreclosure actions must stop when a complete foreclosure application is received.  However, the new HOBR sections do not directly address what happens when a servicer receives a complete loan modification application minutes or hours before a foreclosure sale occurs.

Because the new HOBR extends the dual-tracking restriction on all preventative foreclosure alternatives, not only to loan modifications, the homeowner is afforded options they didn’t have previously.  Homeowners should keep detailed notes regarding the actions of their loan servicers, and document every transaction and conversation when applying for a loan modification.

To Contact Charles Marshall:

Charles Marshall, Esq.
Law Office of Charles T. Marshall

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

MNUCHIN EXPENDABLE: REVELATIONS ABOUT ILLEGAL ONEWEST ACTIVITIES PREVIEW WITHDRAWAL OF NOMINATION AS TREASURY SECRETARY

Posted on January 4, 2017 by Neil Garfield

Mnuchin is a highly paid gopher. He has made his money not by his business acumen but by his willingness to do anything for money. That included putting himself on the front line of one piece of the greatest economic crime in human history.

Nominating him for Treasury Secretary is a direct slap in the face of tens of millions of Americans who suffered grievous losses as a proximate result of illegal activities by the Wall Street banks. He will only do what his bank clients tell him to do. He will only say what they want him to say.

Listen to the Last Neil Garfield Show at http://tobtr.com/s/9673161

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
 
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

From http://yubanet.com/california/memo-shows-evidence-of-illegal-foreclosure-practices-at-onewest-bank-while-steven-mnuchin-was-ceo/

Memo Shows Evidence of Illegal Foreclosure Practices at OneWest Bank While Steven Mnuchin was CEO

CA Attorney General Staff Cited Evidence Suggesting “Widespread Misconduct”; Groups Call for Senate Investigation Prior to Confirmation Hearings

By California Reinvestment Coalition –

January 3, 2017, 01:30:33 PM

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3, 2016 – A 2013 memo written by attorneys in the Consumer Law Section from the California Attorney General’s office is raising new concerns about the track record of OneWest Bank, and the ethics of its former CEO, Steve Mnuchin, who has been nominated to be Treasury Secretary by President Elect Donald Trump. David Dayen first reported on the memo earlier today in an article in the Intercept.

The memo is based on a preliminary investigation by staff at the Attorney General’s office and was triggered by an earlier settlement by the bank with its banking regulator, “together with consumer complaints and the large volume of foreclosures conducted by OneWest.”

The memo focused on a number of fraudulent practices that OneWest was alleged to have engaged in, including:

1) Backdated foreclosure notices of default and other documents and had them notarized in order to “paper over misrepresentations, including cases the attorneys identified where bank staff had backdated documents to dates prior to OneWest’s existence.  In the case of the notices of default, the Attorney General staff asserts that if OneWest had corrected these errors, this would have delayed the foreclosure process.  In addition, OneWest filed these foreclosure notices with county recorders throughout the State which could subject OneWest to a felony charge under state law.

2) OneWest made and directed unlawful credit bids at foreclosure sales.  According to the Attorney General staff, unlawful credit bids may “freeze out other potential bidders (which could include a borrower or his family).”

3) Due to the unlawful credit bidding OneWest claimed an exemption from the applicable city and county transfer taxes and no tax was paid. [EDITOR’S NOTE: QUI TAM ANYONE?]

4)  Performed other acts in the foreclosure process without valid legal authority; and

5)   OneWest Trustees, acting on behalf of OneWest, failed to provide due process to families by speeding up the foreclosure process and timeline.

Impact on Homeowners: The memos of the author explain what the bank’s alleged practices meant for homeowners facing foreclosure:

“As reflected in the examples cited above and appended hereto, in many instances, OneWest’s false filings and unauthorized conduct in the course of the foreclosure process harmed homeowners by denying them timely and important information about their foreclosures and potentially shortening the amount of time they had available to find a way to become current on their mortgage obligations.”

Consumer advocates expressed outrage and urged a full investigation prior to any votes on Mr. Mnuchin’s nomination later this month.

“Where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire, and the American people deserve a full explanation of these serious charges of fraud. Mr. Mnuchin and OneWest Bank need to turn over all of the evidence they previously obstructed so that their banking regulators can conduct a thorough investigation into these serious charges prior to any hearings about Mr. Mnuchin serving as our next Treasury Secretary.  If Mr. Mnuchin’s bank wasn’t engaged in illegal behavior, why did they try and obstruct the Attorney General’s staff?” asks Paulina Gonzalez, executive director of the California Reinvestment Coalition.

The authors of the memo recommended that the Attorney General authorize a civil enforcement action against the bank, which did not happen. In citing challenges with filing the case, the authors of the memo cite concerns about federal bank regulators pre-empting their authority. OneWest and Wells Fargo have both raised pre-emption as defenses in legal cases related to the banks not complying with California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights law. The attorney general had previously filed amicus briefs arguing against OneWest’s position that it was not subject to the Homeowner Bill of Rights.

Additional Context: Senators are still missing key information about Mr. Mnuchin, OneWest Bank, and Financial Freedom:

As part of its earlier merger with CIT Group, consumer advocates had asked for more information about OneWest’s track record which the bank refused to provide, including information about:

1)      Total number of national foreclosures conducted by OneWest Bank and Financial Freedom (reverse mortgages) after Mr. Mnuchin and his group of investors bought the failed IndyMac, First Federal, and La Jolla Banks.

2)      HUD OIG Investigation: CIT Group, which acquired OneWest Bank in 2015, disclosed to investors that it had received subpoenas from the Office of the Inspector General at HUD related to Financial Freedom’s servicing of reverse mortgage loans. The investigation appears to be ongoing, and likely covers a timespan when Mr. Mnuchin was at the helm of OneWest.

3)      Modification and foreclosure data: While a spokesperson for Mr. Mnuchin suggested to the Washington Post that OneWest had made “over 101,000 modification offers,” advocates question how many of those modifications provided substantial enough payment relief that a homeowner could retain the home, and how many modified loans subsequently went into default, especially if the original modification didn’t provide a sustainable solution for the homeowner. Because 2/3 of OneWest foreclosures in California occurred in majority minority communities, advocates also suggest the bank should provide data about the extent to which homeowners of color received sustainable modifications, data which the bank likely already provided to the Treasury Dept.

4)      Settlements and Court Cases: During the past six years, OneWest Bank and its subsidiary, Financial Freedom, have lost multiple lawsuits and/or agreed to settlements with homeowners for illegal lending, servicing, and foreclosure practices.  However, the bank has never provided a comprehensive picture of these lawsuits and settlements which could help senators better understand Mr. Mnuchin’s leadership at the bank.

Example OneWest Settlement: OneWest Bank agreed to pay Greg and Irene Rigali, from San Luis Obispo, California a seven figure settlement after the bank foreclosed on the homeowners at the same time the homeowners were attempting to obtain a modification, a practice known as “dual tracking.” For more, see: CalCoastNews: “OneWest Bank pays 7 figures in mortgage fraud case.”

The California Reinvestment Coalition (CRC) has been advocating for fair and equal access to credit for all California communities since 1986. Over its 30 years, CRC has grown into the largest state community reinvestment coalition in the country with a membership of 300 nonprofit organizations working for the economic vitality of low-income communities and communities of color. Among our members are a diverse set of organizations including nonprofit housing counselors, consumer advocates, community organizers, legal service providers, affordable housing developers, small business technical assistance providers, and more. www.calreinvest.org

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Does Yvanova Provide a Back Door to Closed Cases?

Posted on March 18, 2016 by Neil Garfield

That is the question I am hearing from multiple people. My provisional answer is that in my opinion there is a strong argument for using it if the property has not been liquidated after the foreclosure auction. There might be a grey area while the property is REO and there might be a grey area where the property has been sold but the issue of a void assignment is raised in an eviction procedure. It will strain the minds of judges even more, but these issues are certain to come up. As things continue to progress Judges will shift from looking askance at borrowers and thinking their defenses are all hairsplitting ways to get out of a debt and get a free house. Upon reflection, over the next couple of years, you will see an increasing number of judges taking the same cynical view and turning it toward the banks and servicers who in most cases function neither as banks or servicers.

The Yvanova court took great pains to say that this was a very narrow ruling. Starting with that one might argue it only applied to that specific case. But they went further than that and we all know it. SO it stands for the proposition that a void assignment can be the basis of a wrongful foreclosure. AND most BANK LAWYERS agree that is a huge problem for them, at least in California but they think it will adopted across the country and I agree with the Bank lawyers on that assessment.

The reason is simple logic. If the foreclosure is wrongful then it seems stupidly simple to say that it was wrong in the first place. If it was “wrong” the questions that emerge in legal scholarship arise from two main paths.

What does “wrong” mean. Or to put it in Yvanova language is wrong the same as void or is it voidable. This would have a huge impact on issues of jurisdiction, res judicata, collateral estoppel etc. Does it mean that it was wrong and you can get damages or does it mean that it was wrong and therefore the homeowner still owns the house. I lean towards the former not by preference but by what I think the court was saying between the lines. The whole point of nonjudicial foreclosure (amongst two other points that are obvious) is to provide stability and confidence in the title system. So if a wrong foreclosure occurs the title would most likely remain in whoever bought it at auction — although the purgatory in which many properties remain (REO) might create a grey area in which there is no prejudice in vacating the sale. Indeed if the party holding the “FINAL” title did so by fraud (using a void assignment) then equity would seem to demand return of title to the homeowner. AND THEN you still have the problem of evictions or writs of possession or whatever they are called in your state. Title is one thing but possession is another. If you raise the void assignment can you defeat possession even if you can’t defeat the title transfer? It would SEEM not but equity would demand that a thief not further the rewards of his ill-gotten gains.

Next path. Procedure, evidence and objections. Going back in time the homeowner might have objected or even alleged things that the Yvanova court now finds to have merit. So a lay person might think that is all they need is to show the void assignment and presto they have title or money or both in their hands. Not so fast. Due process is intended to allow a person to be heard and the justice system is designed and created to FINALIZE disputes, whether the decision is right or wrong. SO questions abound about what happened at the trial court level. But there was a remedy for that. It is called an appeal. And there are choices to even go to Federal Court if the state court is rubber stamping void instruments. But the time for doing that has expired on all but a few cases and the judicial doctrine of finality is the most difficult to overcome. Even a condemned man usually will be put to death even if there is actual evidence of innocence after a period of time has expired and a number of appeals have been exhausted.

SO that is my long winded way of saying I don’t know. If Yvanova opens the door to many new openings of closed cases, it certainly doesn’t say so. But a defense of a current case — even one amended to cite Yvanova, might fare much better.

The real answer: pick a path and try it.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments »

California Supreme Court Rules in Yvanova, “The borrower owes money NOT TO THE WORLD at large but to a particular person or institution.”

Posted on February 25, 2016 by Neil Garfield

Yvanova v New Century Mortgage 02182016 Supreme Court of California opinion

By William Hudson

Last week the California Supreme Court ruled in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corporation (Case No. S218973, Cal. Sup. Ct. February 18, 2016) that homeowners have standing to challenge a note assignment in an action for wrongful foreclosure on the grounds that the assignment is void. Obviously if the court had ruled differently, the banks would have had absolute carte blanche to forge mortgage assignments with wild abandon. In fact, without a system of endorsements and assignments it would be almost impossible to determine what party has a legitimate interest in a property and chaos would have ensued (sound familiar?).

 
The Yvanova ruling puts to rest the prior assumption by most California courts that a homeowner lacks standing to challenge a void assignment. This decision has the potential to open the litigation floodgates by borrowers who were improperly foreclosed on due to fraudulent or improper assignments. In fact, you can bet that homeowners who lost their homes due to the court’s resistance to follow established law will be filing suit.

 
In Yvanova, she complained that the bank had resorted to the use of fraudulent documents in order to foreclose. First she identified that a bankrupt entity called New Century assigned a deed of trust years after the company ceased to exist. The mortgage assignments demonstrated that even though New Century was dissolved in 2008, New Century allegedly assigned Yvanova’s deed of trust to Deutsche bank in 2011. It was also discovered that Yvanova’s note could not have been delivered to the Morgan Stanley trust pool because the trust had a cutoff date of January 2007. Deutsche Bank, the servicer, claims to have transferred the deed of trust to that pool in December 2011. Thus, 3 years and 11 months after the trust had closed.

 
By law, and to ensure tax-free pass-through status by the REMIC (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit) notes placed in trusts must be placed into the pool by a certain date. The Morgan Stanley trust had a cutoff date of January 2007 but Deutsche Bank claims the note they received by a zombie assignment was placed in the pool in 2011. Thus, a nonexistent company called New Century transferred a note to a closed trust.

 
Up until Yvanova was settled, the California courts rejected hundreds of similar claims over the years stating that borrowers were not a party to or holder of the debt (see Jenkins f. JP Morgan Chase). The California courts essentially ruled that homeowners may now challenge wrongful foreclosures on the grounds that the assignment of the note was invalid or the chain of assignment was faulty. In securitized trusts, it is fairly common for the endorsements and assignments to be either inaccurate or downright fraudulent (photoshopped, robosigned, etc.). The big securitizing banks like Ocwen, Deutsche, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo better prepare for a tsunami of wrongful foreclosure suits in California.

 
The California Supreme Court, by ruling in favor of Yvanova, effectively confirmed the 2013 California Appellate ruling Glaski v. Bank of America, which held that a homeowner facing a non-judicial foreclosure has standing to challenge violations of the pooling and servicing agreement. One of the most insightful quotes in Yvanova states, “The borrower owes money not to the world at large but to a particular person or institution, and only the person or institution entitled to payment may enforce the debt by foreclosing on the security.”

 

The California Supreme Court got it right when they elaborated that, “A homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so has suffered an injurious invasion of his or her legal rights at the foreclosing entity’s hands. No more is required for standing to sue.” Could it be that the California courts are tired of the 9 years of fraudulent banking games that have clogged the court system with no end in sight?

 
It wasn’t the homeowner who got sloppy, greedy and decided to start forging and photoshopping legal documents. It was the banks that engineered this complete fiasco from the top to bottom. Maybe now the banks will clean up their act, or they will be forced to find a more efficient and convincing way to forge and falsify endorsements and assignments. To date, the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing- and the banks only hope that the homeowner doesn’t discover their deception.

 
I will reiterate again, if a bank claims to own a debt then why not simply show the documentation and prove it? This entire mess could be cleaned up very quickly if the banks would simply show the court evidence of ownership- but the courts know the banks don’t have it. By now we know that this entire debacle was engineered under the premise of plausible deniability and the screws are coming loose.
It is evident that the courts have had enough. The Supreme Court in Yvanova stated that:

 

“… California borrowers whose loans are secured by a deed of trust with a power of sale may suffer foreclosure without judicial process and thus ―would be deprived of a means to assert [their] legal protections if not permitted to challenge the foreclosing entity‘s authority through an action for wrongful foreclosure. (Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 290.)

A borrower therefore ―has standing to challenge the assignment of a mortgage on her home to the extent that such a challenge is necessary to contest a foreclosing entity‘s status qua mortgagee‖ (id. at p. 291)— that is, as the current holder of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust.”
The decision goes on to state that:

 

“In seeking a finding that an assignment agreement was void, therefore, a plaintiff in Yvanova‘s position is not asserting the interests of parties to the assignment; she is asserting her own interest in limiting foreclosure on her property to those with legal authority to order a foreclosure sale. This, then, is not a situation in which standing to sue is lacking because its ―sole object . . . is to settle rights of third persons who are not parties. (Golden Gate Bridge etc. Dist. v. Felt (1931) 214 Cal. 308, 316.)”

Apparently the California Supreme Court just grew a pair and the remaining 49 states might want to listen up. With all of the fraud settlements that have occurred over the past seven years, it is evident that what is occurring isn’t simply sloppy paperwork or unintentional oversight but blatant fraud, theft and criminal conspiracy if you want to be honest. It is a sad day in America when a homeowner must go all the way to the Supreme Court in order to obtain a fair and just ruling. If the courts had ruled in favor of the banks (and I am sure the judges in Yvanova knew what was on the line), there is no doubt in my mind that banks would have had a foreclosure feeding frenzy.

The court states the obvious, that there is an investor or entity who may suffer an unauthorized loss of its interest in the note if the foreclosure proceeds, “when an invalid transfer of a note and deed of trust leads to foreclosure by an unauthorized party, the ―victim‖ is not the borrower, whose obligations under the note are unaffected by the transfer, but ―an individual or entity that believes it has a present beneficial interest in the promissory note and may suffer the unauthorized loss of its interest in the note.”

And finally, the court gets to the meat of the matter- the issue of standing. “As it relates to standing, we disagree with defendants’ analysis of prejudice from an illegal foreclosure. A foreclosed-upon borrower clearly meets the general standard for standing to sue by showing an invasion of his or her legally protected interests (Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160, 175)—the borrower has lost ownership to the home in an allegedly illegal trustee‘s sale. (See Culhane, supra, 708 F.3d at p. 289 [foreclosed-upon borrower has sufficient personal stake in action against foreclosing entity to meet federal standing requirement].)  Moreover, the bank or other entity that ordered the foreclosure would not have done so absent the allegedly void assignment. Thus- [t]he identified harm—the foreclosure—can be traced directly to [the foreclosing entity‘s] exercise of the authority purportedly delegated by the assignment.”

In conclusion, the court clarifies who is allowed to enforce the note without showing overt favoritism to the bank. Please note the eloquence of the last line in this paragraph in the Yvanova decision:

“Nor is it correct that the borrower has no cognizable interest in the identity of the party enforcing his or her debt. Though the borrower is not entitled to object to an assignment of the promissory note, he or she is obligated to pay the debt, or suffer loss of the security, only to a person or entity that has actually been assigned the debt. (See Cockerell v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., supra, 42 Cal.2d at p. 292 [party claiming under an assignment must prove fact of assignment].) The borrower owes money not to the world at large but to a particular person or institution, and only the person or institution entitled to payment may enforce the debt by foreclosing on the security.”

Again, “The borrower owes money NOT TO THE WORLD at large but to a particular person or institution, and ONLY the person or institution entitled to payment may enforce the debt by foreclosing on the security.” The court isn’t magically creating case law- this is exactly what the promissory note entitles the bearer to do- collect on a debt. The note does not say, “If you have a forged document you randomly printed a copy off the internet or photoshopped- you have standing.”

Only the individual or entity with actual STANDING can foreclose on a home. The fact that the homeowner defaulted on an alleged contract (that probably didn’t happen the way the contract reflects the transaction) doesn’t mean any party claiming to be a note holder can foreclose on the home. Like Jerry McGuire said, “SHOW ME THE MONEY.” Until the mortgagee shows up with actual evidence of ownership- no servicer, “lender” or unknown party should be able to randomly foreclose on a home simply by saying they own the note.

Again, this is the beauty of rescission. By precluding the servicer from walking into court with a forged note, mortgage and alleged contract- and forcing this party to demonstrate contractual standing- many fraudulent foreclosures would be prevented. It is tragic that so many people have lost their homes because the courts permitted a pretend lender with no standing to waltz in and take a home simply by showing fraudulent documents and making false claims.

Finally, the Yvanova ruling leaves us with the crowning glory of this decision, “A homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so has suffered an injurious invasion of his or her legal rights at the foreclosing entity‘s hands. No more is required for standing to sue.” Thank you California Supreme Court justices for ruling according to law instead of the banking lobby.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , | 15 Comments »

CA Appelate Decision: Damage Claims Against OneWest Goes to Jury, Summary Judgment reversed

Posted on May 26, 2015 by Neil Garfield

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

Sue Rose is my new administrative assistant. Danielle and Geordan do not work for livinglies or the Garfield firm. If you have placed an order which is unfulfilled please call the above numbers.

===================================

see CA Appeals OrderReversesMSJ

This case allows the jury to hear claims against OneWest for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, concealment, promissory estoppel, negligence, wrongful foreclosure, and violation of CA Business and Professional Code.

Here is an example of the obvious: a Judge takes no risk in denying a motion for summary judgment. It is only when the Judge grants summary judgment that there is a risk of reversal. With the current judicial climate changing in favor of borrowers, [including findings that the mortgage was absolutely void (invalid, non-perfected) where a sham nominee like MERS was used], Judges should take note that they are better off getting in front of the new trend and allow borrowers’ claims to be heard in a fair manner, observing the requirements of due process.

If the Banks collapse because they created 100 million invalid mortgages, that is not a problem for the Judge. And, as I have said many times here, there are 7,000 banks and credit unions that can take up whatever falls out of the mega banks as a result of investors and regulators realizing that the mortgages are void, the assets on bank balance sheets don’t exist or are far overvalued, and the liability section of the bank balance sheet is far understated as a result of damage claims like the one featured in this article.

As noted earlier on these pages, the threshold legal question has been reversed. The question now is what difference does it make if the borrower is in default if the foreclosing party had no right to foreclose?  The previous question that I heard hundreds of times from the Judges themselves was incorrect from the beginning. Their question was what difference does it make if the loan was securitized, as long as the borrower is in default? And that is where the dissenting justice in this case also got it wrong. He is still assuming that these loan transactions were in fact consummated as reflected in the alleged loan documents. The underlying assumption of the dissenting judge is obvious: that the loan contracts were fundamentally valid and whatever defects existed could be corrected before or even during foreclosure. NOT TRUE!

Here in this case is an example of how judges are now perceiving the entire loan transaction instead of just the claim of a default. And the result is that this California appellate court decided to let the case go to trial and allow a jury to hear the claims against OneWest, whose behavior was predatory from the start of when they acquired IndyMac business in 2008-2009.

The appellate court reversed the trial judge who had granted Summary Judgment for OneWest — a little plaything organized over a weekend by some of the richest people in the country. On a net basis they paid nothing and made a ton of money off of loss sharing and guarantee payments from the FDIC and and the GSE’s respectively. They also foreclosed on thousands of homes in cases where they had no interest in the loan and no right to foreclose, collect or do anything else with respect to the loan.

The hidden issue here is whether the Judge, having been reversed, will now allow the homeowner’s attorney to probe deep into the dealings of OneWest during discovery. I suspect that the trial judge will allow more liberal discovery after being reversed. And if that happens you might not never hear about this case again — as it joins the tens of thousands of cases that have been settled under seal of confidentiality. Essentially the strategy of the banks is that if they lose, they can always pay off the homeowner to keep the case from being publicized.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 49 Comments »

ARE BONDHOLDERS LOOKING TO FIRE OCWEN?

Posted on January 30, 2015 by Neil Garfield

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

============================

see Fund Manager’s Letter to Bondholders Detailing Sins of Ocwen

Chickens are coming home to roost. Just read the letter. Anyone who is litigating a case where Ocwen is involved in any way in the chain of title or ownership of the loan paperwork should read this in detail. This could be used as support for arguments that the books and records of the servicer or foreclosing party should not be given the luxury of certain legal presumptions. The presumption that there is in fact a servicing de fault called by the bondholders may enough to force the parties actually prove the nonexistent transactions about which their assignments and endorsements are written.

Why? That is the  question everyone should be asking. If Ocwen was not servicing for the benefit of the REMIC Trust (and the bondholders) then who are they really working for? Themselves? Or are they taking instructions from the underwriter who is also the Master Servicer that committed fraud in the first place on the investors and then on the borrowers, hiding behind the mask and layers of “originators,” “aggregators” and other conduits and sham entities? My opinion is that this is all part of the same scheme to distance themselves both from the transaction in which the bondholder gave money to the underwriter in exchange for the mortgage bonds and the “loans” that were funded not by the trust but directly from investor money that should have been given to the trust. And Ocwen’s selfish interest is to make the most out of “servicer advances” which is their cut of the pie — money that was actually advanced from investor money to pay them with their own money.

Here are some excerpts from the fund manager’s letter —

The facts establishing these Events of Default are irrefutable.  For example, Ocwen recently “stipulate[d]” and “agree[d]” in a consent order with the New York Department of Financial Services to violations of law and to engaging in imprudent servicing practices.  In addition, the California Department of Business Oversight has commenced proceedings to suspend Ocwen’s servicer license in California, a significant source of loans in the RMBS trusts that generate the advances that collateralize the payments to Noteholders.  These (and other) agencies’ findings and enforcement actions demonstrate Ocwen’s systemic, long-standing and continuing servicing failures and disregard of applicable and analogous laws.

I. Ocwen’s Violations of Law and Imprudent Servicing Practices

A. New York Investigations

Facts admitted by Ocwen establish multiple breaches of various covenants in the Transaction Documents and Designated Servicing Agreements and multiple defaults or Events of Default under the Indenture.  On December 19, 2014, Ocwen and Ocwen Financial Corporation admitted to facts that give rise to material breaches and defaults of the covenants and agreements in the above-referenced provisions.  Ocwen’s stipulations are memorialized in the Consent Order Pursuant to New York Banking Law § 44 (the “2014 Consent Order”) that Ocwen entered into with the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYSDFS”).[3]  Specifically, the 2014 Consent Order sets forth numerous facts to which Ocwen has admitted

B. California Investigations

Two different California regulators have found that Ocwen violated California law.  On a webpage answering “frequently asked questions” related to Ocwen’s settlement with the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and attorneys general from 49 states and the District of Columbia (discussed below), the California Attorney General states, “[w]e believe that Ocwen violated federal and state laws against unfair and deceptive practices.  Ocwen’s unlawful conduct hurt consumers who have had home loans serviced by Ocwen, Litton, and Homeward.  For example, Ocwen made consumers pay improper fees and charges, caused unreasonable delays and expenses when consumers asked for help to avoid foreclosure, and wrongly refused to give consumers loan modifications that could have helped those consumers stay in their homes.”[6]

C. Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and State Attorneys General Investigation

Additionally, in December 2013, the federal Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and the attorneys general for 49 states and the District of Columbia filed a Complaint against Ocwen and Ocwen Financial Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.[15]  The CFPB and state attorneys general alleged “violations” of (i) “state law prohibiting unfair and deceptive consumer practices with respect to loan servicing,” (ii) “state law prohibiting unfair and deceptive consumer practices with respect to foreclosure processing,” (iii) the Consumer Protection Act of 2010, 12 U.S.C. § 5481 et seq., “with respect to loan servicing,” and (iv) the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, 12 U.S.C. § 5481 et seq., “with respect foreclosure processing.”[16]  Specifically, the CFPB and the attorneys general alleged that Ocwen engaged in the following acts and practices:

D. Federal Monitor Investigation

On December 16, 2014, a monitor appointed in United States, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 12-CV-361 (D.D.C. 2012) (the “Federal Monitor”) issued the “Monitor’s Interim Report Regarding Compliance by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as Successor by Assignment from Defendants Residential Capital LLC, GMAC Mortgage LLC, and Ally Financial Inc. for the Measurement Periods Ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014” (the “Monitor Report”).  The Monitor Report addressed, among other things, the “independence, competency and capacity” of Ocwen’s internal quality control review group (“IRG”).  (Monitor Report at 7.)  According to the Federal Monitor, IRG’s processes and procedures “lacked the critical keys to integrity mandated in the Enforcement Terms [as defined in the Monitor Report],” namely “an internal quality control group that is independent from the line of business whose performance is being measured and an internal quality control group with the appropriate authority, privileges and knowledge to effectively implement and conduct the reviews and metric assessments contemplated in the Enforcement Terms.”  (Id. at 13 (quotations omitted).)  The Federal Monitor identified a “dysfunctional and chaotic working environment” during the first half of 2014, noting “serious problems and flaws in the processes and procedures” employed by the IRG.  (Id. at 13.)  Based on these findings, the Federal Monitor notified Ocwen that the IRG had not correctly implemented the Enforcement Terms in a number of “material respects.”  (Id. at 14.)

II. The Market Reaction

The rating agencies have cited the NYSDFS’s investigation of Ocwen as a reason for their downgrading of Ocwen’s servicer rating.  The rating downgrades have increased the risk that Ocwen will be terminated as a servicer and/or subservicer.[21]  For example, in October 2014—months before Ocwen signed the 2014 Consent Order—Standard & Poor’s downgraded Ocwen’s servicer rating to “average” following a letter by the NYSDFS to Ocwen “stating that during its review of Ocwen’s mortgage servicing practices it had uncovered serious issues with Ocwen’s systems and processes, including Ocwen’s backdating of potentially hundreds of thousands of foreclosure-related letters to borrowers.”[22]  Standard & Poor’s concluded that, based on the facts uncovered in the NYSDFS investigation, Ocwen’s “internal practices and policies may not meet industry or regulatory standards.”[23]  On October 22, 2014, Moody’s also downgraded its assessments of Ocwen “as a primary servicer of subprime residential mortgage loans to SQ3 from SQ3+ and as a special servicer of residential mortgage loans to SQ3 from SQ3+.”[24]  According to Moody’s, “[t]he assessment actions follow [the NYSDFS’] allegations,” which “also raise the risk of actions that restrict Ocwen’s activities, the levying of monetary fines against Ocwen, or additional actions that negatively affect Ocwen’s servicing stability.”[25]

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 50 Comments »

Discovery and Due Process in California

Posted on March 10, 2014 by Neil Garfield

I produced a memorandum as an expert witness and consultant in litigation support for a lawyer in California that after re-reading it, I think would be helpful in all foreclosure litigation. I have excerpted paragraphs from the memo and I present here for your use.

Plaintiff/Appellant has pre-empted the opposing parties with a lawsuit that seeks to determine with finality the status and ownership of her loan. She has received, in and out of court, conflicting answers to her questions. The Defendant/Appellees continue to stonewall her attempt to get simple answers to simple questions — to whom does she owe money and how much money does she owe after all appropriate credits from payments received by the creditor on her mortgage loan.

 

She does not take the position that money is not owed to anyone. She asserts that the opposing parties to this litigation are unable and unwilling to provide any actual transaction information in which the subject loan was originated, transferred or acquired. If she is right none of them can issue a satisfaction and release of mortgage without further complicating a tortuous chain of title — and none of them had any right to collect any money from her. A natural question arising out of this that Plaintiff/Appellant seeks to answer is who is the creditor and have they been paid? If they have been paid or their agents have been paid, how much were they paid and on what terms if the payments were from third parties who were strangers to the original loan contract between the Plaintiff/Appellant and the apparent originator.

 

She asserts that based upon the limited information available to her that the original debt that arose (by operation of law) when she received the benefits of a loan was mischaracterized from the beginning, and has changed steadily over time. She asserts that the “originator” was a sham nominee and the closing documents were both misrepresented as to the identity of the lender, and incomplete because of the failure to disclose the real terms of a loan that at best would be described as partially represented on a promissory note and partially represented on a certificated or uncertificated “mortgage bond.”

 

Neither the actual lender/investors nor the homeowner/borrower were parties to the contract for lending in which the Plaintiff/Appellant was a real party in interest.  And the homeowner/borrower in this case was not party to the promise to repay issued to the actual lenders (investors) who advanced the money. The investor/lenders were party to a bond indenture, prospectus and pooling and servicing agreement, while the borrower was party to a promissory note and deed of trust. It is only by combining the two —- the bond and the note — that the full terms of the transaction emerge — something that the major banks seek to avoid at all costs.

 

When it suits them they characterize it as one cloud of related transactions in which there is a mysterious logic, and when it suits them otherwise they assert that the transactions and documents are not a cloud at all but rather a succession of unrelated individual transactions. Hence they can foreclose under the cloud theory, but under the theory of individual (step) transactions, they don’t have to account for the receipt of exorbitant compensation through tier 2 yield spread premiums, the receipt of insurance, servicer advances, credit default swaps, over-collateralization, cross collateralization, guarantees and other hedge contracts; under this theory they were not acting as agents for the investors (whom they had already defrauded) when they received payments from third parties who thought that the losses on the bonds and loans were losses of the banks — because those banks selling mortgage bonds, while serving as intermediaries, created the illusion that the trillions of dollars invested in mortgage bonds was actually owned equitably and legally by the banks.

 

Plaintiff/Appellant seeks to resolve this conflict with finality so she can move on with her life and property.

 

 If she is right, several debts arose out of the subject transaction and probably none of them were secured by a valid deed of trust or mortgage. If she is right the issues with her mortgage debt have been mitigated and she can settle that with finality and it is possible that she owes other parties on unsecured debts who made payments on account of this loan, by reason of contracts to which the Plaintiff/Appellant was not a party but which should have been disclosed in the initial loan contract. In simply lay language she wants an accounting from the real creditor who would lose money if they did not receive payment or credit toward the balance due on the loan for principal and interest.

 

If she is wrong, then the loan is merely one debt, secured by a valid deed of trust. But one wonders why the banks have steadfastly stonewalled any attempts to establish this as a simple fact by producing the actual record of transactions and passage of money exchanging hands in real transactions that support any appearance or presumption of validity of the documents that are being used by her opposition to claim the right to collect on the loan that she freely admits occurred. Why did the bank oppose her attempts at discovery before litigation and after litigation began?

 

If she is wrong and no third party payments were made, then the bookkeeping and accounting entries of the opposition would show that the loan was posted as loan receivable, with an appropriate reserve for default on the balance sheet, and there would be an absence of any documentation showing transfer or attempted transfer of the loan to a party who actually was the source of funds for the origination or acquisition of the loan. The same books and records would show an absence of any entries that reduce the balance due on the loan. And the loan file correspondence of the opposition would not have any reference to fees earned for servicing the loan on behalf of a third party and the income statement would have no underlying bookkeeping entries for receiving fees for acting as the lender, acting as the servicer or acting as a trustee.

 

In some ways this is an ordinary case regarding a deprivation of due process in connection with the potential forfeiture of property and present denial of access to the courts. She is left with both an inability to determine the status of her title, whether it is superior to any claim of encumbrance from the recorded deed of trust, the status of the ownership of her loan where she could obtain a satisfaction of mortgage from a party who either was the creditor or properly represented the creditor, or whether her existing claims evolve into other claims under tort or contract — i.e., a consequent forfeiture of potential claims against the Appellant’s opposing party. For example, by denying the Plaintiff/Appellant’s motions to compel discovery, Plaintiff/Appellant was denied access to information that would have either settled the matter or provided Plaintiff/Appellant with the information with which to prove her existing claims and would most likely have revealed further causes of action. The information concerning the ownership status of her loan, and the true balance of her loan is essentially the gravamen of her claim.

 

But if, as she suspects and has alleged, the parties purporting to be the lender or successor to the lender have engaged in no actual transactions in which the loan was originated or acquired, then the claims and documents upon which her opposition relies, are obviously a sham. This in turn prevents her from being able to contact her real lender for satisfaction, refinance, or modification of her loan under any factual scenario — because the parties with whom she is dealing are intentionally withholding information that would enable her to do so. Hence their claims and documents would constitute the basis for slander of title if she is right about the actual status and balance of her loan.

 

Her point is not that this Court should award her a judgment — but only the opportunity to complete discovery that would act as the foundation fro introduction of appropriate testimony and evidence proving her case. The trial court below essentially acted in conflict with itself. While upholding her claims as being sufficient to state causes of action, it denied her the ability to conduct full discovery to prove her claim.

 

Hagar v. Reclamation Dist., 111 U.S. 701, 708 (1884). “Due process of law is [process which], following the forms of law, is appropriate to the case and just to the parties affected. It must be pursued in the ordinary mode prescribed by law; it must be adapted to the end to be attained; and whenever necessary to the protection of the parties, it must give them an opportunity to be heard respecting the justice of the judgment sought. Any legal proceeding enforced by public authority, whether sanctioned by age or custom or newly devised in the discretion of the legislative power, which regards and preserves these principles of liberty and justice, must be held to be due process of law.” Id. at 708; Accord, Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 537 (1884).

685 Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 101 (1908); Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172, 175 (1899). “A process of law, which is not otherwise forbidden, must be taken to be due process of law, if it can show the sanction of settled usage both in England and this country.” Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. at 529.

686 Twining, 211 U.S. at 101.

687 Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 529 (1884); Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172, 175 (1899); Anderson Nat’l Bank v. Luckett, 321 U.S. 233, 244 (1944).

Non-Judicial Proceedings.—A court proceeding is not a requisite of due process.688 Administrative and executive proceedings are not judicial, yet they may satisfy the due process clause.689 Moreover, the due process clause does not require de novo judicial review of the factual conclusions of state regulatory agencies,690 and may not require judicial review at all.691 Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a State from conferring judicial functions upon non-judicial bodies, or from delegating powers to a court that are legislative in nature.692 Further, it is up to a State to determine to what extent its legislative, executive, and judicial powers should be kept distinct and separate.693

The Requirements of Due Process.—Although due process tolerates variances in procedure “appropriate to the nature of the case,”694 it is nonetheless possible to identify its core goals and requirements. First, “[p]rocedural due process rules are meant to protect persons not from the deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property.”695 Thus, the required elements of due process are those that “minimize substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations” by enabling persons to contest the basis upon which a State proposes to deprive them of protected interests.696 The core of these requirements is notice and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Due process may also require an opportunity for confrontation and cross-examination, and for discovery; that a decision be made based on the record, and that a party be allowed to be represented by counsel.

688 Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U.S. 241, 255 (1907); Palmer v. McMahon, 133 U.S. 660, 668 (1890).

 

Filed under: CASES, CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: , , , , , | 47 Comments »

George W. Mantor Runs for Public Office on “No More Dirty Deeds”

Posted on February 25, 2014 by Neil Garfield

Mantor for Assessor/Recorder/Clerk of San Diego County

Editor’s note: I don’t actually know Mantor so I cannot endorse him personally — but I DO endorse the idea of people running for office on actual issues instead of buzz words and media bullets.

Mantor is aiming straight for his issue by running for the Recorder’s Position. I think his aim is right and he seems to get the nub of some very important issues in the piece I received from him. I’d be interested in feedback on this campaign and if it is favorable, I might give a little juice to his campaign on the blog and my radio show.

His concern is my concern: that within a few years, we will all discover that most of us have defective title, even if we didn’t know there was a loan subject to claims of securitization in our title chain. This is not a phenomenon that affects one transaction at a time. It affects every transaction that took place after the last valid loan closing on every property. It doesn’t matter if it was subject to judicial or non-judicial sale because real property is not to be settled by damages but rather by actual title.

Many investors are buying up property believing they have eliminated the risk of loss by purchasing property either at or after the auction sale of the property. They might not be correct in that assumption. It depends upon the depth and breadth of the fraud. Right now, it seems very deep and very wide.

Here is one quote from Mantor that got my attention:

Despite the fact that everyone knows, despite the fact that they signed consent decrees promising not to steal homes, they go right on doing it.

Where is law enforcement, the Attorneys General, the regulators? They all know but they only prosecute the least significant offenders.

Foreclosures spiked 57% in California last month. How many of those were illegal? Most, if not all.

An audit of San Francisco County revealed one or more irregularities in 99% of the subject loans. In 84% of the loans, there appear to be one or more clear violations of law.

Fortune examined the foreclosures filed in two New York counties (Westchester and the Bronx) between 2006 and 2010.  There were130 cases where the Bank of New York was foreclosing on behalf of a Countrywide mortgage-backed security.  In 104 of those cases, the loan was originally made by Countrywide; the other 26 were made by other banks and sold to Countrywide for securitization.

None of the 104 Countrywide loans were endorsed by Countrywide – they included only the original borrower’s signature.  Two-thirds of the loans made by other banks also lacked bank endorsements.  The other third were endorsed either directly on the note or on an allonge, or a rider, accompanying the note.

No_More_Dirty_Deeds

Filed under: AMGAR, CORRUPTION, escrow agent, evidence, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure defenses, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MBS TRUSTEE, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Neil Garfield Show, originator, Pleading, politics, securities fraud, Servicer, Title, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 115 Comments »

US Bank Antics versus Their Own Website

Posted on December 17, 2013 by Neil Garfield

Editor’s Note: In answer to the many inquiries we get, I am ONLY licensed in the State of Florida. The reason you see my name pop up in other states is that I am frequently an expert witness and trial consultant on cases, working for the lawyer who is licensed in that state. My law firm, Garfield, Kelley and White provides direct representation in most parts of Florida and litigation support to lawyers in Florida and other states.

Many lawyers are now well versed enough to proceed with only a little help from us. But some need our templates, drafting and scripts for oral argument of motions and other court appearances. I have not appeared pro hac vice in any case thus far and I doubt that I will be able to to do so. So if you want litigation support for your cases, the lawyer should contact my office at 850-765-1236. If you are unrepresented it will be much more challenging to provide such support as it might be construed as the unauthroized practice of law.

 

US Bank is popping up all over the place as the Plaintiff in judicial actions and the initiator of foreclosures in non- judicial states. It is one of the leading parties in the shell game that is mistaken for securitization of loans. But on its own website it admits against the interests that it has advanced in courts across the country, that it has NO POWER TO FORECLOSE or to pursue any other remedies.

US Bank pops up as the foreclosing party as trustee for some supposedly securitized asset pool masquerading as a REMIC trust ( which we all know now was breached in virtually every way, which is why the IRS granted a one year amnesty for the trusts to get their acts together — an action of dubious legality).

Both US Bank and the the Pooling and Servicing Agreement will usually state flat out that the servicer makes all decisions and takes all actions relating to the borrower and the borrower’s payments. There are several reasons for this one of which is the obvious conflict that could occur if the the servicer and the trustee were both bringing foreclosure actions.

But the other reason, the hidden one, is that the banks want to keep the court’s attention on the borrower’s contract and keep it away from the lender’s contract which is quite different than the borrower’s contract. And THAT will invite inquiry as to how or even if the two contracts are related or connected such that the mortgage encumbrance gives rights to the trust beneficiaries such that the collection and foreclosure efforts will inure to the benefit of the trust beneficiaries in the REMIC trust.

So why is US Bank violating both the content and intent of the PSA and its own website? In my own law firm I have two entirely different foreclosure cases — one in which US Bank is the foreclosing party and the other where the servicer started the foreclosure action. Both loans are claimed to be in the same trust although one is in California and the other is in Florida. Why would Chase bank as servicer started an action? Even worse, why did Chase bank start the action as though it was the creditor and claim that there was no securitization? [In the Florida case I am lead counsel whereas in the California case I am only an expert witness and consultant].

I am not sure about the answers to these questions but I have some conjectures.

In the Florida case, US Bank is bringing the case because the servicer can’t — it knows and its records show non-stop servicer advances to the trust beneficiaries of the REMIC trust that supposedly was funded and who purchased or originated the loans in the trust. In the California case, even though the servicer advances are still present it is non-judicial so it is easier for Chase to slip by without even pausing because unless the homeowner brings a legal action to stop the foreclosure sale it just happens. And then it is over.

But Chase is treading on thin ice here which is why it is now transferring the servicing rights —- and therefore the rights to litigate — to SPS who did not make the servicer advances. Of course the servicer advances are probably actually paid by the broker dealer who is holding the money of the trust beneficiaries without THEM knowing that the broker dealer has not used their money entirely for mortgage loans — and instead took a large chunk out as a “trading profit” when it was a tier 2 yield spread premium that should have been disclosed at closing.

One of the more interesting questions is whether the modification or refi of the loan renews the effect of TILA violations thus enabling the borrower to claim the undisclosed compensation, treble damages, interest and attorney fees. A suggestion here about that — most lawyers are ignoring the damage aspect of these cases and seeing the TILA has a defined statute of limitations that appears to have run. I would take issue as to whether it has in fact run, but even more importantly there is still an action for common law fraud unless blocked by a separate statute of limitations. The extra profits collected by those entities in the cloud of parties who served in various roles in the securitization process are all fair game for recovery or set-off against the amount claimed as due as principal of the loan. It can also be used to cause severe collateral damage — literally — because it would probably reveal that the mortgage encumbrance was never perfected by completion of the loan contract.

Both Chase and US Bank are going into bankruptcy courts in Chapter 11 proceedings and demanding adequate protection payments while the bankruptcy is proceeding, knowing and withholding the fact that the creditor is being paid every month and there is no default from the creditor’s point of view. This would be important information for the debtor in possession and the his attorney and the Judge to know. But it is withheld in the hope that the borrower/debtor will never discover the truth — and in most cases they don’t, unless they get a loan level account report based upon a solid securitization report which is based upon a good title report. see http://www.livingliesstore.com.

Both US Bank and Chase are wiling to endure awards of sanctions for misleading the court as a cost of doing business because the volume of complaints about their illegal and fraudulent activities is nearly zero when compared with the total of all state court, federal court and bankruptcy actions. But now they are treading on even thinner ice — they are seeking to get turnover of rents with people who own multiple properties. Their arrogance apparently overcame their judgment. The owners of multiple properties frequently have substantial resources to litigate against the US Bank and Chase and now SPS. The truth is coming out in those cases.

Other Banks who say they are trustees simply direct the borrower or other inquirers to the servicer. But where US Bank is involved it is seeking profit at the expense of the trust beneficiaries and the owners of the real property involved. It seems to me that US Bank has gotten too cute by half and is now exposed to multiple actions for fraud. And I question whether the current revelations about US Bank BUYING the position of trustee has any legal support. I don’t think it does — not in the PSA, not in the statutes nor under common law.

SEE US Bank Role-of-Trustee-Sept2013

Filed under: CASES, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GARFIELD KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, TRUST BENEFICIARIES, trustee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

VICTORY for Homeowners: Received Title and 7 Figure Monetary Damages for Wrongful Foreclosure

Posted on September 13, 2013 by Neil Garfield
As a California appellate court decision several years ago noted, “For homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosure, this dual tracking might go by another name: the double-cross.” – See more at: http://calcoastnews.com/2013/09/onewest-bank-pays-7-figures-mortgage-fraud-case/#sthash.xcKP1Tpl.dpuf
As a California appellate court decision several years ago noted, “For homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosure, this dual tracking might go by another name: the double-cross.” – See more at: http://calcoastnews.com/2013/09/onewest-bank-pays-7-figures-mortgage-fraud-case/#sthash.xcKP1Tpl.dpuf

“As a California appellate court decision several years ago noted, ‘For Homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosure, this dual tracking might go by another name: the double-cross.'” Daniel Blackburn, http://www.calcoastnews.com, 9/11/13.

Internet Store Notice: As requested by customer service, this is to explain the use of the COMBO, Consultation and Expert Declaration. The only reason they are separate is that too many people only wanted or could only afford one or the other — all three should be purchased. The Combo is a road map for the attorney to set up his file and start drafting the appropriate pleadings. It reveals defects in the title chain and inferentially in the money chain and provides the facts relative to making specific allegations concerning securitization issues. The consultation looks at your specific case and gives the benefit of litigation support consultation and advice that I can give to lawyers but I cannot give to pro se litigants. The expert declaration is my explanation to the Court of the findings of the forensic analysis. It is rare that I am actually called as a witness apparently because the cases are settled before a hearing at which evidence is taken.
If you are seeking legal representation or other services call our South Florida customer service number at 954-495-9867 and for the West coast the number remains 520-405-1688. In Northern Florida and the Panhandle call 850-765-1236. Customer service for the livinglies store with workbooks, services and analysis remains the same at 520-405-1688. The people who answer the phone are NOT attorneys and NOT permitted to provide any legal advice, but they can guide you toward some of our products and services. Get advice from attorneys licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located. We do provide litigation support — but only for licensed attorneys.
Neil Garfield, the author of this article, and Danielle Kelley, Esq. are partners in the law firm of Garfield, Gwaltney, Kelley and White (GGKW) based in Tallahassee with offices opening in Broward County and Dade County.
See LivingLies Store: Reports and Analysis

Neil F Garfield, Esq. http://www.Livinglies.me, 9/13/13

Victory in California, as we have predicted for years. Maria L. Hutkin and Jude J Basile were the attorneys for the homeowners and obviously did a fine job of exposing the truth. Their tenacity and perseverance paid off big time for their clients and themselves. They showed it is not over until the truth comes out. So for all of you who are saying you can’t find a lawyer who “gets it” here are two lawyers that got it and won. And for all those who were screwed by the banks, it isn’t over. Now it is your turn to get the rights and damages you deserve.

Maria L. Hutkin and Jude J. Basile
Maria L. Hutkin and Jude J. Basile

The homeowners won flat out at a trial — something that should have happened in most of the 6.6 million Foreclosures conducted thus far. U.S. Bank showed its ugly head again as the alleged Trustee of a trust that was most probably nonexistent, unfunded and without any assets at all much less the homeowners alleged loan. Still the settlement shows how far Wall Street will go to pay damages rather than admit their liability to investors, insurers, counterparties in credit default swaps, and the Federal Reserve.

When you think of the hundreds of millions of wrongful foreclosures that were the subject of tens of billions of dollars in “settlements” that preserved homeowners rights to pursue further damages and do the math, it is obvious why even the total of all the “settlements” and fines were a tiny fraction of the total liability owed to pension funds and other investors, insurers, CDS parties, the Federal Government and of course the borrowers who never received a single loan from the banks in the first place. If 5 million foreclosures were wrongful, as is widely suspected at a minimum, using this case and some others I know about the damages could well exceed $5 Trillion. Simple math. Maybe that will wake up the good trial lawyers who think there is no case!

Maria L. Hutkin and Jude J. Basile

A fitting announcement on the 5th anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse. the economy is still struggling as more than 15 million American PEOPLE were displaced, lost equity and forced into bankruptcy by imperfect mortgages that were a sham, and thus imperfect foreclosures that were also a sham. Another 15 million PEOPLE will be displaced if these wrongful, illegal and morally corrupt sham foreclosures are allowed to continue.

This case, like the recent case won by Danielle Kelley (partner of GGKW) was based upon dual tracking. In Kelley’s case the homeowners had completed the process of getting an approved modification, which meant that underwriting, review, confirmation of data, and approval from the investor had been obtained. In Kelley’s case the homeowner had made the trial payments in full and paid the taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance of the property.

The Bank argued they were under no obligation to fulfill the final step — permanent modification. Kelley argued that a new contract was formed — offer, acceptance and the consideration of payment that the Bank received, kept and credited to the homeowner’s account. But the bank as Servicer was still accruing the payments due on the unmodified mortgage, which is why I have been harping on the topic of discovery on the money trail at origination, processing, and third party payments. 

 

The accounting records of the subservicer and the Master Servicer should lead you to all actual transactions in which money exchanged hands, although getting to insurance payments and proceeds of credit default swaps might require discovery from the investment banker. So in Kelley’s case, the Judge essentially said that if an agreement was reached and the homeowner met the requirements of a trial period, the deal was done and entered a final order in favor of the homeowner eliminating the the foreclosure with prejudice.

In this One West case the court went a little further. The homeowners were lured into negotiations, expenses and augments under the promise of modification and then summarily without notice to the homeowner sold the property at a Trustee sale under the provisions of the deed of trust. The Judge agreed with counsel for the homeowners that this was dual tracking at its worst, and that the bank did not have the option of proceeding with the sale. 

 

The homeowners were forced to vacate the property and make other housing arrangements and these particular homeowners were enraged and had the resources to do what most homeowners are too fearful to do — go to the mat (go to trial.)
One West made several offers of settlement once the Judge made it clear that the homeowners had stated a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. Bravely the attorneys and the homeowners rejected settlement and insisted on a complete airing of their grievances so that everyone would know what happened to them. After multiple offers, with trial drawing near, OneWest finally agreed to give clear title back to the homeowners and pay $1 million+ in damages on what was a six figure loan. 

 

We now have cases in both judicial and non-judicial jurisdictions in which the homeowner was awarded the house without encumbrance of a mortgage and even receiving monetary damages in which the attorneys achieved substantial rewards on 7 figure settlements  that probably would be much higher if they ever went to trial — particularly in front of a jury. This is only one of the paths to successful foreclosure defense. I hope attorneys and homeowners take note. Your anger can be channeled into a constructive path if the lawyers know how to understand these loans, and how to litigate them.

“There’s hope. I feel their pain.” — Danielle Kelley, Esq. , partner in Garfield, Gwaltney, Kelley and White.

http://calcoastnews.com/2013/09/onewest-bank-pays-7-figures-mortgage-fraud-case/

Filed under: AMGAR, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, foreclosure, GARFIELD GWALTNEY KELLEY AND WHITE, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 31 Comments »

CAl. S. Ct: You can’t Fool All the People All the Time

Posted on January 22, 2013 by Neil Garfield

“The Pendergrass limitation finds no support in the language of the statute codifying the parol evidence rule and the exception for evidence of fraud. It is difficult to apply. It conflicts with the doctrine of the Restatements, most treatises, and the majority of our sister-state jurisdictions. Furthermore, while intended to prevent fraud, the rule established in Pendergrass may actually provide a shield for fraudulent conduct. Finally, Pendergrass departed from established California law at the time it was decided, and neither acknowledged nor justified the abrogation. We now conclude that Pendergrass was ill- considered, and should be overruled.”

CHECK OUT OUR DECEMBER SPECIAL!

What’s the Next Step? Consult with Neil Garfield

For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).

Editor’s Analysis and Practice Tips: In the decision Riverside Cold v Fresno-Madera the California Supreme Court stopped the banks dead in their tracks. Whereas they were able to prevent the borrower from introducing parole evidence (events outside the four corners of a document) the banks are now to be confronted in California and other states that will follow with the probability that their lies and illegal steering people into foreclosure are going to haunt them and defeat them.

We have heard for years how servicers and banks told homeowners to stop making their mortgage payments in order to qualify for mortgage modification. Then comes the lost papers 4-5 times and then comes the inevitable denial of a the mortgage modification — as though anyone had ever considered it and as though the investors were contacted for feedback. The fact is, as the future litigation will point out and reveal in all its splendor, the foreclosers were out to foreclose — not to settle, modify or otherwise resolve the situation.

They would string the borrower along until so many months of non-payment had  piled up that between principal interest, taxes and insurance all but the most frugal borrower would be short on money and unable to reinstate. The result has been far lower proceeds from foreclosure than any other means of mitigating damages, and far more foreclosures than there needed to be. And it all started with misrepresentation, lies, deceit and fraud at closing, during he foreclosure process, during the so-called modification process and during the sale at auction, which prevented the homeowner from redeeming the property because the true balance was never disclosed.

All that changes with this very well-reasoned opinion. The Court clearly is beginning to see that the the without strict adherence to all the rules and all considerations of due process, the court system is being used as a vehicle for theft, fraud, forgery, fabrication and the destruction of people’s lives and livelihood.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , | 72 Comments »

Notice of Violation Under California Bill of Rights

Posted on December 18, 2012 by Neil Garfield

“If we accept the Bank’s argument, then we are creating new law. Under the new law a borrower would owe money to a non-creditor simply because the non-creditor procured the borrower’s signature by false pretenses. The actual lender would be unable to retrieve money paid to the fake lender and the borrower would receive credit for neither his own payments nor any payment by a third party on the borrower’s behalf.” Neil F Garfield, livinglies.me

CHECK OUT OUR DECEMBER SPECIAL!

What’s the Next Step? Consult with Neil Garfield

For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).

Barry Fagan submitted the Notice below.

Editor’s Notes: Fagan’s Notice gives a good summary of the applicable provisions of the Bill of Rights recently passed by California. The only thing I would add to the demands is a copy of all wire transfer receipts, wire transfer instructions or other indicia of funding or buying the loans. everything I am getting indicates that in most cases they can’t come up with it.

If you went into Chase and applied for a loan and they approved your application but didn’t fund it, you wouldn’t expect Chase to be able to sue you or start foreclosure proceedings for a loan they never funded. It’s called lack of consideration.

If you actually got the loan from BofA but they forgot to have you sign papers, you would still owe the money to them but it wouldn’t be secured because there was no mortgage lien recorded in their name. And BofA would have a thing or two to say to Chase about who is the real creditor — either the one or advanced the money or the one who got documents fraudulently or wrongfully obtained.

So then comes the question of whether Chase could assign their note and lien rights to BofA. If TILA disclosures had been made showing the relationship between the two banks, it might be possible to do so. But in these closings, the actual identity of the creditor (source of funds) was actively hidden from the borrower.

Thus we have a simple proposition to be decided in the appellate and trial courts: can a party who obtains signed loan documentation including a note and mortgage perfect the lien they recorded in the absence of any consideration. The floodgates for fraud would open wide if the answer were yes.

If the answer is NO, then the origination documents and all assignments, indorsements, transfers and allonges emanating from the original transaction without consideration are void. AND if each assignment or transfer recites that it is for value received, and they too had no money exchange hands thus producing lack of consideration, then they cannot even begin to assert themselves as a BFP (Bona Fide Purchaser for value without notice). The part about “without notice” is going to be difficult to sustain in proof since this was a pattern of table funded loans deemed “predatory per se” by Reg Z.

The reason they diverted the document ownership away from the creditor who actually advanced the money was to create the appearance of third party ownership (and transfers, which was why MERS was created) in the documentary chain arising out of the original of the non-existent loan (i.e., no money exchanged hands pursuant to the recitals on the note and mortgage as between the payor and payee). They needed the appearance of ownership was to create the appearance of an ownership and insurable interest.

Thus even though the money did not come from the originator, the aggregator or even the Master Servicer or Trustee of the pool, affiliates of the investment bank who underwrote and sold bogus mortgage bonds, were able (as “owners”) to purchase insurance, credit default swaps, and receive bailouts because they could “document” that they had lost money even though the reality was that the the third party source of funding, and the real creditors were actual parties suffering the loss.

Had those windfall distributions been applied to balances due to the owners of the mortgage bonds, the balance due from the bond would have been correspondingly reduced. AND if the balance due to the creditor had been reduced or paid in full, then the homeowner/borrower’s obligation to that creditor would have been extinguished entitling the homeowner to receipt of a note paid in full and a release of the mortgage lien (or at least cooperation in nullification of the imperfect mortgage lien).

PRACTICE TIP: Don’t just go after the documents that talk about the transaction by which they claim a liability exists from the borrower to one or more pretender lenders. Push for proof of payment in discovery and don’t be afraid to deny the debt, the note or the mortgage.

In oral argument before the Judge, when he or she asks whether you are contesting the note and mortgage, the answer is yes. When asked whether you are contesting the liability, the answer is yes – and resist the temptation to say why. The less said the better. This is why it is better preempt the pretender lenders with your own suit — because all allegations in the complaint must be taken as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss.

Don’t get trapped into disclosing your evidence in a motion to dismiss. If it is set for a motion to dismiss the sole question before the court is whether your lawsuit contains a short plain statement of ultimate facts upon which relief could be granted and all allegations you make must be assumed to be true. When opposing counsel starts to offer facts, you should object reminding the Judge that this is a motion to dismiss, it is not a motion for summary judgment and there are no facts in the record to corroborate the proffer by opposing counsel.

From Barry Fagan:

Re:  Notice of “Material Violations” under California’s Newly Enacted Homeowners Bill of Rights pursuant to California Civil Code sections, 2923.55, 2924.12, and 2924.17.
See attached and below

Reference is made to Wells Fargo’s (“Defendant”) December 13, 2012 response to Barry Fagan’s (“Plaintiff”) October 25, 2012 request for copies of the following:

(i)           A copy of the borrower’s promissory note or other evidence of indebtedness.

(ii)         A copy of the borrower’s deed of trust or mortgage.

(iii)       A copy of any assignment, if applicable, of the borrower’s mortgage or deed of trust required to demonstrate the right of the mortgage servicer to foreclose.

(iv)        A copy of the borrower’s payment history since the borrower was last less than 60 days past due.

Please be advised that I find Defendant’s response to be woefully defective. This letter is being sent pursuant to my statutory obligation to “meet and confer” with you concerning the defects before bringing an action to enjoin any future foreclosure pursuant to Civil Code § 2924.12.

Defendant’s are in violation of both the notice and standing requirements of California law, and the California newly enacted Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HBR”). In July 2012, California enacted the Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HBR”). Among other things, the HBR authorizes private civil suits to enjoin foreclosure by entities that record or file notices of default or other documentsfalsely claiming the right to foreclose. Civil Code § 2923.55 requires a servicer to provide borrowers with their note and certain other documents, if the borrowers request them.

Civil Code § 2924.17 requires any notice of default, notice of sale, assignment of deed of trust, or substitution of trustee recorded on behalf of a servicer in connection with a foreclosure, or any declaration or affidavit filed in any court regarding a foreclosure, to be “accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence.” It further requires the servicer to ensure it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and the right to foreclose.

Civil Code § 2924.12 authorizes actions to enjoin foreclosures, or for damages after foreclosure, for breaches of §§ 2923.55 or 2924.17. This right of private action is “in addition to and independent of any other rights, remedies, or procedures under any other law.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, limit, or negate any other rights, remedies, or procedures provided by law.” Civil Code § 2924.12(h). Any Notice of Default, or Substitution of Trustee recorded on Plaintiffs’ real property based upon a fraudulent and forged Deed of Trust shall be considered a “Material Violation”, thus triggering the injunctive relief provisions of Civil Code § 2924.12 & § 2924.17(a) (b).

I therefore demand that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. provide Barry Fagan with the UNALTERED original Deed of Trust along with the ORIGINAL Note, as the ones provided by Kutak Rock LLP on October 13, 2011 to Ronsin Copy Service were both photo-shopped and fraudulent fabrications of the original documents, thus not the originals as ordered to be produced by Judge Tarle under LASC case number SC112044. Attached hereto and made a part hereof is the October 13, 2011 Ronsin Copy Service Declaration with copies of the altered and photo-shopped Note and Deed of Trust concerning real property located at Roca Chica Dr. Malibu, CA 90265.

Judge Karlan under LASC case number SC117023 “DENIED” Wells Fargo’s Request for Judicial Notice of the very same Deed of Trust, Notice of Default, Substitution of Trustee and the Notice of Rescission concerning real property located at Roca Chica Dr. Malibu, CA 90265.
Attached hereto and made a part hereof is the relevant excerpt of Judge Karlan’s October 23, 2012 Court Order along with a copy of Wells Fargo’s Request for Judicial Notice of those very same documents. Court Order: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE “DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IS DENIED AS TO EXHIBITS A, B, C, D, K, L, & M.” 

As a result of the above stated facts, please be advised that the fraudulently altered deed of trust and photo-shopped Note that you claim to have been previously provided to Barry Fagan shall not be considered in compliance with section 2923.55 and therefore Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has committed a “Material Violation” under California’s Newly Enacted Homeowners Bill of Rights pursuant to Civil Code sections, 2923.55, 2924.12, and 2924.17 (a) (b).

Please govern yourselves accordingly.

Regards,

/s/Barry Fagan

Barry S. Fagan Esq.

Thank you.

Barry S. Fagan Esq.
PO Box 1213, Malibu, CA 90265-1213
[T] +1.310.717.1790 – [F] +1.310.456.6447

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 35 Comments »

California Bar Throws Baby Out with Bathwater

Posted on December 10, 2012 by Neil Garfield

CHECK OUT OUR DECEMBER SPECIAL!

What’s the Next Step? Consult with Neil Garfield

For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).

Hat tip to Darrel Blomberg who brought Mandelman’s article (below) to my attention.

Editor’s Analysis: In case you you ever wondered where that expression came from, it is pretty simple. It was once the practice to allow the man to bathe first, then the wife then the children in order of their age — all in the same tub without changing the water. By the end of this process the water was so murky that it was actually possible to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The banks are attempting every maneuver to keep the mortgage and foreclosure process as murky as possible with considerable success, especially when it comes to modification where they are required to “consider” modifications although they are not required to accept a modification proposal.

The truth is they don’t consider it, they intentionally “lose” the paper work a half dozen times before they realize that the person is likely to escalate to litigation, and then they send a notice of rejection.

This rejection, few people realize, is subject to challenge if your allegation is that they rejected it without considering it. If your allegations contain proper pleading about the details you submitted with your modification proposal, including the proceeds to investor under your plan versus foreclosure, and it is an obvious no-brainer, I have evidence that such suits are settled very quickly usually along the same terms as those proposed in the original modification proposal from the borrower.

Now it is true that hundreds of companies have started claiming to do modifications without being able to spell it, and without any license that provides any evidence that they know anything about property rights, mortgages, notes,  lending, HARP, HAMP, TARP, TILA or RESPA and it is equally true that these bogus companies have compounded predatory lending with predatory services (fraud). So the states have enacted various laws that ignore the real problem and did what the banks want — prevent access to those who are licensed and who can effectively advocate for their client, before, during or after modification attempts, foreclosure or eviction.

The basic thrust of most such laws is to prevent any such company from collecting fees until the end of their services which means that such companies would need to invest in a mortgage deal, the benefits of which go solely to their client.

The proper way of handling this is through the existing web of lawyers, HUD counselors, realtors etc. who are all properly regulated and if they charge fees that are too high or fail to do the work, their license if disciplined with fines, suspension and even revocation. There are hundreds of thousands of such professionals around that would gladly assist homeowners, but who have no interest in loaning the expenses of representation to clients whom they barely know.

California has now extended this idiotic approach to lawyers as well, which means if the retainer smells like there is a modification possible, they are not allowed to charge any fees until the end. This obviously denies the homeowner from access to counsel, access to the courts, due process and equal protection under the law. Hopefully that rule, passed around November 12, 2012 will be brought before the California Supreme Court will be treated summarily. It’s bad for homeowners, lawyers, and all other licensed professionals who could provide valuable services in litigation, settlements, modifications, short-sales and wrongful foreclosure suits.

So right now, in California, the banks and pretender lenders can all use attorneys, realtors and others and pay then up front, salary, or anything else but the people against whom they are pressing illegal foreclosures are not allowed to hire such professionals because it could end up in a modification, which everyone agrees is the proper end to this mess.

PRACTICE HINT: Any lawyer or group of lawyers may file a rule challenge which MUST go to administrative  hearing and then (after exhaustion of administrative remedies) can go to court for contest or confirmation. Hearing officers are not ordinarily allowed to rule on constitutional issues, so you’ll end up in court pretty quick.

http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2012/12/california-state-bar-recent-decision-to-cause-more-harm-to-homeowners-in-foreclosure/

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

Woman Wins Home and Forecloses on Wells Fargo

Posted on November 15, 2012 by Neil Garfield

What’s the Next Step? Consult with Neil Garfield

CHECK OUT OUR NOVEMBER SPECIAL

For assistance with presenting a case for wrongful foreclosure, please call 520-405-1688, customer service, who will put you in touch with an attorney in the states of Florida, California, Ohio, and Nevada. (NOTE: Chapter 11 may be easier than you think).

Editor’s Comment: We have seen some of these stories before. What is disconcerting is that the press is not getting the point — some homeowners are winning their cases and getting their house free and clear. The reason is simple: if you try to make the case that you should get a free house, then you are going to lose. But if you attack the would-be forecloser where it hurts, then your chances of getting a favorable result are immeasurably increased. Mark Stopa got 14 Judges to (a) deny the forecloser’s motion for summary judgment and (b) grant final summary judgment to the homeowner. It does happen.

In the final analysis the strategy and tactics are the same as in any civil case — deny each and every allegation that you know is absolutely true, like your name. If you don’t know if the note and mortgage are legitimate or if they are showing a copy of the note and mortgage (or deed of trust) that might be fabricated, deny it. The burden is on the party seeking affirmative relief. Too many times, I see homeowners and attorneys give away the store when they are asked whether there is any issue about the obligation, note or mortgage. Their reply is no “but”….

The fact is there is no “but.” You either deny their right to foreclose or you admit it. If you admit it, then all the argument in the world won’t allow you to win. The Judge has no choice but to allow the foreclosure if your admission, tacit or expressed, goes to all the elements required for a foreclosure.

For reasons that I do not understand the same lawyer that will summarily deny virtually all allegations in the complaint for anything other than a foreclosure action, will be very timid and uncertain about denying allegations and validity of the exhibits in a foreclosure. If you attack the foreclosure after admitting that the elements are there based upon UCC or other arguments attacking the documentary trail, you will most likely lose — unless you accidentally stumble upon an argument that deals with the money trail.

That is why I am continually pushing lawyers and pro se litigants to get advice from lawyers that allows them to deny the validity of the allegations of a judicial foreclosure and deny the validity and authenticity of the substitution of trustee, notice of default and notice of sale in the non-judicial states.

Say as little as possible. The more you allege, the more the burden is on you to prove things that only the other side has in the way of information. I have previously posted an article about that.

The judicial doctrine applies that where the information is exclusively in the care, custody and control of the the opposing side then the mere allegation from you will be sufficient to shift the burden of persuasion onto the forecloser — and their case generally will collapse.

Jacksonville Business Journal by Michael Clinton, Web Producer

In a strange twist of events, a St. Augustine woman has filed foreclosure on a local branch of Wells Fargo after a judge ruled she could keep her home.

The bank tried to foreclose on Rebecca Sharp’s home, but a judge ruled she could keep it and the bank owed her nearly $20,000 for attorney’s fees — eight months later, the bank still hasn’t paid, Action News Jax reports.

“Foreclosure cases are based on borrowers not paying bills. Now, Wells Fargo has not paid its bills. There’s an irony there,” Sharp’s attorney Tom Pycraft told Action News.

Read the full story and see the video at Action News Jax.

Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) is the third-largest bank in Northeast Florida, with $5.5 billion in area deposits and a market share of 12 percent.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments »

Barry Fagan Launches Administrative Counter Attack

Posted on October 11, 2012 by Neil Garfield

Editor’s Comment: Barry Fagan is pulling out the stops and challenging the CA AG to do her job. I am surprised that those who specialize in administrative law have not used the presumed findings of several Federal and State agencies as to a pattern of conduct that is fraudulent and which requires forgery to proffer in court and perjury to testify as to the foundation that would authenticate the invalid documents. Such administrative findings usually carry a presumption of validity.

Here Barry takes it one step further. He is using one specific case and the documents pertaining to only that case to raise the issues that clearly accuse Wells Fargo of criminal misconduct. Such conduct is the custom and practice of the entire foreclosure industry. Notice that I didn’t say the “mortgage industry,” because the foreclosure industry is predicated on getting a deed on foreclosure based upon a false credit bid from a party who neither funded nor purchased the loan.

CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL COMPLAINT

 

CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL NO. 1474 RE: CONVENING GRAND JURY FOR MORTGAGE FRAUD
Barry S Fagan
Malibu, California 90265
Complaint Against:
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
420 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, California 94104
COMPLAINT
As an Officer of the Court, I am under a continuing obligation to inform both the Court and Law Enforcement of Fraud and Perjury. As a result, I have retained Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel a forensic document examiner with over 20 years of forensic document analysis experience to confirm that three different versions of the same deed of trust exists for my primary residence and on May 11, 2012.
I recorded all three versions of the same deed of trust with the Los Angeles Registrar Recorders Office under instrument no. 2012-0711277.
DOCUMENT FRAUD
Wells Fargo Bank has fraudulently altered Barry Fagan’s Deed of Trust and the attached expert opinion dated 1/12/2012 from Forensic Document Examiner Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel specifically explains that the handwritten page 4 has been altered on two separate versions of that original Deed of Trust. Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel makes the following findings of fact with respect to the LA Registrar Recorder’s ‘original office record’.
“Based upon my initial preliminary analysis of the above items, it appears more than one person authored the number 4 on all three documents, which purports to be the same document.” The recorded Notice of Pendency of Action shows three different versions of that same July 9, 2007 Deed of Trust as originally recorded under instrument no. 2007-1622100 and I have submitted credible evidence from a forensic document examiner with over 20 years of experience that multiple fraudulent alterations have occurred on the “Handwritten Number page 4” which is located on page 3/4 of the Deed of Trust.
All of the Deeds of Trust now reflect an entirely different handwritten NUMBER 4, and one of the exhibits also has a snake like line drawn on it, which is not present on the other two exhibits.
ACCOUNTING
C.P.A. Shawn P. Adamo stated: “It is my professional opinion that the altered deed of trust is concealing an irrevocable assignment, and explains why Wells Fargo is unable to produce loan level accounting concerning Mr. Fagan’s loan. Wells Fargo claims that any level of detail relating to Mr. Fagan’s mortgage is non- existent. As a result, CPA Shawn Adamo provided two expert opinions, one an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury dated January 24, 2012 and the other is a Feb. 6, 2012 complaint letter addressed to various regulatory agencies. In those two expert opinions, C.P.A Shawn Adamo explains that Wells Fargo Bank has failed to provide a loan level balance sheet accounting and is concealing the fact that they do not own Barry Fagan’s loan.
ROBO-SIGNING
Additionally, forensic document Expert Dr. Laurie Hoeltzel has declared under penalty of perjury on January 2, 2012 that Wells Fargo Bank is robo-signing Discovery Responses by using multiple authors of the name Rhonda Bernard Thomas.
CONCLUSION
Insofar as Wells Fargo Bank, NA is a loan servicer, it cannot enforce the note in its own right in that according to the information in the documents and the information available through discovery and expert opinions, the loan is owned by an undisclosed investor with which Wells Fargo has concealed and not established its relationship to.
Wells Fargo as the alleged servicer must, in addition to establishing the rights of the true holder, identify itself as an authorized agent for the INVESTOR.
If Wells Fargo Bank is compelled by law enforcement to comply with either of the obligations described above it will subject them (Wells Fargo) to a finding of perjury!
Wells Fargo is a criminal enterprise that is attempting to exercise rights over my primary residence by way of fraudulently altered documents, robo-signed discovery responses, no loan level accounting and Barry Fagan’s loan file needs to be investigated at the highest level within your organization to see that a crime has actually occurred!
The law offices of Kutak Rock LLP located in Irvine, California needs to have Barry Fagan’s Note and Deed of Trust subpoenaed so that the GRAND JURY can inspect those documents to see that they have indeed been fraudulently altered and photo-shopped.
/s/Barry Fagan
Barry Fagan Esq.
CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL No. 1474
Approved by Governor September 25, 2012
SB 1474, Hancock. Grand jury proceedings: Attorney General: powers and duties.
Existing law authorizes the Attorney General to convene the grand jury to investigate and consider certain criminal matters. The Attorney General is authorized to take full charge
of the presentation of the matters to the grand jury, issue subpoenas, prepare indictments, and do all other things incident thereto to the same extent as the district attorney may do.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , | 54 Comments »

Marchers Demand Halt to Foreclosures in Sacramento

Posted on July 5, 2012 by Neil Garfield

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

——–>SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS: WHOSE LIEN IS IT ANYWAY TOC

LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688


Editor’s Notes:  

If more people from all walks of life came to life in California and across the country, the changes would happen. The reasons these protesters are right is that they got screwed on loans that, thanks to Wall Street chicanery, have already been paid several times over. This is an opportunity for government to step in and save the day for homes, businesses, counties and cities who were all duped into these crazy loans based upon fictitious figures used in fraudulent calculations. It is obvious that these criminal acts are tearing apart our country, ruining our economy and destroying hope and prospects fro the future. Even if you think these homeowners are getting an undeserved “windfall” you should STILL be supporting them because (a) they are the victims of fraud and entitled to restitution and (b) it’s going to hit you one way or the other in the pocket book.

Which would YOU rather have — satisfaction of the doctrine of personal responsibility on facts which you know virtually nothing about (even Allan Greenspan admitted he couldn’t understand these derivative mortgages) OR would rather have a healthy economy with stores opening and money flowing. It’s your choice. I could understand why the 1% would be against giving these people a break even though they are going to get hit too by the decline in the economy, but for people who are one paycheck from eviction to oppose this on some ideological fiction based upon the wrong facts is just plain stupid.

Why would you want the banks, who already received $17 trillion (minimum) to get even more money when the total of all mortgages is only $13 trillion? If you hate these banks why are you supporting them with the false ideology of personal responsibility?

Protestors Flood the State Capitol Demanding Foreclosures Halt


BUY THE BOOK! CLICK HERE!

BUY WORKSHOP COMPANION WORKBOOK AND 2D EDITION PRACTICE MANUAL

GET TWO HOURS OF CONSULTATION WITH NEIL DIRECTLY, USE AS NEEDED

COME TO THE 1/2 DAY PHOENIX WORKSHOP: CLICK HERE FOR PRE-REGISTRATION DISCOUNTS

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , | 139 Comments »

We Are Drowning in False Debt While Realtors Push “Recovery”

Posted on May 28, 2012 by Neil Garfield

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:

The figures keep coming in while the words keep coming out the mouths of bankers and realtors. The figures don’t match the words. The net result is that the facts show that we are literally drowning in debt, and we see what happens as a result of such conditions with a mere glance at Europe. They are sinking like a stone, and while we look prettier to investors it is only when we are compared to other places — definitely not because we have a strong economy.

Iceland and other “players” crashed but stayed out of the EU and stayed away from the far flung central banking sleeping arrangements with Banks. Iceland knows that banks got us into this and that if there is any way out, it must be the banks that either lead their way out or get nationalized so their assets can take the hit of these losses. In Phoenix alone, we have $39 BILLION in negative equity. 

This negative equity was and remains illusory. Iceland cut the household debt in each home by 25% or more and is conitinuing to do so. The result? They are the only country with the only currency that is truly recovering and coming back to real values. What do we have? We have inflated property appraisals that STILL dominate the marketplace. 

The absence of any sense of reality is all around us in Arizona. I know of one case where Coldwell Banker, easily one of the most prestigious realtors, actually put lots up for sale asking $40,000 when the tax assessed value is barely one quarter of that amount and the area has now dried up — no natural water supply without drilling thousands of feet or hauling water in by truck. Residents in the area and realtors who are local say the property could fetch at most $10,000 and is unsalable until the water problem is solved. And here in Arizona we know the water problem is not only not going to get solved, it is going to get worse because of the “theory” of global climate change.

This “underwater” mess is political not financial. It wouldn’t exist but for the willingness of the government to stay in bed with banks. The appraisals they used to grant the loan were intentionally  falsified to “get rid of” as much money as possible in the shortest time possible, to complete deals and justify taking trillions of dollars from investors. The appraisals at closing were impossibly high by any normal industry accepted standard and appraisers admit it and even predicted it it in 2005. Banks coerced appraisers into inflating appraisers by giving them a choice — either come in with appraisals $20,000 over the contract price or they will never get work again.

The borrower relied upon this appaisal, believing that the property value was so hot that he or she couldn’t lose and that in fact, with values going so high, it would be foolish not to get in on the market before it went all the way out of reach. And of course there were the banks who like the cavalry came in and provided the apparently cheap money for people to buy or refinance their homes. The cavalry was in a movie somewhere, certainly not in the marketplace. It was more like the hordes of invaders in ancient Europe chopping off the heads of men, women and children and as they lie dying they were unaware of what had happened to them and that they were as good as dead.

So many people have chosen death. They see the writing on the wall that once was their own, and they cannot cope with the loss of home, lifestyle and dignity. They take their own lives and the lives of those around them. Citi contributes a few million to a suicide hotline as a PR stunt while they are causing the distress through foreclosure and collection procedures that are illegal, fraudlent, and based upon forged, robosigned documents with robo-notarized attestations  that the recording offices still won’t reject and the judges still accept.

There is no real real economic recovery without reality in housing. Values never went up — but prices did. Now the prices are returning back to the values left in the dust during the big bank push to “get rid of” money advanced by investors. It’s a game to the banks where the homeowner is the lowly deadbeat, the bottom of the ladder, a person who doesn’t deserve dignity or relief like the bank bailouts. When a person gets financial relief from the government it is a “handout.” When big banks and big business get relief and subsidies in industries that were already profitable, it is called economic policy. REALITY CHECK: They are both getting a “handout” and economic policy is driven by politics instead of common sense. French arisocrats found that out too late as their heads rolled off the guillotine platforms.  

But Iceland and other places in the world have taught us that in reality those regarded as deadbeats are atually people who were herded into middle class debt traps created by the banks and that if they follow the simple precept of restoring victims to their previous state, by giving restitution to these victims, the entire economy recovers, housing recovers and everything resumes normal activity that is dominated by normal market forces instead of the force of huge banks coercing society and government by myths like too big too fail. The Banks are doing just fine in Iceland, the financial system is intact and the government policy is based upon the good of the society as a whole rather the banks who might destroy us. Appeasement is not a policy it is a surrender to the banks.

Cities with the Most Homes Underwater

Michael B. Sauter

Mortgage debt continues to be a major issue in the United States, nearly six years after home prices peaked, according to a report released Thursday by online real estate site Zillow. Americans continue to owe more on their homes than they are worth. Nearly one in three mortgages are underwater, amounting to more than 15 million homes and a total negative equity of $1.19 trillion.

In some of America’s largest metropolitan regions, however, the housing crash dealt a far worse blow. In these areas — most of which are in California, Florida and the southwest — home values were cut in half, unemployment skyrocketed, and 50% to 70% of borrowers now find themselves with a home worth less than the value of their mortgage. 24/7 Wall St. reviewed the 100 largest housing markets and identified the 10 with the highest percentage of homes with underwater mortgages. Svenja Gudell, senior economist at Zillow, explained in an interview with 24/7 Wall St. that the markets with the highest rates of underwater borrowers are in trouble now because of the rampant growth seen in these cities prior to the recession. Once home prices peaked, which was primarily in late 2005 through 2006, all but one of these 10 housing markets lost at least 50% of their median home value.

Making matters worse for families with high negative equity in these markets is the increased unemployment. “If you have a whole lot of unemployment in an area, you’re more likely to see home values continue to decline in the area as well,” says Gudell. While in 2007 many of these markets had average or below average unemployment rates, the recession took a heavy toll on their economies. By 2011, eight of the 10 markets had unemployment rates above 10%, and three — all in California — had unemployment rates of above 16%, nearly double the national average.

24/7 Wall St. used Zillow’s first-quarter 2012 negative equity report to identify the 10 housing markets — out of the 100 largest metropolitan statistical areas in the country — with the highest percentage of underwater mortgages. Zillow also provided us with the decline in home values in these markets from prerecession peak values, the total negative equity value in these markets and the percentage of homes underwater that have been delinquent on payments for 90 days or more.

These are the cities with the most homes underwater.

10. Orlando, Fla.
> Pct. homes w/underwater mortgages: 53.9%
> Number of mortgages underwater: 205,369
> Median home value: 113,800
> Decline from prerecession peak: -55.9%
> Unemployment rate: 10.4% (25th highest)

In 2012, Orlando moved into the top 10 underwater housing markets, bumping Fresno, Calif., to number 11. From its prerecession peak in June 2006, home prices fell 55.9% to $113,800, a loss of roughly $90,000. In 2007, the unemployment rate in the region was just 3.7%, the 17th-lowest rate among the 100 largest metros. By 2011, that rate had increased to 10.4%, the 25th highest. As of the first quarter of this year, there were more than 205,000 underwater mortgages in the region, with total negative equity of $16.7 billion.

9. Atlanta, Ga.
> Pct. homes w/underwater mortgages: 55.5%
> Number of mortgages underwater: 581,831
> Median home value: $107,500
> Decline from prerecession peak: 38.8%
> Unemployment rate: 9.6% (37th highest)

Atlanta is the largest city on this list and the eighth-largest metropolitan area in the U.S. But of all the cities with the most underwater mortgages, it has the lowest median home value. In the area, 55.5% of homes have a negative equity value. With more than 500,000 homes with underwater mortgages, the city’s total negative home equity is in excess of $38 billion. Over 48,000 of these underwater homeowners, or nearly 10%, are delinquent by at least 90 days in their payments, which is also especially troubling. With home prices down 38.8% since June, 2007, the Atlanta area certainly qualifies as one of the cities hit hardest by the 2008 housing crisis.

8. Phoenix, Ariz.
> Pct. homes w/underwater mortgages: 55.5%
> Number of mortgages underwater: 430,527
> Median home value: $128,000
> Decline from prerecession peak: 54.2%
> Unemployment rate: 8.6% (44th lowest)

At 55.5%, Phoenix has the same percentage of borrowers with underwater mortgages as Atlanta. Though Phoenix’s median home value is $21,500 greater than Atlanta’s, it experienced a far-greater decline in home prices from their prerecession peak in June 2007 of 54.2%. This has led to a total negative equity value of almost $39 billion. The unemployment rate also has skyrocketed in the Phoenix area from 3.2% in 2007 to 8.6% in 2011.

7. Visalia, Calif.
> Pct. homes w/underwater mortgages: 57.7%
> Number of mortgages underwater: 33,220
> Median home value: $110,500
> Decline from prerecession peak: 51.7%
> Unemployment rate: 16.6% (3rd highest)

Visalia is far smaller than Atlanta or Phoenix and has less than a 10th the number of homes with underwater mortgages. Nonetheless, the city has been especially damaged by a poor housing market. Home values have fallen dramatically since before the recession, and the unemployment rate, at 16.6% in the first quarter of 2012, is third-highest among the 100 largest metropolitan statistical areas, behind only Stockton and Modesto. Presently, almost 58% of homes are underwater, with these homes carrying a total negative equity of $2.6 billion dollars.

6. Vallejo, Calif.
> Pct. homes w/underwater mortgages: 60.3%
> Number of mortgages underwater: 44,526
> Median home value: $186,200
> Decline from prerecession peak: 60.6%
> Unemployment rate: 11.4% (16th highest)

In the Vallejo metropolitan area, more than 60% of the region’s 73,800 homeowners are underwater. This is largely due to a 60.6% decline in home values in the region from prerecession highs. Through the first quarter of this year, homes in the region fell from a median value of more than $300,000 to just $186,200. Of those homes with underwater mortgages, more than 10% have been delinquent on mortgage payments for 90 days or more.

5. Stockton, Calif.
> Pct. homes w/underwater mortgages: 60.3%
> Number of mortgages underwater: 60,349
> Median home value: $146,500
> Decline from prerecession peak: 64.3%
> Unemployment rate: 16.8% (tied for highest)

With an unemployment rate of 16.8%, Stockton is tied for the highest rate among the 100 largest metropolitan areas. Few cities have been hit harder by the sinking of the housing market than Stockton, where 60.3% of home mortgages are underwater. Though there are only 100,014 houses with mortgages in Stockton, 60,348 of these are underwater and have a total negative home equity of slightly more than $6.9 billion. Meaning, on average, homeowners in Stockton owe at least $100,000 more than their homes are worth.

4. Modesto, Calif.
> Pct. homes w/underwater mortgages: 60.3%
> Number of mortgages underwater: 46,598
> Median home value: $130,600
> Decline from prerecession peak: 64.5%
> Unemployment rate: 16.8% (tied for highest)

Since peaking in December 2005, home prices in Modesto have plunged 64.5%. This is the largest collapse in prices of any large metro area examined. As a result, 46,598 of 77,222 home mortgages in Modesto are underwater. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate rose to 16.8% in 2011. This number was 7.9 percentage points above the national average of 8.9% and almost double Modesto’s 2007 unemployment rate of 8.7%.

3. Bakersfield, Calif.
> Pct. homes w/underwater mortgages: 60.5%
> Number of mortgages underwater: 70,947
> Median home value: $116,700
> Decline from prerecession peak: 57.0%
> Unemployment rate: 14.9% (5th highest)

From its peak in May 2006, the median home value in Bakersfield has plummeted from more than $200,000 to just $116,700, or a 57% loss of value. From 2007 through 2011, the unemployment rate increased from 8.2% to 14.9% — the fifth-highest rate in the country. To date, more than 70,000 homes in the region have underwater mortgages, with total negative equity of just over $6 billion.

2. Reno, Nev.
> Pct. homes w/underwater mortgages: 61.7%
> Number of mortgages underwater: 46,115
> Median home value: $150,600
> Decline from prerecession peak: 58.3%
> Unemployment rate: 13.1%

There are fewer than 75,000 households in Reno, Nevada. Yet 46,115 home mortgages in the city are underwater, accounting for 61.7% of mortgaged homes. From January 2006 through the first quarter of 2012, home prices were more than halved, and negative home equity reached $4.39 billion. Additionally, the unemployment rate almost tripled in rising from 4.5% in 2007 to 13.1% by 2011. In 2007, Reno had the 54th-worst unemployment rate among the 100 largest metros. By 2007, Reno had the eighth-worst unemployment rate.

1. Las Vegas, Nev.
> Pct. homes w/underwater mortgages: 71%
> Number of mortgages underwater: 236,817
> Median home value: $111,600
> Decline from prerecession peak: 63.2%
> Unemployment rate: 13.9%

At 71%, no city has a greater percentage of homes with underwater mortgages than Las Vegas. The area with the second-worst percentage of underwater mortgages, Reno, has less than 62% mortgages with negative. The corrosive effects the housing crisis had on Las Vegas are evident in the more than 200,000 home mortgages that are underwater, 14.3% of which are at least 90 days delinquent on payments. Additionally, home values have dropped 63.2% from their prerecession peak, the third-greatest decline among the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas. Largely because of the collapse of the area’s housing market, unemployment in the Las Vegas area has soared. In 2007, the unemployment rate was 4.7%, only marginally different from the nation’s 4.6% rate. Yet by 2011, the unemployment rate had increased to 13.9%, considerably higher than the nationwide 8.9% unemployment rat.e.


Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments »

BAILOUT TO STATE BUDGETS: AZ Uses Housing Settlement Money for Prisons

Posted on May 17, 2012 by Neil Garfield

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount
LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts
For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Editor’s Comment:

The general consensus is that the homeowner borrowers are simply at the bottom of the food chain, not worthy of dignity, respect or any assistance to recover from the harm caused by Wall Street. Now small as it is, the banks have partially settled the matter by an agreement that bars the states from pursuing certain types of claims conditioned on several terms, one of which was the payment of money from the banks that presumably would be used to fund programs for the beleaguered homeowners without whose purchasing power, the economy is simply not going to revive. Not only are many states taking the money and simply putting it into general funds, but Arizona, over the objection of its own Attorney General is taking the money and applying to pay for prison expenses.

Here is the sad punch line for Arizona. The prison system in that state and others is largely “privatized” which is to say that the state “hired” new private companies created for the sole purpose of earning a profit off the imprisonment of the state’s citizens. Rumors abound that the current governor has a financial interest in the largest private prison company.

The prison lobby has been hard at work ever since privatizing prisons became the new way to get rich using taxpayers dollars. Not only are we paying more to house more prisoners because the laws a restructured to make more behavior crimes, but now our part of the housing settlement is also going to the prisons. Another bailout that was never needed or wanted. Meanwhile the budget of  Arizona continues to rise from incarcerating its citizens and the profiteers (not entrepreneurs by any stretch of the imagination) are getting a gift of more money from the state out of the multistate settlement.

Needy States Use Housing Aid Cash to Plug Budgets

By SHAILA DEWAN

Only 27 states have devoted all their funds from the banks to housing programs, according to a report by Enterprise Community Partners, a national affordable housing group. So far about 15 states have said they will use all or most of the money for other purposes.

In Texas, $125 million went straight to the general fund. Missouri will use its $40 million to soften cuts to higher education. Indiana is spending more than half its allotment to pay energy bills for low-income families, while Virginia will use most of its $67 million to help revenue-starved local governments.

Like California, some other states with outsize problems from the housing bust are spending the money for something other than homeowner relief. Georgia, where home prices are still falling, will use its $99 million to lure companies to the state.

“The governor has decided to use the discretionary money for economic development,” said a spokesman for Nathan Deal, Georgia’s governor, a Republican. “He believes that the best way to prevent foreclosures amongst honest homeowners who have experienced hard times is to create jobs here in our state.”

Andy Schneggenburger, the executive director of the Atlanta Housing Association of Neighborhood-Based Developers, said the decision showed “a real lack of comprehension of the depths of the foreclosure problem.”

The $2.5 billion was intended to be under the control of the state attorneys general, who negotiated the settlement with the five banks — Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Ally. But there is enough wiggle room in the agreement, as well as in separate terms agreed to by each state, to give legislatures and governors wide latitude. The money can, for example, be counted as a “civil penalty” won by the state, and some leaders have argued that states are entitled to the money because the housing crash decimated tax collections.

Shaun Donovan, the federal housing secretary, has been privately urging state officials to spend the money as intended. “Other uses fail to capitalize on the opportunities presented by the settlement to bring real, concerted relief to homeowners and the communities in which they live,” he said Tuesday.

Some attorneys general have complied quietly with requests to repurpose the money, while others have protested. Lisa Madigan, the Democratic attorney general of Illinois, said she would oppose any effort to divert the funds. Tom Horne, the Republican attorney general of Arizona, said he disagreed with the state’s move to take about half its $97 million, which officials initially said was needed for prisons.

But Mr. Horne said he would not oppose the shift because the governor and the Legislature had authority over budgetary matters. The Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest has said it will sue to stop Mr. Horne from transferring the money.


Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

9TH CIRCUIT: MERS and ReconTrust act to usurp Appellant’s property without lawful authority”

Posted on November 21, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

FROM THE BRIEFS:

“MERS Cannot be and in fact is not the beneficiary of the
DOT. There is no named beneficiary in the SOT and ANY and ALL beneficiaries
must be named in the SOT. Therefore the SOT (and consequently the NTS) is
seriously defective and void as an instrument to be implemented to supplant
Appellant from his property.”

“Countrywide was an active conspirator as it allowed BondCorp to utilize its
technological assets, its underwriting resources, account numbering system and
other aids and benefits to entrap Appellant into a loan that was damaging, stated
the wrong parties and took illegal and undisclosed fees.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: The 9th Circuit is inching closer and closer to an outright statement that the foreclosures were fraudulent and illegal. And for the first time it is taking issue with the appointment by Bank of America of ReContrust as “trustee” under the deed of trust. Clearly the replacement of the court system with a qualified trustee was intended to expedite due process, not eliminate it. Every time a substitution of trustee is executed it raises the high probability that the would-be forecloser is appointing itself as the trustee in order to escape the reality that it is not a creditor or proper holder of the loan.

CARNEY vs. BANK OF AMERICA | 9th Circuit Ct. Appeals “It is clear that MERS and ReconTrust act to usurp Appellant’s property without lawful authority”

CARNEY vs. BANK OF AMERICA | 9th Circuit Ct. Appeals “It is clear that MERS and ReconTrust act to usurp Appellant’s property without lawful authority”

“MERS, something of a phantom entity and ReconTrust, subsidiary of BAC and not an independent entity, acting in BAC/BANA/Countrywide’s interests, now are trying to come in and clean up the mess made by the fraudulent DOT and Note by BondCorp in a conspiracy with Countrywide, not because they are any real beneficiary and have or will experience any real loss, but rather to gain substantial fees from the SARM 2005-19XS Trust for foreclosing on Appellant’s property.

It is truly curious as to why the proper parties in this matter are not named and Appellant posits that other, unrelated legal actions are likely a reason. That said, Appellant has shown good cause why a trustee’s sale should not proceed so that the status quo is maintained while he presses his case in the District Court.”

No. 11-56421

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

________________________________________________________
MICHAEL M. CARNEY
Plaintiff

v.

BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL.
Defendants-Appellees

EXCERPT:

III. Merits Of Case Are Compelling And Clear And Likely to Be Successful.
It is clear that MERS and ReconTrust act to usurp Appellant’s property
without lawful authority. MERS Cannot be and in fact is not the beneficiary of the
DOT. There is no named beneficiary in the SOT and ANY and ALL beneficiaries
must be named in the SOT. Therefore the SOT (and consequently the NTS) is
seriously defective and void as an instrument to be implemented to supplant
Appellant from his property.

Defendants act hurriedly and without authority not because they are
uninformed or have made an excusable mistake, but rather because they wish to
elude the central facts and claims against them, hold the wrongful trustee’s sale
and gain title and possession of Appellant’s property to gain a superior position.

The facts are that BondCorp, who has yet to respond to any complaint or
motion related to this case, was in fact named as “Grantee” when it never proffered
any funds and was used by Countrywide to both gain secret, concealed fees and
allow Countrywide to further gain based on intentional concealments, lies,
misrepresentations and related actions.

As has been stated, the core of this matter is the claims against BondCorp
acting at the behest of Countrywide. If BondCorp was found to have acted
fraudulently, as asserted and supported by facts, every other claim and defense is
affected accordingly.

What this court is presented with is a defendant in BondCorp who has
chosen to remain silent in the face of substantial allegations and facts against it,
and a foreclosing entity defendant (MERS) that is acting without authority and in
clear violation of the law.

Meanwhile, Appellant has had to defend and counter all such actions and to
drag out all the facts, all while in the face of losing his family home and efforts to
understand what options would be available to him to avert such a catastrophic
result.

Up until August/September of 2010, Appellant was resigned to the fact that
his misfortune would likely lead to the loss of his family home. It wasn’t until he
received and further researched the information regarding the assignment/transfer
of his DOT and Note to US BANK (June 2010) that was entirely first time news to
him, that he began to understand and realize the fraud, malfeasance and
misfeasance enacted upon him and then which drove him to seek relief and
damages for.

The facts of the case as pertains to BondCorp are clear and undisputed.
BondCorp was not the “lender”. It only acted as such to attain secret fees.
BondCorp utilized illegal, fraudulent means to sell and convince Appellant that the
loan BondCorp wished to engage him in was in his best interests, when it was not
and that all the facts represented to him regarding the alleged loan were true, when
they were not and the real facts were concealed from him and that he was
defrauded of tens of thousands of dollars in the process.

Countrywide was an active conspirator as it allowed BondCorp to utilize its
technological assets, its underwriting resources, account numbering system and
other aids and benefits to entrap Appellant into a loan that was damaging, stated
the wrong parties and took illegal and undisclosed fees.

MERS, something of a phantom entity and ReconTrust, subsidiary of BAC
and not an independent entity, acting in BAC/BANA/Countrywide’s interests, now
are trying to come in and clean up the mess made by the fraudulent DOT and Note
by BondCorp in a conspiracy with Countrywide, not because they are any real
beneficiary and have or will experience any real loss, but rather to gain substantial
fees from the SARM 2005-19XS Trust for foreclosing on Appellant’s property.
It is truly curious as to why the proper parties in this matter are not named
and Appellant posits that other, unrelated legal actions are likely a reason. That
said, Appellant has shown good cause why a trustee’s sale should not proceed so
that the status quo is maintained while he presses his case in the District Court

www.StopForeclosureFraud.com

  1. CARNEY v. BANK OF AMERICA | California Dist. Court “TRO, MERS Interest Discrepancies, ReconTrust may NOT be the Proper Trustee w/ Legal Authority” UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION…
  2. BAKRI v MERS, BONY, TROTT & TROTT PC | Michigan Appeals Court REVERSED “MERS did not have the authority to foreclose by advertisement, No interest in Note” S T A T E  O F  M I C…
  3. CERVANTES RE 9th CIRCUIT OPINION CONTAINS ERROR ON MERS’ LEGAL TITLE Via: LIVING LIES DISTINCTION BETWEEN LENDER AND BENEFICIARY ROOT OF…
  4. BOMBSHELL – JUDGE ORDERS INJUNCTION STOPPING ALL FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS BY BANK OF AMERICA; RECONTRUST; HOME LOAN SERVICING; MERS ET AL Via: 4ClosureFraud (St. George, UT) June 5, 2010 – A…
  5. U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Mayala | NY Appeals Court 2nd Jud. Dept. Affirms, Consolidated Case “That certain mortgages held by MERS on the subject real property are invalid in their entirety” Decided on August 23, 2011 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE…

This post was written by:

– who has written 2743 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

2 Responses to “CARNEY vs. BANK OF AMERICA | 9th Circuit Ct. Appeals “It is clear that MERS and ReconTrust act to usurp Appellant’s property without lawful authority’

Popular Posts

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 29 Comments »

Next Page »
%d bloggers like this: