What Works and What Doesn’t

Posted on December 14, 2018 by Neil Garfield

us-bank-na-v-mattos-sup-ct-hi-no-scwc-14-0001134-jun-6-2017

Note that the courts try to calls balls and strikes not decide, at least on appeal, who should win and then give an opinion that fits. It doesn’t always work that way but many courts do follow that simple rule of blind justice.

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

WORKS: Objection to qualified witness status, no records from the actual claimant, failure to establish entitlement to enforce before foreclosure was started.

We address the third issue on certiorari first. We hold that the ICA erred by concluding the declaration of Richard Work (“Work”), the Contract Management Coordinator of Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”), rendered him a “qualified witness” under State v. Fitzwater, 122 Hawai􏰀i 354, 227 P.3d 520 (2010)

for U.S. Bank’s records under the Hawai‘i Rules of Evidence (“HRE”) Rule 803(b)(6) hearsay exception for records of regularly conducted activity. In addition, U.S. Bank failed to establish that it was a holder entitled to enforce the note at the time the foreclosure complaint was filed. See Bank of America, N.A. v. Reyes-Toledo, 139 Hawai􏰀i 361, 370-71, 390 P.3d 1248, 1257-58 (2017).

DOESN’T WORK: “Robosigning” assertion without proof that attacks the foundation of the document, BUT:

With respect to the first issue on certiorari, because it

is unclear what Defendants mean by “robo-signing” and because a
ruling on the legal effect of “robo-signing” is not necessary to

conclusory assertions that fail to offer factual allegations or a legal theory indicating how alleged “robo- signing” caused harm to a mortgagee are insufficient to establish a defense in a foreclosure action. Addressing the factual allegations underlying the “robo-signing” claim, however, we conclude there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ocwen had the authority to sign the second assignment of mortgage to U.S. Bank. (e.s.)

BEST PRACTICES. Objections must be made timely and with some specificity. You should also be prepared to argue why the objections apply. Payment records will come in evidence not only of the record of payments but also as to anything else shown on the records. Objection to such records, once they have already been introduced or even accepted into evidence, is basically futile, although they could conceivably be later undermined and even potentially struck from the record on cross examination.

If you have a pretrial court order that requires disclosure of all exhibits and expressly states that the parties must state their objections to the proposed exhibits, you must file a notice of such objections. It is wise to state as many grounds as possible for the objection and cite to specific rules of evidence in your jurisdiction.

This is not a legal opinion. Get a lawyer before you act on anything contained in this article.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

GMAC v Visicaro Case No 07013084CI: florida judge reverses himself: applies basic rules of evidence and overturns his own order granting motion for summary judgment

Posted on July 2, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Having just received the transcript on this case, I find that what the Judge said could be very persuasive to other Judges. I am renewing the post because there are several quotes you should be using from the transcript. Note the intimidation tactic that Plaintiff’s Counsel tried on the Judge. A word to the wise, if you are going to use that tactic you better have the goods hands down and you better have a good reason for doing it that way.

Fla Judge rehearing of summary judgement 4 04 10

5035SCAN4838_000 vesicaro Briefs

Vesicaro transcript

Posted originally in April, 2010

RIGHT ON POINT ABOUT WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT

I appeared as expert witness in a case yesterday where the Judge had trouble getting off the idea that it was an accepted fact that the note was in default and that ANY of the participants in the securitization chain should be considered collectively “creditors” or a creditor. Despite the fact that the only witness was a person who admitted she had no knowledge except what was on the documents given to her, the Judge let them in as evidence.

The witness was and is incompetent because she lacked personal knowledge and could not provide any foundation for any records or document. This is the predominant error of Judges today in most cases. Thus the prima facie case is considered “assumed” and the burden to prove a negative falls unfairly on the homeowner.

The Judge, in a familiar refrain, had trouble with the idea of giving the homeowner a free house when the only issue before him was whether the motion to lift stay should be granted. Besides the fact that the effect of granting the motion to lift stay was the gift of a free house to ASC who admits in their promotional website that they have in interest nor involvement in the origination of the loans, and despite the obviously fabricated assignment a few days before the hearing which violated the terms of the securitization document cutoff date, the Judge seems to completely missed the point of the issue before him: whether there was a reason to believe that the movant lacked standing or that the foreclosure would prejudice the debtor or other creditors (since the house would become an important asset of the bankruptcy estate if it was unencumbered).

If you carry over the arguments here, the motion for lift stay is the equivalent motion for summary judgment.

This transcript, citing cases, shows that the prima facie burden of the Movant is even higher than beyond a reasonable doubt. It also shows that the way the movants are using business records violates all standards of hearsay evidence and due process. Read the transcript carefully. You might want to use it for a motion for rehearing or motion for reconsideration to get your arguments on record, clear up the issue of whether you objected on the basis of competence of the witness, and then take it up on appeal with a cleaned up record.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments »

Response to Defective Affidavit: Motion to Strike

Posted on November 25, 2008 by Neil Garfield

Here is an example of a defective affidavit: defective-affidavit-of-indebtedness

Here is the analysis of how to respond:

In general the affidavit is insufficient because it does not satisfy the basic requirements of personal knowledge.
1. “Affiant is an employee:” Affiant should be an officer or otherwise identified as having a specific scope of employment that should be identified and described for the period starting with the loan closing up through the date of the affidavit.
2. “Of Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s servicing agent:” Now they are withholding what entity employs the affiant so there is no presumption that the affiant in fact has personal knowledge of anything, or if affiant has personal knowledge of everything involved in the loan transaction and payments.  Nor are they identifying or describing the function of either plaintiff or the servicing agent.
3. “Personally familiar”: Doesn’t mean personal knowledge. He probably got information from others (hearsay), and he does not identify himself as custodian of records for anyone on anything.
4. “The information is found in the servicing agent’s records”: So he might not employed by the servicing agent but he is swearing that the information is contained in their records. Hearsay, and lack of competence to testify because he is allowing that he might NOT have personal knowledge, which is the key component of a witness’ competency to testify — the four elements being oath or affirmation, personal knowledge, recall and the ability to communicate information that is relevant to the case from his personal knowledge and recollection. In addition there is no indication when the servicing agent began to service, who the servicing agent is, and whether they are still the servicing agent. And there is no indication of what information is tracked by the servicing agent — for example, does the servicing agent pay the holder in due course? who is the holder in due course? Since this loan was most likely securitized, what insurance, third party guarantees, reserves, cross collateralization and/or over collateralization payments have been made? Has the obligation been satisfied or assumed and assigned to a government sponsored entity, or in a bailout by the U.S. Treasury or Federal Reserve. Chances are the servicer can only say whether the maker of the note paid the servicer. The servicer cannot say and doesn’t know about third party payments on the note. He also cannot say whetehr paymentes were received by the payee or holder of the note by the borrower nor does he state the authority of the servicer to intermediate the payments.
5. “The entries are made”: How does he know that the entries are made and if so, by whom, under what authority and based upon what information. We already know he might be an employee of the Plaintiff and not the servicer. So he lacks competency to state anything about the business process or record keeping of the servicer.
6. “either people with first hand knowledge or…” if they didn’t have first hand knowledge then somehow they got information from people who had first hand knowledge. Really? who? And how would he know about any of it?
7.  “recording such entries is a regular practice of servicer or plaintiff”: Well, which is it? Which one is he saying has what information? He clearly is only saying that the records of only one company are involved, but he won’t say which one. What about the other one. Were payments made by borrower to one or the other or both? This second admission that there are two entities involved means at the very least that two affidavits are required — one from the servicer and one from the payee on the note. If the note has been assigned, then a third, fourth fifth etc affidavit needs to be executed by all those who have or ever had a claim to the revenue from the note.
8. “There is now due” Lack of foundation for all the above reasons. Affidavit is subject to Motion to strike.
9. The numbers stated as charges tot he account are unsubstantiated by copies of invoices or any other corroboration.

Filed under: CDO, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: