NY Judge SPINS US BANK for BAD FAITH MISUSE of “TRIAL PAYMENTS”

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

ANOTHER “BANK” MODIFICATION SCAM ON HOMEOWNERS

EDITOR’S NOTE: Here is standard operating procedure throughout the industry. Once again, it is fraudulent. This example, the homeowners made $22,000 in payments (to a non-creditor) believing they were headed for a negotiated settlement based upon assurances from the pretender lender while the whole time they never had any intention of settling, modifying or anything else (no doubt because they were fraudulently representing themselves to be the creditor and couldn’t negotiate or modify anything at all).

Judge Spinner pierced right through all the foggy bottom arguments and paperwork and saw the behavior of US Bank for what it was — BAD FAITH. The result? The “plaintiff” got nothing. I would argue they should have received much more than that in the form of sanctions for contempt of court and attempted use of the court as vehicle for fraud, and the court is holding a hearing on that very issue. We’ll see what happens.

Judge SPINNER: “…while Defendants were assiduously attempting to re-negotiate a modification, plaintiff was instructing its counsel to continue prosecution of the foreclosure action. It is painfully obvious to this Court that Defendant relied upon representations made by Plaintiff and acted affirmatively based upon those representations, all to their serious detriment. ….’A Party having a legal right shall not be permitted to avail himself of it for the purposes of injustice or oppression…’ 124 NY at 179”

12.01.2010 NY JUDGE SPINNER-U-S-Bank-Natl-Assn-v-Mathon

FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com

[NYSC] JUDGE SPINNER LETS U.S. BANK HAVE IT “HAMP FAIL” U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v Mathon – 2010-12-03 20:01:34-05
Question where exactly these “trial payments” went U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Mathon 2010 NY Slip Op 52082(U) Decided on December 1, 2010 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Spinner, J. The issue of the claim of the forbearance/modification agreement, however, is an entirely different situation, one that is considerably troubling to this Court. Defendants assert (and Plaintiff does not in […]

%d bloggers like this: