ALERT: COMMUNITY BANKS AND CREDIT UNIONS AT GRAVE RISK HOLDING $1.5 TRILLION IN MBS

Posted on November 14, 2013 by Neil Garfield

I’ve talked about this before. It is why we offer a Risk Analysis Report to Community Banks and Credit Unions. The report analyzes the potential risk of holding MBS instruments in lieu of Treasury Bonds. And it provides guidance to the bank on making new loans on property where there is a history of assignments, transfers and other indicia of claims of securitization.

The risks include but are not limited to

  1. MBS Instrument issued by New York common law trust that was never funded, and has no assets or expectation of same.
  2. MBS Instrument was issued by NY common law trust on a tranche that appeared safe but was tied by CDS to the most toxic tranche.
  3. Insurance paid to investment bank instead of investors
  4. Credit default swap proceeds paid to investment banks instead of investors
  5. Guarantees paid to investment banks after they have drained all value through excessive fees charged against the investor and the borrowers on loans.
  6. Tier 2 Yield Spread Premiums of as much as 50% of the investment amount.
  7. Intentional low underwriting standards to produce high nominal interest to justify the Tier 2 yield spread premium.
  8. Funding direct from investor funds while creating notes and mortgages that named other parties than the investors or the “trust.”
  9. Forcing foreclosure as the only option on people who could pay far more than the proceeds of foreclosure.
  10. Turning down modifications or settlements on the basis that the investor rejected it when in fact the investor knew nothing about it. This could result in actions against an investor that is charged with violations of federal law.
  11. Making loans on property with a history of “securitization” and realizing later that the intended mortgage lien was junior to other off record transactions in which previous satisfactions of mortgage or even foreclosure sales could be invalidated.

The problem, as these small financial institutions are just beginning to realize, is that the MBS instruments that were supposedly so safe, are not safe and may not be worth anything at all — especially if the trust that issued them was never funded by the investment bank who did the underwriting and sales of the MBS to relatively unsophisticated community banks and credit unions. In a word, these small institutions were sitting ducks and probably, knowing Wall Street the way I do, were lured into the most toxic of the “bonds.”

Unless these small banks get ahead of the curve they face intervention by the FDIC or other regulatory agencies because some part of their assets and required reserves might vanish. These small institutions, unlike the big ones that caused the problem, don’t have agreements with the Federal government to prop them up regardless of whether the bonds were real or worthless.

Most of the small banks and credit unions are carrying these assets at cost, which is to say 100 cents on the dollar when in fact it is doubtful they are worth even half that amount. The question is whether the bank or credit union is at risk and what they can do about it. There are several claims mechanisms that can employed for the bank that finds itself facing a write-off of catastrophic or damaging proportions.

The plain fact is that nearly everyone in government and law enforcement considers what happens to small banks to be “collateral damage,” unworthy of any effort to assist these institutions even though the government was complicit in the fraud that has resulted in jury verdicts, settlements, fines and sanctions totaling into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

This is a ticking time bomb for many institutions that put their money into higher yielding MBS instruments believing they were about as safe as US Treasury bonds. They were wrong but not because of any fault of anyone at the bank. They were lied to by experts who covered their lies with false promises of ratings, insurance, hedges and guarantees.

Those small institutions who have opted to take the bank public, may face even worse problems with the SEC and shareholders if they don’t report properly on the balance sheet as it is effected by the downgrade of MBS securities. The problem is that most auditing firms are not familiar with the actual facts behind these securities and are likely a this point to disclaim any responsibility for the accounting that produces the financial statements of the bank.

I have seen this play out before. The big investment banks are going to throw the small institutions under the bus and call it unavoidable damage that isn’t their problem. despite the hard-headed insistence on autonomy and devotion to customer service at each bank, considerable thought should be given to banding together into associations that are not controlled by regional banks are are part of the problem and will most likely block any solution. Traditional community bank associations and traditional credit unions might not be the best place to go if you are looking to a real solution.

Community Banks and Credit Unions MUST protect themselves and make claims as fast as possible to stay ahead of the curve. They must be proactive in getting a credible report that will stand up in court, if necessary, and make claims for the balance. Current suits by investors are producing large returns for the lawyers and poor returns to the investors. Our entire team stands ready to assist small institutions achieve parity and restitution.

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO SCHEDULE CONSULTATIONS BETWEEN NEIL GARFIELD AND THE BANK OFFICERS (WITH THE BANK’S LAWYER) ON THE LINE, EXECUTIVES FOR SMALL COMMUNITY BANKS AND CREDIT UNIONS SHOULD CALL OUR TALLAHASSEE NUMBER 850-765-1236 or OUR WEST COAST NUMBER AT 520-405-1688.

BLK | Thu, Nov 14

BlackRock with ETF push to smaller banks • The roughly 7K regional and community banks in the U.S. have securities portfolios totaling $1.5T, the majority of which is in MBS, putting them at a particularly high interest rate risk, and on the screens of regulators who would like to see banks diversify their holdings. • “This is going to be a multiple-year trend and dialogue,” says BlackRock’s (BLK) Jared Murphy who is overseeing the iSharesBonds ETFs campaign. • The funds come with an expense ratio of 0.1% and the holdings are designed to limit interest rate risk. BlackRock scored its first big sale in Q3 when a west coast regional invested $100M in one of the funds. • At issue are years of bank habits – when they want to reduce mortgage exposure, they typically turn to Treasurys. For more credit exposure, they habitually turn to municipal bonds. “Community bankers feel like they’re going to be the last in the food chain to know if there are any problems with a corporate issuer,” says a community bank consultant.

Full Story: http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1412712?source=ipadportfolioapp

Filed under: AMGAR, community banks, CORRUPTION, credit unions, currency, evidence, expert witness, Fannie MAe, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, trustee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 112 Comments »

BANKS STOP FORECLOSURES AS THEY REVIEW COMPLIANCE WITH CONSENT ORDERS

Posted on May 20, 2013 by Neil Garfield
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.

 

SEE ALSO: http://WWW.LIVINGLIES-STORE.COM

 

The selection of an attorney is an important decision  and should only be made after you have interviewed licensed attorneys familiar with investment banking, securities, property law, consumer law, mortgages, foreclosures, and collection procedures. This site is dedicated to providing those services directly or indirectly through attorneys seeking guidance or assistance in representing consumers and homeowners. We are available to any lawyer seeking assistance anywhere in the country, U.S. possessions and territories. Neil Garfield is a licensed member of the Florida Bar and is qualified to appear as an expert witness or litigator in in several states including the district of Columbia. The information on this blog is general information and should NEVER be considered to be advice on one specific case. Consultation with a licensed attorney is required in this highly complex field.

EDITOR’S NOTE AND PRACTICE SUGGESTIONS: The approach taken by federal agencies and law enforcement with respect to illegal behavior on the part of the Wall Street banks and their affiliates, subsidiaries and co-venturers has basically been a collection of smoke and mirrors designed to create the illusion that the problems are being fixed. In fact the reality is that the problems are being swept under the rug leaving the economy, the middle class, and the title records of nearly all real estate transactions in shambles.

The temporary hold on foreclosure actions is the result of further scrutiny by federal agencies and law enforcement AND  the growing trend of lawyers for homeowners citing the consent orders in their  denials, defenses, and counterclaims.

The problems are obvious. We start off with the fact that  the notes and mortgages would ordinarily be considered unenforceable, illegal and possibly criminal. Then we have these consent decrees  in which administrative agencies and law enforcement agencies have found the behavior of the parties in the paper securitization trail to a violated numerous laws, rules and regulations. The consent decrees and settlements signed by virtually all of the players in the paper securitization chain require them to take action to correct wrongful foreclosures. Of course we all knew that  they would do nothing of the kind, since the result would be an enormous fiscal stimulus to the economy and restoration of wealth to the middle class at the expense of the banks who stole the money in the first place.

You can take it from the express wording as well as the obvious intention in the consent orders and settlements that most of the prior foreclosures were wrongful and then it would be wrongful to proceed with any further foreclosures without correcting or curing the problems caused by wrongful foreclosure on unenforceable notes and mortgages that are not owned by the originator of the alleged loan or any successor thereto. The further problem for them is that none of them were ever a creditor in the loan transaction.

There can be little doubt now that the principal intermediary was the investment bank that received deposits from investors under false pretenses.  There is no indication that the deposits from investors were ever credited to any trust or special purpose vehicle. Therefore  there can be no doubt that the alleged trust could have ever entered into a transaction in which it paid for the ownership of a debt, note or mortgage. It’s obvious that they are owed nothing from borrowers through that false paper chain and that there obviously could be no default with respect to the alleged trust or any of its predecessors or successors. Therefore the mortgage bonds supposedly issued by the trust were empty with respect to any mortgages that supposedly backed the bonds.

By the application of simple logic and following the actual money trail from the investors down to the borrowers, it is obvious that the investors were tricked into making a loan without documentation or security. This is why the megabanks and all of their affiliates and associates have taken such great pains to make sure that the investors and the borrowers don’t get together to compare notes. Most of the notes signed by borrowers would not have been acceptable to the investors even if the investors were named on the promissory note and mortgage. And both the investors and the borrowers would have been curious about all of the money taken out of the funds advanced by investors as undisclosed compensation in the making of the loan.

 So the banks are facing a major liability problem as well as an accounting problem. The accounting problem is that they are carrying  mortgage bonds and hedge products on their books as assets when they should be carried as liabilities.

The liability problem is horrendous. Most of the money taken from investors was taken under false pretenses. In most cases a receiver would be appointed and the investors would claw back as much as possible to achieve restitution.

This is further complicated by the fact that the homeowners are entitled to restitution as well as damages, treble damages and attorneys fees for all of the undisclosed compensation. This is why the banks want foreclosure and not modification or settlements. They need the foreclosure to complete the illusion that the alleged trust or special purpose vehicle was the proper owner of the debt, note and mortgage despite the fact that the trust neither paid for it nor accepted the assignment.

Thus  lawyers are now directing their discovery requests to the methods utilized by the banks and their affiliates to determine whether a particular foreclosure was wrongful and if so to determine the required corrective action.  It is perhaps the most appropriate question to ask and the most relevant as well.

The required corrective action should be the return of the home to the homeowner. That is what  would ordinarily happen if the scale of the problem was not so huge.

But the law does not favor that approach when applied by judges, lawyers, homeowners, legislators and law enforcement.  Instead, investors and homeowners alike are stuck in a web of politics instead of the application of black letter law that has existed for centuries.  As a result the government response has been tepid at best misleading virtually everyone with so-called settlements that work out to be a fraction of a cent on each dollar  that was stolen by the banks and a fraction of a cent on each dollar representing the value of homes that were taken in illegal foreclosures.

Fortunately none of these consent orders or settlements bar individual actions by homeowners against the appropriate parties. Below are the links to consent orders that may apply to your case — even where the Plaintiff or party initiating foreclosure sales is NOT named as one of these. One or more of them is usually somewhere in the so-called securitization chain. Hat tip to 4closurefraud.org.

Links to the OCC and former OTS Enforcement Actions (Issued April 2011):

 

 

Links to Enforcement Action Amendments for Servicers Entering the Independent Foreclosure Review Payment Agreement (Issued February 2013):

 

 

Wells, Citi Halt Most Foreclosure Sales as OCC Ratchets Up Scrutiny
http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/178_96/wells-citi-halt-most-foreclosure-sales-as-occ-ratchets-up-scrutiny-1059224-1.html

Thousands of Days Late, Billions of Dollars Short: OCC
http://4closurefraud.org/2013/05/18/thousands-of-days-late-billions-of-dollars-short-occ-correcting-foreclosure-practices/

US BANK: Lawsuit to Take Aurora Woman’s House is Guaranteed
http://4closurefraud.org/2013/05/17/us-bank-lawsuit-to-take-aurora-womans-house-is-guaranteed/

Short sales routinely show up in credit reports as foreclosures
http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-harney-20130519,0,111610.story {EDITOR’S NOTE: SEND OBJECTION TO CREDIT REPORTING AGENCIES}

 

Filed under: Eviction, foreclosure, GARFIELD GWALTNEY KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 51 Comments »

OCC Review Getting Few Takers

Posted on April 20, 2012 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

CUSTOMER SERVICE 520-405-1688

Demand an Administrative Hearing

Very few people have asked for a review of their wrongful foreclosures. Maybe it is because we are all war-weary from this constant barrage of illegal activity from the banks. But there are avenues to travel, whether your foreclosure is past, present or even future. While the OCC review process has some restrictions announced, it nonetheless allies to all foreclosures whether they like it or not. They are the regulatory agency for certain types of banks and servicers, just like OTS, and the Federal Reserve. If one of their chartered and regulated members commits an atrocity, the agency is required by law to do something about it.

And one more thing. The OCC should be setting up review panels and administrative hearing processes because you can be sure that homeowners are not going to agree with the “review” that is conducted by the bank that is accused of committing the error, which is what the “review process” is all about. Why not ask a rapist to investigate whether he did it or if she was just asking for it?

This stuff is not just made up out of my head. It comes from the Administrative Procedures Act and its likeness in the federal, state and even local systems where any government agency is involved.

So if you are alleging wrongdoing in ANY foreclosure — past, present or future — you should be making your allegations. What do you allege? That is where the COMBO product linked next to my picture comes in and there are other people who do similar work although it is true that the title companies are trying their best to obscure the searches for title information. Getting a loan specific title analysis and a loan specific securitization analysis should provide you with enough information to allege wrongful foreclosure. Getting a Forensic Analysis and loan level analysis might also be helpful in rounding out the allegations.

Here are just a few items to get you going:

  • The debt wasn’t due
  • The debt wasn’t due to the party who  foreclosed
  • The party who foreclosed misrepresented itself as the owner of the debt
  • The debt was paid in full by insurance, credit default swaps or federal bailouts
  • The monthly payment was paid by the servicer to the creditor (or the party they claim is the creditor) at the same time that the servicer was declaring a default to the borrower. If the creditor was getting paid, where is the default?
  • The credit bid was submitted by a party who was not a creditor and therefore should have paid cash at the auction
  • The auction was conducted by an employee or agent of the party seeking to foreclose
  • Payments were improperly applied or were not applied
  • Charges were illegal and unfair and were the reason for the foreclosure
  • You were tricked into foreclosure by the pretender lender’s agent telling you had to skip payments before you could be considered for modification. (known in the industry as dual tracking)
  • The “lender” failed to comply with Reg Z on rescission
  • The loan violated TILA, RESPA
  • The “lender” failed to comply with RESPA

 

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 59 Comments »

Another Failed Bank: 45th this Year — MegaBank Failure on the Way

Posted on June 4, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

“MEGABANKS IN STATE OF UNDISCLOSED FAILURE“

Fortune has examined dozens of court records that corroborate the
employee’s testimony. And if Countrywide’s mortgage securitizations
systematically failed as it appears they did, Bank of America’s
potential liability dwarfs its shareholder equity, as the
Congressional Oversight Panel points out.

Field is referencing Countrywide v. Kemp, and the sworn testimony of
Linda DeMartini, a top official at BofA. She acknowledged on the
record in a deposition that Countrywide never conveyed the mortgages
to the trusts, and that Countrywide notes “weren’t endorsed except on
a case-by-case basis generally long after securitization ostensibly
occurred.” This would mean that the mortgage-backed securities
composed of Countrywide loans are, in fact, non-mortgage-backed
securities. And Field did the grunt work of looking at the court
records, which back up DeMartini’s claim. None of the 104 Countrywide
notes she looked at in two New York counties were endorsed originally.
Read the whole story, it’s a good one.  [cont’d.]

EDITOR’S NOTE: 45 BANKS HAVE BEEN SEIZED BY THE FDIC. BUT THAT IS ONLY 1% OF THE STORY. THE REST OF THE STORY IS THAT ANY BANK HOLDING “MORTGAGE-BASED ASSETS” HAS ALREADY FAILED BUT IT ISN’T DECLARED. And with the Federal Reserve getting ready to raise reserve requirements, the situation is going to get worse for the MegaBanks until their auditors can’t stand the suspense any more.

Just as the GDP is misstated by the reports of the megabanks with their trading activity being the largest source of “revenue” and the trading being a cover for repatriating money stolen during the mortgage meltdown, the illusion of activity, revenue and profits is being dispelled by questions among auditors as to how to treat the mortgage-based assets. The auditing firms stand to lose a lot if they don’t  take action in a way that  shields them from potential liability. When these Mega Banks finally tumble, they will take the auditing firms and potentially others with them.

By my reckoning and the analysis offered by others who are recognized experts, BOA, Citi, Chase, Morgan, Wells Fargo and others are already failed banks. A large part of their balance sheet is based upon assets that do not exist, never existed, and cannot be brought to life, much less onto a balance sheet as a true asset. Title analysis and securitization analysis shows clearly that each closing of each of more than 80 million residential real estate transactions shows the following, for each loan that was claimed to be part of a securitized transaction:

  1. The party identified as “lender,” “mortgagee”, or beneficiary was either a non-lending institution or an institution who could have loaned the money but didn’t. The pattern of conduct was table-funded transactions, which according to the Truth in Lending Act and Reg Z are presumptively predatory loans. They are considered predatory because by depriving the borrower of important information concerning the identity of the actual lender/creditor, the borrower was prevented from knowing facts that went into the decision about whether to execute the documents. It was fraud in the inducement. The failure to disclose the table-funded nature of the transaction, hidden fees paid to the party identified as the originating lender were withheld from the disclosure statements given to the borrower. Thus, by not knowing who he/she was dealing with and by not knowing about all the extra fees distributed in the feeding frenzy, the borrower was not alerted to the fact that excessive fees were being paid to everyone concerned, including the mortgage broker and the appraiser. Failing to know this, the borrower was unaware that by shopping further, the truth about the price of the loan, the loan appraisal, and the viability of the loan were not only withheld from the borrower, but were used against him/her. This in turn gives rise to rights of rescission which have been often declared by the borrower but ignored by the servicer and the securitizers, as well as causes of action for fraud that could easily exceed the nominal balance of the mortgage stated on the closing documents.
  2. Each documented transaction then creates an unresolvable defect: the party identified on the closing documents was neither the source of funding nor the creditor in any sense of the word. They were acting in most cases as an unregistered unregulated mortgage broker and straw-man for an undisclosed creditor. The effect of this is that the note names a payee based upon a loan from that payee that the payee never funded. The note therefore while appearing real on its face is actually a nullity (void) because it describes a transaction that never in fact took place. Like wise, the mortgage purports to secure the named lender for collection of the balance due on the note. The balance due under the note is zero because the transaction described never took place. While it is possible to reconstitute the mortgage and maybe even the note, it would take a lawsuit filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, in which the Plaintiff pleads and proves a case that there was a scrivener’s error in the identification of the lender and payee. This is why the notes were never actually transferred and why it is necessary for the Banks to fabricate and forge documents to make it appear that their was a transfer of the note and mortgage when the underlying transaction did not exist. While the courts have largely fallen for this ploy, more and more Judges are realizing that the paperwork does not add up.
  3. Each monetary transaction dubbed “mortgage loan”  is undocumented and unsecured. The investor-lender was the source of funds and either the investors lenders should have been described, as they are now, as “certificate holders” (a euphemism because the certificates were never issued either) or if the pool was actually created and a trustee or manager appointed as authorized agent, the Trustee or agent should have been named as a payee on a note and the secured party on a mortgage. The presence and identity of the presumed creditor was already known (but withheld from borrower)  at closing, although possibly not known by the title agent or escrow agent. The proper parties were not named in the closing documentation and even if they were, the money trail shows that the funds taken from the investor were not used in the manner expected or desired by the investor, with special emphasis on those instances in which the investment bank took as much as 50% or more of the investor funds and claimed them as profits, which were secreted off-shore, and which are gradually being repatriated  to create the illusion of trading profits when in fact the profits are not real nor legal. The absence of documentation for the actual monetary transaction means that none of these transaction are secured.
  4. While the true source of the funds for the loan were the investor-lenders, the only documentation received by the true creditors was executed by parties other than the homeowner-borrower. Those documents refer to the documented transaction with the straw-man lender and not the actual monetary transaction. Hence the investor-lender does not have a signed note, mortgage or any agreement with the homeowner-borrower. In all cases in which a different agreement with different parties is attempted to be used as evidence of the obligation, the case fails. Thus the assets claimed by any alleged “owner” of the mortgage documentation are worthless because the documents describe a transaction that is fictitious while those same documents scrupulously avoid describing the real transaction. 
  5. While every state has a procedure to correct, modify or reform documentation that is prepared in error, the facts show that these documents were intentionally prepared with defects. The party to bring such an action to straighten out the paperwork is the investor-lender or the authorized agent who brings such a lawsuit naming the disclosed principal(s) for whom the action is filed. 
  6. The investor lenders have chosen NOT to file such actions and NOT to pursue the homeowners for collection. There are economic and legal reasons for the investors avoiding any attempt to collect from the homeowners. The economic reason is that the best the investor can hope for is that out of the money that was advanced by the investor only part was used to fund mortgages, and the only part of the advance that could ever be claimed against a homeowner is not the larger amount advanced to the investment banker but the smaller amount advanced to the homeowner or on the homeowner’s behalf. Thus in order to make the claim and recover theoretically in full, the investor would have to name BOTH the homeowner and the securitizers (including the investment banks, whom the investors ARE suing for payment in full) to reach all the potential claims for all the money advanced. The investors in short have elected their remedy and have sued the investment bank. The second economic reason for the investors’ decision to not pursue the homeowner is that they are looking at collateral  that was overstated at the time of closing, and now obviously showing its true value at a fraction of the amount that was funded for the loan, which fraction is lower than the amount allocatable as advanced by the investor for making the loan. Thus for every $1 originally advanced to the investment bank, the investor is, for the most part, looking at a maximum recovery of at best 30 cents. But by suing the investment bank, the investor gets the benefit of claiming 100 cents on the dollar because it includes all money advanced to the securitizers, whether deployed for mortgage funding or not, and incorporates the appraisal fraud at closing.
  7. The legal reason why the investors do not want to pursue homeowners, is that they would be “owning” the homeowners’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims which if fully adjudicated could easily exceed the balance due under the loan, which is unsecured as described above. 
  8. Since none of the securitizers were the actual source of funding for any of the loans, the only theoretical asset they hold is a mortgage bond they are holding because they got stuck with it before they could sell it off to unsuspecting clients. But the mortgage bond is based upon (a) a transaction that did not exist (see above) and (b) even if the transaction did exist, the transfer into the pool never occurred, thus rendering the mortgage bond worthless or less than worthless if the bond was subject to tranche counterparty indebtedness. 

Hence the asset on the books of the securitizers related to mortgage “interests” is an illusion. And the failure of the auditors to make a statement regarding the questionable nature of these assets is actionable. But more importantly, the assets claimed on the securitizers balance sheets constitutes a large portion of their total assets. Wipe those out and the bank is suddenly smaller and out of compliance with the reserve requirements of the Federal Reserve and any other agency regulating the activities of a lending institution. Unless they suddenly repatriate the hidden fees from the mortgage meltdown which I estimate to be around $2 trillion, the bank is in the state of undeclared failure. And if they do repatriate the money all at once, they will have a lot of questions to answer including why they needed a bailout.

Failed Bank Tally Reaches 45 in 2011

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — Regulators on Friday shut a small bank in South Carolina, the 45th bank failure this year.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation seized Atlantic Bank and Trust, based in Charleston, S.C., with $208.2 million in assets and $191.6 million in deposits. First Citizens Bank and Trust, based in Columbia, S.C., agreed to assume its assets and deposits.

The F.D.I.C. and First Citizens Bank agreed to share losses on $141.8 million of Atlantic Bank’s assets. The bank’s failure is expected to cost the deposit insurance fund $36.4 million.

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

NY Appeals: AG may pursue Banks for Fraudulent Appraisal

Posted on June 10, 2010 by Neil Garfield
Editor’s note: I think the standards used here apply to ALL private actions for appraisal fraud. With appraisal fraud proven, virtually all lending statutes are proven to have been violated. Appraisal fraud lies at the root of the mortgage mess with its sister, ratings fraud. Both are appraisals and both are ratings. Both were designed to track people into doing what they otherwise would never have done if they had the right information. If the either the investor to advanced the money or the borrower who took it knew that the appraisal was bogus and that there was going to be a hit virtually as fast as you drive a new car off the lot, they would not, as reasonable people, have completed the transaction or they would demanded more information.
From Jake Naumer: This goes to the root and branch of the problems we have today.The good news is that there is actually a TRUE and CORRECT VALUE for any property.It just seems that no one seems to know what it actually is.

Historically and emperically, true value has always been a fairly fixed relationship between total aggregate income and total aggregate property, with some deference for location and ammenities.All of the players with varying vested interests seek to distort the perception of value, through the use of manipulation and misinformation, in order to extract the profit that is created by the gap between true value and perceived value. Unfortunately, once the distortion machine was exposed by exacting market forces, robbery of the honorable rule abiding tax paying citizens was required to maintain the status quo.

It will not last.

Submitted by Jeff

People v First Am. Corp.
2010 NY Slip Op 04868
Decided on June 8, 2010
Appellate Division, First Department
Gonzalez, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 8, 2010

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION
First Judicial Department
Luis A. Gonzalez, P.J.
David B. Saxe
James M. Catterson
Rolando T. Acosta, JJ.
406796/07

1308

[*1]The People of the State of New York by Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

First American Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Defendants appeal from the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered April 8, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied their motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of federal preemption.

DLA Piper LLP (US), New York (Richard F. Hans,
Patrick J. Smith, Kerry Ford
Cunningham and Jeffrey D.
Rotenberg of counsel), for
appellants.
Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, New York
(Richard Dearing, Benjamin
N. Gutman and Nicole
Gueron of counsel), for respondent. [*2]

GONZALEZ, P.J.

This appeal calls upon us to determine whether the regulations and guidelines implemented by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) pursuant to the Home Owner’s Lending Act of 1933 (HOLA) (12 USC § 1461 et seq.) and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) (Pub L 101-73, 103 STAT 183 [codified in scattered sections of 12 USC]), preempt state regulations in the field of real estate appraisal.

The Attorney General claims that defendants engaged in fraudulent, deceptive and illegal business practices by allegedly permitting eAppraiseIT residential real estate appraisers to be influenced by nonparty Washington Mutual, Inc. (WaMu) to increase real estate property values on appraisal reports in order to inflate home prices. We conclude that neither federal statutes, nor the regulations and guidelines implemented by the OTS, preclude the Attorney General of the State of New York from pursuing litigation against defendants First American Corporation and First American eAppraiseIT, LLC. We further conclude that the Attorney General has standing to pursue his claims pursuant to General Business Law § 349.

In a complaint dated November 1, 2007, plaintiff, the People of the State of New York, commenced this action against defendants asserting claims under Executive Law § 63(12) and General Business Law § 349, and for unjust enrichment. The complaint alleges that in Spring 2006, WaMu hired two appraisal management companies, defendant eAppraiseIT and nonparty Lender’s Service, Inc., to oversee the appraisal process and provide a structural buffer against potential conflicts of interest between WaMu and the individual appraisers. The gravamen of the Attorney General’s complaint asserts that defendants misled their customers and the public by stating that eAppraiseIT’s appraisals were independent evaluations of a property’s market value and that these appraisals were conducted in compliance with the Uniform Standards and Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), when in fact defendants had implemented a system allowing WaMu’s loan origination staff to select appraisers who would improperly inflate a property’s market value to WaMu’s desired target loan amount.[FN1]

Defendants moved for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, asserting that the Attorney General is prohibited from litigating his claims because HOLA and FIERRA impliedly place the responsibility for oversight of appraisal management companies on the OTS, and asserting a failure to state a cause of action. Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion, finding that HOLA and FIRREA do not occupy the entire field with respect to real estate appraisal regulation and that the enforcement of USPAP standards under General Business Law § [*3]349 neither conflicts with federal law, nor does it impair a bank’s ability to lend and extend credit. We affirm.

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that Federal laws “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” (US Const, art VI, cl [2]), and it “vests in Congress the power to supersede not only State statutory or regulatory law but common law as well” (Guice v Charles Schwab & Co., 89 NY2d 31, 39 [1996], cert denied 520 US 1118 [1997]). Indeed, “[u]nder the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (US Const, art VI, cl 2), the purpose of our preemption analysis is . . . to ascertain the intent of Congress” (Matter of People v Applied Card Sys., Inc., 11 NY3d 105, 113 [2008], cert denied
_ US _, 129 S Ct 999 [2009]).

Congressional intent to preempt state law may be established “by express provision, by implication, or by a conflict between federal and state law” (Balbuena v IDR Realty LLC, 6 NY3d 338, 356 [2006], quoting New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v Travelers Ins. Co., 514 US 645, 654 [1995]). Express preemption occurs when Congress indicates its “pre-emptive intent through a statute’s express language or through its structure and purpose” (Altria Group, Inc. v Good, 555 US __, __, 129 S Ct 538, 543 [2008]). Absent explicit preemptive language, implied preemption occurs when “[t]he scheme of federal regulation [is] so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it . . . [o]r the Act of Congress may touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject” (Rice v Santa Fe El. Corp., 331 US 218, 230 [1947]). Further, when “[a] conflict occurs either because compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility, or because the State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” the State law is preempted (City of New York v Job-Lot Pushcart, 213 AD2d 210, 210 [1995], affd 88 NY2d 163 [1996], cert denied 519 US 871 [1996] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

Here, defendants do not argue, nor have they directed this Court’s attention to any language within HOLA or FIRREA that establishes, that Congress expressly created these statutes to supersede state law governing the causes of actions asserted in the Attorney General’s complaint. Defendants also have not argued that there exists a conflict between federal and State laws or regulations. Rather, defendants assert that because Congress has legislated so comprehensively, and that federal law so completely occupies the home lending field, the Attorney General is precluded from bringing claims against them under the theory of field preemption. Thus, the necessary starting point is to determine whether HOLA and FIRREA so occupy the field that these two statutes preempt any and all state laws speaking to the manner in which appraisal management companies provide real estate appraisal services.

In 1933, Congress enacted HOLA “to provide emergency relief with respect to home mortgage indebtedness at a time when as many as half of all home loans in the country were in default” (Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v De la Cuesta, 458 US 141, 159 [1982] [internal [*4]quotation marks and citations omitted]). HOLA
created a general framework to regulate federally chartered savings associations that left the regulatory details to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB’s authority to regulate federal savings and loans is virtually unlimited and “[p]ursuant to this authorization, the [FHLBB] has promulgated regulations governing the powers and operations of every Federal savings and loan association from its cradle to its corporate grave” (id. at 145 [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]).

When Congress passed FIRREA in 1989, it restructured the regulation of the savings association industry by abolishing the FHLBB and vested many of its functions into the newly-created OTS (see FIRREA § 301 [12 USCA § 1461 et seq.] [establishing OTS], § 401 [12 USCA § 1437] [abolishing the FHLBB]). According to FIRREA’s legislative history

“[t]he primary purposes of the [FIRREA] are to provide affordable housing mortgage finance and housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals through enhanced management of federal housing credit programs and resources; establish organizations and procedures to obtain and administer the necessary funding to resolve failed thrift cases and to dispose of the assets of these institutions . . . and, enhance the regulatory enforcement powers of the depository institution regulatory
agencies to protect against fraud, waste and insider abuse” (HR Rep 101-54 [I], at 307-308, reprinted in 1989 US Code Cong to Admin News, at 103-104).

FIRREA was also designed
“to thwart real estate appraisal abuses, [by] establish[ing] a system of uniform national real estate appraisal standards. It also requires the use of state certified or licensed appraisers for real estate related transactions with the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Fannie Mac), the RTC, or certain real estate transaction [sic] regulated by the federal financial institution regulatory agencies” (HR Rep 101-54 (I), at 311, reprinted in 1989 US Code Cong to Admin News, at 107).

Further, 12 USCS § 3331, which was enacted as part of FIRREA, states that the general purpose of this statute, is
“to provide that Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate related transactions will be protected by requiring that real estate appraisals utilized in connection with federally related [*5]transactions are performed in writing, in accordance with uniform standards, by individuals whose competency has been demonstrated and whose professional conduct will be subject to effective supervision.”

The uniform standards described in 12 USCS § 3331, are defined in 12 USCS § 3339 which requires that the OTS, as a
“Federal financial institution[] regulatory agency . . . shall prescribe appropriate standards for the performance of real estate appraisals in connection with federally related transactions [FN2] under the jurisdiction of each such agency or instrumentality. These rules shall require, at a minimum — (1) that real estate appraisals be performed in accordance with generally accepted appraisal standards as evidenced by the appraisal standards promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation; and (2) that such appraisals shall be written appraisals.”
The Appraisal Standards Board (ASB) of the Appraisal Foundation promulgates the appraisal standards mandated by 12 USC § 3339 and are called USPAP. The Appraisal Foundation is a private “not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of professional valuation [and] was established by the appraisal profession in the United States in 1987″ (Welcome to The Appraisal Foundation [The Appraisal Foundation], https://netforum.avectra.com/eWeb/StartPage.aspx?Site=TAF [accessed May 27, 2010]). The ASB is responsible for “develop[ing], interpret[ing] and amend[ing]” USPAP (Welcome to The Appraisal Foundation, https://netforum.avectra.com/eWeb/
DynamicPage.aspx?Site=TAF & WebCode=ASB [accessed May 27, 2010]). However, “[e]ach U.S. State or Territory has a State appraiser regulatory agency, which is responsible for certifying and licensing real estate appraisers and supervising their appraisal-related activities, as required by Federal law” (State Regulatory Information [The Appraisal Foundation], https://netforum.avectra.com/eWeb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site=taf & WebCode=RegulatoryInfo [accessed May 27, 2010]; see also State Appraiser Regulatory Programs > State Contact Information [Appraisal Subcommittee], https://www.asc.gov/State-Appraiser- Regulatory-Programs/StateContactInformation.aspx [accessed May 27, 2010] [listing each State appraiser regulatory agency’s website]). Further, the OTS itself has determined that

“[i]t does not appear that OTS is required by title XI of FIRREA to [*6]implement an appraisal regulation that reaches all the activities of savings and loan holding companies, at least to the extent that those activities are unrelated to the safety and soundness of savings associations or their subsidiaries. Neither the language of Title XI nor its legislative history indicate that Congress intended title XI to apply to the wide range of activities engaged in by savings and loan holding companies and their non-saving association subsidiaries” (55 Fed Reg 34532, 34534-34535 [1990], codified at 12 CFR 506, 545, 563, 564 and 571).

Indeed, the OTS encourages financial institutions
“to make referrals directly to state appraiser regulatory authorities when a State licensed or certified appraiser violates USPAP, applicable state law, or engages in other unethical or unprofessional conduct. Examiners finding evidence of unethical or unprofessional conduct by appraisers will forward their findings and recommendations to their supervisory office for appropriate disposition and referral to the state, as necessary” (OTS, Thrift Bulletin, Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines at 10 [November 4, 1994], http://files.ots.treas. gov/84042.pdf [accessed May 27, 2010]).
In looking at the legislative history it becomes clear that Congress intended to establish

“a system of uniform real estate appraisal standards and requires the use of State certified and licensed appraisers for federally regulated transactions by July 1, 1991. . . The key . . . lies in the creation of State regulatory agencies and a Federal watchdog to monitor the standards and to oversee State enforcement. . . It is this combination of Federal and State action . . . that . . . assur[es] . . . good standards are properly enforced (135 Cong Rec S3993-01, at S4004 [April 17, 1989], 1989 WL 191505 [remarks of Senator Christopher J. Dodd]).

Thus, we conclude that neither HOLA or FIRREA preempts or precludes the Attorney General from pursuing his claims.
Having rejected defendants’ general arguments for preemption under HOLA and FIRREA, “[t]he Court’s task, then, is to decide which claims fall on the regulatory side of the ledger and which, for want of a better term, fall on the common law side” (Cedeno v IndyMac Bancorp, Inc., 2008 WL 3992304, *7, 2008 US Dist LEXIS 65337, *22 [SD NY 2008] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Defendants assert that the Attorney General is preempted from pursuing his claims because subsequent to FIRREA’s passage, the OTS issued extensive [*7]regulations specifically addressing the composition and construction of appraisal programs undertaken by federal savings and loans.

It is well settled that “[a]gencies delegated rulemaking authority under a statute . . . are afforded generous leeway by the courts in interpreting the statute they are entrusted to administer” (Rapanos v United States, 547 US 715, 758 [2006]). Indeed, the OTS regulations “have no less pre-emptive effect than federal statutes” (Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 458 US at 153). 12 CFR 545.2, states that regulations promulgated by the OTS are “preemptive of any state law purporting to address the subject of the operations of a Federal saving association.” However, 12 CFR 560.2(a) limits the language of 12 CFR 545.2 by setting parameters to the OTS’ authority to promulgate regulations that

“preempt state laws affecting the operations of federal savings associations when deemed appropriate to facilitate the safe and sound operation of federal savings associations, to enable federal savings associations . . . to conduct their operations in accordance with the best practices of thrift institutions in the United States, or to further other purposes of the HOLA” (12 CFR 560.2[a]).
12 CFR 560.2(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of illustrative examples of the types of state laws preempted by 12 CFR 560.2(a). Further, 12 CFR 560.2(c) states that the following types of State law are not preempted

“to the extent that they only incidentally affect the lending operations of Federal savings associations . . . (1) Contract and commercial law; (2) Real property law; (3) Homestead laws specified in 12 U.S.C. 1462a(f); (4) Tort law; (5) Criminal law; and (6) Any other law that OTS, upon review, finds: (i) Furthers a vital state interest; and (ii) Either has only an incidental effect on lending operations or is not otherwise contrary to the purposes expressed in paragraph (a) of this section.”
The OTS advises that when a court is

“analyzing the status of state laws under § 560.2, the first step will be to determine whether the type of law in question is listed in paragraph (b). If so, the analysis will end there; the law is preempted. If the law is not covered by paragraph (b), the next question is whether the law affects lending. If it does, then, in accordance with paragraph (a), the presumption arises that the law is preempted. This presumption can be reversed only if the law can clearly be shown to fit within the confines of paragraph (c). For these purposes, paragraph (c) is intended to be interpreted narrowly. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of preemption” (61 Fed Reg 50951-01, 50966-50967 [1996]).
[*8]
Defendants argue that the Attorney General’s challenges to defendants’ business practices are preempted because the conduct falls within 12 CFR 560.2(b)(5), which provides examples of loan-related fees “including without limitation, initial charges, late charges, prepayment penalties, servicing fees, and overlimit fees.” Defendants also assert that their alleged conduct is within 12 CFR 560.2(b)(9), which provides

“[d]isclosure and advertising, including laws requiring specific statements, information, or other content to be included in credit application forms, credit solicitations, billing statements, credit contracts, or other credit-related documents and laws requiring creditors to supply copies of credit reports to borrowers or applicants” (id.).

Lastly, defendants assert that their alleged conduct falls within 12 CFR 560.2(b)(10) which states that “[p]rocessing, origination, servicing, sale or purchase of, or investment or participation in, mortgages” is preempted.
The Attorney General’s complaint asserts that defendants engaged in conduct proscribed by Executive Law § 63(12)[FN3] and General Business Law § 349 [FN4]. It further alleges that defendants unjustly enriched themselves by repeated use of fraudulent or illegal business practices, in that they allowed WaMu to pressure eAppraiseIT appraisers to compromise their USPAP-required independence and collude with WaMu to inflate residential appraisal values so that the appraisals would match the qualifying loan values WaMu desired.

Under the first prong of the preemption analysis, we find that this action brought pursuant to Executive Law § 63(12), General Business Law § 349(b) and on the theory of unjust [*9]enrichment is not preempted by 12 CFR 560.2(b)(5) because it involves no attempt to regulate bank-related fees. We also find, under the first prong of the preemption analysis, that there is no preemption pursuant to 12 CFR 560.2(b)(9) because these claims do not involve a state law seeking to impose or require any specific statements, information or other content to be disclosed. Although at least one case has held that claims similar to those asserted here were preempted (see Spears v Washington Mut., Inc., 2009 WL 605835 [ND Cal 2009]), we find
under the first prong of the preemption analysis that 12 CFR 660.2(b)(10) does not preclude the Attorney General’s complaint because prosecution of the alleged conduct will not affect the operations of federal savings associations (FSA) in how they process, originate, service, sell or purchase, or invest or participate in, mortgages.

The question then becomes whether the Attorney General is nevertheless precluded from litigating his claims under the second prong of the preemption analysis. Because enjoining a real estate appraisal management company from abdicating its publicly advertised role of providing unbiased valuations is not within the confines of 12 CFR 560.2(c), we answer it in the negative.

Defendants argue the OTS’s authority under HOLA and FIRREA is not limited to oversight of a FSA and that its authority under these two statues extends over the activity regulated and includes the activities of third party agents of a FSA. Defendants assert that providing real estate appraisal services is a critical component of the processing and origination of mortgages and represents a core component of the controlling federal regime. Defendants cite 12 USC § 1464(d)(7)(D) and State Farm Bank, FSB v Reardon (539 F3d 336 [6th Cir 2008]) for
support. 12 USC § 1464(d)(7) states, in pertinent part, that

“if a savings association . . . causes to be performed for itself, by contract or otherwise, any service authorized under [HOLA] such performance shall be subject to regulation and examination by the [OTS] Director to the same extent as if such services were being performed by the savings association on its own premises . . .”
Here, it is alleged eAppraiseIT and Lender’s Service, Inc., were hired by WaMu to provide appraisal services. However, defendants are incorrect in asserting that providing real estate appraisal services is an authorized banking activity under HOLA. In an opinion letter dated October 25, 2004, OTS concluded that it had the authority to regulate agents of an FSA under HOLA because

“[i]nherent in the authority of federal savings associations to exercise their deposit and lending powers and to conduct deposit, lending, and other banking activities is the authority to advertise, market, and solicit customers, and to make the public aware of the banking products and services associations offer. The authority to conduct deposit and lending activities, and to offer banking products and services, is accompanied by the power to advertise, market, and solicit customers for such products and services . . . A state may not put operational restraints on a federal savings [*10]association’s ability to
offer an authorized product or service by restricting the association’s ability to market its products and services and reach potential customers . . . Thus, OTS has authority under the HOLA to regulate the Agents the Association uses to perform
marketing, solicitation, and customer service activities” (2004 OTS Op No. P-2004-7, at 7, http://files.ots.treas.gov/560404.pdf, 2004 OTS LEXIS 6, at *15 [accessed May 27, 2010]).
State Farm Bank, FSB v Reardon (539 F3d 336 [6th Cir 2008]) follows this principle. In Reardon, the plaintiff, a FSA chartered by the OTS under HOLA, decided to offer, through its independent contractor agents, first and second mortgages and home equity loans in the State of Ohio. The Sixth Circuit concluded that although the statute at issue

“directly regulates [the plaintiff FSA’s] exclusive agents rather than [the FSA] itself . . . the activity being regulated is the solicitation and origination of mortgages, a power granted to [the FSA] by HOLA and the OTS. This is also a power over which the OTS has indicated that any state attempts to regulate will be met with preemption . . . [T]he practical effect of the [statute] is that [the FSA] must either change its structure or forgo mortgage lending in Ohio. Thus, enforcement of the [statute] against [the FSA’s] exclusive agents would frustrate the purpose of the HOLA and the OTS regulations because it indirectly prohibits [the FSA] from exercising the powers granted to it under the HOLA and the OTS regulations” (Reardon, 539 F3d at 349 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
Since appraisal services are not authorized banking products or services of a FSA, defendants have failed to show that the Attorney General is preempted from pursuing his claims under 12 USC § 1464(d)(7)(D). Consequently, under the second prong of the preemption analysis, the result of the Attorney General litigating his claims against a company that independently administers a FSA’s appraisal program would “only incidentally affect the lending operations of [the FSA]” (12 CFR 560.2[c]). Thus, defendants have failed to show that OTS’s regulations and guidelines preempt or preclude the Attorney General from pursuing his claims.

Defendants assert that Cedeno v IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. (2008 WL 3992304, 2008 US Dist LEXIS 65337 [SD NY 2008]) provides this Court with persuasive authority that the federal government and its regulators alone regulate the mortgage loan origination practices of FSAs including all aspects of the appraisal programs they utilize. In Cedeno, the Southern District found preemption precluded a private individual from maintaining a cause of action against a bank. It was alleged that the bank failed to disclose to the plaintiff that it selected appraisers, appraisal companies and/or appraisal management firms who would inflate the value of [*11]residential properties in order to allow the bank to complete more real estate transactions and obtain greater profits. This practice resulted in the plaintiff being misled as to the true
equity in her home. The Southern District found that the conduct of the bank was

“directly regulated by the OTS: the processing and origination of mortgages, a loan-related fee, and the accompanying disclosure. The appraisals are a prerequisite to the lending process, and are inextricably bound to it. Because the plaintiff’s claim is not a simple breach of contract claim, but asks the Court to set substantive standards for the Associations’ lending operations and practices, it is preempted” (Cedeno, 2008 WL 3992304, *9, 2008 US Dist LEXIS 65337, at *28 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

Contrary to defendants’ assertions, we find that Cedeno is not applicable here because Cedeno does not reach the question as to whether HOLA, FIRREA or OTS’s regulations and guidelines are intended to regulate the conduct of real estate appraisal companies.
Annexed to the OTS’s October 25, 2004 opinion letter is a document entitled Appendix A – Conditions. In this document, OTS requires FSAs that wish to use agents to perform marketing, solicitation, customer service, or other activities related to the FSA’s authorized banking products or services to enter into written agreements that “(4) expressly set[] forth OTS’s statutory authority to regulate and examine and take an enforcement action against the agent with respect to the activities it performs for the association, and the agent’s acknowledgment of OTS’s authority” (2004 OTS Op No. P-2004-7, at 16, http://files.ots. treas.gov/560404.pdf, 2004 OTS LEXIS 6, at *37 [accessed May 27, 2010]). We note that defendants have neither asserted that such written agreements exist nor produced such documents. Thus, we conclude that the Attorney General may proceed with his claims against defendants because his challenge to defendants’ allegedly fraudulent and deceptive business practices in providing appraisal services is not preempted by federal law and regulations that govern the operations of savings and loan associations and institution-affiliated parties.

Defendants assert that the Attorney General cannot rely upon a substantive violation of a federal law to support a claim under General Business Law § 349 because this is an improper attempt to convert alleged violations of federal law into a violation of New York law. Defendants claim that where a plaintiff seeks to rely upon a substantive violation of a federal law to support a claim under General Business Law § 349, the federal law relied upon must contain a private right of action.

However, the Attorney General is statutorily charged with the duty to “[p]rosecute and defend all actions and proceedings in which the state is interested, and have charge and control of all the legal business of the departments and bureaus of the state, or of any office thereof which requires the services of attorney or counsel, in order to protect the interest of the state” (Executive Law § 63[1]). Indeed, when the Attorney General becomes aware of allegations of persistent fraud or illegality of a business, he [*12]

“is authorized by statute to bring an enforcement action seeking an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, [and] directing restitution and damages’ (Executive Law § 63 [12]). He is also authorized, when informed of deceptive acts or practices affecting consumers in New York, to bring an action in the name and on behalf of the people of the state of New York to enjoin such unlawful acts or practices and to obtain restitution of any moneys or property obtained’ thereby (General Business Law § 349 [b])” (People v Coventry First LLC, 13 NY3d 108, 114 [2009]).
It is well settled that “[o]n a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211, the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory’” (Wiesen v New York Univ., 304 AD2d 459, 460 [2003], quoting Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). The Attorney General’s complaint alleges that defendants publicly claimed on their eAppraiseIT website that eAppraiseIT provides a firewall between lenders and appraisers so that customers can be assured that USPAP and FIRREA guidelines are followed and that each appraisal is being audited for compliance. The Attorney General charges that defendants deceived borrowers and investors who relied on their proclaimed independence by allowing WaMu’s loan production staff to select the appraiser based upon whether they would provide high values.

We find defendants’ assertions that the Attorney General lacks standing under General Business Law § 349 and that his complaint fails to state a cause of action are without merit. Indeed, the Attorney General’s complaint references misrepresentations and other deceptive conduct allegedly perpetrated on the consuming public within the State of New York, and “[a]s shown by its language and background, section 349 is directed at wrongs against the consuming public” (Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 24 [1995]). Therefore, we find that the Attorney General’s complaint articulates a viable cause of action under General Business Law § 349, and that this statute provides him with standing.

Consequently, we conclude that defendants have failed to demonstrate that HOLA, FIRREA or the OTS’s regulations and guidelines preempt or preclude the Attorney General from pursuing the causes of action articulated in his complaint. We additionally find that the Attorney General has standing under General Business Law § 349. We have reviewed defendants’ remaining contentions and we find them without merit.

Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered April 8, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, [*13]denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of federal preemption, should be affirmed, without costs.

All concur.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered April 8, 2009, affirmed, without costs.

Opinion by Gonzalez, P.J. All concur.
Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Catterson, Acosta, JJ.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 8, 2010

CLERK

Footnotes

Footnote 1: USPAP is incorporated into New York law and it prohibits a State-certified or State licensed appraiser from accepting a fee for an appraisal assignment “that is contingent upon the appraiser reporting a predetermined estimate, analysis, or opinion or is contingent upon the opinion, conclusion or valuation reached, or upon the consequences resulting from the appraisal assignment” (NY Exec Law § 160-y; 19 NYCRR 1106.1).

Footnote 2: 12 USC § 3350(4) states that “[t]he term federally related transaction’ means any real estate-related financial transaction which—(A) a federal financial institutions regulatory agency or the Resolution Trust Corporation engages in, contracts for, or regulates; and (B) requires the services of an appraiser.”

Footnote 3: Executive Law § 63(12) states, in pertinent part, that “[w]henever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York . . . for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages. . .”

Footnote 4: General Business Law § 349(b) states, in pertinent part, that “[w]henever the attorney general shall believe from evidence satisfactory to him that any person, firm, corporation or association or agent or employee thereof has engaged in or is about to engage in any of the acts or practices stated to be unlawful he may bring an action in the name and on behalf of the people of the state of New York to enjoin such unlawful acts or practices and to obtain restitution of any moneys or property obtained directly or indirectly by any such unlawful acts or practices.”

Filed under: CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, Pleading, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, STATUTES, workshop | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Regulation and Prosecution on Wall Street

Posted on April 20, 2010 by Neil Garfield

In my opinion, the growing anger at Wall Street is giving Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon another chance at misdirection. They are using the current popular angst to steer the debate into whether derivatives and synthetic CDOs should be banned. In the end they will win that debate, and they should win it. What they should lose is their freedom in a judicial forum where they are prosecuted like Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers, and where it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed criminal fraud and securities fraud.

The fact that we had a bad experience with derivatives is not a reason to ban them. The fact that they were abused and that people were cheated and that the entire financial system was undermined is another story.

There is nothing wrong with any transaction if the playing field is relatively level and if the imbalances are addressed by law and regulation. That is what the Truth in lending Act is all about and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act is meant to address.

When the big guys use their superior knowledge to trick consumers into deadly transactions, the big guys should pay the price. We have the SEC to take care of that on the other end protecting investors. Licensing laws and administrative sanctions against those licensed by state or federal agencies are well-equipped to step in and deal with these abuses. But they didn’t.

Complaints sent to the Federal Trade Commission, Office of Thrift Supervision and Office of the Controller of the Currency have gone unheeded even to this day. The only answer you get is similar to the answer we get from sending short or long Qualified Written requests or Debt Validation Letters — short shrift of legitimate complaints that by law are required to be investigated, verified (not just restated) and corrected.

The inconvenient truth is that our regulators were not employing the tools given to them. Everyone knew it. In part it was because of undue influence and in part it was because they were deferring to larger “smarter” institutions like the Federal Reserve. But the biggest reason the Federal and state agencies didn’t do their job is that we, as a society, bought into the non-regulation philosophy which has failed so spectacularly. We didn’t support appropriate funding, training and resources for these agencies. If we had done what we should have done — elect people who were committed to government protecting and serving the people — this mess would never have mushroomed to the point where Wall Street issued proprietary currency equal to 12 times times the amount of government currency — all in a span only 25 years.

The simple truth is that there was nothing inherently wrong about securitizing residential mortgages. In theory, spreading the risk out created much greater liquidity for small and large consumers of credit. What was wrong and remains wrong is that the use of these instruments was for an illegal purpose — to defraud investors and borrowers alike. And they did it in an illegal manner — by denying and withholding information essential to the decision-making on both sides of these transactions.

On one side you had a creditor who was willing to loan money for residential mortgages under terms and conditions that were “explained” in mind-numbing prospectuses and guaranteed by “insurance” that wasn’t really insurance and which was appraised by government licensed rating agencies who issued investment grade appraisals that were so wrong that it strains credibility to assume they didn’t know they were part of a larger criminal enterprise. This creditor lent money and received a bond, whose terms referenced other documents in the securitization chain that imposed conditions, co-obligors, and protections to the intermediaries that completely changed the loans that were signed by borrowers far, far away.

On the other side, you had borrowers, homeowners, who put their largest or only investment in the world at risk in a transaction that they could not understand because the information required to understand it was withheld. But even Alan Greenspan admitted he didn’t understand the transactions with the help of 100 PhD’s. These borrowers relied upon the sanctity of an underwriting process that no longer existed. Verification of property value, quality, affordability etc. were no longer in the mix.

These borrowers undertook an obligation to repay and signed a note that was evidence of the obligation but was payable to someone other than the party(ies) who loaned the money. That note was only a tiny part of the obligation to the creditor as evidenced by the mortgage backed bond they received.

The creditor was bilked out of a dollar and contrary to the expectations of the creditor, less than 2/3 of each dollar was actually used to fund mortgages. The creditor never actually received or even saw the note but ownership of the note was conveyed to the investor along with many other terms — terms that were entirely different from the note the borrower signed as to interest payments, principal, fees etc.

In between were the dozens of intermediaries who treated the documentation like a hot potato because nobody wanted to be stuck with it — knowing that misrepresentation and bad appraisals were the root of the instruments signed by creditors and debtors. These intermediaries kept possession of the note, kept the security instrument and kept the money and most of the insurance proceeds, received the federal bailout and now are proceeding to repackage the junk they already sold and through “resecuritization” are selling them again.

In my opinion there is nothing theoretically wrong with anything described above except for one thing — they lied. Fraud is fraud. If they had educated the creditors and debtors, if they had complied with local property and contract law, if they had been transparent disclosing everything much the same way as the prospectus in an IPO, then two things are true: (a) transactions that were completed would have been done because both sides knew the risks and were willing to take the loss and (b) transactions that were NOT completed (which would have been nearly all of them) would been rejected because the costs were too high, the risks were too high, and the consequences too dire.

But none of that happened because we allowed our regulators to be co-opted by the industries they were supposed to regulate. So tell your legislators and government agencies that you’ll allow them the resources to properly regulate and that you expect to hold them and the elected officials who put them there fully accountable.

Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. It isn’t derivatives that are wrong it is the people who used them and the way they were used that is wrong. Killing derivatives would lead to stagnation of what once was our greatest asset — the engine of liquidity for access to capital that has kept our economy growing.


Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

%d bloggers like this: