DISCOVERY TIPS: Thieves Guild: Bank of America Flubs Foreclosure, Seizes Wrong House — AGAIN

In virtually all cases you will not find a person with any relationship to the creditor, investor, or pool. This is because servicers, trustees and other firms in the securitization chain are proceeding on their own initiating foreclosures without instructions, knowledge or any documentation from the creditor, investor or pool.

Editor’s Note: Greyhawk is of course right. But his assumption that this doesn’t happen very often is wrong. We have seen Wells Fargo foreclose on the wrong house and Wells Fargo sue itself because it securitized the first mortgage into one pool and securitized the second mortgage into another pool.

The central importance of these articles is NOT that the banks are stupid or negligent. For the litigator, the central importance is EVIDENCE. Think about it. Work backwards from the event. What would need to be absolutely true for a firm to seize a house in which it had no interest? And how can that help you in other cases where the facts are not quite as clear?

Well, for one thing it would require a belief on the part of someone without any personal knowledge of their own (witness is not competent to testify, plausible deniability thus given a layer of support to other firms in the securitization chain) that they DO have an interest. How could that be? It could only be true if they were using documents and a chain of possession of documents that were either falsified (fabricated) or incomplete (in which case they made assumptions that turned out to be false).

In order for them to make those assumptions they would have had to receive the instructions OR the documents from a “Trusted Source”. Find out the identity for the trusted source and work your way back to the person who actually wrote the document, the person who actually signed the document and the person who gave instructions concerning the creation of that documentation along with any written evidence contemporaneous with those events.

In virtually all cases you will not find a person with any relationship to the creditor, investor, or pool. This is because servicers, trustees and other firms in the securitization chain are proceeding on their own initiating foreclosures without instructions, knowledge or any documentation from the creditor, investor or pool.

The reason we know that documents are falsified and that it is not only common practice but institutionalized pattern of conduct to fabricate documents is simple: when you have a  mortgage that is still “performing” (i.e., payments are up to date) and you ask for the the documentation, they don’t have it.

It is ONLY when the “loan” becomes delinquent, or in default or the notice of sale is issued or there is a challenge to the notice of sale that the documents finally show up. And usually it takes 6-12 weeks to get all the documents. Why? If they started foreclosure proceedings, they would have needed those documents ahead of time.

Trustees routinely pull up a title report before starting a non-judicial sale. You shoudl ask for that and anything else the Trustee had at the time of the initiation of foreclosure proceedings and the date of receipt or creation (under oath in interrogatories as to the date of creation of the documents).

Plaintiffs routinely pull up a title report before they file a foreclosure lawsuit in judicial states. Yet when you ask for them, it takes weeks to produce them and when finally produced and examined and investigated, you will often find that the signature was not authorized, the witnesses were in a different state, the notary was in a a different state from either the witnesses or the signatory or that the signatures are forged (i.e., don’t match the normal signatures of the people who signed.

As for the “negligence” theory, here is the problem for them. How could they think they have something when it doesn’t exist. ANSWER: Because it does exist (or WILL exist when they get around to it) and it was thus fabricated and forged.

But it also means something else when you drill down on these transactions. The pressure to get these loans moving in the securitization chain was immense. Many mortgage brokers or originators took the MORTGAGE APPLICATION, changed it and completed the rest of the closing documents by forgery or simply described the loan as completed when they sent data to the first pool, the aggregator, who then took that description and attached it as an exhibit to his “assignment” to the second pool, the SPV pool.

This is precisely what probably happened in the case reported below. Somebody signed a loan application, never went through with the closing but the loan description went up through the securitization chain and so the originators had to treat it as real even though it didn’t exist. And when its number came up, which was fast because if you don’t have any borrower it isn’t hard to imagine that the “loan” went into default immediately due to non-payment from the non-existent borrower, they foreclosed.

This is where April Charney’s “Produce the Note” fame has been misused and misapplied by those who do not understand the rules of evidence as she does. It’s not just the note she’s after. She wants the Plaintiff in Florida and other judicial states, to prove their case and not be permitted to fake it. Those who report negative results using her material have not mastered the basics, applied a non-existent magic bullet and falsely concluded that April and others are wrong. Those who are too lazy to learn the whole story should withhold their judgment. April Charney is right and what she teaches is correct.

Thieves Guild: Bank of America Flubs Foreclosure, Seizes Wrong House — AGAIN

Sun, 01/17/2010 – 14:46 |  GreyHawk

Hat-tip Consumerist.

For some, the slogan “practice makes perfect” is a motto of encouragement to try again, try harder and achieve perfection. For Bank of America, it should be taken as a strong hint to try and do the right thing the first time, not to try and find a better way to seize the wrong house and then attempt to abstain from any recognizable responsibility.

It should be, but it’s not.

BoA has apparently attempted to foreclose on the wrong house once again, according to an article by Laura Elder in the Galveston County Daily News:

GALVESTON — A West End property owner is suing Bank of America Corp., asserting its agents mistakenly seized a vacation house he owns free and clear, then changed the locks and shut the power off, resulting in the smelly spoiling of about 75 pounds of salmon and halibut from an Alaska fishing trip and other damages.

Agents working for Bank of America cut off power to the property by turning off the main switch in the lower part of the house, according to the lawsuit. They also changed the locks, so Schroit was unable to reach the switch to turn the power back on, according to the lawsuit.

“The property sustained water damage, potential mold contamination arising from the standing freezer residue, water, heat and high humidity conditions during the time the electrical power was off,” according to the lawsuit.

This marks the second time known this has known to occur. The Wheelright, Ky, homeowner in that incident filed a lawsuit against the bank for a similar incident: the locks were changed, and the bank refused to pay any damages other than replacement locks.

Accidents happen, but the bank’s responsibility for its actions doesn’t cease to exist simply because it’s a corporate behemoth. If an average person had “accidentally” shut off power to someone else’s home, changed the locks and caused untold damage, that person would be held liable in both criminal and civil court for the actions — amends and liability would most certainly be assigned.

Bank of America’s incapacity to deal responsibly with “errors” that significantly impact the public should be a wake-up call that the bank has other serious issues that need to be addressed, and that the rights and liberties of “corporate personhood” should not ever exceed the rights and liberties of real living people.

Lawyer’s foreclosure defense of ‘quiet title’ faces tests

“The note is often produced at some point in the litigation, but the real problem is, how did they get it? When did they get it? And did the transfer of ownership comport with federal and Florida law for the transfer of such negotiable instruments?”
In cases that are dismissed based on these arguments, foreclosure defense attorneys said lenders aren’t as eager to re-file the case.

Editor’s Note: If you ignore the hype about history being made, this is an informative article about a trend sweeping the country. Yes it IS that simple.

The best way to smoke out the REAL LENDER is by filing a lawsuit seeking to quiet title. This has already been done successfully in dozens of cases in many states. We are tracking what people are reporting. In almost ALL cases where this was the central focus of the attack against the pretender lender, the homeowner was awarded quiet title by DEFAULT. (The other side never answered).

TRANSLATION: The Court (Judge) entered a Final Judgment declaring that the homeowner owned his/her/their house free and clear of all encumbrances. The claims of the pretender lender were thrown out and the homeowner was left with his house as an asset, not alibaility. The homeowner was no longer subject to foreclosure or ANY claim on the note or mortgage that was signed at “closing.”

Like the NY York decisions recently reported quiet title is another way to invalidate the mortgage and extinguish the note and any right to enforce it.

CAUTION: “PRODUCE THE NOTE: It’s a valid strategy but it offends the sensibilities of many judges. If THAT is the focus of your attack or defense, then you are rolling the dice on ONE thing when there are many arrows in your quiver. Many Judges have held, contrary to the rules of evidence, that merely being unable to produce the original note is NOT a reason to stop the foreclosure. Legally it can be argued this is wrong. I think it is flawed legal reasoning. But the other side is that “just because the “lender” was sloppy in its record keeping does not mean the homeowner should get away scott free. ” Actually, legally, I think it DOES mean that and that Charney is right. But I think you need to couple your argument with why this is a matter of substance and not just procedure or legal sleight of hand.

The reason why many Judges HAVE applied the evidentiary rules regarding production of the note is that there could be someone else holding it with a greater right to enforce it than the pretender lender who is trying to foreclose. And in fact (with the help of a forensic analyst to assist as an expert) the securitization process multiple parties who COULD have the actual original note in their position and/or who COULD be parties with a superior legal right to be paid on the note —because THEY are the ones who actually advanced the money for the loan or they advanced the money to third parties who advanced the money to fund the loan.

Lawyer’s foreclosure defense of ‘quiet title’ faces tests

Jacksonville Business Journal – by Kimberly Morrison

April Charney of Jacksonville Area Legal Aid.

The house at 12920 Mt. Pleasant Road is a modest ranch-style home. The man in it is John McCampbell, a 61-year-old car mechanic who lives with his two children and fiancée.
He took out a $156,000 mortgage from the now-defunct Washington Mutual, which foreclosed on his home in 2004 after he lost his job. But when the lender was unable to produce the deed to prove it had a right to foreclose, McCampbell beat the foreclosure and remains there today.
Now McCampbell and his Fort Caroline home are poised to make history in foreclosure defense with an experimental legal approach that would wipe out his mortgage debt and hand him a clean deed. It’s called a “quiet title,” where the court establishes a party’s title to the property to remove or “quiet” any challenges or claims to it.
It sounds like an impossible endeavour. But April Charney, a Jacksonville Area Legal Aid attorney, has spent the past four years teaching lawyers across the country the legal framework of this foreclosure defense. With an average of 3,000 foreclosures filed every month in Jacksonville alone, there’s no shortage of lawyers tapping her expertise.
“It’s an exceptionally layered, nuanced practice of law, but right now a very productive one,” Charney said recently after her latest sold-out seminar in Jacksonville.
Bankers counter that Charney is taking advantage of a legal technicality.
Anthony DiMarco, executive vice president of governmental affairs for the Florida Bankers Association, said errors on assignments are not tantamount to a person not being responsible for their mortgage.
“When you are doing lots and lots of anything — and there were lots of these loans written — there are human beings involved and there were mistakes along the way just like anything else,” DiMarco said.

‘Show me the note’

Before asking the court to quiet a title, a foreclosure must be dormant for five years. That brings Charney to a critical juncture in many of her early cases where the five years is at or near its expiration. She’ll be seeking multiple quiet titles in 2010, including one for McCampbell, her client.
Charney is a national authority on foreclosure defense, and a driving force behind what is often called the “show me the note” movement making its way through jurisdictions across the country. The strategy is crippling lenders’ ability to foreclose on homes when they are not able to produce the note as evidence of their right to bring a foreclosure.
At the crux of her argument is the very loan itself, securitized loans that became commonplace in the late 1990s, and quickly dominated mortgage lending practice.
Mortgage securitization is the process of bundling home loans into securities and selling them to investors. Mortgage servicers collect monthly payments and distribute them to securities investors.
But Charney said the critical error was that the originating lenders systematically pledged the loans, and didn’t actually transfer them to the trusts that are supposed to hold them and issue the securities. The result is a paper trail that goes nowhere, and a reasonably successful legal strategy.

‘A red herring’

A secondary snag in lenders’ ability to obtain a foreclosure is the physical note, or lack thereof. The Florida Bankers Association testified to the Supreme Court task force on residential mortgage foreclosure that originals were “deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion” when entered into an electronic format. The problem with that is the court requires an original.
Ownership transfers after the foreclosure has been assigned, copies of notes and false signatures have been argued to amount to fraud.
“The ‘produce the note’ argument is really a red herring,” said Chip Parker, a Jacksonville foreclosure defense attorney. “The note is often produced at some point in the litigation, but the real problem is, how did they get it? When did they get it? And did the transfer of ownership comport with federal and Florida law for the transfer of such negotiable instruments?”
In cases that are dismissed based on these arguments, foreclosure defense attorneys said lenders aren’t as eager to re-file the case.

“There is some sloppiness, and what used to be tolerated by the courts is no longer being tolerated because the judges are starting to see the effect of sloppy pleading,” Parker said.

A slippery slope?

Lenders bringing foreclosures and attorneys defending them both claim to be on the side of their communities. Lawyers said the best thing for neighborhood stability and property values is to keep people in their homes. Bankers have a different approach.
“The best thing is to get through the foreclosure as quickly as you can,” DiMarco said. “The faster you can get through a foreclosure process, the faster we can get it sold and in the hands of someone who can get to be a contributing member of the community.”
DiMarco maintained that lenders are doing everything they can to work with homeowners and avoid a money-losing foreclosure, but took notice of a new phenomenon in the housing market — strategic foreclosures on the part of consumers. With courts backed up, mortgages upside down and banks more timid about foreclosing, some consumers who can pay are opting not to.
Lawyers don’t advise those who can afford to make their mortgage payments to stop in hopes they can get a free house out of it, and aren’t convinced that their tactics could provide an incentive for people to intentionally enter foreclosure. They point out that these are long, hard-fought battles that destroy credit.
Lawyers recognize that there must be some end other than a country full of ownerless and free homes. Charney is fiercely advocating a federal intervention, which bankers similarly see as the only reasonable solution.
“I had the vice president of a big mortgage company ask me, ‘What you’re doing here — do you understand what’s going to happen? You’re going to destroy the country. And if you don’t stop, we’re just going to go to Congress and get the laws changed.’ ” said Max Gardner III, a Shelby, N.C.-based bankruptcy attorney who also teaches foreclosure defense. “And my response is, ‘We have some changes we’d like to make, too.’ ”
kmorrison@bizjournals.com | 265-2218

Jose L. Semidey

%d bloggers like this: