Nevada: Epidemic of robo-signing – false, fabricated and forged documents


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

EDITOR’S NOTE: Why are they using false documents? The answer lies in the lies they were telling from the time they first sold the first bogus mortgage bond to investors right through the time they sold the borrower on a bogus “mortgage loan” that was actually part of a securities scam in which the homeowner was used as a pawn to issue “negotiable paper” (securities that were traded randomly for “trading profits” on Wall Street.

The loans were in many cases paid in full by the payment of insurance, bailout and proceeds from credit enhancement hedge products that were “traded” (often without money changing hands) and received in quantities far exceeding both the total amount of funded mortgages and of course the the much lower amount of mortgages that were “funded” which later “defaulted” (despite receipt of payment by or on behalf of the creditor.

They are using false and misleading paperwork to document transfers that never happened on loans that are claimed to have a balance due that is nowhere near as much as the actual balance due, if any. If they were operating honestly only a tiny fraction of foreclosures would survive. But the Banks and service saw an opportunity to grab the houses anyway, without a balance due, without  a payment due and they went for it. If you have another explanation for why they are using false paperwork and false accounting, then tell me about it. The world wants to know.

Proof is in their conduct. By pretending to comply with HAMP guidelines on mortgage modifications, after taking billions of taxpayers dollars and signing agreements to process modifications, the servicers and banks unilaterally and uniformly turn down modification requests without sitting any reason — because they want the house, not your modification. If the they turn the loan into a performing loan then the investors get the money. If they go through with foreclosure, the investors see little or nothing, as the balance or or the property is kept by Banks and servicers.

In most cases the modification offered is worth far more than the proceeds of foreclosure. IN any other setting where the players were acting in good faith they would falling all over themselves approving modifications that would (a) give them more money than a foreclosure and (b) eliminate all the borrowers’ claims for predatory lending and fraud in the origination of the loan.

Desert Underwater: Robo-Signing Problems on Foreclosure Documents


Posted: Nov 15, 2011 2:57 PM MST Updated: Nov 16, 2011 8:50 AM MST

By Colleen McCarty, Investigative Reporter – bio | email
By Kyle Zuelke, Photojournalist – email

LAS VEGAS — The nation’s largest banks stopped foreclosures last fall following allegations their employees cut corners while processing the paperwork. A short time later — with promises to halt the illegal practices — foreclosures resumed.

The I-Team has learned robo-signing remains what some officials call an epidemic in Nevada. Robo-signing refers to a variety of practices. Among them — employees who sign foreclosure documents they haven’t read, employees who use fake signatures to process documents, or employees who fail to follow notary rules.

It matters because the people foreclosing on homes swear to the accuracy of their actions without actually verifying them. Beyond being illegal, it can lead to wrongful foreclosures.

To trace the last five year’s of Tanya Butterfield’s life, look no further than the home she so desperately wants to save. It was purchased in 2006 for $315,000. Now, she is at a bankruptcy attorney’s office.

“I didn’t realize this was going to be so emotional. It’s hard because it is our first home,” homeowner Tanya Butterfield said.

When the casino cut her husband’s hours and Tanya lost her job in 2009, the Butterfield’s could no longer afford their $2,800 a month mortgage payment. They gave the last of their savings to a man who promised them a loan modification yet delivered even more hardship.

“By the time they got to me, they were on the eve of foreclosure,” Butterfield’s attorney Tara Newberry said. She worked to facilitate a short sale. While negotiating with two different lien holders; Bank of America and Cenlar, Newberry uncovered even more suspected fraud.

“You look at the document and they sign as an officer of MERS and you look at the next recording down and it’s the same person signing as the vice president of Bank ABC and then the next document down, they’re signing as the foreclosure trustee and it’s like wait a minute,” Newberry said.

Read More About MERS

On the same day, in records used to foreclose on the Butterfield’s, the name Angela Nava appears wearing two hats. On one document, she’s the Assistant Secretary of MERS, the Mortgage Electronic Registration System. On another document, she’s the Assistant Secretary for U.S. Bank.

“The question becomes who is Angela Nava? Did she have the authority to make this assignment and on who’s behalf is she acting?” Newberry suspects Nava is a robo-signer who is a mortgage servicing employee who signs off on thousands of foreclosures attesting to the accuracy of the documents without actually reviewing them.

Infamous robo-signer Linda Green, who appeared on 60 Minutes, fraudulently identified herself as vice president of more than 20 banks. Documents bearing Green’s signature have surfaced in Nevada.

“We’ve seen sloppy paperwork to outright fraud,” said John Kelleher, chief deputy attorney general.

Kelleher supervises the Attorney General’s Mortgage Fraud Task Force and its active investigation into robo-signing.

“We’ve been finding so many fraudulently signed documents that I think it would be fair to say you could declare the county recorder’s office a crime scene. It’s that bad,” Kelleher said.

To test Kelleher’s claim, the I-Team did its own random search of foreclosure records filed beginning in October of last year. In just under a few minutes, notary B. Perez, licensed in California, stood out due to the variation in her signature.

Although, her employer – Quality Loan Service Corporation – in a written statement “adamantly asserts that the signatures on its documents were signed by the actual person whose name appears.” In addition, Quality Loan Service Corporation offered to have Ms. Perez and the three individuals on the documents sign a declaration under penalty of perjury that the signatures on the documents are their own.

“You can see in this, the B and the P are not connected,” said Brenda Anderson, forensic document examiner. “These are interpretations of what I believe to be four different people and their rendition of the signature of the notary.”

Anderson believes the signature varies with the trustee. If she’s right, each forgery recorded with the county, is a crime, at least on paper. Be it B. Perez, Linda Green, or Angela Nava.

In practice however, families like the Butterfield’s are finding it isn’t enough to save their homes.

“Even if they could raise these claims and offset some, they still aren’t going to be able to afford the house and they can’t sell it for what they owe,” Newberry said.

Even with a buyer, the short sale fizzled when the lenders couldn’t reach a deal. Now, bankruptcy is the Butterfield’s last hope.

“It’s very overwhelming.” For Tanya, the loss is about much more than a house, it’s her first home and the only home her son has known.

Many of the attorneys 8 News NOW spoke to say, as far as help for homeowners, finding this type of fraud serves several purposes. The first: know who you’re dealing with whether it be for a loan modification, a short sale, or even a foreclosure. You could end up paying someone who doesn’t hold your mortgage. The second: these issues can help to leverage your lender into negotiating with you, especially if you participate in the foreclosure mediation program. And finally: the Attorney General is investigating this activity and criminal charges might convince the servicers to clean up their act.

Quality Loan Service Corporation, meanwhile, said in a statement, “Quality adamantly asserts that the signatures on its documents were signed by the actual person whose name appears. Quality has offered to have Ms. Perez and the three individuals on the documents sign a declaration under penalty of perjury that the signatures on the questioned documents are that of their own.” [EDITOR’S NOTE: QLS IS BOA. Would did you expect them to say?]

HERS INFO: Invalid Notarization?

How do we verify that the signatures purported to be those of the notorious fraudulent ”MERS’ employee, Marti Noreiga, is actually her signature? My docs with her signature do match others I’ve found but I have yet to verify that those are her valid signature. [Yep, Marti we know you REALLY work at LITTON/CBASS.]

Also, can a California form be notarized legally in Texas?

Can the Texas notary’s seal vary from the listing on the state registry? I found ‘M. Bell’ listed with the ‘commission expiration date of March28, 2011′ which shows on the stamp but the NAME on the stamp is ‘Melissa Bell’, not the ‘M Bell’ on the registry. Is the stamp a forgery?

The document was dated 7/28/2009 but notarized on 8/4/2009. I wonder if they were also elsewhere on that date.

The TX registry shows M. Bell as living at 12323 W. Village Dr. Apt A, Houston TX 77039

How do I verify that the substitute ‘TRUSTEE’ really is a TRUST? Quality Loan Servicing would not be the first name I’d pick for the name of an actual TRUST company.

Thanks for any help!

Verifying that the ‘Substitute Trustee’ is indeed a TRUST

BTW, I ask about verifying that the ‘Substitute Trustee’ is indeed a TRUST since I saw a post that made a point that any named ‘TRUSTEE’ must really be a TRUST.

Quality Loan Servicing was nominated by Litton Loan Service’s employee (via MERS) as the Substitute Trustee in place of ReconTrust.

I may have a case where BofA was in too many of the ‘roles’. The servicing was transferred on the very day the modified payments were to start per a signed and notarized mortgage modification agreement. The transfer was an attempt to justify the ‘mod’ not ‘happening’. RESPA does not agree with that. They ignored me. They never contacted me about any reason the mod was not occurring. I had been assured it was ‘my mod’. The BofA employees have stated that ‘all AG Mods’ were canceled. Well, they think that is the word. Actually the correct term is ‘BREACHED’.

So now I have some funny-looking documents being filed and what appears to be a bogus attempt to foreclose. Who knows who really has the note. Litton has filed documents saying that the ‘investor’ is CWABS with BoNY-MELLON as the trustee. Strangely BofA claims to be the beneficiary in more-recently filed documents in my court case. If BofA is ACTING for the investor, what the hell is Litton doing? The beneficiary LITTON should be ‘working for’ would seem to be the CWABS trustee. Certainly, I question whether BofA would have bought the mortgage back from the pooling (CWABS) once it was in litigation without advising the court at least. I do not understand how I can have BofA make the claim that they ARE the ’successor beneficiary’ when CWABS was otherwise identified as the ‘investor’.

Also, how would they deal with the original ‘Lender’ being a fictitious business name and the only beneficiary named is MERS as ‘nominal beneficiary’? Will I have more fictitious assignments to be looking for?

%d bloggers like this: