Texas | Livinglies's Weblog

Wells Fargo Skewered by Federal Judge For Forgery as a Pattern of Conduct

Posted on February 4, 2015 by Neil Garfield

For further information please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688

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

http://nypost.com/2015/01/31/ny-federal-judge-slams-wells-fargo-for-forged-mortgage-docs/

COURT FINDS PRESUMPTIONS CAN BE REBUTTED BY A SHOWING OF SOME EVIDENCE THAT THE INSTRUMENT AND/OR SIGNATURE IS NOT AUTHENTIC

What I like about the Federal Judge decisions is that they express the reasons for their orders and judgments with much greater specificity than State Court judges tend to do — probably because they have a lighter case load and when they get promoted it can go pretty high (like the US Supreme Court). So it should come as no surprise that a New York Federal Bankruptcy Judge issued a 30 page opinion that essentially said what people have been saying since 2007 — the entire foreclosure process is an exercise in illegal patterns of conduct to the detriment of the homeowners. Since he also made clear that the debt remains, we have yet to get a definitive opinion from a Judge that questions whether the original closing was valid and enforceable. for that we still need to wait.

But by ruling on the specifics of how to rebut presumptions that are used in cases involving negotiable instruments, this Court has definitely opened the door to requiring the banks to do something that he suspects and I know the banks cannot do — prove the loan transaction, and the loan transfers with actual transactions in which a purchase and sale occurred and money exchanged hands after which there was delivery of the paper. Once THAT cat is out of the bag, the banks are doomed. People are going to start asking the question they have been asking for years — except this time it won’t be a rhetorical question: “If the originator didn’t loan the money then who did? And if there was no consideration for the transfer of the loan documents then whose money was used to originate or acquire the loan?” The answers will surprise even veterans of this war.

see franklin-opinion

Excerpts—

The debtor herein (the “Debtor”) has objected to a claim filed in this case by Wells Fargo Bank,

NA (“Wells Fargo”), Claim No. 1‐2, dated September 29, 2010 (amending Claim No. 1‐1), on the basis that Wells Fargo is not the holder or owner of the note and beneficiary of the deed of trust upon which the claim is based and therefore lacks standing to assert the claim.1 This Memorandum of Decision states the Court’s reasons, based on the record of the trial held on December 3, 2013 and the parties’ pre‐ and post‐trial submissions, for granting the Claim Objection….

(i) how could Wells Fargo or Freddie Mac assert a claim under the Note when the Note was neither specifically indorsed to either of them nor indorsed in blank (and was specifically indorsed to ABN Amro, although ABN Amro had subsequently assigned its interest therein to MERS as nominee for Washington Mutual Bank, FA), and (ii) how could Wells Fargo properly assert any rights under the July 12, 2010 Assignment of Mortgage when the person who signed the Assignment of Mortgage from MERS in its capacity “as nominee for Washington Mutual Bank, FA” to Wells Fargo was an employee of Wells Fargo (as well as of MERS),3 and there was no evidence that Washington Mutual Bank, FA authorized MERS to assign…….

if Freddie Mac was the owner of the loan, as both Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac contended, why was Claim No. 1‐1 filed by Wells Fargo not as Freddie Mac’s agent or servicer, but, rather, in its own name? (The ownership/agency issue had practical as well as possible legal consequences because counsel for Wells Fargo contended that Freddie Mac guidelines precluded Wells Fargo from considering loan modification proposals for the Debtor.)….

the parties engaged in discovery disputes that resulted in an order compelling the deposition of John Kennerty, who by then no longer worked for Wells Fargo, see Kennerty v. Carrsow‐Franklin (In re Carrsow‐Franklin), 456 B.R. 753 (Bankr. D. S.C. 2011), and Wells Fargo’s production of a woefully unqualified initial Rule 30(b)(6) witness…..

Wells Fargo responded that it did not need to be the owner of the loan in order to enforce the Note and a secured claim for amounts owing under it. Instead, Wells Fargo relied, under Texas’ version of Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (the “U.C.C.”), solely on being the “holder” of the Note indorsed in blank by ABN Amro that appeared for the first time as an attachment to Claim No. 1‐2.7…

In a bench ruling on March 1, 2012, memorialized by an order dated May 21, 2012, the Court agreed with Wells Fargo, concluding that, under Texas law, if Wells Fargo were indeed the holder of the Note properly indorsed in blank by ABN Amro, Wells Fargo could enforce the Note and the Deed of Trust even if it was not the owner or investor on the Note or properly assigned of Deed of Trust,8 citing SMS Fin., Ltd. Liab. Co. v. ABCO Homes, Inc., 167 F.3d 235, 238 (5th Cir. 1999) (under Texas law, “[t]o recover on a promissory note, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of the note in question; (2) that the party sued signed the note; (3) that the plaintiff is the owner or holder of the note; and (4) that a certain balance is due and owing on the note”) (emphasis added), and In re Pastran, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 2237, ….

Perhaps wary of relying on an assignment by the assignee to itself without authorization by the purported assignor, Wells Fargo has waived reliance on the July 12, 2010 Assignment of Mortgage to establish its right to assert Claim No. 1‐2, looking only to its status as a holder of the Note. It indeed appears that Mr. Kennerty’s signature on the Assignment of Mortgage was improper in either of his capacities, as an officer of Wells Fargo or as an officer of MERS, without further authorization from Washington Mutual Bank, FA, because ABN Amro assigned MERS the Deed of Trust solely in MERS’ capacity as nominee for Washington Mutual Bank, FA, without the power of foreclosure and sale in its own right and not for its own successors and assigns as well as Washington Mutual Bank, FA’s; and MERS (through Mr. Kennerty) executed the Assignment of Mortgage solely as nominee for Washington Mutual Bank, FA. Compare Kramer v. Fannie Mae, 540 Fed. Appx. 319, 320 (5th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1310, 188 L. Ed. 2d 305 (2014) (MERS could assign deed of trust made out to it that specifically granted MERS the power to foreclose and assign its rights); Silver Gryphon, L.L.C. v. Bank of Am. NA, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168950, at *11‐12 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2013) (same); Richardson v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123445, at *3, *13‐14 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2010) (same), and Nueces County v. MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93424, at *20 (S.D. Tex. July 3, 2013); In re Fontes, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 1792, at *11‐13 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2011); and In re Weisband, 427 B.R. 13, 20 (Bankr. D. Az. 2010) (MERS as mere “nominee” of mortgage holder lacks power to transfer enforceable mortgage)…..

Because it is undisputed that (a) the Debtor signed the Note (and received the loan proceeds)11 and (b) a properly recorded lien on the Property secures the Debtor’s obligation under the Note (albeit that Wells Fargo does not rely independently on the Deed of Trust assigned to ABN AMRO and then

10 See Supplement to Emergency Motion to Reopen and for Leave to Propound Additional Discovery to Defendant for Additional Evidence Withheld Prior to Trial, dated March 11, 2014.

11 See Trial Tr. at 95‐6 (testimony of the Debtor).

9

10-20010-rdd Doc 109 Filed 01/29/15 Entered 01/29/15 11:01:42 Main Document Pg 10 of 30

assigned to MERS as nominee for Washington Mutual Bank, FA (none of which has filed a proof of claim) or the Assignment of Mortgage to sustain its claim), the only issue addressed by the parties is whether Wells Fargo has standing to enforce the Note, and, thus, assert Claim No. 1‐2.12 This is because, as stated above, Texas follows the majority rule that “[w]hen a mortgage note is transferred, the mortgage or deed of trust is also automatically transferred to the note holder by virtue of the common‐law rule that ‘the mortgage follows the note.’” Campbell v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 4030, at *11‐12 (Tex. App. Austin May 18, 2012), quoting J.W.D., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 806 S.W.2d 327, 329‐30 (Tex. App. Austin 1991). See also Kiggundu v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 469 Fed. Appx. 330, 332; Richardson v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177471, at *13 n.4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2014); Nguyen v. Fannie Mae., 958 F. Supp. 2d 781, 790 n.11 (S.D. Tex. 2013); Trimm v. U.S. Bank., N.A., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 7880, at *14 (Tex. App. Fort Worth July 17, 2014)…..

Wells Fargo’s right to enforce the Note, and thus its standing to assert Claim No. 1‐2, derives from the Note’s status as a negotiable instrument under Texas’ version of the U.C.C. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 3.104(a). The Debtor has not disputed that the Note is negotiable, and the Note in any event satisfies the requirements of a negotiable instrument under Texas law, as it is “an unconditional promise . . . to pay a fixed amount of money . . . payable to . . . order at the time it [was] issued; . . . payable . . . at a definite time; and does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money” except as permitted by the statute. Id. See also Farkas v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190194, at *6‐7 (W.D. Tex. June 22, 2012), aff’d, 544 Fed. Appx. 324 (5th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 628, 187 L. Ed. 411

12 One might argue, although Wells Fargo has not, that the parties’ pre‐bankruptcy course of dealing, including the Loan Modification Agreement signed by the Debtor on February 12, 2008 and attached to Claim No 1‐2 (See also Trial Tr. at 96‐104), would independently support Wells Fargo’s right to assert Claim No. 1‐2; however, if the blank ABN Amro indorsement were forged, the Loan Modification Agreement and course of dealing would ultimately improperly derive from Wells Fargo’s fraudulent assertion of the right to enforce the Note and Deed of Trust.

10

10-20010-rdd Doc 109 Filed 01/29/15 Entered 01/29/15 11:01:42 Main Document Pg 11 of 30

(2013); Steinberg v. Bank. of Am., N.A., 2013 Bankr. LEXIS 2230, at *12‐14 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. May 30, 2013)…..

“The presumption rests upon the fact that in ordinary experience forged or unauthorized signatures are very uncommon, and normally any evidence is within the control of, or more accessible to, the defendant.”15 Official Comment to Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 3.308 (“Off. Cmt.”). The presumption is effectively incorporated into Fed. R. Evid. 902(9), which provides that no extrinsic evidence of authenticity is required to admit “[c]ommercial paper, a signature on it, and related documents, to the extent allowed by general commercial law,” and it is loosely analogous to the rebuttable presumption of the prima facie validity of a properly filed proof of claim under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f).

While Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 3.308(a) and 1.206(a) provide that the presumption of an authentic signature applies “unless and until evidence is introduced that supports a finding of nonexistence,” they do not state the quantum of evidence to overcome the presumption. The Official Comment to § 3.308, however, refers to “some evidence” and to “some sufficient showing of the grounds for the denial before the plaintiff is required to introduce evidence,” and then states, “[t]he defendant’s evidence need not be sufficient to require a directed verdict, but it must be enough to support the denial by permitting a finding in the defendant’s favor.” Off. Cmt. 1 to § 3.308.16 This suggests that the required evidentiary showing to overcome the presumption is similar to that needed to defeat a summary judgment motion: the introduction of sufficient evidence so that a reasonable trier of fact in the context of the dispute could find in the defendant’s favor. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587‐88 (1986); 11 Moore’s Fed. Prac. 3d § 56.22[2] (2014). Because of the general factual context described in the Official Comment, which recognizes that “in ordinary experience forged or unauthorized signatures are very uncommon,” Off. Cmt. 1 to § 3.308, courts have nevertheless required a significant amount of evidence to overcome the presumption. See In re Phillips, 491 B.R. 255, 273 n. 37 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2013) (“This evidence was inconclusive at best. Against this background, the court is prepared to believe that it is more likely that [the claimant] negligently failed to copy the Note and First Allonge when it filed its [first] Proof of Claim rather than it forged the First Allonge later on. In short, when both are equally likely, the court picks sloth over venality.”); see also Congress v. U.S. Bank. N.A., 98 So. 3d 1165, 1169 (Civ. App. Ala. 2012) (referring to requirement of substantial, though not clear and convincing, evidence to rebut the presumption under U.C.C. §§ 3‐308(a) and 1‐206(a), although directing trial court on remand to apply preponderance‐of‐ the‐evidence standard to whether the presumption was overcome)….

See People v. Richetti, 302 N.Y. 290, 298 (1951) (“A presumption of regularity exists only until contrary substantial evidence appears. . . . It forces the opposing party (defendant here) to go forward with proof but, once he does go forward, the presumption is out of the case.”). Thus, in In re Phillips, 491 B.R. at 273 n. 37, quoted above, if the presumption had been overcome by a preponderance of the evidence and the burden shifted and forgery and negligence were found to be equally likely, the holder of the note should lose.

Because Wells Fargo does not rely on the Assignment of Mortgage to prove its claim, the foregoing evidence is helpful to the Debtor only indirectly, insofar as it goes to show that the blank indorsement, upon which Wells Fargo is relying, was forged. Nevertheless it does show a general willingness and practice on Wells Fargo’s part to create documentary evidence, after‐the‐fact, when enforcing its claims, WHICH IS EXTRAORDINARY…..

Wells Fargo has not carried that burden. To do so, it offered only Mr. Campbell’s testimony and, through him, certain exhibits copied from Wells Fargo’s loan file. That testimony was not helpful to it. Mr. Campbell was not involved in the administration of the Debtor’s loan until he became a potential witness in 2013. Trial Tr. at 37. He was not involved in the preparation of Claim No 1‐2. Id. at 37. He had nothing to say about the circumstances under which the blank ABN Amro indorsement appeared on the Note attached to Claim No. 1‐2, with the exception that he located the earliest entry in the electronic loan file where that version of the Note was recorded, pulled up its image and compared it to the original shown him by Wells Fargo’s counsel. Id. at 33, 36, 49‐50. He was offered, therefore, only to qualify Wells Fargo’s proposed exhibits, copied from Wells Fargo’s loan file, as falling within Fed. R. Evid. 803(6)’s business records exception to a hearsay objection under Fed. R. Evid. 802 and to testify that a copy of the Note with the blank ABN Amro indorsement appears in Wells Fargo’s electronic records before the preparation of Wells Fargo’s initial proof of claim in this case….

In large measure, Mr. Campbell was not up to that task (and Wells Fargo offered no other evidence to meet that standard, were the Court to impose it). Mr. Campbell did not know whether there was any person overseeing the accuracy of how the records in the system were stored and maintained. Id. at 32, 40, 42‐3. He did not know who controlled access to the system or the procedure for limiting access, except to say “[A]ccess is granted as needed.” Id. at 40‐1. He did not know of any procedures for backing up or auditing the system. Id. at 42. He stated, “I am not a technology person” and was not able to answer what technology ensures the accuracy of the date and time stamping of the entry of documents into the imaging system. Trial Tr. at 22. In his deposition, he testified that he did not know whether the dates and times of the entry of documents in the system could be changed, but at trial he stated that, after his deposition, “I attempted to look into this, and, to my knowledge, I am not aware of any way to change or remove attachments into the imaging system,” id. at 43, which, given his general lack of knowledge about how the system works and failure to explain the basis for his assertion, did not inspire confidence….

Moreover, in addition to the fact that the specially indorsed version of the Note appears on its own in the file on March 27, 2007, and not as part of an “origination file,” Wells Fargo has offered no explanation, let alone evidence, of who else, if not Wells Fargo, held the original of the Note with the blank ABN Amro indorsement before December 28, 2009, if, in fact, such a version then existed. The file provided by the transferor should have included it, if it did exist during that period, because Washington Mutual Bank, FA would not have been able to enforce the Note, either, without the blank indorsement, and the Assignment of Deed of Trust attached to the proofs of claim states that both the Note and Deed of Trust were transferred to MERS as nominee for Washington Mutual Bank, FA on June 20, 2002, effective November 16, 2001. In other words, why would only an outdated and unenforceable version of the Note have been logged in by Wells Fargo when it took over the file in February 2007 if the only enforceable version of the Note had in fact existed at that time (and should have existed since 2002)? The far more likely inference, instead, is that when the loan was transferred to Wells Fargo, the Note with the blank ABN Amro indorsement did not exist.

Why would the Note with the blank ABN Amro indorsement have appeared in Wells Fargo’s file only on December 28, 2009, twenty‐two months later? Wells Fargo has not provided an explanation, supported by evidence, replying only that the question is irrelevant. All that matters, Wells Fargo contends, is that the enforceable document was imaged into its records before the Debtor’s counsel started raising questions about Claim No 1‐1.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: ABN AMRO, bankruptcy, FRanklin, Freddie Mac, MERS, New York, Order sustaining objection to proof of claim, Robert Crain, Texas, Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo Forgery | 26 Comments »

NEW LOAN CLOSINGS — BEWARE!!!— NonJudicial Deeds of Trust Slipped into New Mortgage Closings in Judicial States

Posted on December 29, 2014 by Neil Garfield

For more information please call 520-405-1688 or 954-495-9867

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

IF YOU ARE HAVING A CLOSING ON A REFI OR NEW LOAN BEWARE OF WHAT DOCUMENTS ARE BEING USED THAT WAIVE YOUR RIGHTS TO CONTEST WRONGFUL FORECLOSURES — GET A LAWYER!!!

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

http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2014/12/foreclosure-news-who-gets-to-decide-whether-a-state-is-a-judicial-foreclosure-state-or-a-non-judicia.html#more

EDITOR’S NOTE: It is no secret that the Bank’s have a MUCH easier time foreclosing on property in states that have set up non-judicial foreclosure. Banks like Bank of America set up their own “Substitute Trustee” (“RECONTRUST”) — the first filing before the foreclosure commences. In this “Substitution of Trustee” Bank of America declares itself to be the new beneficiary or acting on behalf of the new beneficiary without any court or agency verification of that claim. So in essence BOA is naming itself as both the new beneficiary (mortgagee) and the “Trustee” which is the only protection that the homeowner (“Trustor”). This is a blatant violation of the intent of the the laws of any state allowing nonjudicial foreclosure.

The Trustee is supposed to serve as the objective intermediary between the borrower and the lender. Where a non-lender issues a self serving statement that it is the beneficiary and the the borrower contests the “Substitution of Trustee” the OLD trustee is, in my opinion, obligated to file an interpleader action stating that it has competing claims, it has no interest in the outcome and it wants attorneys fees and costs. That leaves the new “beneficiary” and the borrower to fight it out under the requirements of due process. An Immediate TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) should be issued against the “new” Trustee and the “new” beneficiary from taking any further action in foreclosure when the borrower denies that the substitution of trustee was a valid instrument (based in part on the fact that the “beneficiary” who appointed the “substitute trustee” is not the true beneficiary. This SHOULD require the Bank to prove up its case in the old style, but it is often misapplied in procedure putting the burden on the borrower to prove facts that only the bank has in its care, custody and control. And THAT is where very aggressive litigation to obtain discovery is so important.

If the purpose of the legislation was to allow a foreclosing party to succeed in foreclosure when it could not succeed in a judicial proceeding, then the provision would be struck down as an unconstitutional deprivation of due process and other civil rights. But the rationale of each of the majority states that have adopted this infrastructure was to create a clerical system for what had been a clerical function for decades — where most foreclosures were uncontested and the use of Judges, Clerks of the Court and other parts of the judicial system was basically a waste of time. And practically everyone agreed.

There are two developments to report on this. First the U.S. Supreme Court turned down an appeal from Bank of America who was using Recontrust in Utah foreclosures and was asserting that Texas law must be used to enforce Utah foreclosures because Texas was allegedly the headquarters of Recontrust. So what they were trying to do, and failed, was to apply the highly restrictive laws of Texas with a tiny window of opportunity to contest the foreclosure in the State of Utah that had laws that protected consumers far better than Texas. The Texas courts refused to apply that doctrine and the U.S. Supreme court refused to even hear it. see WATCH OUT! THE BANKS ARE STILL COMING!

But a more sinister version of the shell game is being played out in new closings across the country — borrowers are being given a “Deed of Trust” instead of a mortgage in judicial states in order to circumvent the laws of that state. By fiat the banks are creating a “contract” in which the borrower agrees that if the “beneficiary” tells the Trustee on the deed of trust that the borrower did not pay, the borrower has already agreed by contract to allow the forced sale of the property. See article below. As usual borrowers are told NOT to hire an attorney for closing because “he can’t change anything anyway.” Not true. And the Borrower’s ignorance of the difference between a mortgage and a deed of trust is once again being used against the homeowners in ways that are undetected until long after the statute of limitations has apparently run out on making a claim against the loan originator.

THIS IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF STATE LAW IN MOST JUDICIAL STATES — WHICH THE BANKS ARE TRYING TO OVERTURN BY FORCING OR TRICKING BORROWERS INTO SIGNING “AGREEMENTS” TO ALLOW FORCED SALE WITHOUT THE BANK EVER PROVING THEIR CASE AS TO THE DEBT, OWNERSHIP AND BALANCE. Translation: “It’s OK to wrongfully foreclose on me.”

=================================
Foreclosure News: Who Gets to Decide Whether a State is a Judicial Foreclosure State or a Non-Judicial Foreclosure State, Legislatures or the Mortgage Industry?

posted by Nathalie Martin

Apparently some mortgage lenders feel they can make this change unilaterally. Big changes are afoot in the process of granting a home mortgage, which could have a significant impact on a homeowner’s ability to fight foreclosure. In many states in the Unites States (including but not limited to Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin), a lender must go to court and give the borrower a certain amount of notice before foreclosing on his or her home. Now the mortgage industry is quickly and quietly trying to change this, hoping no one will notice. The goal seems to be to avoid those annoying court processes and go right for the home without foreclosure procedures. This change is being attempted by some lenders simply by asking borrowers to sign deeds of trust rather than mortgages from now on.

Not long ago, Karen Myers, the head of the Consumer Protection Division of the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office, started noticing that some consumers were being given deeds of trust to sign rather than mortgages when obtaining a home loan. She wondered why this was being done and also how this change would affect consumers’ rights in foreclosure. When she asked lenders how this change in the instrument being signed would affect a consumer’s legal rights, she was told that the practice of having consumers sign deeds of trust rather than mortgages would not affect consumers’ rights in foreclosure at all. Being skeptical, she and others in her division dug further into this newfound practice to see if it was widespread or just a rare occurrence in the world of mortgage lending. Sure enough, mortgages had all but disappeared, being replaced with a deed of trust.
As a general matter, depending on the law in a state, a deed of trust can be foreclosed without a court’s involvement or any oversight at all. More specifically, the differences between judicial and non-judicial foreclosures are explained here in the four page document generated by the Mortgage Bankers’ Association. It is not totally clear whether this change will affect the legal rights of borrowers in all judicial foreclosure states, but AGs around the country should start looking into this question. Lenders here in New Mexico insist that this change in practice will not affect substantive rights but if not, why the change? The legal framework is vague and described briefly here.
Eleven lenders in New Mexico have been notified by the AG’s Office to stop marketing products as mortgages when, in fact, they are deeds of trust, according to Meyers and fellow Assistant Attorney General David Kramer. As a letter to lenders says: “It is apparent … that the wholesale use of deeds of trusts in lieu of mortgage instruments to secure home loans is intended to modify and abrogate the protections afforded a homeowner by the judicial foreclosure process and the [New Mexico] Home Loan Protection Act.”

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: Bank of America, beneficiary, DEED OF TRUST, interpleader, judicial, NONJUDICIAL, ReconTrust, Substitute Trustee, Texas, trustee, U.S. SUpreme Court, Utah | 21 Comments »

SEC Corroborates Livinglies Position on Third Party Payment While Texas BKR Judge Disallows Assignments After Cut-Off Date

Posted on June 10, 2013 by Neil Garfield

Maybe this should have been divided into three articles:

Saldivar: Texas BKR Judge finds Assignment Void not voidable. It never happened.
Erobobo: NY Judge rules ownership of note is burden of the banks. Not standing but rather capacity to sue without injury.
SEC Orders Credit Suisse to disgorge illegal profits back to investors. Principal balances of borrowers may be reduced. Defaults might not exist because notices contain demands that include money held by banks that should have been paid to investors.

But these decisions are so interrelated and their effect so far-reaching that it seems to me that if you read only one of them you might head off in the wrong direction. Pay careful attention to the Court’s admonition in Erobobo that these defenses can be waived unless timely raised. Use the logic of these decisions and you will find more and more judges listening with increasing care. The turning point is arriving and foreclosures — past, present and future — might finally get the review and remedies that are required in a nation of laws.

Courts and SEC Drilling Down on Reality of BANK Fraud.

The effects will be far-reaching. The complexity of the false securitization scam was intended to shield Wall Street from continuing its endless pattern of conduct of fraud, misdeeds, perjury and other crimes and other acts of contempt for the courts. The result was that the entire finance system and the economies of the world were turned upside down. Now we are going to see them turn right-side up.

It has taken years, but the SEC and the Courts are now unraveling the mysteries behind the secret curtains of the scam of securitization, which turns out to be nothing more than a cover for a giant PONZI scheme that fell apart as soon as investors stopped buying mortgage bonds. That is the hallmark of PONZI schemes — using the new investor money to pay the expected returns to the older investors.

If it was a legitimate business plan, the failure of the investors to buy more mortgage bonds would have no effect on the rest of the system. Each bond, each mortgage would have either succeeded or failed on its own merit. But that is not what happened.

As can be seen by the decisions noted below, Wall Street defrauded investors on many levels, defrauded the government, and defrauded the borrowers on mortgages they knew with certainty would never survive even a few months.

In confidential deals, the banks entered into agreements to be compensated for the failure of the mortgage bonds and defaulting loans and then simply lied to regulators, investors and borrowers — and kept the money for themselves instead of turning over the money to the investors who were going to lose more money than they had ever dreamed on “triple A” rated “insured” and “hedged” (credit default swaps).

The SEC is now ordering Credit Suisse (and soon others) to disgorge $60 million that clearly should have been paid to investors and thus reduced the accounts receivable of investors. A much better educated SEC and much better educated Judges are peeking behind the curtains and they don’t like what they see. These decisions are, in my opinion, the precursors of a wave of decisions that overturns the entire foreclosure tragedy.

The bottom line is that investors funded the mortgages (plus a lot of fees and “proprietary trading profits” that were hidden from the investors and indeed the world), the banks stole the money, the accounts due to the investors is much lower than what is alleged in foreclosure actions, and none of the foreclosers have any right to be in court because (a) they have no capacity to sue in the absence of financial injury caused by the borrower and (b) they are relying on assignments that in the eyes of the law never happened. They not only didn’t lose money, they made more money than most people imagined. Now they are being ordered to pay back the money they promised to investors whose losses will be correspondingly reduced.

How this will be apportioned to the principal balance supposedly due from borrowers has yet to be determined. But it is clear that the receivable from the only real lender is being reduced by the amount of money received by the intermediaries in the securitization chain — in deals that were intended to defraud investors on two levels — not giving the money that the investors should have received and withholding disclosure about the actual quality of the loans.

The reduction in loss or accounts receivable of the investors should proportionately reduce the amount due from borrowers, which means that most foreclosures were based upon a number of false premises: a balance due, a default by borrowers, and the right to submit a false credit bid at auction from a non-creditor on a “foreclosure” that should never have occurred in the first place. Ownership of the note can only be proven if the would-be forecloser received the actual note (not a photo-shopped “original”) in a transaction in which it paid money pursuant to the actual authority to enter into the transaction. That is three elements: the real note, real ownership of the note and real authority to enter into the transaction by which the loans were allegedly assigned years after the cut-off date. The authority for this position is (a) New York Law, (b) the Internal revenue Code, (c) constitutional requirements of due process, (d) the UCC requiring an instrument to be “negotiated rather than just delivered (meaning payment was involved) and (e) common sense, to wit: lenders are entitled to be repaid but only once.

It has been argued here that the REMICs were ignored and that therefore they could not possibly be in the ownership chain of the note and mortgage. We have also argued that the originator of the mortgage has originated nothing if they didn’t pay anything.

With the help of the SEC and the these two court decisions we can see that there are many reasons why the REMIC could not be the owner of the loan and that no party in the securitization chain could be secured unless we invent a new entity in which all the parties in the securitization chain are rolled into one entity.

In the absence of such an entity or the lawful ability to create one retroactively we are left with an unsecured debt — the amount of which runs the gamut from the banks owing the borrower money to the substantial reduction of the principal due after credit is given for the ill-gotten gains stolen by the banks from the investors. Given these facts, there is no legal justification for even contemplating the purported existence of a default by the borrower since the amount due, and the amount of the required payment are both unknown without an accounting from ALL parties in the securitization chain.

If the cut-off date and the Internal Revenue Code and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement all state that any transaction assigning a loan after the cut-off date is not allowed, then the assignment is void. Add to that New York law that expressly states that the transaction is void, not voidable, (see below) which means that legally it never happened. Without a valid assignment, there can be no foreclosure. Add to that the lack of any consideration, and you have a dead shark on your hands —something that struck fear into the hearts of homeowners, governments, and investors but is now lying, gasping for breath, as the finale nears.

There is nothing left to hide because the doors are all open. It will still take years to unravel the financial mess, but now we have a chance to change policy and direct relief to where it belonged all along — to the investors who supplied the money and the homeowners who were duped into crazy, exotic mortgages that hid the real objective: foreclosure.

REQUIRED READING: Read Carefully and Take Notes

“Plaintiff’s ownership of the note is not an issue of standing but an element of its cause of action which it must plead and prove.(e.s.) …

… dismissal on a pre answer motion by the defendant and are waived if not raised in a timely manner.” (e.s.) Wells Fargo v Saitta 4/29/13 Slip Op 50675

140156203-Ero-Bobo

PRACTICE AND DISCOVERY NOTE: ”

In fact, the identity of the owner of the note and mortgage is information that is often in the exclusive possession of the party seeking to foreclose. Mortgages are routinely transferred through MERS, without being recorded. (e.s.) The notes underlying the mortgages, as negotiable instruments, are negotiated by mere delivery without a recorded assignment or notice to the borrower. A defendant has no method to reliably ascertain who in fact owns the note, within the narrow time frame allotted to file an answer. In light of these facts and the fact that Defendant contested the factual allegations asserted in Plaintiff’s pleading, Defendant’s general denial is sufficient to contest whether Plaintiff owns the note and mortgage.”

4^th paragraph, page 11

“Since the trustee acquired the subject note and mortgage after the closing date, the trustee’s act in acquiring them exceeded its authority and violated the terms of the trust.The acquisition of a mortgage after 90 days is not a mere technicality but a material violation of the trust’s terms, which jeopardizes the trust’s REMIC status.”

——————————————————

SEC FINDS FRAUD, ORDERS DISGORGEMENT OF ILLEGAL PROFITS.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2012/33-9.368.pdf

This SEC decision is one that deserves several readings. It essentially condenses 6 years of teaching on this blog into one decision, although they have still not quite drilled down all the way on the money trail. But they have drilled down far enough to discover that the banks made settlements on buy-backs, kept the money and didn’t give to the investors because (1) they wanted to keep it for themselves and (2) the huge number of early defaults would have led the investors to question whether industry standards were being followed in the underwriting of these loans. Had that happened, the well would have dried and nobody would be buying mortgage bonds because they would be revealed as PONZI certificates.

Even if you have been following this blog for years, as I know many of you have done, reading this decision from the SEC will bring it all together as to who , what, where, why and when. Anyone who takes another step in litigation without reading this is stepping into the darkness.

—————————————————————

Next Case: Saldivar

And then there is this: the assignment is void, not voidable and therefore the banks can’t attack the ability of the homeowner to attack the assignment since they are arguing that the assignment never really took place. It puts the burden of proof back on to the banks, where it belongs — a burden they cannot sustain because they cannot prove anything that would give traction to their position of keeping the money, taking the houses, taking the insurance taking the credit default swap proceeds, and taking the federal bailouts, all without giving an accounting other than the subservicer’s partial snapshot consisting of accounting records reflecting ONLY transactions with the borrower, neither proving nor offering to prove the validity or existence of the assignment. What you have essentially is what I have said a few times before on this blog — offer, without acceptance or the right to accept and no consideration.

saldivar-memo-opinion

This decision is important because of the reasoning, the logic and most importantly the application of New York law. Virtually all the REMIC trusts were common law trusts formed under New York law for a lot of reasons. So this decision is extremely important as persuasive authority in its finding that if the REMIC is closed, there is nothing to make the assignment TO after the close-out date, which as the Judge points out is the start of business for the trust.

He reasons that if the assignment after the close out date could be ratified then it is voidable and not void. If it is voidable then the homeowner has no standing to challenge the validity of the assignment. But, the Judge says if the assignment was void ab initio then there is nothing to ratify because the event never happened. If the event never happened then the homeowner does have standing to challenge the validity if the assignment. Essentially the homeowners saying that he denies there was any assignment. If there was no assignment then any action by the assignee is without any right, justification or excuse.

It is potentially standing which is jurisdictional to be sure but it is in personam jurisdiction now instead of subject matter jurisdiction — or perhaps both.

As pointed out above, the capacity to sue involves the basic elements of any lawsuits for money or equitable relief based upon a money debt: (1) duty, (2) breach of duty, (3) injury and (4) causation — the injury was caused by the borrower. As pointed out by these cases, NONE of the required elements are present and therefore, there is no capacity to sue. Capacity to sue is close to the issue of standing but it isn’t the same thing. While standing involves jurisdictional issues over the parties, capacity to sue involves jurisdictional issues over the subject matter. There is no subject matter jurisdiction unless the foreclosing party can make a case for stating the four elements of any lawsuit.

The keys here are the Judge’s citation to two things. First that the law of New York says it is void and the court must use the laws of the state of New York — a position mercilessly pounded into the courts by the banks. Now that position is blowing up in their faces. Second, he points out that under the Internal Revenue Code contains huge penalties and negative economic consequences if the REMIC was still accepting assignments after the cut- off date. Thus the Judge used reason, logic, New York law, and the negative effect imposed by the IRC if the REMIC provisions were violated. We might also add that the PSA contained the same restrictions. He concludes that the assignment 3 years after the cutoff was void, not void able and that it was void ab initio which means that there was no effective assignment despite the fabrication of a piece of paper.

This puts Deutsch and others who have stated they are the trustee for the REMIC in a no-win position. To the extent they have corroborated the assignment they have delivered an economic blow to the investors in the REMIC — and are now subjected to potential liability in the trillions of dollars. If they have not tried to back up the assertions of those bringing foreclosure then they clearly won’t do it now. And it explains why no actual signature for an actual Deutsch officer or employee is on any document used in bringing the foreclosure.

The further interesting point is that this is the fire in the brush that flushes the investors out. They must corroborate what we have been saying — that their agents violated the restrictions of the pooling and servicing agreement and that they, the investors, cannot be held to be bound to the ultra vires actions of their agents. And it raises the question of what else did these intermediaries do that violated the terms of the investment in mortgage bonds? It raises, most importantly, the question of WHY they violated the terms of the PSA and prospectus.

The only rational answer is MONEY — like the insurance and CDS proceeds. But beyond that and tantalizingly raised in this decision is — if the investors gave up money and it wasn’t through the REMIC — then you have two choices, to wit: either they invested in nothing or, as I have repeatedly stated on the blog and in my expert testimony, they became involuntary common law partners in a common law general partnership.

This raises issues that Wall Street wants to stay very far from. All their authority comes from a PSA that is now revealed to have been violated resulting in the inescapable conclusion, using the logic from this Texas bankruptcy judge, that Wall Street has no power over these transactions — including servicing loans. This means we can insist on the identity of the investors and that the ONLY people to go to for HAMP are the investors or some new authorized agent. But remember that in a true common law general partnership with no documentation there are some real knotty problems as to how investors could hire a Servicer without 100% of the holders of what might indivisible interests in loans, insurance proceeds and credit default swaps bought with money from the investors.

Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, foreclosure, GARFIELD GWALTNEY KELLEY AND WHITE, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: accounting for true balance due investors, assignments, BKR, capaicty to sue, credit default swaps, disgorgement of illegal profits, erobobo, insurance, IRC, New York LAw, PSA, REMIC, standing, Texas, VOID AB INITIO, void or voidable | 283 Comments »

BAILOUT TO STATE BUDGETS: AZ Uses Housing Settlement Money for Prisons

Posted on May 17, 2012 by Neil Garfield

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

NEW! 2nd Edition Attorney Workbook,Treatise & Practice Manual – Pre-Order NOW for an up to $150 discount

LivingLies Membership – Get Discounts and Free Access to Experts

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Want to read more? Download entire introduction for the Attorney Workbook, Treatise & Practice Manual 2012 Ed – Sample

Pre-Order the new workbook today for up to a $150 savings, visit our store for more details. Act now, offer ends soon!

Editor’s Comment:

The general consensus is that the homeowner borrowers are simply at the bottom of the food chain, not worthy of dignity, respect or any assistance to recover from the harm caused by Wall Street. Now small as it is, the banks have partially settled the matter by an agreement that bars the states from pursuing certain types of claims conditioned on several terms, one of which was the payment of money from the banks that presumably would be used to fund programs for the beleaguered homeowners without whose purchasing power, the economy is simply not going to revive. Not only are many states taking the money and simply putting it into general funds, but Arizona, over the objection of its own Attorney General is taking the money and applying to pay for prison expenses.

Here is the sad punch line for Arizona. The prison system in that state and others is largely “privatized” which is to say that the state “hired” new private companies created for the sole purpose of earning a profit off the imprisonment of the state’s citizens. Rumors abound that the current governor has a financial interest in the largest private prison company.

The prison lobby has been hard at work ever since privatizing prisons became the new way to get rich using taxpayers dollars. Not only are we paying more to house more prisoners because the laws a restructured to make more behavior crimes, but now our part of the housing settlement is also going to the prisons. Another bailout that was never needed or wanted. Meanwhile the budget of Arizona continues to rise from incarcerating its citizens and the profiteers (not entrepreneurs by any stretch of the imagination) are getting a gift of more money from the state out of the multistate settlement.

Needy States Use Housing Aid Cash to Plug Budgets

By SHAILA DEWAN

Only 27 states have devoted all their funds from the banks to housing programs, according to a report by Enterprise Community Partners, a national affordable housing group. So far about 15 states have said they will use all or most of the money for other purposes.

In Texas, $125 million went straight to the general fund. Missouri will use its $40 million to soften cuts to higher education. Indiana is spending more than half its allotment to pay energy bills for low-income families, while Virginia will use most of its $67 million to help revenue-starved local governments.

Like California, some other states with outsize problems from the housing bust are spending the money for something other than homeowner relief. Georgia, where home prices are still falling, will use its $99 million to lure companies to the state.

“The governor has decided to use the discretionary money for economic development,” said a spokesman for Nathan Deal, Georgia’s governor, a Republican. “He believes that the best way to prevent foreclosures amongst honest homeowners who have experienced hard times is to create jobs here in our state.”

Andy Schneggenburger, the executive director of the Atlanta Housing Association of Neighborhood-Based Developers, said the decision showed “a real lack of comprehension of the depths of the foreclosure problem.”

The $2.5 billion was intended to be under the control of the state attorneys general, who negotiated the settlement with the five banks — Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Ally. But there is enough wiggle room in the agreement, as well as in separate terms agreed to by each state, to give legislatures and governors wide latitude. The money can, for example, be counted as a “civil penalty” won by the state, and some leaders have argued that states are entitled to the money because the housing crash decimated tax collections.

Shaun Donovan, the federal housing secretary, has been privately urging state officials to spend the money as intended. “Other uses fail to capitalize on the opportunities presented by the settlement to bring real, concerted relief to homeowners and the communities in which they live,” he said Tuesday.

Some attorneys general have complied quietly with requests to repurpose the money, while others have protested. Lisa Madigan, the Democratic attorney general of Illinois, said she would oppose any effort to divert the funds. Tom Horne, the Republican attorney general of Arizona, said he disagreed with the state’s move to take about half its $97 million, which officials initially said was needed for prisons.

But Mr. Horne said he would not oppose the shift because the governor and the Legislature had authority over budgetary matters. The Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest has said it will sue to stop Mr. Horne from transferring the money.

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: Ally, andy schneggenburger, ARIZONA, arizona center for law in the public interest, atlanta housing association of neighborhood based developers, attorney general, attorneys general, Bank of America, CALIFORNIA, Citigroup, civil penalty, discretionary money, economic development, Enterprise Community Partners, entrepreneurs, federal housing secretary, foreclosure problem, general fund, GEORGIA, georgia's governor, housing aid, housing crash, Housing Settlement Money for Prisons, Illinois, Indiana, JP Morgan Chase, Lisa Madigan, Missouri, multistate settlement, nathan deal, prison lobby, private prison company, profiteers, relief to homeowners, Shaila Dewan, SHAUN DONOVAN, taxpayer dollars, Texas, Tom Horne, Virginia, Wall Street, Wells Fargo | 7 Comments »

BOA FILES FORECLOSURE — ON HOUSE THAT DOESN’T EXIST

Posted on November 22, 2011 by Neil Garfield

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

EDITOR’S NOTE: Their business is foreclosures. Anything that is capable of being foreclosed gets the treatment. Even a home destroyed by a hurricane. One of the interesting parts of this is that the Bank also put insurance on the home that was previously destroyed by hurricane Ike. What is interesting about that is that the insurance company accepted payment and insured the property as though it did exist.

All of this leads me to ponder a few things. What due diligence does an insurance carrier perform before they agree to take on a risk of insuring a home? In this case, apparently none. What about when the home was purchased or refinanced with grossly inflated values? Do they confirm the value or do they put language into the contract that will reduce the coverage to fair market value if the home is totally destroyed? What value do they put on the land?

Is there anything in the contract between the Banks and the insurance companies that would shed light on their relationship — particularly with respect to forced placed insurance where the premium is sometimes a multiple of standard premium prices? If the so-called appraised value was far higher than replacement or actual fair market value, how much will the insurance company pay if the house burns to the ground or is swept away by flood or other disaster?

Bank forecloses on home that does not exist

On behalf of Law Office of Jennifer Casey posted in Foreclosures on Thursday, November 10, 2011

Millions of Americans are facing foreclosure. It can be a frustrating and difficult to time. It was especially frustrating for one Texas man who said the bank was foreclosing on a home that wasn’t there anymore.

The property owner never missed a mortgage payment on his property. What he did miss was his house, which was destroyed in Hurricane Ike. All that’s left is the concrete frame of the home.

Bank of America moved to foreclose on the Seabrook house, saying there was a homeowner’s policy on the property and the payments had increased. The homeowner was living overseas and says he never received notification. He says he got wind of the foreclosure only two days before the sale was to occur. He hired an attorney to stop the sale, but the bank later removed his personal property from the premises, including tools and collectibles.

The bank will not comment on what happened with the man’s personal possessions. However, it apparently acknowledged the bank incorrectly placed insurance on a home that did not exist. A representative indicated the man’s account now had to be audited to determine what discrepancies need to be corrected.

Thousands of Texas homeowners face property foreclosure every day. Some have seen their debt spiral helplessly out of control and are not sure which way to turn. Those affected would likely benefit from conferring with an attorney experienced in debt relief strategies, including bankruptcy protection. The lawyer can assess the facts and circumstances and help fight foreclosure actions, while devising a strategy for a return to financial health.

Source: Click2Houston, “Bank Forecloses On Home Destroyed By Ike,” Amy Davis, Oct. 28, 2011

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: bankruptcy, BOA, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, personal possessions, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, Texas, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND | 10 Comments »

Forensic analysis, DISCOVERY: BofA Hides Behind Reconstrust Subsidiary

Posted on April 2, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Editor’s Notes: Bank of America is smarter than most. It has created a web of companies whose function is to perform activities that hide the fact that it is Bank of America, and there are other pretender lenders who hide behind this entity who suddenly appears as “trustee” or some other entity claiming the right to enforce the note, foreclose the mortgage, lift the stay or whatever. Recontrust is one of them, and it agrees with its “customers” that it will never make a REAL claim to the obligation, note or mortgage. But it also agrees to make claims and pursue foreclosures as though they were the creditor, reporting back later on what happened.

RECONTRUST APPARENTLY HAS 12 EMPLOYEES. Yet it handles virtually the whole country for Countrywide Loans, BofA and others. From what I can see it is a sham corporation with sham functions much the same as MERS and other players invented to make this process more complicated. Taking the cue from one of our readers, I did some additional research and found no less than four addresses in four states for this company, obviously designed to give you the run-around. So if you contact one office you are told to contact another. And if you contest their right to issue a notice of default, notice of sale or file a foreclosure lawsuit or defend your own lawsuit to stop them they have plenty of newly fabricated paperwork to justify their position, because that is apparently all they do.

If you want to test this, just call them and ask about a property that is not in foreclosure. They have nothing. So the only reason we see them is to provide cover for the pretender lenders and give them plausible deniability if they come up against a judge or has their number and now wants to award damages, attorney fees, or fines.

Lien Release Services: Consistent. Accurate. Timely.

Lien Release Services

Phone:1-866-207-0573

Address:

1330 West Southern Avenue
Tempe, AZ 85282-4545
Mail Stop: TPSA-88

Default and Special Release Services

Phone:1-800-281-8219

Address:

2380 Performance Drive,
Richardson, TX 75082
Mail Stop: RGV-C4-450

Real Estate Owned (REO)
If you have questions or inquiries regarding REO purchases, unlisted purchases, investor-owned information, city violations, REO broker applications, REO vendor management, or broker complaints please call the REO Customer Escalation Team at: (866) 781-0029.

The following states have sold properties.
Click on the state to view information.

State	Number of Properties
Alaska	18
Arizona	1783
Arkansas	66
California	4430
Idaho	214
Mississippi	50
Montana	47
Nebraska	26
Nevada	586
Oregon	114
Tennessee	107
Texas	99
Utah	185
Virginia	156
Washington	135

The following states have properties
listed for Trustee Sale.

State	Number of Properties
Alaska	200
Arizona	18956
Arkansas	697
California	29862
Idaho	1528
Mississippi	190
Montana	493
Nebraska	129
Nevada	1560
Oregon	4584
Tennessee	480
Texas	1158
Utah	983
Virginia	515
Washington	1245

Our lien release departments, located in Simi Valley, CA, and Tempe, AZ, record documents in more than 3,600 jurisdictions.

Expertise when you need it most.

Let our experienced staff handle your lien release from start to finish. We’ll help you achieve timely releases and reinstatements and improve productivity and efficiency while reducing expenses and boosting your bottom line. We have the capabilities and experience to process reconveyances and lien releases nationwide, regardless of location or volume.

Timely, accurate results.

Lien releases must be filed and recorded within a very short time following the satisfaction of a lien. We don’t just promise timely turnarounds—we deliver on that promise. When you outsource your lien release program to ReconTrust, you get a partner that’s committed to reducing your liability and administrative costs while providing accurate, compliant results.
We control financial risk by adhering to strict compliance standards at state and local levels. That means your files are processed on time within compliance statutes in all jurisdictions. Using state-of-the-art technology, we also provide accurate, efficient document preparation and management to help you meet required deadlines.

Reduced costs. Improved productivity.

Our team of experts handles releases nationwide, resolves exception files and clears backlogs. We offer an array of customized solutions to resolve your lien release concerns.
We also handle partial release requests. We review, analyze and process each request based on your lender guidelines, and ensure that the outcome will have a positive impact on your business.
The benefits of lien release outsourcing are many. You save time and money, because we help mitigate rising staffing costs and fluctuating workloads. When you need a partner in lien release services, turn to ReconTrust.

Looking for a JOB?:

Job Description:

Review and audit Trustee’s Sale Guarantees (TSG’s) for accuracy; correct deficiencies; input data from the TSG into ReconTrust operating system (FPS); Trustee’s Sale Processors may assist Trustee’s Sale Officers with file audits;This position requires fairly continuous data entry for several hours each day. MUST HAVE Mortgage &/or Title Experience – NO EXCEPTIONS Keywords: Company Confidential, Dallas, Data Entry – MUST HAVE TITLE EXPERIENCE, Sales / Marketing / Pr, Dallas, Texas

ReconTrust’s Employees

Join to view all (12)

Jim Taylor

President

Sam Shmikler

VP, Risk Management

Kailash Bhuckory

Sr. Bus. Analyst,…

Lorena Castillo-Ruiz

Avp

Denise Sletten

Assistant Team Le…

Eva Tapia

Jeffrey Aiken

Rebecca Baney

Automatic review of recontrust.com
recontrust.com has been automatically reviewed at 2010-03-29 by robtex

Check	Result
NS on different IP networks	YES
NS delegation consistent with zone	YES
Listed in DMOZ		NO
Listed in Alexa top 100000		NO
Good WOT rating	YES

Total score 30/50 normalized to 3/5 stars
This is experimental beta, more checks are added shortly

SEO Analysis

Organic keywords

Keyword	Position
recontrust	14
recon trust	14
custody documents	19

Organic competitors

Domain	Common Keywords
recontrustco.com	6
bankofamericastore.com	2

Rising foreclosure activities can be a distraction for any servicer. If you’re not positive your business is prepared to handle the rising numbers, let’s talk. ReconTrust’s default management services could take the weight off your operations, so you can focus on your core business.
We provide foreclosure services in 16 states.

If you are having difficulty making your mortgage payments, there may be options available to help you avoid foreclosure. Please click the link below for more information.

ReconTrust Company, N.A. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A.
Bank of America, N.A. Member FDIC. Equal Housing Lenders Some products may not be available in all states.

Unaffiliated companies or web sites may report on ReconTrust’s business activities. However, for the most reliable and current information regarding ReconTrust’s business, please contact us directly at (800) 281-8219 or by mail at 1800 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, CA 93063.

Home > Contact Us
Corporate Headquarters:
Default and Special Release Services

Phone:1-800-281-8219
Address:
2380 Performance Drive,
Richardson, TX 75082
Mail Stop: RGV-C4-450

Real Estate Owned (REO) If you have questions or inquiries regarding REO purchases, unlisted purchases, investor-owned information, city violations, REO broker applications, REO vendor management, or broker complaints please call the REO Customer Escalation Team at: (866) 781-0029.

Headquartered in Thousand Oaks, CA, ReconTrust is a member of the Bank of America family of companies. That means when you turn to ReconTrust, you leverage the resources, technology, scale, and strength of one of the largest financial services companies in the world.
We understand the needs of the mortgage industry, and we are committed to delivering top-flight results. What is more, we share our parent company’s dedication to quality and continuous improvement. To that end, we are committed to offering our clients the highest levels of service, responsiveness, and accuracy.
Our goal is to boost your bottom line by reducing costs, increasing the efficiency of your business and improving the effectiveness of your mortgage operations. In short, we make your best execution happen.
ReconTrust is the name you can trust, and a partner you can rely on. Call us today to find out how to put our expertise to work for you.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer | Tagged: (866) 781-0029, 1330 West Southern Avenue, 2380 Performance Drive, 75082, 800-281-8219, 866-207-0573, ATTORNEY FEES, AZ, AZ 85282-4545, bankofamericastore.com 2, BofA, CA, countrywide, Dallas, damages, Default and Special Release Services, Denise Sletten, Eva Tapia, file audits, fines, foreclosure services, FPS, HERS, Jeffrey Aiken, Jim Taylor, Kailash Bhuckory, lien release, Lien Release Services, Lorena Castillo-Ruiz, Mail Stop: RGV-C4-450, Mail Stop: TPSA-88, MERS, Real Estate Owned (REO), Rebecca Baney, ReconTrust, ReconTrust operating system, recontrustco.com, REO Customer Escalation Team, Richardson, Sam Shmikler, Simi Valley, Tempe, Texas, Trustee's Sale Officers, Trustee's Sale Processors, TSG, TX, unlisted purchases | 14 Comments »

Wells Fargo, Option One, American Home Mortgage Relationship

Posted on March 30, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. appears in many ways including as servicer (America Servicing Company), Trustee (although it does not appear to be qualified as a “Trust Company”), as claimed beneficiary, as Payee on the note, as beneficiary under the title policy, as beneficiary under the property and liability insurance, and it may have in actuality acted as a mortgage broker without getting licensed as such.

In most securitized loan situations, Wells Fargo appears with the word “BANK” used, but it acted neither as a commercial nor investment bank in the deal. Sometimes it acted as a commercial bank meaning it processed a deposit and withdrawal, sometimes (rarely, perhaps 3-4% of the time) it did act as a lender, and sometimes it acted as a securities underwriter or co-underwriter of asset backed securities.

It might also be designated as “Depositor” which in most cases means that it performed no function, received no money, disbursed no money and neither received, stored, handled or transmitted any documentation despite third party documentation to the contrary.

In short, despite the sue of the word “BANK”, it was not acting as a bank in any sense of the word within the securitization chain. However, it is the use of the word “BANK” which connotes credibility to their role in the transaction despite the fact that they are not, and never were a creditor. The obligation arose when the funds were advanced for the benefit of the homeowner. But the pool from which those funds were advanced came from investors who purchased certificates of asset backed securities. Those investors are the creditors because they received a certificate containing three promises: (1) repayment of principal non-recourse based upon the payments by obligors under the terms of notes and mortgages in the pool (2) payment of interest under the same conditions and (3) the conveyance of a percentage ownership in the pool, which means that collectively 100% of the ivnestors own 100% of the the entire pool of loans. This means that the “Trust” does NOT own the pool nor the loans in the pool. It means that the “Trust” is merely an operating agreement through which the ivnestors may act collectively under certain conditions. The evidence of the transaction is the note and the mortgage or deed of trust is incident to the transaction. But if you are following the money you look to the obligation. In most transactions in which a residential loan was securitized, Wells Fargo did not work under the scope of its bank charter. However it goes to great lengths to pretend that it is acting under the scope of its bank charter when it pursues foreclosure.

Wells Fargo will often allege that it is the holder of the note. It frequently finesses the holder in due course confrontation by this allegation because of the presumption arising out of its allegation that it is the holder. In fact, the obligation of the homeowner is not ever due to Wells Fargo in a securitized residential note and mortgage or deed of trust. The allegation of “holder” is disingenuous at the least. Wells Fargo is not and never was the creditor although ti will claim, upon challenge, to be acting within the scope and course of its agency authority; however it will fight to the death to avoid producing the agency agreement by which it claims authority. remember to read the indenture or prospectus or pooling and service agreement all the way to the end because these documents are created to give an appearance of propriety but they do not actually support the authority claimed by Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo often claims to be Trustee for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-6 Asset Backed Certificates, Series 2007-6, c/o American Home Mortgage, 4600 Regent Blvd., Suite 200, P.O. Box 631730, Irving, Texas 75063-1730. Both Option One and American Home Mortgage were usually fronts (sham) entities that were used to originate loans using predatory, fraudulent and otherwise illegal loan practices in violation of TILA, RICO and deceptive lending practices. ALL THREE ENTITIES — WELLS FARGO, OPTION ONE AND AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A SINGLE JOINT ENTERPRISE ABUSING THEIR BUSINESS LICENSES AND CHARTERS IN MOST CASES.

WELLS FARGO-OPTION ONE-AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE IS OFTEN REPRESENTED BY LERNER, SAMPSON & ROTHFUSS, more specifically Susana E. Lykins. They list their address as P.O. Box 5480, Cincinnati, Oh 45201-5480, Telephone 513-241-3100, Fax 513-241-4094. Their actual street address is 120 East Fourth Street, Suite 800 Cincinnati, OH 45202. Documents purporting to be assignments within the securitization chain may in fact be executed by clerical staff or attorneys from that firm using that address. If you are curious, then pick out the name of the party who executed your suspicious document and ask to speak with them after you call the above number.

Ms. Lykins also shows possibly as attorney for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as well as Robert B. Blackwell, at 620-624 N. Main street, Lima, Ohio 45801, 419-228-2091, Fax 419-229-3786. He also claims an office at 2855 Elm Street, Lima, Ohio 45805

Kathy Smith swears she is “assistant secretary” for American Home Mortgage as servicing agent for Wells Fargo Bank. Yet Wells shows its own address as c/o American Home Mortgage. No regulatory filing for Wells Fargo acknowledges that address. Ms. Smith swears that Wells Fargo, Trustee is the holder of the note even though she professes not to work for them. Kathy Smith’s signature is notarized by Linda Bayless, Notary Public, State of Florida commission# DD615990, expiring November 19, 2010. This would indicate that despite the subject property being in Ohio, Kathy Smith, who presumably works in Texas, had her signature notarized in Florida or that the Florida Notary exceeded her license if she was in Texas or Ohio or wherever Kathy Smith was when she allegedly executed the instrument.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer | Tagged: 120 East Fourth Street, 2010, 2855 Elm Street, 419-228-2091, 419-229-3786, 45201-5480, 45202, 45801, 45805, 513-241-3100, 513-241-4094, 620-624 N. Main stree, agency agreement, agency authority, America Servicing Company, American Home Mortgage, appearance of propriety, as trustee, Assistant Secretary, bank charter, beneficiary, Cincinnati, co-underwriter, commercial bank, conveyance of a percentage ownership in the pool, creditor, DD615990, Depositor, documentation, Florida Notary, foreclosure, funds were advanced, HERS, HOLDER, holder of the note, homeowner, indenture, investment bank, Irving, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Kathy Smith, lender, LERNER, Lima, Linda Bayless, money, MORTGAGE BROKER, N.A, N.A Trustee, November 19, Obligation, Oh, Ohio, Option One, Option One Mortgage, Option One Mortgage Loan Trust, Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-6 Asset Backed Certificates, P.O. Box 5480, P.O. Box 631730, Payee, pooling and service agreement, presumption, property and liability insurance, Prospectus, repayment of principal non-recourse, Robert B. Blackwel, SAMPSON & ROTHFUSS, securities underwriter, securitization chain, securitized loan, Series 2007-6, Suite 200, Suite 800, Susana E. Lykins, Texas, title policy, trust, Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo Bank | 52 Comments »

Signors in Fabricated Documentation reported

Posted on March 23, 2010 by Neil Garfield

This is an example of the information I am requesting that everyone send in so we can pool information. I am entering the names and parties in key words so you can search for them. My goal with HERS is to have an ever increasing database that will speed the research for forensic analysts and lawyers.

The following six orders by Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, of King, should be of interest:

American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 07206/2007 (11 Sep 2007)

In American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, on September 11, 2007, Judge SCHACK denied an application for a judgemnt of foreclosure and sale of a Kings County property without prejudice due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing. The plaintiff American Brokers Conduit instituted suit on February 28, 2007, but did not receive an interest in the mortgage which is subject of the suit until a March 5, 2007 assignment (CFRN 2007000169450). This case is a little bizarre in that American Brokers Conduit seems to have assigned the mortgage to ITSELF at a different address in Melville, New York. The case does have a good discussion of the case authority requiring a plaintiff to have standing.

American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 07206/2007 (28 Jan 2008)

In American Brokers Conduit v ZAMALLOA, on January 28, 2008, Judge SCHACK denied an application for an order of reference due to the plaintiff’s failure to include an affidavit of merit by the party. Rahter than having an officer of American Brokers Conduit execute the affidavit of merit, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of merit excuted by a Robert HARDMAN, who identified himself as Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS).

Aurora Loan Services, LLC v SATTAR, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 15208/2007 (09 Oct 2007)

In Aurora Loan Services, LLC v SATTAR, Judge SHACK denied an application for an order for service by publication and dismissed the complaint by Aurora Loan Services, LLC, due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing. The plaintiff pled a promissory note and mortgage iin which the promissory note was in favor of First Magnus Financial Corporation and the mortgage was recorded in favor of MERS. Judge SCHACK notes that there is no evidence whatsoever within the record that the mortgage was assigned in favor of the plaintiff and notes that no such mortgage assignemnt was either pled or recorded. Judge SCHACK goes on to note that First Magnus Financial Corporation had gone out of business in AUgust 2007 and filed for bankruptcy on August 21, 2007. The opinion then contains a thorough discussion of the case authority requiring a plaintiff to have demonstrable standing in order to be eligible to maintian a suit. In addition to dismissing the suit, Judge SCHACK also cancelled the notice of pendency. Judge SCHACK also found the original complaint and suit to be frivolous, but declined to impose sanctions upon the law firm filing the suit because it was the first instance that the Court had noted such conduct.

Bank of NY NA v OROSCO, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 32052/2007 (19 Nov 2007)

In Bank of NY NA v OROSCO, Judge SCHACK denied an application for an order of reference due to the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate ownership of the mortgage for the subject property. The plaintiff pled an assignment from MERS to Bank of New York dated August 21, 2007, but Judge SCHACK noted that this assignment had never been recorded. But Judge SCHACK went on to note that Bank of New York also pled an affidavit executed by a person who is identified as Keri SELMAN. Judge SCHACK notes that while in her affidavit in the OROSCO case she identified herself as an Assistant Vice President for Bank of New York, in another case before Judge SCHACK Keri SELMAN had signed an affidavit identifying herself as a Vice President of “Countrywide Home Loans, Attorney in Fact for Bank of New York”. Judge SCHACK ordered that Ms. Keri SCHACK furnish an affidavit describing her employment history for the previous three years. [In point of fact, this would seem to be Keri or Kerri L. SELMAN (b 26 Aug 1969 – Los Angeles, CA), formerly Keri Lynn ATWOOD, of McKinney, Texas. She seems likely to be an employee of Countrywide, which has a large servicing facility near where Ms. SELMAN lives.]

Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 22375/2006 (11 May 2007)

In Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, on May 11, 2007, Judge SCHACK denied an application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing. Judge SCHACK noted that the foreclosure was commenced in July 2006 by Deutsche Bank. After obtaining an order of reference (November 16, 2006) and after preparing an affirmation of regularity (January 10, 2007) and during the pendency of the action, Deutsche Bank seems to have assigned the mortgage to MTGLQ Investors, L.P. on January 19, 2007 (recorded February 7, 2007). Judge SCHACK therefore denied the plaintiff’s application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale without prejudice expressly inviting the Plaintiff to amend its pleadings to appropriately to correct the identity of the plaintiff. Judge SCHACK cites Gretchen Morgenson’s April 6, 2007, New York Times article “Fair Game; Home Loans: A Nightmare Grows Darker” in his opinion.

Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, Judge Arthur M. SCHACK, Kings, Index No. 22375/2006 (14 Jan 2008)

In Deutsche Bank v CASTELLANOS, on May 11, 2007, Judge SCHACK denied a renewed application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale due to the plaintiff’s lack of standing (see case above). He noted that the defects identified within his May 11, 2007, order remained unaddressed. In addition, he noted the presence of a affidavit of merit executed by a Mr. Jeff RIVAS, who was identified as Deutsche Bank’s “Vice President Default Timeline Management”. He then notes the presence of mortgage assignment within the files executed the same date which identifies Mr. Jeff RIVAS as the “Vice President Default Timeline Management” for Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, the assignor of a the mortgage to Deutsche Bank. Judge SCHACK points out that if Mr. RIVAS was acting as an officer of both the grantor and the grantee of the assignment that this would create a conflict rendering the conveyance VOID. Judge SCHACK then directs that Mr. RIVAS’ employment history be clarified in any future application for a foreclosure order. Judge SCHACK then goes on to note that Deutsche Bank and MTGLQ Investors, L.P. are also shown to share the same address at 1661 Worthington lioad, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, where suspicious transactions executed by one Scott ANDERSON seem to be occuring. Judge SCHACK then also demands an explanation as to WHY so many corporations seem to be sharing the SAME suite in West Palm Beach.

Judge Arthur M. SCHACK is a Justice of the Supreme Court of New York for King County. [See http://www.nycourtsystem.com/Applications/JudicialDirectory/Bio.php?ID=7029077 ]

Filed under: foreclosure | Tagged: 1661 Worthington, 2007, affidavit of employment, American Brokers Conduit, Argent Mortgage company, assignment, Attorney in fact, Aurora Loan Services, Aurora Loan Services LLC, bank of new york, Castellanos, Countrywide Home Loans, Deutsch Bank, First Magnus Financial Corporation, Index No 07206/2007, Index No 15208/2007, Index No. 22375/2006, Index No. 32052/2007, Jeff Rivas, Judge Arthur M Schack, Keri L. Selman, Keri Lynn Atwood, Keri Selman, lack of standing, May 11, McKinney, Melville, MERS, Mortgage, Mortgage Electronic registration Systems, MTGLQ Investors, New York, Orosco, ownership, Robert Hardman, Sattar, Scott Anderson, Suite 100, Texas, Vice President Default Timeline Management, West Palm Beach Suite, Zamalloa | 60 Comments »

Option One Mortgage Corporation name changed to Sand Canyon Corporation June 4, 2008

Posted on March 7, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Option One Mortgage Corporation merely changed
its name to Sand Canyon Corporation June 4, 2008.
It is still registered as a California corporation.
American Home Mortgage Servicing is a Delaware
corporation located in Irving, Texas which merely
services the loans. Wells Fargo is the Trustee of the
pool of Option One Mortgage Loan Trust etc.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: American Home Mortgage Servicing, HERS, Irving, Option One Mortgage Corporation, Sand Canyon Corporation, Texas, Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo is the Trustee of the pool of Option One Mortgage Loan Trust etc. | 83 Comments »

Citi to Try New Version of Cash for Keys

Posted on March 1, 2010 by Neil Garfield

Editor’s Note: The decision about flight or fight is deeply personal and there is no right answer. The decision you make ought not be criticized by anyone. For those with the fight knocked out of them the prospect of taking on the giant banks in court is both daunting and dispiriting. So if that is where you are, and this Citi program comes your way, it might be acceptable to you. AT THE MOMENT, CITI IS SAYING YOU NEED TO BE 90 DAYS BEHIND IN YOUR PAYMENTS AND NOT HAVE A SECOND MORTGAGE. (A quick call to the holder of a second mortgage or the party claiming to be that holder could result in a double settlement since they are going to get wiped out anyway in a foreclosure. You can offer them pennies on the dollar or simply the chance to avoid litigation.)

Citi, faced with the prospects of increasing legal fees even if they were to “win” the foreclosure battle in court, along with the rising prospects of losing, is piloting a program where they will give you $1,000 and six months in your current residence — and then they take over your house by way of a deed in lieu of foreclosure, which you sign as part of a settlement. Make sure all terms of the settlement are actually in writing and signed by someone who is authorized to sign for Citi.

The deed is simply a grant of your ownership interest to Citi and frankly does little to “cure” the title defect caused by securitization. HOPEFULLY THAT WILL NEVER BE A PROBLEM TO YOU, EVEN THOUGH IT PROBABLY WILL BE CAUSE FOR LITIGATION OR OTHER CONFRONTATIONS BETWEEN PARTIES OTHER THAN YOU WHEN ALL OF THIS UNRAVELS.

The possibility remains that you will have deeded your house to Citi when in fact the mortgage loan was owed to another party or group (investors/creditors).

The possibility remains that you could still be pursued for the full amount of the loan by the REAL holder of the loan.

Yet in this topsy turvy world where up is down and left is right, the Citi program might just take you out of the madness and give you the new start. They apparently intend to offer to waive any claim they have for deficiency which in states where deficiency judgments are allowed at least gives you the arguable point that you gave the house to some party with “apparent” authority. And the hit on your FICO score is less than foreclosure or bankruptcy, under the proposed Citi plan.

In the six months, which can probably be extended through negotiation or other legal means, you can accumulate some cash from what otherwise would have been a rental or mortgage payment. Taken as a whole, even though I would say that you are probably dealing with a party who neither owns the loan nor has any REAL authority to offer you this plan, it probably fits the needs of many homeowners who are just one step away from walking away from their home anyway.

As always, at least consult a licensed real estate attorney or an attorney otherwise knowledgeable about securitized loans before you make your final decision or sign any documents. BEWARE OF HUCKSTERS WHO MIGHT SEIZE THIS ANNOUNCEMENT AS A MEANS TO GET YOU TO PART WITH YOUR MONEY. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A MIDDLEMAN IN THIS TYPE OF TRANSACTION.

February 24, 2010

Another Foreclosure Alternative

By BOB TEDESCHI

HOMEOWNERS on the verge of foreclosure will often seek a short sale as a graceful exit from an otherwise calamitous financial situation. Their homes are sold for less than the mortgage amount, and the remaining loan balance is usually forgiven by the lender.

But with short sales beyond the reach of some homeowners — they typically won’t qualify if they have a second mortgage on the home — another foreclosure alternative is emerging: “deeds in lieu of foreclosure.”

In this transaction, a homeowner simply relinquishes the property, turning over the deed to the bank, in exchange for the lender’s promise not to foreclose. In a straight foreclosure, a lender takes legal control of the property and evicts the occupants; in deeds-in-lieu transactions, the homeowner is typically allowed to remain in the home for a short period of time after the agreement.

More borrowers will at least have the chance to consider this strategy in the coming months, as CitiMortgage, one of the nation’s biggest mortgage lenders, tests a new program in New Jersey, Texas, Florida, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio.

Citi recently agreed to give qualified borrowers six months in their homes before it takes them over. It will offer these homeowners $1,000 or more in relocation assistance, provided the property is in good condition. Previously, the bank had no formal process for serving borrowers who failed to qualify for Citi’s other foreclosure-avoidance programs like loan modification.

Citi’s new policy is similar to one announced last fall by Fannie Mae, the government-controlled mortgage company. Fannie is allowing homeowners to return the deed to their properties, then rent them back at market rates.

To qualify for the new program, Citi’s borrowers must be at least 90 days late on their mortgages and must not have a second lien on the home.

That policy may be a significant obstacle for borrowers, since many of the people facing foreclosure originally financed their homes with second mortgages — called “piggyback loans” — or borrowed against the homes’ equity after buying them.

Partly for that reason, Elizabeth Fogarty, a spokeswoman for Citi, said that the bank had only modest expectations for the test. Roughly 20,000 Citi mortgage customers in the pilot states will be eligible for a deed-in-lieu agreement, she said, and of those, about 1,000 will most likely complete the process.

As is often the case with deed-in-lieu settlements, Citi will release the borrower from all legal obligations to repay the loan.

In some states, like New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, banks can legally retain the right to pursue borrowers for the balance of the loan after a foreclosure, a short sale or a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. That is one reason why housing advocates say borrowers should carefully weigh these transactions with the help of a lawyer or nonprofit housing counselor before proceeding.

Ms. Fogarty said Citi had no specific timetable for rolling out the program nationally.

Among the other major lenders, there is no formalized program for deeds-in-lieu. Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, for instance, generally require borrowers to try a short sale before considering a deed-in-lieu transaction.

A deed-in-lieu is better for banks than a foreclosure because it reduces the company’s legal costs, and it is better for the homeowners because it is less damaging to their credit score.

Banks may also end up with homes in better condition.

J. K. Huey, a senior vice president at Wells Fargo, says her bank usually offers relocation assistance — often $1,000 to $2,500 — as long as the borrower leaves the property in move-in condition after a deed-in-lieu transaction.

“The idea is to help them transition in a way where they can keep their family intact while looking for another place to live,” Ms. Huey said. “This way, they only have to move once, as opposed to getting evicted.”

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: apparent authority, Bob Tedeschi, cash for keys, Citi, deed in lieu of foreclosure, deficiency, FICO, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Ny Times, Ohio, RELOCATION ASSISTANCE, Texas | 13 Comments »

HERS INFO: Invalid Notarization?

Posted on February 25, 2010 by Neil Garfield

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!

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: 12323 W. Village Dr. Apt A, 2011, CALIFORNIA, commission expiration date of March28, HERS, Houston TX 77039, Invalid Notarization, LITTON/CBASS, M. Bell, Marti Noreiga, Melissa Bell, MERS, Quality Loan Servicing, Texas, trust, trustee | 12 Comments »

Michigan, Ohio, Texas Lawyers Wanted: We Know You’re Out There

Posted on December 4, 2009 by Neil Garfield

The business case for taking, handling and litigating residential “mortgage” cases has been proven over and over again. Unfortunately most lawyers are ignoring this opportunity.

The latest estimates are that it will take 6-12 years to clean up this mess and I think that is very conservative. My analysis shows that it will take the better part of 30 years, and even then there will be cases that are still outstanding. One case, just filed, involves a mere $500,000 mortgage but alleges more than $27 million in damages (which could end up north of $81 million), credibly, the proximate cause of which was the eggregious, tortious behavior of loan originators and investment banks who gave the impression that normal underwriting standards and procedures were in place. The complaint alleges breach of Federal Statutes, State Statutes and common law including identity theft, slander of title, and fraudulent or negligent appraisal.

Lawyers who were starving are getting to understand that monthly payments from the client will cover them until the contingency fee kicks in and that there are clear ways to collect damage judgments. Some lawyers we know have $50,000 per month or more coming in from clients.

Let me spell it out for you. Most analysts agree with my estimate from 2 years ago: $13 trillion in erroneous, fraudulent paper was floated producing some $25 trillion in profits that was sequestered off shore. There appears to be some 60 million loans affected by this massive scheme. If your contingency fee is only 20% that means that around $5 trillion in contingency fees is sitting out there waiting to be pocketed. If every lawyer in America took these cases, they would each have around 40-50 cases involving title claims, securities claims defenses. But we all know that only a fraction of the 1 million lawyers are even doing trial practice. The short story is that for every lawyer there are hundreds if not thousands of cases that can be handled each averaging fees in excess of $100,000 per case.

We know there are lawyers out there some of whom are taking a few but not many of these cases. Livinglies takes in requests for services at the rate of 15-20 per day. And THAT is without any promotion. We don’t do any promotion because we have an insufficient number of lawyers to refer these prospective clients. WAKE UP LAWYERS! We have referrals for you and we require NO COMPENSATION for the referral and no co-counsel fee.

Send your resume:

eFAX: 772-594-6244

eMail: ngarfield@msn.com

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: Appraisal, contingency fees, fraud, ID Theft, lawyers, Michigan, monthly fees, Ohio, securities, Texas, title | 5 Comments »

Please Donate to Support Neil Garfield’s Efforts to stop Foreclosure Fraud.

Pages

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm

Needy States Use Housing Aid Cash to Plug Budgets

Spread the word

Like this:

Bank forecloses on home that does not exist

Spread the word

Like this:

Lien Release Services: Consistent. Accurate. Timely.

ReconTrust’s Employees

SEO Analysis

Organic keywords

Organic competitors

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

Another Foreclosure Alternative

By BOB TEDESCHI

Spread the word

Like this:

Spread the word

Like this:

The business case for taking, handling and litigating residential “mortgage” cases has been proven over and over again. Unfortunately most lawyers are ignoring this opportunity.

Spread the word

Like this:

Living Lies Services

Follow LivingLies Blog

Recent Posts

1 Links to Related External Sites

CALCULATORS

economics

foreclosure defense

Glossaries

Help Yourself

Landmark Cases

Law Review Articles and Studies

Living Lies Services