Uncertainty of Mortgage Title
The mortgage foreclosure crisis raises legal questions as important as its economic impact. Questions that were straightforward and uncontroversial a generation ago today threaten the stability of a $13 trillion mortgage market: Who has standing to foreclose? If a foreclosure was done improperly, what is the effect? And what is the proper legal method for transferring mortgages?
These questions implicate the clarity of title for property nationwide and pose a too-big-to-fail problem for the courts.
(Title companies are forging documents to cover-up the tainted titles.)
Is the Justice Department Putting on a Show?
Or is it simply putting on a show as part of a public relations campaign to placate the people’s demand for justice? The big banks certainly seem to be carrying on as though nothing has happened.
An attorney who once bragged that he "owned a judge" has been sentenced to 20 years in federal prison and ordered to pay more than $12 million dollars in restitution in a "Court For Cash" scandal.
"Thanks to the U.S. Attorney's Office and thanks to the FBI, we are cleaning up the system."
Are the Foreclosure-Mills next?
Caught on tape!
Judge Conrad: "Who is the real party of interest?"
Carole Schneider: (whispered) "I don 't know."
Judge Conrad: "But there was some issue about when they were assigned the note... I think maybe the issue was that they took it within about 3 days after they filed their lawsuit... and so I ruled in their favor."
Carole Schneider: "And they've remanded it back to you and we just want to get it dismissed. What do we need to do?"
After receiving the Motion - the Foreclosure-Mill attorney withdrew.
Using Fraudulent Records
Jones, a former banker, claims so many fraudulent documents have been filed at the County Recorder's office that they estimate $4.3 billion worth of real estate has been stolen from homeowners through illegal foreclosures. The audit of 505 documents filed by banks and attorneys found all 505 were fraudulent.
Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Richard Oftedal spells out some of the problems in today’s foreclosures, from law firms’ playing hot potato with cases to just plain shoddy handling. Oftedal dismissed the 2010 case after a hearing where the lender’s attorney, who was new to the file, sputtered through explanations as to why it took the bank six months to meet a two-week deadline to comply to one order and why it never complied to another request to file a new complaint.
"It is against this procedural backdrop that Plaintiff now seeks once again for permission to properly file an Amended Verifed Complaint, almost two years from the date leave to amend was initially granted. Any prejudice to the Plaintiff is entirely self-inflicted as a result of years of delay and willful and deliberate inaction and inattention to court orders, as well as the questionable behavior of counsel in failing to ensure timely service of notices and pleading to Defendant's attorney and not the client. Plaintiff's repeated failure to file the cost bond even when put on notice to do so nearly three years ago in and of itself is a sufficient basis for dismissal of this action."
7) The Assignment, as an instrument of fraud in this Court intentionally perpetrated upon this court by the Plaintiff, was made to appear as though it was created and notorized on December 5, 2007. However, that purported creation/notarization date was facially impossible: the stamp on the notary was dated May 19,2012. Since Notary commissions only last four years in Florida, the notary stamp used on this instrument did not even exist until approximately five months after the purported date on the Assignment.
The Motion to Compel is granted. As a sanction for egregious failure to comply with discovery Rules the Plaintiff shall be prohibited from presenting the alleged Promissory Note to this Court.
One day in 2007, without warning Burns received a letter from JPMorgan Chase notifying her that she was six months behind on her mortgage payments and that the bank was taking her house. Burns said the bank was wrong; she was up to date on her payments. "I sent them a letter and the details of our payments to them, and they still foreclosed," she said. An attorney who works for a housing non-profit helped Burns sue JPMorgan Chase. She won a $20,000 cash settlement. STILL, SHE LOST HER HOME AND HAD TO MOVE!
Because the trial judge mistakenly precluded discovery into the circumstances surrounding Deutsche's assignment and Deutsche's entitlement to sue on the mortgage, we find it necessary to: Vacate the order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against Deutsche; Vacate the order granting Deutsche's motion for summary judgment; reverse the protective order; and remand for discovery.
This Article takes issue with the IRS’s inaction and presents both the legal and policy grounds for enforcing tax law by challenging the REMIC classification of at least the worst types of RMBS pools.
The professors urge the IRS to take action, recognizing that its failure to police these arrangements prior to the Financial Crisis is partly to blame for the economic meltdown in 2008. The IRS’s continued failure to police RMBS arrangements provides latitude to industry participants, which facilitates future economic catastrophes.
In concluding that MERS is not the beneficiary under the statute, the Court quoted the homeowners’ argument that “MERS was not the lender, did not extend any credit, and is nothing more than an electronic tracking entity”. Thus, the DOT was not and could not have been executed “for the benefit” of MERS. The Court also rejected MERS’ argument that it is a “special agent” of the lender, finding no evidence to support this argument which the Court found that MERS wrongfully attempted for the first time on appeal.
In reviewing the docket and the Court’s prior orders, the Court has rarely seen a case so confused and convoluted and poorly presented and prepared for trial.
2008 Judgment by Default and Quiet Title in Favor of McLeod
That the subject property is hereby awarded to, and title quieted in favor of Plaintiffs; That Defendant SABR is permanently enjoined and prohibited from recording any documents affecting or purporting to affect title of the subject property; and, any acts or recordings now or in the future by Defendant SABR relating to the subject property shall be of no force or effect.
This case provides the plaintiffs with an opportunity to over-turn thousands of home foreclosure cases and will be viewed as a watershed moment in foreclosure law. Judge McConnell's decision in the case puts to bed once and for all the contention that homeowners have no right to challenge fraudulent assignments appearing in their chain of title.
Remember, MERS disclosure describes MERS as being the bank's agent. This is FALSE. MERSCORP is actually it's agent. These disclosure statements are never filed along with the mortgage in the public records.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott should not take actions that essentially and effectively harm otherwise law-abiding, innocent Texas homeowners. Robert and Marie Hossfeld find themselves, counter-intuitively, forced to champion a valid intervener's interest in this litigation because they fear the repercussions suffered upon citizens voicing objections to their state government.
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FORECLOSURE JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT BE ENTERED; DISMISS ANOTHER CASE; AND ASSESS ATTORNEYS FEES IN A THIRD CASE; COLORADO COURT ENJOINS SALE IN SECURITIZATION CASE.
CRIMINAL investigation will continue.
This Article proposes reconciling the competing title systems through an integrated system of note registration and mortgage recordation, with compliance as a prerequisite to foreclosure. Such a system would resolve questions about standing, remove the potential cloud to real-estate title, and facilitate mortgage financing by clarifying property rights.
Big banks who robbed homes from Americans got a penalty that entailed, quite literally, giving homeowners worthless allowances. The servicer didn't “forgive” anything. So the banks got away with paying off their penalty for a series of crimes with completely worthless non-recourse short sales. That’s the implication of the IRS letter.
A woman who refused to leave her southwest Rochester home despite foreclosure orders, eviction actions and police arrests has been given her home back — with no strings attached. Bank of America, whose foreclosure action set her on a spiral to near-homelessness five years ago, deeded the property back to her last week for a nominal fee of $1.
"to get the house back outright … is just historic and precedent-setting."
“I urge Delawareans who are facing the loss of their home to foreclosure and who have had difficulty discussing their mortgage with their bank to attend our free workshops."
Rakoff described why prosecuting companies, rather than targeting individuals, produces lame outcomes. If the Great Recession was in material part the product of intentional fraud, the failure to prosecute those responsible must be judged one of the more egregious failures of the criminal justice system in many years.
This is a Must Read!
Courts accepted the contrived confusion told by the criminals stealing homes and equity. Duh!
Jeff Barnes, Esq. wrote: "We have been provided with a copy of U.S. Bank Global Corporate Trust Services’ “Role of the Corporate Trustee” brochure which makes certain incredible admissions, several of which squarely disprove and nullify the holdings of various courts around the country which have taken the position that the borrower “is not a party to” the securitization and is thus not entitled to discovery or challenges to the mortgage loan transfer process." The second page sets forth that U.S. Bank, as Trustee, “does not have any discretion or authority in the foreclosure process.” If this is true, how can U.S. Bank as Trustee be the Plaintiff in judicial foreclosures or the foreclosing party in non-judicial foreclosures if it has “no authority in the foreclosure process”?
As those of you know who have had Bloomberg reports done on securitized loans, the screens show loans which have been placed into many tranches (we saw one where the same loan was collateralized in 41 separate tranches, each of which corresponded to a different class of MBS), and with each class of MBS having its own insurance, the “trust” could make 41 separate insurance claims AND foreclose on the house as well! Talk about “maximizing return for the investor”! What has happened is that the securitization parties have unilaterally changed the entire nature of the mortgage loan contract without any prior notice to or approval from the borrower.
The government said the penalties were necessary to punish the bank and Mairone "and to send a clear and unambiguous message that mortgage fraud for profit will not be tolerated."
Bank of America defrauded the federal government and homebuyers by cheating on the Home Affordable Refinance Program, a homebuyer claims in a False Claims Act complaint in Federal Court. Bank of America profited at the expense of the taxpayers. By fraudulently inducing the government to implement changes to HARP 2.0 and then refusing to pass along reductions in LLPAs to consumers, Bank of America violated the conditions of payment for HARP 2.0, and submitted thousands of false claims to the GSEs for HARP 2.0 loans."
Judge Terrence W. Boyle ruled that “the plaintiff has failed to uncover any case finding that MERS violates North Carolina law whereas several other courts have held that MERS is lawful and accordingly has the authority to assign it rights under deeds of trust.”
A. The Promissory Note And Mortgage Are Inseparable;
B. An Assignment Of Mortgage Is A Recordable Conveyance Of Title In Land;
C. The MERS System Seeks To Circumvent Public Recording Of Mortgage Assignments;
D. The MERS System Was Created For The Explicit Purpose Of Circumventing Public Recording Of Mortgage Assignments;
E. The MERS System Plays Havoc With The Public Records
* Note the interesting redactions in Expert Report.
It is clearly a mistake in the filing, the problem is that mistake now clouds a property that doesn't have a mortgage and puts the owners in a state of uncertainty. Foreclosure-Mill McCalla Raymer represents the bank and filed the Certificate of Title. Realtor: "Erroneous foreclosures seems to happen to almost everyone; it even happened to me."
Our Realtor, met with us last Friday and told us because Harmon Law (a foreclosure-mill under investigation) had failed to provide proper notification of foreclosure, we'd be unable to obtain title insurance"
This Article argues for a new and unexpected mechanism of judicial accountability: suing courts. Current models of court accountability focus almost entirely on correcting legal errors. A suit against the court would concentrate on something different—on providing transition relief, by way of legal remedy, to those bearing the heaviest burdens of desirable legal change.
O’Connor didn’t rule on a final claim, whether mortgage assignments must be recorded. (The Texas Local Govt. Code says they must)
It's about time somebody stood up for the foreclosure victims. Anyone want to follow his lead?
Large monetary judgments have recently been taken against large, federally insured lending institutions in favor of the State of Texas, ostensibly in the best interests of the citizens of the state (see "State of Texas v. Lender Processing Services"). The "restitution" was nevertheless diverted and deposited into the bank account for the "Texas Judiciary Fund" (see attached Exhibit "A"). No proof exists that any of this "restitution" rightfully flowed to the Texas homeowners, homeowners who actually suffered the indignities, damages and harm at the hands of these large banks.
The State of Texas argues the homeowner's "Entry of Appearance" as a party should be struck for various reasons, to wit: He has the ability to file a "standalone cause of action".
Yet in the same pleading Texas' counsel describes how: "One of the purposes of the enforcement of the DTPA by the Texas Attorney General is to prevent a multiplicity of suits"... "Similar clams against the common defendants should be consolidated ... for the benefit of consumers". The State of Texas' rationale in the Motion to Strike is, therefore, contradictory, inconsistent and problematic.
While JPMorgan could be allowed to write off the penalty as a tax deduction, homeowners who receive mortgage relief as part of the settlement could get hit with a giant tax bill, making the debt relief benefit irrelevant, if not actively harmful.
Topics include: - Finding the Smoking Gun
- Using Community Outreach to Find and Prosecute Mortgage Fraud
- Making Choices: Charging and Plea Negotiations
- Civil Remedies for Mortgage Fraud
- Last But Not Least: Sentencing and Restitution
Questions abound in the wake of Schwartzwald regarding the Court's exact meaning of the word "jurisdiction" and how long a foreclosure decree can remain open for attack. The Ohio Supreme Court recently accepted for review the following question in Kuchta:
"When a defendant fails to appeal from a trial court's judgment in a foreclosure action, can a lack of standing be raised as part of a motion for relief from judgment?"
(Hint: "A "void" judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack. No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been." - Fritts v. Krugh | Mich. Sup. Ct. 1958)
There are some real zingers in the 518 page report, including:
"[F]raudulent bankers. . . sought TARP bailout dollars to have taxpayers fill in the holes on their fraud-riddled books."
Bank of America refused to accept his loan payment and informed him that Nationstar was servicing the loan. According to the complaint, Hatfield immediately contacted Nationstar about his April payment, and Nationstar refused to accept his payment and did not accept payment until May. The homeowner was informed by Nationstar he was in default and that his loan modification had been denied because he was current on his loan and not at risk of default.
On Sept. 5, Nationstar referred his home for foreclosure.
Two Federal Judges in Texas Allow Homeowners to Amend Pleadings.
Although the court is granting defendants’ motion, and although the court has already given Colton one opportunity to amend, it will grant him one last opportunity to replead. “[D]istrict courts often afford plaintiffs at least one opportunity to cure pleading deficiencies before dismissing a case, unless it is clear that the defects are incurable or the plaintiffs advise the court that they are unwilling or unable to amend in a manner that will avoid dismissal.”
Because the court has determined that Plaintiffs’ recordation, failure to produce the original wet ink signature Note, and “split-the-note” theories are not recognized by Texas law, Plaintiffs’ amended complaint must not contain any legal arguments or factual allegations based on these theories.
For the past 7 years, the filing of unlawful detainer actions have been submitted into court proceedings with fake, false, and forged documents to induce a "WRIT" upon FRAUD, wasting courts valuable time, funds, and resources.
These documents have been filed in our Contra Costa County Registry of Deeds and used by eviction attorneys. These attorneys should have known or knew, knowingly and willingly chose to induce FRAUD upon the court to steal my real property. This law firm has filed two actions on same property, and this time used an illegal backdoor to strip me of my lawful title, because of the presumptuous nature that an unlawful detainer is based on a 'valid foreclosure"
The threat of a Sacramento-based criminal prosecution — which could still proceed — played a crucial role in the negotiations for civil penalties. Billionaire investor Warren Buffett sized up the threat to a financial firm earlier this week: "You have no ability to negotiate. Basically, you've got to be like a wolf that bares its throat, you know, when it gets to the end. You cannot win."
As Wall Street awaits final word on the tentative $13-billion settlement, Wagner continues to pursue his criminal investigation of JPMorgan.
A criminal prosecution would mark a "clear shift in attitude" at the Justice Department, said John Coffee, a securities law expert. Just months ago, the department caught heat for going easy on big Wall Street firms. But if no top executives get charged, the federal government may miss an opportunity to satisfy public outrage and avert future misdeeds, said law professor Arthur Wilmarth Jr.
The "plaintiffs were charged a different, much greater interest rate than promised," the said. "Further, EMC Mortgage disguised from plaintiffs the fact that defendants' Option ARM loan was designed to, and did, cause negative amortization to occur. Further still, once lured into these loans, consumers cannot easily extricate themselves from these loans.
We’re tired of Big Banks being Above the Law. Tell the Department of Justice that negotiating with criminals on their own punishment is unacceptable. America is tired of Chase paying fines. We need Chase doing Time.
While the suggested fine pales in comparison to the check that JPMorgan is expected to write, lawyers point out that the eventual cost could far exceed what the government has asked for because the jury’s decision is likely to spur a torrent of class-action suits that could cost Bank of America many billions of dollars in settlement payments.
How many judges have given away free homes to HSBC
and how do we get them back?
This is especially important as the Trustee of a Mortgage-Backed Security is responsible for holding all notes for properties conveyed to a trust.
"It truly concerns me, however, that thousands and thousands -- thousands and thousands of mortgage foreclosure actions have been filed with these allegations. I am not certain what remedy, if any, these people would have were it to be determined that MERS was not ever the proper party notwithstanding that these folks [might] have been in default what their recourse, if any, would be. I'm not certain with the satisfaction of mortgages that have been filed on behalf of MERS how good those are and I am not certain how good title to property is that people bought at these foreclosure sales if it turns or becomes established that MERS was indeed not only not the right party but misrepresented by way of their pleadings and affidavits that they held something they didn't own, so I'm not certain of the consequences but it seems vast."
- The Honorable Judge Jon Gordon - September 2005 (Emphasis added)