The latest from Reiss and Borden – Dirt Lawyers, Dirty REMICS

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 2:12 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: The latest from Reiss and Borden – Dirt Lawyers, Dirty REMICS

Dirty REMICs…

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: www.BayLiving.com; www.FdnPro.com and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Paralegal; Litigation Support and Expert Witness Services; Forensic Loan Analyst; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker.

article dirt lawyers dirty remics david reiss borden.pdf

California Homeowners Bill of Rights White Paper

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 7:14 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: California Homeowners Bill of Rights White Paper

FYI

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: www.BayLiving.com; www.FdnPro.com and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Paralegal; Litigation Support and Expert Witness Services; Forensic Loan Analyst; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker.

Nationwide_Title_Clearing_White_Paper_Preparing_for_CA_Homeowner_Bill_of_Rights.pdf

2012 in review

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

About 55,000 tourists visit Liechtenstein every year. This blog was viewed about 200,000 times in 2012. If it were Liechtenstein, it would take about 4 years for that many people to see it. Your blog had more visits than a small country in Europe!

Click here to see the complete report.

timothymccandless's avatarabc Assignment for benefit of creditors

Of late I have had three clients who have contracted with companies who claim they can settle the second trust deed on the clients home for pennies on the dollar. They clients must pay the agreed amount up front and to the scamming company. As an example this client paid 40,000.00 to settle a 112,000.00. Eagerly my client paid from a loan from relatives. Eight months later still no settlement and when he asks for a refund the company says they are going through an audit and right after the audit he will get a refund. Double talk if you ask me and the company will be using some other “clients’ money if they ever pay back. We sued the and took their default they promised a full refund by Dec. 15, 2011 no refund yet I believe this is a Ponzzi scheme cooked up by some Broker. Advise: when…

View original post 50 more words

timothymccandless's avatarlitigation and damages for lenders bad acts

In McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC., No. 09-35767 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2011), plaintiff opened a credit card account around 1990 with Chemical Bank, which later merged with Chase. Plaintiff’s account became delinquent and in 2000, Chase Manhattan charged off the $3,000 account balance and later sold the account to CACV of Colorado, Ltd. CACV filed a collection action in state court in 2005. Two weeks later, CACV dismissed the case after plaintiff pointed out that the statute of limitations had lapsed. In 2006 CACV ‘s parent company retained Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger (“JRL”), a debt collection law firm, to pursue collection of plaintiff’s debt.

JRL noticed a statute of limitations problem with plaintiff’s account and inquired to CACV, who responded that plaintiff had made a partial payment in 2004, which would extend the statute of limitations to 2009. This information was incorrect: the payment in 2004 was…

View original post 378 more words

timothymccandless's avatarlitigation and damages for lenders bad acts

Letter to collection agency for Cease and Desist

One way to stop harassing phone calls from a collection agency is to send them a Cease and Desist Letter, requesting that they stop contacting you. Below is a sample Cease and Desist Letter.

Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone #

Collector’s Name
Collector’s Address
Date

Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Account Number

I am requesting that you cease and desist with your efforts to collect on the debt referenced above. I wish to deal with the original creditor and not a collection agency.

Therefore, I request that you cease collection efforts immediately or face legal action under State and Federal consumer protection laws. I hope you would consider giving this letter the attention it deserves.

Sincerely,
Your Signature
Your Name

View original post

timothymccandless's avatarlitigation and damages for lenders bad acts

How to request creditor for debt verification

Debt validation works only with collection agencies and not the original creditor. The only way you can make your original creditor verify your debt is by telling him that you’ll sue his company for defamation if he cannot prove that you are actually late on payments or even that you are on the debt account. This is when you need to use debt verification letters. A sample debt verification letter (verification of debt letter) is given below.

Company Name
Company Address

Collector’s Name
Department
Collector’s Address

Date

Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Account Number

This letter is to dispute the account referenced above. I have already disputed this information with the credit bureaus .

I have contacted you previously regarding this account, and you have not responded to me. If you cannot verify this information pursuant to the FCRA, and it continues to appear on…

View original post 67 more words

timothymccandless's avatarlitigation and damages for lenders bad acts

Validation of debt: 7 debt validation steps to fight collection agency

Are collection agencies harassing you with repeated calls? Are you sure they’re legally entitled to collect the debt? Before you make a payment, try finding out if the agencies have the right to collect your debt. This is where debt validation can help you. Check out the topics given below if you want to know what debt validation is all about.

What is validation of debt?
Is there a time limit for validation of debt?
What details do you get with debt validation?
What are the steps in validation of debt?
Can you dispute the debt after the validation period?
Debt assigned to CA – how does it affect validation?
How do validation and debt verification differ?

What is validation of debt?

Debt validation is where you try to find out whether the collection agency (CA) has the legal…

View original post 1,091 more words

timothymccandless's avatarlitigation and damages for lenders bad acts

The whole purpose of a trial is to resolve disputes about the facts of your case. If neither party can dispute the facts, then a motion for summary judgement can be filed. A summary judgement means the judge looks at the facts, applies the law, and makes a ruling — saving you both a lot of time, money, and anguish. If there is any dispute about the facts, then the judge will deny the motion. In other words, there is no reason to bring a case to trial unless there is evidence that should be heard by a jury.

Other motions include:

Motion to dismiss – The Defendant can request the case be thrown out because it doesn’t state any kind of claim that warrants an award; or, as we mentioned earlier, if the court lacks the subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction for the case, isn’t of the proper…

View original post 985 more words

paragraph 22 Condition precedent

In standard FNMA deed of trust in paragraph 22 there exists a condition precedent of contact prior to Notice of Default that is routinely ignored by most lenders and or servicers and it is a defense to Foreclosure see attached ruling in Florida

Final Judgment Paragraph 22 Judge Tepper Brendan Riley.pdf

Suarez case – set for jury trial

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 5:27 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Suarez case – set for jury trial

This is the first one I know of actually set for jury trial. Almost the same dirt bags as in our own case (they’ve got Bryan Cave, the S. California counter-part to our Severson & Werson group of scum bags.) Looks like Prosper is making some headway.

Good on them!

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: www.BayLiving.com; www.FdnPro.com and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Paralegal; Litigation Support and Expert Witness Services; Forensic Loan Analyst; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker.

PrintCase.pdf
121066708-Suarez-v-Bank-of-New-York-Mellon.pdf

Suarez Case – Complaint

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:19 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Suarez Case – Complaint

Initial complaint attached.

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: www.BayLiving.com; www.FdnPro.com and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Paralegal; Litigation Support and Expert Witness Services; Forensic Loan Analyst; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker.

SuarezCase Complaint.pdf

Follow up-Williamson County Texas – Clerk Report and findings

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 6:21 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Follow up-Williamson County Texas – Clerk Report and findings

Follow up to the Williamson County Clerk Audit Findings…link here to posting on my website due to file size: http://www.fdnpro.com/reference-material/documents/TexasRecorder-Audit.pdf (about 21mb…177 pages)

Remember Phil Ting and the similar report done in San Francisco? I think you’ll like this one even more.

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: www.BayLiving.com; www.FdnPro.com and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Paralegal; Litigation Support and Expert Witness Services; Forensic Loan Analyst; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker.

If her allegations are taken as true, she has satisfied the tender requirement

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 5:22 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: If her allegations are taken as true, she has satisfied the tender requirement

From Deontos (I’ve attached the Order):

Martin v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP, Dist. Court, ED California 2013

RENEE’L. MARTIN, Plaintiff,
v.
LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP, et al., Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-00970-MCE-EFB PS.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

January 16, 2013.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendants have submitted a request for judicial notice which indicates that the deed of trust was assigned to defendant Deutsche Bank on March 19, 2004 and that Western Progressive is an agent for Deutsche Bank; the assignment was recorded on August 16, 2012. Defs.’ Req. for Jud. Notice, Dckt. No. 33, Exs. B, C. Although not specifically alleged in plaintiff’s first amended complaint, plaintiff contends that the assignment is fraudulent. Dckt. No. 42.

b. Failure to Respond to QWR

Here, plaintiff vaguely alleges that she sent Litton and Ocwen a QWR for an accounting and those defendants failed to respond, and defendants failed to disclose to plaintiff the true holders of the loan, after repeated attempts by plaintiff to ascertain that information. As an initial matter, those allegations lack specificity and are too speculative under Twombly andIqbal. Plaintiff does not allege, among other things, when the QWR or other requests were sent. Nonetheless, as discussed above, alleging a breach of RESPA duties alone does not state a claim under RESPA. Plaintiff must, at a minimum, also allege that the breach resulted in actual damages. See 12 U.S.C. § 2605(f)(1)(A) ("Whoever fails to comply with this section shall be liable to the borrower . . . [for] any actual damages to the borrower as a result of the failure."); Hutchinson v. Delaware Savings Bank FSB, 410 F. Supp. 2d 374, 383 (D.N.J. 2006)(citations omitted) (a claimant under 12 U.S.C. § 2605 must allege a pecuniary loss attributable to the alleged violation). Here, plaintiff does not specify any damages resulting from an alleged failure to respond to her QWR or requests regarding the true holder of the loan. Therefore, plaintiff’s RESPA claim against Litton and Ocwen based on a failure to respond to a QWR and/or requests for information about the true holders of the loan should be dismissed with leave to amend.

5. Quiet Title

Plaintiff seeks to quiet title as of March 8, 2004. Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that the title to the subject property is vested in plaintiff alone and that the defendants have no interest, right, or title to the property. First Am. Compl. ¶ 99. Defendants move to dismiss this claim, arguing that it fails because plaintiff has not alleged valid and/or viable tender of the indebtedness. Dckt. No. 32 at 17.

To establish a claim for quiet title, plaintiff must file a verified complaint that alleges: (a) a description of the property; (b) plaintiff’s title as to which a determination is sought; (c) the adverse claims to the title; (d) the date as to which the determination is sought; and (e) a prayer for the determination of title. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 761.020. Additionally, plaintiff must allege that she has tendered her indebtedness. See Kelley v. Mortg. Elec. Registration, 642 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ("Plaintiffs have not alleged . . . that they have satisfied their obligation under the Deed of Trust. As such, they have not stated a claim to quiet title.");see also Distor v. U.S. Bank, NA, 2009 WL 3429700, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2009) ("plaintiff has no basis to quiet title without first discharging her debt, and . . . she has not alleged that she has done so and is therefore the rightful owner of the property").

Here, defendants contend that plaintiff fails to allege tender or the ability to tender. However, plaintiff’s first amended complaint specifically alleges that she does not owe anything to any of the defendants. The fundamental essence of her claim is that she sent the regular payment of her mortgage every month but defendants wrongfully refused to process those payments because of the dispute over the amount and, because defendants did not have the authority to pay taxes on her behalf, they lacked authority to alter the amount due on her payments. Therefore, according to plaintiff, she has submitted her payments as due and there is nothing further to tender.

At the hearing, plaintiff specifically stated that she did not agree to paragraphs 4 or 9 of the deed of trust, which required her to pay taxes and which authorized the lender to pay the taxes on her behalf, nor did she agree to paragraph 10 of the loan modification agreement, which also reaffirmed plaintiff’s obligation to pay her taxes. If her allegations are taken as true, she has satisfied the tender requirement.[2] In light of plaintiff’s allegations that she has timely submitted her payments, and her allegations that she did not agree to all of the terms in the deed of trust, plaintiff’s quiet title claim is sufficient to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Martin v. Litton Loan Servicing.docx

Well well well…what do we have here?

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 5:22 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Well well well…what do we have here?

From PI Bill Paatalo in Portland.

Assignment of DOT – Manos.pdf

MERSCORP Shell Game Attacked by Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 8:20 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: MERSCORP Shell Game Attacked by Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway

One more try!

Posted by Neil Garfield:

EDITOR’S NOTES AND COMMENTS: My congratulations to Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway and his staff. They nailed one of the key issues that cut revenues on transfers of interests in real property AND they nailed one of the key issues in perfecting the mortgage lien.

As we all know now MERSCORP has been playing a shell game with multiple corporate identities, the purpose of which, as explained in Conway’s complaint, was to add mud to the waters already polluted by predatory loan practices and outright fraud in the appraisal and identification of the lender. This of course is in addition to the very gnarly issue of using a nominee that explicitly disclaims any interest in the property or loan.

The use of MERS, just like the use of fabricated, forged, robo-signed documents doesn’t necessarily wipe out the debt. The debt is created when the borrower accepts the money, regardless of what the paperwork says — unless the state’s usury laws penalize the lender by eliminating the debt entirely and adding treble damages.

But the use of a nominee that has no interest in the loan or the property creates a problem in the perfection of the mortgage lien. The use of TWO nominees doubles the problem. It eliminates the most basic disclosure required by Federal and state lending laws — who is the creditor?

By intentionally naming the originator as the lender when it was merely a nominee and by using MERS, as nominee to have the rights under the security interest, the Banks created layers of bankruptcy remote protection as they intended, as well as the moral hazard of stealing or "borrowing" the loan to create fictitious transactions in which the bank kept part of the money intended for mortgage funding. Since the mortgage or deed of trust contains no stakeholders other than the homeowner and the note fails to name any actual creditor with a loan receivable account, the mortgage lien is fatally defective rendering the loan unsecured.

When you take into consideration that the funding of the loan came from a source unrelated (stranger tot he transaction) then the debt doesn’t exist either — as it relates to any of the parties named at the "closing" of the mortgage loan. So you end up with no debt, no note, and no mortgage. You also end up with a debt that is undocumented wherein the homeowner is the debtor and the source of funds is the creditor — in a transaction that neither of them knew took place and neither of them had agreed.

The lender/investors were expecting to participate in a REMIC trust which was routinely ignored as the money was diverted by the banks to their own pockets before they made increasingly toxic over-priced loans on over-valued property. The borrower ended up in limbo with no place to go to settle, modify or even litigate their loan, mortgage or foreclosure. This is not the statutory scheme in any state and Conway in Kentucky spotted it. Besides the usual "dark side" rhetoric, the plan as executed by the banks creates fatal uncertainty that cannot be cured as to who owns the loan or the lien or the debt, note or mortgage. The answer clearly does not lie in the documents presented to the borrower.

Now Conway has added the hidden issue of the MERS shell game. Confirming what we have been saying for years, the Banks, using the MERS model, have made it nearly impossible for ANY borrower to know the identity of the actual lender/creditor before during and even one day after the "closing" of the loan (which I have postulated may never have been completed because the money didn’t come from MERS nor the other nominee identified as the "lender").

The Banks are trying to run the clock on the statute of limitations with these settlements, like the the last one in which Bank of America would have owed tens of millions of dollars had the review process continued, and instead they cancelled the program with a minor settlement in which homeowners will get some pocket change while BofA walks off with the a mouthful of ill-gotten gains.

The plain truth is that in most cases BofA never paid a dime for the funding or purchase of the loan. That is called lack of consideration and in order for the rules of negotiable paper to apply, there must be transfer for value. There was no value, there was no cancelled check and there was no wire transfer receipt in which BofA was the lender or acquirer of the loan. Now add this ingredient: more than 50% of the REMIC trusts BofA says it "represents no longer exist, having been long since dissolved and settled.

The same holds true for US Bank, Mellon, Chase, Deutsch and others. Applying basic black letter law, the only possible conclusion here is that the mortgages cannot be foreclosed, the notes cannot be enforced, the debt can be collected ONLY upon proof of payment and proof of loss. This is how it always was, for obvious reasons, and this is what we should re turn to, providing a degree of certainty to the marketplace that does not and will never exist without the massive correction in title corruption and the wrongful foreclosures conducted by what the reviewers in the San Francisco audit called "strangers to the transaction."

See Louisville Morning Call here

See Bloomberg Article here

CALL TO ACTION CONTACT THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING INVESTORS!

From: rene powers [mailto:gpanda26@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 6:23 AM
To: CJ Holmes
Subject: CALL TO ACTION CONTACT THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING INVESTORS!

CJ! I am on fire to get to the attorneys and the judge so we homeowners can be heard. Apparently it looks like we could have been by the deadlines noted BUT I don’t know about the rest of those affected but I never got notice to participate! The verbiage in the notice "mentions" anyone affected could be heard..They had ALL the addresses in the 530 trusts but I did not get a notice in the mail??? Anyhow, I have sent an email to Kenneth Warner through his AVVO account, will be calling his office and want this CALL TO ACTION to go out! THIS IS WHAT IT TAKES!! I know BJ will be on today and you are doing updates, this is HUGE for all homeowners to start making noise! It was like they threw a party and never invited the guest of honor!! THANK YOU!!!

Please cut and paste the message below

CALL TO ACTION! Are you affected by ANY of the Countrywide Trust Pools? If you are CONTACT ME! Doc Wood sent me the link to the case going on with BONY and investors I am linking here. I sent an email to one of the attorneys asking WHY ARE HOMEOWNERS LEFT OUT OF THIS SETTLEMENT??? The investors think THEY were duped? WHAT ABOUT THE HOMEOWNERS?? We MUST have a voice and I want to direct those affected to READ THE LINKS IN THIS CASE AND START MAKING NOISE!!! WE MUST STAND TOGETHER AND BE HEARD AS WE HAVE BEEN SILENCED TOO LONG!! FIND EMAIL ADDRESSES FOR THESE ATTORNEYS AND LET’s CALL THEIR OFFICES TOO! PLEASE CONTACT ME FOR ORGANIZATION OF OUR EFFORTS AND WE WILL MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD!!address for addressing the court is included as well! GET LETTERS WRITTEN AND TELL YOUR STORY! WE were victims ALONG WITH the investors! WITH 530 affected trusts that is A LOT of homeowners affected! DO IT! FAX EMAIL CALL SEND MAIL. Thank you! Rene gpanda26!! Put "affected by one of the "TRUSTS" " in the subject line please!

http://www.cwrmbssettlement.com/index.php

Rene’ Powers

Real Estate & Mortgage Consultant/Agent

949.648-3655 Cell

gpanda26
"Integrity & Service Coming To You"

license# 01797666

Foreclosure Homeowners Bill of Rights

311743_461142693917204_1622590124_nOn January 1, 2013 a new California law, the Homeowner Bill of Rights, will go into effect. The new law reforms some aspects of the California foreclosure process in order to better protect homeowners in foreclosure.

Between 2008 and 2011, more than one million homes in California were foreclosed. In many cases, lenders did not provide homeowners with a significant opportunity to obtain loss mitigation options to avoid foreclosure and also engaged in extensive mortgage servicing misconduct. To address this issue, Governor Jerry Brown signed the California Homeowner Bill of Rights into law on July 11, 2012.

The Homeowner Bill of Rights makes the nonjudicial foreclosure process in California more fair and transparent. Read on to learn about the new protections for homeowners and how the Homeowner Bill of Rights can help you if you are facing foreclosure in California.

(See our article Summary of California Foreclosure Laws for more information on the California foreclosure process).

What Is the California Homeowner Bill of Rights?

The purpose of the Homeowner Bill of Rights is to provide protections for homeowners facing foreclosure and to reform some aspects of the foreclosure process. It aims to ensure that homeowners are considered for, and have a meaningful opportunity to obtain, available loss mitigation options, such as loan modifications or other alternatives to foreclosure. (Learn more in our Alternatives to Foreclosure area.)

The Homeowner Bill of Rights is part of California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris’ response to the state’s foreclosure crisis and largely came about as a result of the recent national mortgage settlement between 49 states and certain lenders. (Learn more about the the national mortgage settlement.)

However, whereas the national mortgage settlement is only applicable to the five settling banks and their customers, the Homeowner Bill of Rights extends the reforms addressed in the national mortgage settlement to almost all mortgage lenders and servicers.

Key Reforms in the California Homeowner Bill of Rights

The Homeowner Bill of Rights contains four key reforms:

No Dual-Tracking

Under current law, a lender may foreclose on a homeowner even if a loan modification application is pending, which is a process called “dual-tracking.” The Homeowner Bill of Rights bans the dual-tracking of foreclosures. This means loan servicers must make a decision to grant or deny a first lien loan modification application before starting or continuing the foreclosure process.

What does this mean for homeowners? Once the homeowner submits a complete loan modification application, the foreclosure is stalled while the loan servicer reviews the application and makes a decision. Even if the lender denies the loan modification, it still cannot foreclose until any applicable appeals period has expired (this is generally 30 days from the date of the written denial).

Lenders Must Provide Homeowners With a Single Point of Contact

gt_loan_mod_fair_470x340_111212In the past, homeowners who called their lender to get help with mortgage problems have had to explain their circumstances repeatedly, often to several different representatives. Under the Homeowner Bill of Rights, mortgage servicers must designate a single point of contact for homeowners who are potentially eligible for loan modifications or other foreclosure prevention alternatives. The homeowner must be given one or more direct means of communication with the single point of contact.

The point of contact may be an individual person or a team of personnel each of whom has:

  • knowledge of the homeowner’s status
  • information regarding foreclosure prevention alternatives
  • access to decision-makers, and
  • the responsibility to coordinate the flow of documents between the homeowner and mortgage servicer.

The single point of contact will remain assigned to the account until all loss mitigation options are exhausted or until the account is brought current.

Penalties for Robo-Signing

“Robo-signing” occurs when a representative of the lender or servicer signs foreclosure documents without reading them or having any personal knowledge about the accuracy of the information contained in them. The Homeowner Bill of Rights imposes a civil penalty up to $7,500 per loan on lenders or servicers that record or file multiple, unverified documents. (Learn more about robo-signing in the mortgage industry.)

Homeowners Have the Right to Sue for Violations

23458820Homeowners may sue the lender or servicer for violations of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights. Potential relief includes:

  • injunctive relief, such as a halt to the foreclosure sale (if the foreclosure sale hasn’t happened yet), or
  • actual economic damages if the foreclosure sale has already occurred.

In addition, if the court finds that the violation was intentional, reckless, or resulted from willful misconduct by a loan servicer or lender, the court may award the borrower the greater of treble actual damages or statutory damages of $50,000.

Effective Date of the New Law

The Homeowner Bill of Rights goes into effect on January 1, 2013. It is scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2018.

Applicability of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights

The protections afforded to homeowners by the Homeowner Bill of Rights generally apply to first lien mortgage loans for properties that are:

  • owner-occupied
  • residential, and
  • no more than four units.

Smaller servicers (entities that conduct fewer than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting period) are exempt from some of the procedural requirements.

To Learn More About the California Homeowner Bill of Rights

For more information, go to the State of California Department of Justice’s webpage at www.oag.ca.gov and click on the link to “CA Homeowner Bill of Rights”.

by: Amy Loftsgordon

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

boaimages

6th USCCA Appeal Rules Foreclosures are Debt Collection under FDCPA and Attorneys Must Comply

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 7:43 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: 6th USCCA Appeal Rules Foreclosures are Debt Collection under FDCPA and Attorneys Must Comply

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Monday handed down an opinion that defined mortgage foreclosure actions as “debt collection” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), reversing a lower court decision.

In Glazer v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, et. al., the appellate panel said that third parties initiating foreclosure actions must comply with the provisions of the FDCPA.

The case was brought by plaintiff Glazer after he inherited a home that still had an outstanding and active mortgage serviced by Chase. After six missed payments, Chase engaged with law firm Reimer, Arnovitz, Chernek & Jeffrey Co., LPA (RACJ) to begin foreclosure proceedings.

In a complicated twist indicative of the time, Chase did not own the mortgage in question. In fact, the bank had not even originated it. The loan was owned by Fannie Mae and Chase had been assigned as the servicer from the originator. When RACJ moved to foreclose, it represented as owner of the loan Chase.

When Glazer asked for verification that Chase was the owner, he claims RACJ did not comply, prompting a lawsuit seeking FDCPA damages. A district judge in Ohio sided with Chase and RACJ and dismissed the case, which Glazer appealed.

The Sixth Circuit panel said Monday that Chase was not a “debt collector” under the FDCPA:

…we hold that mortgage foreclosure is debt collection under the, Act. Lawyers who meet the general definition of a “debt collector” must comply with, the FDCPA when engaged in mortgage foreclosure. And a lawyer can satisfy that definition if his principal business purpose is mortgage foreclosure or if he “regularly” performs this function. In this case, the district court held that RACJ was not engaged in debt collection when it sought to foreclose on the property. That decision was erroneous, and the judgment must be reversed.

The case will now go back to the lower court for further consideration.

Glazer v. Chase.pdf

California – Oral promises can be used in fraud case – Parol Evidence Rule Issues

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 5:58 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: California – Oral promises can be used in fraud case – Parol Evidence Rule Issues

Oral promises can be used in fraud case

STATE SUPREME COURT Ruling favors couple facing foreclosure who maintain terms of loan differed from what they had been told

Bob Egelko

Published 9:18 pm, Monday, January 14, 2013

Borrowers facing default on a loan can try to prove that the lender orally promised them an extension that didn’t appear in the written contract, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday while overturning a 1935 decision that restricted evidence of fraud in contract disputes.

A lawyer for the borrowers, a Fresno County couple, called the unanimous ruling a victory for consumers. The lender’s lawyer said the court had eliminated important protections for written contracts.

The couple, Lance and Pamela Workman, fell behind on repaying a $776,000 loan from the Fresno-Madera Production Credit Association and signed an agreement in March 2007 pledging eight properties as security in return for a three-month extension.

The lender sought foreclosure after the Workmans failed to meet the three-month deadline. But the couple said the credit association’s vice president had told them two weeks before the agreement was signed, and repeated at the time of signing, that they would actually have two years to make the payments and would have to put up only two ranches as security.

The Workmans later repaid the loan – selling the eight properties at a loss, according to their lawyer, Steven Paganetti – and then sued the lender for fraud for allegedly misleading them about the terms of the loan.

The credit association argued that the vice president’s alleged promise to the couple was inadmissible because, under the law, a written contract overrides any previous oral statements between the signing parties.

The California Bankers Association and other lending organizations took the same position when the case reached the state’s high court. Arguing that contracts should be enforced as written, they asked the court to reaffirm the 1935 ruling that allowed oral evidence in such cases only to prove that a contract was procured by fraud and not to contradict any of its stated terms.

But the court, in an opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan, said the 1935 ruling was poorly reasoned, had been rejected by other states and "may actually provide a shield for fraudulent conduct."

Monday’s decision allows the Workmans to offer the lending officer’s promise as evidence that the credit association had deceived them into signing the agreement or misled them about its contents.

The ruling will "protect consumers from the old bait-and-switch" and should allow the Workmans to take their case to a jury, said Paganetti, their lawyer.

Scott Ivy, the credit association’s lawyer, said the ruling allows California courts to refuse to enforce written contracts "based upon alleged oral statements that directly conflict with the written terms." He said the lender will now try to get the suit dismissed on the grounds that the Workmans acted unreasonably by failing to review the contract before signing it.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Oral-promises-can-be-used-in-fraud-case-4194025.php

Workman.pdf

An act to amend and add Sections 2923.5 and 2923.6 of, to amend and repeal Section 2924 of, to add Sections 2920.5, 2923.4, 2923.7, 2924.17, and 2924.20 to, to add and rRepeal Sections 2923.55, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.18, and 2924.19 of, and to add, repeal, and add Sections 2924.11, 2924.12, and 2924.15 of, the Civil Code, relating to mortgages

 

CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California

The 2012 California Homeowner Bill of Rights is a legislative package designed to bring fairness, accountability and transparency to the state’s mortgage and foreclosure process.

More than one million California homes were lost to foreclosure between 2008 and 2011—with an additional 500,000 currently in the foreclosure pipeline. Seven of the nation’s 10 hardest-hit cities by foreclosure rate in 2011 were in California.

The California Homeowner Bill of Rights marks the third step in Attorney General Harris’ response to the state’s foreclosure and mortgage crisis. The first step was to create the Mortgage Fraud Strike Force, which has been investigating and prosecuting misconduct at all stages of the mortgage process. The second step was to extract a commitment from the nation’s five largest banks of an estimated $18 billion for California borrowers. The settlement contained thoughtful reforms but are only applicable for three years, and only to loans serviced by the settling banks.

Two key bills contain significant mortgage and foreclosure reforms. AB 278 (Eng/Feuer/Mitchell/Pérez) and SB 900 (Leno/Evans/Corbett/DeSaulnier/Pavley/Steinberg) have been thoroughly considered by a legislative conference committee. The major provisions of the bills include:

Dual track foreclosure ban – The legislation would require a mortgage servicer to render a decision on a loan modification application before advancing the foreclosure process by filing a notice of default or notice of sale, or by conducting a trustee’s sale. The foreclosure process is essentially paused upon the completion of a loan modification application for the duration of the lender’s review of that application.

 

Single point of contact – The legislation would require a mortgage servicer to designate a “single point of contact” for borrowers who are potentially eligible for a federal or proprietary loan modification application. The single point of contact is an individual or team which must have knowledge of the borrower’s status and foreclosure prevention alternatives, access to decision makers, and the responsibility to coordinate the flow of documentation between borrower and mortgage servicer.

 

Enforceability – Includes authority for borrowers to seek redress of “material” violations of the legislation. Injunctive relief would be available prior to a foreclosure sale and recovery of damages would be available following a sale.

 

Verification of documents – The legislation would subject the recording and filing of multiple unverified documents to a civil penalty of up to $7,500 per loan in an action brought by a civil prosecutor. It would also allow enforcement under a violator’s licensing statute by the Department of Corporations, Department of Real Estate or Department of Financial Institutions.

v v v v

The other bills in the California Homeowner Bill of Rights are:

BLIGHT PREVENTION LEGISLATION: AB 2314 (Carter) & SB 1472 (Pavley and DeSaulnier) to help combat the blight and crime associated with foreclosed properties.

v AB 2314: Passed out of Assembly (71-0). It was passed out of Senate Judiciary on June 26 (4-0). It will be heard next on the Senate floor.

v SB 1472: Passed out of Senate (36-0). It passed out of Assembly Housing and Community Development (7-0) on June 27, and will be heard next in Assembly Judiciary Committee on July 3.

 

TENANT PROTECTION LEGISLATION: AB 2610 (Skinner) and SB 1473 (Hancock) to help protect tenants in foreclosed properties.

v AB 2610: Passed out of Assembly (56-14). It will be heard next in Senate Judiciary on July 3.

v SB 1473: Passed out of Senate (25-13). It passed out the Assembly Housing and Community Development on June 27 (6-1) and will be heard next in Assembly Judiciary on July 3.

 

ENHANCEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ENFORCEMENT ACT: AB 1950 (Davis) to strengthen the law enforcement response to mortgage and foreclosure fraud.

v AB 1950: Passed out of Assembly (56-22). It passed out of Senate Banking (5-0) on June 27 and will be heard next in the Senate Judiciary, July 3, 2012.

 

ATTORNEY GENERAL SPECIAL GRAND JURY ACT: AB 1763 (Davis) and SB 1474 (Hancock) to strengthen prosecutions of complex, multi-jurisdictional fraud and crimes.

v SB 1474: Passed out of Senate (38-0). Passed out of Assembly Public Safety (4-0) and will be heard next in Assembly Appropriations.

v AB 1763: Passed out of Assembly (78-0). Passed out of Senate Public Safety on June 26 (7-0). It will be heard next in Senate Appropriations.

 

 

 

 

Assembly Bill No. 278

CHAPTER 86

An act to amend and add Sections 2923.5 and 2923.6 of, to amend and

repeal Section 2924 of, to add Sections 2920.5, 2923.4, 2923.7, 2924.17,

and 2924.20 to, to add and repeal Sections 2923.55, 2924.9, 2924.10,

2924.18, and 2924.19 of, and to add, repeal, and add Sections 2924.11,

2924.12, and 2924.15 of, the Civil Code, relating to mortgages.

[Approved by Governor July 11, 2012. Filed with

Secretary of State July 11, 2012.]

legislative counsel’s digest

AB 278, Eng. Mortgages and deeds of trust: foreclosure.

(1) Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a mortgagee, trustee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent to contact the borrower prior to filing a

notice of default to explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure,

as specified. Existing law requires a notice of default or, in certain

circumstances, a notice of sale, to include a declaration stating that the

mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has contacted the

borrower, or has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower, or that no

contact was required for a specified reason.

This bill would add mortgage servicers, as defined, to these provisions

and would extend the operation of these provisions indefinitely, except that

it would delete the requirement with respect to a notice of sale. The bill

would, until January 1, 2018, additionally require the borrower, as defined,

to be provided with specified information in writing prior to recordation of

a notice of default and, in certain circumstances, within 5 business days

after recordation. The bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording a notice of default

or, until January 1, 2018, recording a notice of sale or conducting a trustee’s

sale while a complete first lien loan modification application is pending,

under specified conditions. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, establish

additional procedures to be followed regarding a first lien loan modification

application, the denial of an application, and a borrower’s right to appeal a

denial.

(2) Existing law imposes various requirements that must be satisfied

prior to exercising a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust,

including, among other things, recording a notice of default and a notice of

sale.

The bill would, until January 1, 2018, require a written notice to the

borrower after the postponement of a foreclosure sale in order to advise the

borrower of any new sale date and time, as specified. The bill would provide

that an entity shall not record a notice of default or otherwise initiate the

94

foreclosure process unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under

the deed of trust, the original or substituted trustee, or the designated agent

of the holder of the beneficial interest, as specified.

The bill would prohibit recordation of a notice of default or a notice of

sale or the conduct of a trustee’s sale if a foreclosure prevention alternative

has been approved and certain conditions exist and would, until January 1,

2018, require recordation of a rescission of those notices upon execution of

a permanent foreclosure prevention alternative. The bill would, until January

1, 2018, prohibit the collection of application fees and the collection of late

fees while a foreclosure prevention alternative is being considered, if certain

criteria are met, and would require a subsequent mortgage servicer to honor

any previously approved foreclosure prevention alternative.

The bill would authorize a borrower to seek an injunction and damages

for violations of certain of the provisions described above, except as

specified. The bill would authorize the greater of treble actual damages or

$50,000 in statutory damages if a violation of certain provisions is found

to be intentional or reckless or resulted from willful misconduct, as specified.

The bill would authorize the awarding of attorneys’ fees for prevailing

borrowers, as specified. Violations of these provisions by licensees of the

Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and

the Department of Real Estate would also be violations of those respective

licensing laws. Because a violation of certain of those licensing laws is a

crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would provide that the requirements imposed on mortgage

servicers, and mortgagees, trustees, beneficiaries, and authorized agents,

described above are applicable only to mortgages or deeds of trust secured

by residential real property not exceeding 4 dwelling units that is

owner-occupied, as defined, and, until January 1, 2018, only to those entities

who conduct more than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting

period, except as specified.

The bill would require, upon request from a borrower who requests a

foreclosure prevention alternative, a mortgage servicer who conducts more

than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting period to establish

a single point of contact and provide the borrower with one or more direct

means of communication with the single point of contact. The bill would

specify various responsibilities of the single point of contact. The bill would

define single point of contact for these purposes.

(3) Existing law prescribes documents that may be recorded or filed in

court.

This bill would require that a specified declaration, notice of default,

notice of sale, deed of trust, assignment of a deed of trust, substitution of

trustee, or declaration or affidavit filed in any court relative to a foreclosure

proceeding or recorded by or on behalf of a mortgage servicer shall be

accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence.

The bill would require that before recording or filing any of those documents,

a mortgage servicer shall ensure that it has reviewed competent and reliable

evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and the right to foreclose,

94

Ch. 86 2

including the borrower’s loan status and loan information. The bill would,

until January 1, 2018, provide that any mortgage servicer that engages in

multiple and repeated violations of these requirements shall be liable for a

civil penalty of up to $7,500 per mortgage or deed of trust, in an action

brought by specified state and local government entities, and would also

authorize administrative enforcement against licensees of the Department

of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department

of Real Estate.

The bill would authorize the Department of Corporations, the Department

of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate to adopt

regulations applicable to persons and entities under their respective

jurisdictions for purposes of the provisions described above. The bill would

provide that a violation of those regulations would be enforceable only by

the regulating agency.

(4) The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature in

relation to foreclosures in the state generally, and would state the purposes

of the bill.

(5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local

agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory

provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for

a specified reason.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) California is still reeling from the economic impacts of a wave of

residential property foreclosures that began in 2007. From 2007 to 2011

alone, there were over 900,000 completed foreclosure sales. In 2011, 38 of

the top 100 hardest hit ZIP Codes in the nation were in California, and the

current wave of foreclosures continues apace. All of this foreclosure activity

has adversely affected property values and resulted in less money for schools,

public safety, and other public services. In addition, according to the Urban

Institute, every foreclosure imposes significant costs on local governments,

including an estimated nineteen thousand two hundred twenty-nine dollars

($19,229) in local government costs. And the foreclosure crisis is not over;

there remain more than two million “underwater” mortgages in California.

(b) It is essential to the economic health of this state to mitigate the

negative effects on the state and local economies and the housing market

that are the result of continued foreclosures by modifying the foreclosure

process to ensure that borrowers who may qualify for a foreclosure

alternative are considered for, and have a meaningful opportunity to obtain,

available loss mitigation options. These changes to the state’s foreclosure

process are essential to ensure that the current crisis is not worsened by

unnecessarily adding foreclosed properties to the market when an alternative

to foreclosure may be available. Avoiding foreclosure, where possible, will

94

3 Ch. 86

help stabilize the state’s housing market and avoid the substantial,

corresponding negative effects of foreclosures on families, communities,

and the state and local economy.

(c) This act is necessary to provide stability to California’s statewide and

regional economies and housing market by facilitating opportunities for

borrowers to pursue loss mitigation options.

SEC. 2. Section 2920.5 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2920.5. For purposes of this article, the following definitions apply:

(a) “Mortgage servicer” means a person or entity who directly services

a loan, or who is responsible for interacting with the borrower, managing

the loan account on a daily basis including collecting and crediting periodic

loan payments, managing any escrow account, or enforcing the note and

security instrument, either as the current owner of the promissory note or

as the current owner’s authorized agent. “Mortgage servicer” also means a

subservicing agent to a master servicer by contract. “Mortgage servicer”

shall not include a trustee, or a trustee’s authorized agent, acting under a

power of sale pursuant to a deed of trust.

(b) “Foreclosure prevention alternative” means a first lien loan

modification or another available loss mitigation option.

(c) (1) Unless otherwise provided and for purposes of Sections 2923.4,

2923.5, 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, 2924.18, and

2924.19, “borrower” means any natural person who is a mortgagor or trustor

and who is potentially eligible for any federal, state, or proprietary

foreclosure prevention alternative program offered by, or through, his or

her mortgage servicer.

(2) For purposes of the sections listed in paragraph (1), “borrower” shall

not include any of the following:

(A) An individual who has surrendered the secured property as evidenced

by either a letter confirming the surrender or delivery of the keys to the

property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.

(B) An individual who has contracted with an organization, person, or

entity whose primary business is advising people who have decided to leave

their homes on how to extend the foreclosure process and avoid their

contractual obligations to mortgagees or beneficiaries.

(C) An individual who has filed a case under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of

Title 11 of the United States Code and the bankruptcy court has not entered

an order closing or dismissing the bankruptcy case, or granting relief from

a stay of foreclosure.

(d) “First lien” means the most senior mortgage or deed of trust on the

property that is the subject of the notice of default or notice of sale.

SEC. 3. Section 2923.4 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2923.4. (a) The purpose of the act that added this section is to ensure

that, as part of the nonjudicial foreclosure process, borrowers are considered

for, and have a meaningful opportunity to obtain, available loss mitigation

options, if any, offered by or through the borrower’s mortgage servicer,

such as loan modifications or other alternatives to foreclosure. Nothing in

94

Ch. 86 4

the act that added this section, however, shall be interpreted to require a

particular result of that process.

(b) Nothing in this article obviates or supersedes the obligations of the

signatories to the consent judgment entered in the case entitled United States

of America et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al., filed in the United

States District Court for the District of Columbia, case number

1:12-cv-00361 RMC.

SEC. 4. Section 2923.5 of the Civil Code is amended to read:

2923.5. (a) (1) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary,

or authorized agent may not record a notice of default pursuant to Section

2924 until both of the following:

(A) Either 30 days after initial contact is made as required by paragraph

(2) or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence requirements as described

in subdivision (e).

(B) The mortgage servicer complies with paragraph (1) of subdivision

(a) of Section 2924.18, if the borrower has provided a complete application

as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 2924.18.

(2) A mortgage servicer shall contact the borrower in person or by

telephone in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore

options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the

mortgage servicer shall advise the borrower that he or she has the right to

request a subsequent meeting and, if requested, the mortgage servicer shall

schedule the meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the

borrower’s financial situation and discussion of options may occur during

the first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose.

In either case, the borrower shall be provided the toll-free telephone number

made available by the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

Any meeting may occur telephonically.

(b) A notice of default recorded pursuant to Section 2924 shall include

a declaration that the mortgage servicer has contacted the borrower, has

tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section,

or that no contact was required because the individual did not meet the

definition of “borrower” pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 2920.5.

(c) A mortgage servicer’s loss mitigation personnel may participate by

telephone during any contact required by this section.

(d) A borrower may designate, with consent given in writing, a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency, attorney, or other adviser to

discuss with the mortgage servicer, on the borrower’s behalf, the borrower’s

financial situation and options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. That

contact made at the direction of the borrower shall satisfy the contact

requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). Any loan modification or

workout plan offered at the meeting by the mortgage servicer is subject to

approval by the borrower.

(e) A notice of default may be recorded pursuant to Section 2924 when

a mortgage servicer has not contacted a borrower as required by paragraph

(2) of subdivision (a) provided that the failure to contact the borrower

94

5 Ch. 86

occurred despite the due diligence of the mortgage servicer. For purposes

of this section, “due diligence” shall require and mean all of the following:

(1) A mortgage servicer shall first attempt to contact a borrower by

sending a first-class letter that includes the toll-free telephone number made

available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgage servicer shall attempt

to contact the borrower by telephone at least three times at different hours

and on different days. Telephone calls shall be made to the primary telephone

number on file.

(B) A mortgage servicer may attempt to contact a borrower using an

automated system to dial borrowers, provided that, if the telephone call is

answered, the call is connected to a live representative of the mortgage

servicer.

(C) A mortgage servicer satisfies the telephone contact requirements of

this paragraph if it determines, after attempting contact pursuant to this

paragraph, that the borrower’s primary telephone number and secondary

telephone number or numbers on file, if any, have been disconnected.

(3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the telephone

call requirements of paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the mortgage servicer

shall then send a certified letter, with return receipt requested.

(4) The mortgage servicer shall provide a means for the borrower to

contact it in a timely manner, including a toll-free telephone number that

will provide access to a live representative during business hours.

(5) The mortgage servicer has posted a prominent link on the homepage

of its Internet Web site, if any, to the following information:

(A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to afford

their mortgage payments and who wish to avoid foreclosure, and instructions

to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore those options.

(B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be

prepared to present to the mortgage servicer when discussing options for

avoiding foreclosure.

(C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss

options for avoiding foreclosure with their mortgage servicer.

(D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(f) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(g) This section shall apply only to entities described in subdivision (b)

of Section 2924.18.

(h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and as

of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before

January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 5. Section 2923.5 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2923.5. (a) (1) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary,

or authorized agent may not record a notice of default pursuant to Section

2924 until both of the following:

94

Ch. 86 6

(A) Either 30 days after initial contact is made as required by paragraph

(2) or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence requirements as described

in subdivision (e).

(B) The mortgage servicer complies with subdivision (a) of Section

2924.11, if the borrower has provided a complete application as defined in

subdivision (f) of Section 2924.11.

(2) A mortgage servicer shall contact the borrower in person or by

telephone in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore

options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the

mortgage servicer shall advise the borrower that he or she has the right to

request a subsequent meeting and, if requested, the mortgage servicer shall

schedule the meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the

borrower’s financial situation and discussion of options may occur during

the first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose.

In either case, the borrower shall be provided the toll-free telephone number

made available by the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

Any meeting may occur telephonically.

(b) A notice of default recorded pursuant to Section 2924 shall include

a declaration that the mortgage servicer has contacted the borrower, has

tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section,

or that no contact was required because the individual did not meet the

definition of “borrower” pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 2920.5.

(c) A mortgage servicer’s loss mitigation personnel may participate by

telephone during any contact required by this section.

(d) A borrower may designate, with consent given in writing, a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency, attorney, or other adviser to

discuss with the mortgage servicer, on the borrower’s behalf, the borrower’s

financial situation and options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. That

contact made at the direction of the borrower shall satisfy the contact

requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). Any loan modification or

workout plan offered at the meeting by the mortgage servicer is subject to

approval by the borrower.

(e) A notice of default may be recorded pursuant to Section 2924 when

a mortgage servicer has not contacted a borrower as required by paragraph

(2) of subdivision (a) provided that the failure to contact the borrower

occurred despite the due diligence of the mortgage servicer. For purposes

of this section, “due diligence” shall require and mean all of the following:

(1) A mortgage servicer shall first attempt to contact a borrower by

sending a first-class letter that includes the toll-free telephone number made

available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgage servicer shall attempt

to contact the borrower by telephone at least three times at different hours

and on different days. Telephone calls shall be made to the primary telephone

number on file.

(B) A mortgage servicer may attempt to contact a borrower using an

automated system to dial borrowers, provided that, if the telephone call is

94

7 Ch. 86

answered, the call is connected to a live representative of the mortgage

servicer.

(C) A mortgage servicer satisfies the telephone contact requirements of

this paragraph if it determines, after attempting contact pursuant to this

paragraph, that the borrower’s primary telephone number and secondary

telephone number or numbers on file, if any, have been disconnected.

(3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the telephone

call requirements of paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the mortgage servicer

shall then send a certified letter, with return receipt requested.

(4) The mortgage servicer shall provide a means for the borrower to

contact it in a timely manner, including a toll-free telephone number that

will provide access to a live representative during business hours.

(5) The mortgage servicer has posted a prominent link on the homepage

of its Internet Web site, if any, to the following information:

(A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to afford

their mortgage payments and who wish to avoid foreclosure, and instructions

to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore those options.

(B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be

prepared to present to the mortgage servicer when discussing options for

avoiding foreclosure.

(C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss

options for avoiding foreclosure with their mortgage servicer.

(D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(f) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.

SEC. 6. Section 2923.55 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2923.55. (a) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or

authorized agent may not record a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924

until all of the following:

(1) The mortgage servicer has satisfied the requirements of paragraph

(1) of subdivision (b).

(2) Either 30 days after initial contact is made as required by paragraph

(2) of subdivision (b) or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence

requirements as described in subdivision (f).

(3) The mortgage servicer complies with subdivision (c) of Section

2923.6, if the borrower has provided a complete application as defined in

subdivision (h) of Section 2923.6.

(b) (1) As specified in subdivision (a), a mortgage servicer shall send

the following information in writing to the borrower:

(A) A statement that if the borrower is a servicemember or a dependent

of a servicemember, he or she may be entitled to certain protections under

the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. Sec. 501 et seq.)

regarding the servicemember’s interest rate and the risk of foreclosure, and

counseling for covered servicemembers that is available at agencies such

as Military OneSource and Armed Forces Legal Assistance.

94

Ch. 86 8

(B) A statement that the borrower may request the following:

(i) A copy of the borrower’s promissory note or other evidence of

indebtedness.

(ii) A copy of the borrower’s deed of trust or mortgage.

(iii) A copy of any assignment, if applicable, of the borrower’s mortgage

or deed of trust required to demonstrate the right of the mortgage servicer

to foreclose.

(iv) A copy of the borrower’s payment history since the borrower was

last less than 60 days past due.

(2) A mortgage servicer shall contact the borrower in person or by

telephone in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore

options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the

mortgage servicer shall advise the borrower that he or she has the right to

request a subsequent meeting and, if requested, the mortgage servicer shall

schedule the meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the

borrower’s financial situation and discussion of options may occur during

the first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose.

In either case, the borrower shall be provided the toll-free telephone number

made available by the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

Any meeting may occur telephonically.

(c) A notice of default recorded pursuant to Section 2924 shall include

a declaration that the mortgage servicer has contacted the borrower, has

tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section,

or that no contact was required because the individual did not meet the

definition of “borrower” pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 2920.5.

(d) A mortgage servicer’s loss mitigation personnel may participate by

telephone during any contact required by this section.

(e) A borrower may designate, with consent given in writing, a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency, attorney, or other adviser to

discuss with the mortgage servicer, on the borrower’s behalf, the borrower’s

financial situation and options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. That

contact made at the direction of the borrower shall satisfy the contact

requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). Any foreclosure prevention

alternative offered at the meeting by the mortgage servicer is subject to

approval by the borrower.

(f) A notice of default may be recorded pursuant to Section 2924 when

a mortgage servicer has not contacted a borrower as required by paragraph

(2) of subdivision (b), provided that the failure to contact the borrower

occurred despite the due diligence of the mortgage servicer. For purposes

of this section, “due diligence” shall require and mean all of the following:

(1) A mortgage servicer shall first attempt to contact a borrower by

sending a first-class letter that includes the toll-free telephone number made

available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgage servicer shall attempt

to contact the borrower by telephone at least three times at different hours

94

9 Ch. 86

and on different days. Telephone calls shall be made to the primary telephone

number on file.

(B) A mortgage servicer may attempt to contact a borrower using an

automated system to dial borrowers, provided that, if the telephone call is

answered, the call is connected to a live representative of the mortgage

servicer.

(C) A mortgage servicer satisfies the telephone contact requirements of

this paragraph if it determines, after attempting contact pursuant to this

paragraph, that the borrower’s primary telephone number and secondary

telephone number or numbers on file, if any, have been disconnected.

(3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the telephone

call requirements of paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the mortgage servicer

shall then send a certified letter, with return receipt requested, that includes

the toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(4) The mortgage servicer shall provide a means for the borrower to

contact it in a timely manner, including a toll-free telephone number that

will provide access to a live representative during business hours.

(5) The mortgage servicer has posted a prominent link on the homepage

of its Internet Web site, if any, to the following information:

(A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to afford

their mortgage payments and who wish to avoid foreclosure, and instructions

to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore those options.

(B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be

prepared to present to the mortgage servicer when discussing options for

avoiding foreclosure.

(C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss

options for avoiding foreclosure with their mortgage servicer.

(D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(g) This section shall not apply to entities described in subdivision (b)

of Section 2924.18.

(h) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(i) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and as

of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before

January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 7. Section 2923.6 of the Civil Code is amended to read:

2923.6. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that any duty that

mortgage servicers may have to maximize net present value under their

pooling and servicing agreements is owed to all parties in a loan pool, or to

all investors under a pooling and servicing agreement, not to any particular

party in the loan pool or investor under a pooling and servicing agreement,

and that a mortgage servicer acts in the best interests of all parties to the

loan pool or investors in the pooling and servicing agreement if it agrees to

or implements a loan modification or workout plan for which both of the

following apply:

94

Ch. 86 10

(1) The loan is in payment default, or payment default is reasonably

foreseeable.

(2) Anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout plan

exceeds the anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net present value

basis.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the mortgage servicer offer the

borrower a loan modification or workout plan if such a modification or plan

is consistent with its contractual or other authority.

(c) If a borrower submits a complete application for a first lien loan

modification offered by, or through, the borrower’s mortgage servicer, a

mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall

not record a notice of default or notice of sale, or conduct a trustee’s sale,

while the complete first lien loan modification application is pending. A

mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall

not record a notice of default or notice of sale or conduct a trustee’s sale

until any of the following occurs:

(1) The mortgage servicer makes a written determination that the borrower

is not eligible for a first lien loan modification, and any appeal period

pursuant to subdivision (d) has expired.

(2) The borrower does not accept an offered first lien loan modification

within 14 days of the offer.

(3) The borrower accepts a written first lien loan modification, but

defaults on, or otherwise breaches the borrower’s obligations under, the

first lien loan modification.

(d) If the borrower’s application for a first lien loan modification is

denied, the borrower shall have at least 30 days from the date of the written

denial to appeal the denial and to provide evidence that the mortgage

servicer’s determination was in error.

(e) If the borrower’s application for a first lien loan modification is

denied, the mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized

agent shall not record a notice of default or, if a notice of default has already

been recorded, record a notice of sale or conduct a trustee’s sale until the

later of:

(1) Thirty-one days after the borrower is notified in writing of the denial.

(2) If the borrower appeals the denial pursuant to subdivision (d), the

later of 15 days after the denial of the appeal or 14 days after a first lien

loan modification is offered after appeal but declined by the borrower, or,

if a first lien loan modification is offered and accepted after appeal, the date

on which the borrower fails to timely submit the first payment or otherwise

breaches the terms of the offer.

(f) Following the denial of a first lien loan modification application, the

mortgage servicer shall send a written notice to the borrower identifying

the reasons for denial, including the following:

(1) The amount of time from the date of the denial letter in which the

borrower may request an appeal of the denial of the first lien loan

modification and instructions regarding how to appeal the denial.

94

11 Ch. 86

(2) If the denial was based on investor disallowance, the specific reasons

for the investor disallowance.

(3) If the denial is the result of a net present value calculation, the monthly

gross income and property value used to calculate the net present value and

a statement that the borrower may obtain all of the inputs used in the net

present value calculation upon written request to the mortgage servicer.

(4) If applicable, a finding that the borrower was previously offered a

first lien loan modification and failed to successfully make payments under

the terms of the modified loan.

(5) If applicable, a description of other foreclosure prevention alternatives

for which the borrower may be eligible, and a list of the steps the borrower

must take in order to be considered for those options. If the mortgage servicer

has already approved the borrower for another foreclosure prevention

alternative, information necessary to complete the foreclosure prevention

alternative.

(g) In order to minimize the risk of borrowers submitting multiple

applications for first lien loan modifications for the purpose of delay, the

mortgage servicer shall not be obligated to evaluate applications from

borrowers who have already been evaluated or afforded a fair opportunity

to be evaluated for a first lien loan modification prior to January 1, 2013,

or who have been evaluated or afforded a fair opportunity to be evaluated

consistent with the requirements of this section, unless there has been a

material change in the borrower’s financial circumstances since the date of

the borrower’s previous application and that change is documented by the

borrower and submitted to the mortgage servicer.

(h) For purposes of this section, an application shall be deemed

“complete” when a borrower has supplied the mortgage servicer with all

documents required by the mortgage servicer within the reasonable

timeframes specified by the mortgage servicer.

(i) Subdivisions (c) to (h), inclusive, shall not apply to entities described

in subdivision (b) of Section 2924.18.

(j) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(k) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and

as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted

before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 8. Section 2923.6 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2923.6. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that any duty mortgage

servicers may have to maximize net present value under their pooling and

servicing agreements is owed to all parties in a loan pool, or to all investors

under a pooling and servicing agreement, not to any particular party in the

loan pool or investor under a pooling and servicing agreement, and that a

mortgage servicer acts in the best interests of all parties to the loan pool or

investors in the pooling and servicing agreement if it agrees to or implements

a loan modification or workout plan for which both of the following apply:

(1) The loan is in payment default, or payment default is reasonably

foreseeable.

94

Ch. 86 12

(2) Anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout plan

exceeds the anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net present value

basis.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the mortgage servicer offer the

borrower a loan modification or workout plan if such a modification or plan

is consistent with its contractual or other authority.

(c) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.

SEC. 9. Section 2923.7 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2923.7. (a) Upon request from a borrower who requests a foreclosure

prevention alternative, the mortgage servicer shall promptly establish a

single point of contact and provide to the borrower one or more direct means

of communication with the single point of contact.

(b) The single point of contact shall be responsible for doing all of the

following:

(1) Communicating the process by which a borrower may apply for an

available foreclosure prevention alternative and the deadline for any required

submissions to be considered for these options.

(2) Coordinating receipt of all documents associated with available

foreclosure prevention alternatives and notifying the borrower of any missing

documents necessary to complete the application.

(3) Having access to current information and personnel sufficient to

timely, accurately, and adequately inform the borrower of the current status

of the foreclosure prevention alternative.

(4) Ensuring that a borrower is considered for all foreclosure prevention

alternatives offered by, or through, the mortgage servicer, if any.

(5) Having access to individuals with the ability and authority to stop

foreclosure proceedings when necessary.

(c) The single point of contact shall remain assigned to the borrower’s

account until the mortgage servicer determines that all loss mitigation options

offered by, or through, the mortgage servicer have been exhausted or the

borrower’s account becomes current.

(d) The mortgage servicer shall ensure that a single point of contact refers

and transfers a borrower to an appropriate supervisor upon request of the

borrower, if the single point of contact has a supervisor.

(e) For purposes of this section, “single point of contact” means an

individual or team of personnel each of whom has the ability and authority

to perform the responsibilities described in subdivisions (b) to (d), inclusive.

The mortgage servicer shall ensure that each member of the team is

knowledgeable about the borrower’s situation and current status in the

alternatives to foreclosure process.

(f) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(g) (1) This section shall not apply to a depository institution chartered

under state or federal law, a person licensed pursuant to Division 9

(commencing with Section 22000) or Division 20 (commencing with Section

50000) of the Financial Code, or a person licensed pursuant to Part 1

(commencing with Section 10000) of Division 4 of the Business and

94

13 Ch. 86

Professions Code, that, during its immediately preceding annual reporting

period, as established with its primary regulator, foreclosed on 175 or fewer

residential real properties, containing no more than four dwelling units, that

are located in California.

(2) Within three months after the close of any calendar year or annual

reporting period as established with its primary regulator during which an

entity or person described in paragraph (1) exceeds the threshold of 175

specified in paragraph (1), that entity shall notify its primary regulator, in

a manner acceptable to its primary regulator, and any mortgagor or trustor

who is delinquent on a residential mortgage loan serviced by that entity of

the date on which that entity will be subject to this section, which date shall

be the first day of the first month that is six months after the close of the

calendar year or annual reporting period during which that entity exceeded

the threshold.

SEC. 10. Section 2924 of the Civil Code, as amended by Section 1 of

Chapter 180 of the Statutes of 2010, is amended to read:

2924. (a) Every transfer of an interest in property, other than in trust,

made only as a security for the performance of another act, is to be deemed

a mortgage, except when in the case of personal property it is accompanied

by actual change of possession, in which case it is to be deemed a pledge.

Where, by a mortgage created after July 27, 1917, of any estate in real

property, other than an estate at will or for years, less than two, or in any

transfer in trust made after July 27, 1917, of a like estate to secure the

performance of an obligation, a power of sale is conferred upon the

mortgagee, trustee, or any other person, to be exercised after a breach of

the obligation for which that mortgage or transfer is a security, the power

shall not be exercised except where the mortgage or transfer is made pursuant

to an order, judgment, or decree of a court of record, or to secure the payment

of bonds or other evidences of indebtedness authorized or permitted to be

issued by the Commissioner of Corporations, or is made by a public utility

subject to the provisions of the Public Utilities Act, until all of the following

apply:

(1) The trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their authorized

agents shall first file for record, in the office of the recorder of each county

wherein the mortgaged or trust property or some part or parcel thereof is

situated, a notice of default. That notice of default shall include all of the

following:

(A) A statement identifying the mortgage or deed of trust by stating the

name or names of the trustor or trustors and giving the book and page, or

instrument number, if applicable, where the mortgage or deed of trust is

recorded or a description of the mortgaged or trust property.

(B) A statement that a breach of the obligation for which the mortgage

or transfer in trust is security has occurred.

(C) A statement setting forth the nature of each breach actually known

to the beneficiary and of his or her election to sell or cause to be sold the

property to satisfy that obligation and any other obligation secured by the

deed of trust or mortgage that is in default.

94

Ch. 86 14

(D) If the default is curable pursuant to Section 2924c, the statement

specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2924c.

(2) Not less than three months shall elapse from the filing of the notice

of default.

(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), after the lapse of the three months

described in paragraph (2), the mortgagee, trustee, or other person authorized

to take the sale shall give notice of sale, stating the time and place thereof,

in the manner and for a time not less than that set forth in Section 2924f.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the mortgagee, trustee, or other person

authorized to take sale may record a notice of sale pursuant to Section 2924f

up to five days before the lapse of the three-month period described in

paragraph (2), provided that the date of sale is no earlier than three months

and 20 days after the recording of the notice of default.

(5) Until January 1, 2018, whenever a sale is postponed for a period of

at least 10 business days pursuant to Section 2924g, a mortgagee, beneficiary,

or authorized agent shall provide written notice to a borrower regarding the

new sale date and time, within five business days following the

postponement. Information provided pursuant to this paragraph shall not

constitute the public declaration required by subdivision (d) of Section

2924g. Failure to comply with this paragraph shall not invalidate any sale

that would otherwise be valid under Section 2924f. This paragraph shall be

inoperative on January 1, 2018.

(6) No entity shall record or cause a notice of default to be recorded or

otherwise initiate the foreclosure process unless it is the holder of the

beneficial interest under the mortgage or deed of trust, the original trustee

or the substituted trustee under the deed of trust, or the designated agent of

the holder of the beneficial interest. No agent of the holder of the beneficial

interest under the mortgage or deed of trust, original trustee or substituted

trustee under the deed of trust may record a notice of default or otherwise

commence the foreclosure process except when acting within the scope of

authority designated by the holder of the beneficial interest.

(b) In performing acts required by this article, the trustee shall incur no

liability for any good faith error resulting from reliance on information

provided in good faith by the beneficiary regarding the nature and the amount

of the default under the secured obligation, deed of trust, or mortgage. In

performing the acts required by this article, a trustee shall not be subject to

Title 1.6c (commencing with Section 1788) of Part 4.

(c) A recital in the deed executed pursuant to the power of sale of

compliance with all requirements of law regarding the mailing of copies of

notices or the publication of a copy of the notice of default or the personal

delivery of the copy of the notice of default or the posting of copies of the

notice of sale or the publication of a copy thereof shall constitute prima

facie evidence of compliance with these requirements and conclusive

evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for

value and without notice.

(d) All of the following shall constitute privileged communications

pursuant to Section 47:

94

15 Ch. 86

(1) The mailing, publication, and delivery of notices as required by this

section.

(2) Performance of the procedures set forth in this article.

(3) Performance of the functions and procedures set forth in this article

if those functions and procedures are necessary to carry out the duties

described in Sections 729.040, 729.050, and 729.080 of the Code of Civil

Procedure.

(e) There is a rebuttable presumption that the beneficiary actually knew

of all unpaid loan payments on the obligation owed to the beneficiary and

secured by the deed of trust or mortgage subject to the notice of default.

However, the failure to include an actually known default shall not invalidate

the notice of sale and the beneficiary shall not be precluded from asserting

a claim to this omitted default or defaults in a separate notice of default.

SEC. 11. Section 2924 of the Civil Code, as amended by Section 2 of

Chapter 180 of the Statutes of 2010, is repealed.

SEC. 12. Section 2924.9 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.9. (a) Unless a borrower has previously exhausted the first lien

loan modification process offered by, or through, his or her mortgage servicer

described in Section 2923.6, within five business days after recording a

notice of default pursuant to Section 2924, a mortgage servicer that offers

one or more foreclosure prevention alternatives shall send a written

communication to the borrower that includes all of the following information:

(1) That the borrower may be evaluated for a foreclosure prevention

alternative or, if applicable, foreclosure prevention alternatives.

(2) Whether an application is required to be submitted by the borrower

in order to be considered for a foreclosure prevention alternative.

(3) The means and process by which a borrower may obtain an application

for a foreclosure prevention alternative.

(b) This section shall not apply to entities described in subdivision (b)

of Section 2924.18.

(c) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and

as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted

before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 13. Section 2924.10 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.10. (a) When a borrower submits a complete first lien modification

application or any document in connection with a first lien modification

application, the mortgage servicer shall provide written acknowledgment

of the receipt of the documentation within five business days of receipt. In

its initial acknowledgment of receipt of the loan modification application,

the mortgage servicer shall include the following information:

(1) A description of the loan modification process, including an estimate

of when a decision on the loan modification will be made after a complete

application has been submitted by the borrower and the length of time the

borrower will have to consider an offer of a loan modification or other

foreclosure prevention alternative.

94

Ch. 86 16

(2) Any deadlines, including deadlines to submit missing documentation,

that would affect the processing of a first lien loan modification application.

(3) Any expiration dates for submitted documents.

(4) Any deficiency in the borrower’s first lien loan modification

application.

(b) For purposes of this section, a borrower’s first lien loan modification

application shall be deemed to be “complete” when a borrower has supplied

the mortgage servicer with all documents required by the mortgage servicer

within the reasonable timeframes specified by the mortgage servicer.

(c) This section shall not apply to entities described in subdivision (b)

of Section 2924.18.

(d) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and

as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted

before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 14. Section 2924.11 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.11. (a) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing

prior to the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of default

under either of the following circumstances:

(1) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial or

permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

(2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing by

all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder,

and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has

been provided to the servicer.

(b) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing after

the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of sale or conduct

a trustee’s sale under either of the following circumstances:

(1) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial or

permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

(2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing by

all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder,

and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has

been provided to the servicer.

(c) When a borrower accepts an offered first lien loan modification or

other foreclosure prevention alternative, the mortgage servicer shall provide

the borrower with a copy of the fully executed loan modification agreement

or agreement evidencing the foreclosure prevention alternative following

receipt of the executed copy from the borrower.

(d) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall record a rescission

of a notice of default or cancel a pending trustee’s sale, if applicable, upon

the borrower executing a permanent foreclosure prevention alternative. In

the case of a short sale, the rescission or cancellation of the pending trustee’s

sale shall occur when the short sale has been approved by all parties and

94

17 Ch. 86

proof of funds or financing has been provided to the mortgagee, beneficiary,

or authorized agent.

(e) The mortgage servicer shall not charge any application, processing,

or other fee for a first lien loan modification or other foreclosure prevention

alternative.

(f) The mortgage servicer shall not collect any late fees for periods during

which a complete first lien loan modification application is under

consideration or a denial is being appealed, the borrower is making timely

modification payments, or a foreclosure prevention alternative is being

evaluated or exercised.

(g) If a borrower has been approved in writing for a first lien loan

modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative, and the servicing

of that borrower’s loan is transferred or sold to another mortgage servicer,

the subsequent mortgage servicer shall continue to honor any previously

approved first lien loan modification or other foreclosure prevention

alternative, in accordance with the provisions of the act that added this

section.

(h) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(i) This section shall not apply to entities described in subdivision (b) of

Section 2924.18.

(j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and as

of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before

January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 15. Section 2924.11 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.11. (a) If a borrower submits a complete application for a

foreclosure prevention alternative offered by, or through, the borrower’s

mortgage servicer, a mortgage servicer, trustee, mortgagee, beneficiary, or

authorized agent shall not record a notice of sale or conduct a trustee’s sale

while the complete foreclosure prevention alternative application is pending,

and until the borrower has been provided with a written determination by

the mortgage servicer regarding that borrower’s eligibility for the requested

foreclosure prevention alternative.

(b) Following the denial of a first lien loan modification application, the

mortgage servicer shall send a written notice to the borrower identifying

with specificity the reasons for the denial and shall include a statement that

the borrower may obtain additional documentation supporting the denial

decision upon written request to the mortgage servicer.

(c) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing prior to

the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of default under

either of the following circumstances:

(1) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial or

permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

(2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing by

all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder,

94

Ch. 86 18

and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has

been provided to the servicer.

(d) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing after

the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of sale or conduct

a trustee’s sale under either of the following circumstances:

(1) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial or

permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

(2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing by

all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder,

and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has

been provided to the servicer.

(e) This section applies only to mortgages or deeds of trust as described

in Section 2924.15.

(f) For purposes of this section, an application shall be deemed “complete”

when a borrower has supplied the mortgage servicer with all documents

required by the mortgage servicer within the reasonable timeframes specified

by the mortgage servicer.

(g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.

SEC. 16. Section 2924.12 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.12. (a) (1) If a trustee’s deed upon sale has not been recorded, a

borrower may bring an action for injunctive relief to enjoin a material

violation of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, or

2924.17.

(2) Any injunction shall remain in place and any trustee’s sale shall be

enjoined until the court determines that the mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has corrected and remedied the

violation or violations giving rise to the action for injunctive relief. An

enjoined entity may move to dissolve an injunction based on a showing that

the material violation has been corrected and remedied.

(b) After a trustee’s deed upon sale has been recorded, a mortgage

servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall be liable

to a borrower for actual economic damages pursuant to Section 3281,

resulting from a material violation of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7,

2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, or 2924.17 by that mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent where the violation was not corrected

and remedied prior to the recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale. If the

court finds that the material violation was intentional or reckless, or resulted

from willful misconduct by a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent, the court may award the borrower the

greater of treble actual damages or statutory damages of fifty thousand

dollars ($50,000).

(c) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized

agent shall not be liable for any violation that it has corrected and remedied

prior to the recordation of a trustee’s deed upon sale, or that has been

corrected and remedied by third parties working on its behalf prior to the

recordation of a trustee’s deed upon sale.

94

19 Ch. 86

(d) A violation of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10,

2924.11, or 2924.17 by a person licensed by the Department of Corporations,

Department of Financial Institutions, or Department of Real Estate shall be

deemed to be a violation of that person’s licensing law.

(e) No violation of this article shall affect the validity of a sale in favor

of a bona fide purchaser and any of its encumbrancers for value without

notice.

(f) A third-party encumbrancer shall not be relieved of liability resulting

from violations of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10,

2924.11, or 2924.17 committed by that third-party encumbrancer, that

occurred prior to the sale of the subject property to the bona fide purchaser.

(g) A signatory to a consent judgment entered in the case entitled United

States of America et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al., filed in the

United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case number

1:12-cv-00361 RMC, that is in compliance with the relevant terms of the

Settlement Term Sheet of that consent judgment with respect to the borrower

who brought an action pursuant to this section while the consent judgment

is in effect shall have no liability for a violation of Section 2923.55, 2923.6,

2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, or 2924.17.

(h) The rights, remedies, and procedures provided by this section are in

addition to and independent of any other rights, remedies, or procedures

under any other law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, limit,

or negate any other rights, remedies, or procedures provided by law.

(i) A court may award a prevailing borrower reasonable attorney’s fees

and costs in an action brought pursuant to this section. A borrower shall be

deemed to have prevailed for purposes of this subdivision if the borrower

obtained injunctive relief or was awarded damages pursuant to this section.

(j) This section shall not apply to entities described in subdivision (b) of

Section 2924.18.

(k) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and

as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted

before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 17. Section 2924.12 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.12. (a) (1) If a trustee’s deed upon sale has not been recorded, a

borrower may bring an action for injunctive relief to enjoin a material

violation of Section 2923.5, 2923.7, 2924.11, or 2924.17.

(2) Any injunction shall remain in place and any trustee’s sale shall be

enjoined until the court determines that the mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has corrected and remedied the

violation or violations giving rise to the action for injunctive relief. An

enjoined entity may move to dissolve an injunction based on a showing that

the material violation has been corrected and remedied.

(b) After a trustee’s deed upon sale has been recorded, a mortgage

servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall be liable

to a borrower for actual economic damages pursuant to Section 3281,

resulting from a material violation of Section 2923.5, 2923.7, 2924.11, or

2924.17 by that mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or

94

Ch. 86 20

authorized agent where the violation was not corrected and remedied prior

to the recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale. If the court finds that the

material violation was intentional or reckless, or resulted from willful

misconduct by a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or

authorized agent, the court may award the borrower the greater of treble

actual damages or statutory damages of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).

(c) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized

agent shall not be liable for any violation that it has corrected and remedied

prior to the recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale, or that has been

corrected and remedied by third parties working on its behalf prior to the

recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale.

(d) A violation of Section 2923.5, 2923.7, 2924.11, or 2924.17 by a

person licensed by the Department of Corporations, Department of Financial

Institutions, or Department of Real Estate shall be deemed to be a violation

of that person’s licensing law.

(e) No violation of this article shall affect the validity of a sale in favor

of a bona fide purchaser and any of its encumbrancers for value without

notice.

(f) A third-party encumbrancer shall not be relieved of liability resulting

from violations of Section 2923.5, 2923.7, 2924.11, or 2924.17 committed

by that third-party encumbrancer, that occurred prior to the sale of the subject

property to the bona fide purchaser.

(g) The rights, remedies, and procedures provided by this section are in

addition to and independent of any other rights, remedies, or procedures

under any other law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, limit,

or negate any other rights, remedies, or procedures provided by law.

(h) A court may award a prevailing borrower reasonable attorney’s fees

and costs in an action brought pursuant to this section. A borrower shall be

deemed to have prevailed for purposes of this subdivision if the borrower

obtained injunctive relief or was awarded damages pursuant to this section.

(i) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.

SEC. 18. Section 2924.15 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.15. (a) Unless otherwise provided, paragraph (5) of subdivision

(a) of Section 2924, and Sections 2923.5, 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9,

2924.10, 2924.11, and 2924.18 shall apply only to first lien mortgages or

deeds of trust that are secured by owner-occupied residential real property

containing no more than four dwelling units. For these purposes,

“owner-occupied” means that the property is the principal residence of the

borrower and is security for a loan made for personal, family, or household

purposes.

(b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and

as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted

before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 19. Section 2924.15 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.15. (a) Unless otherwise provided, Sections 2923.5, 2923.7, and

2924.11 shall apply only to first lien mortgages or deeds of trust that are

secured by owner-occupied residential real property containing no more

94

21 Ch. 86

than four dwelling units. For these purposes, “owner-occupied” means that

the property is the principal residence of the borrower and is security for a

loan made for personal, family, or household purposes.

(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.

SEC. 20. Section 2924.17 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.17. (a) A declaration recorded pursuant to Section 2923.5 or, until

January 1, 2018, pursuant to Section 2923.55, a notice of default, notice of

sale, assignment of a deed of trust, or substitution of trustee recorded by or

on behalf of a mortgage servicer in connection with a foreclosure subject

to the requirements of Section 2924, or a declaration or affidavit filed in

any court relative to a foreclosure proceeding shall be accurate and complete

and supported by competent and reliable evidence.

(b) Before recording or filing any of the documents described in

subdivision (a), a mortgage servicer shall ensure that it has reviewed

competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and

the right to foreclose, including the borrower’s loan status and loan

information.

(c) Until January 1, 2018, any mortgage servicer that engages in multiple

and repeated uncorrected violations of subdivision (b) in recording

documents or filing documents in any court relative to a foreclosure

proceeding shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to seven thousand five

hundred dollars ($7,500) per mortgage or deed of trust in an action brought

by a government entity identified in Section 17204 of the Business and

Professions Code, or in an administrative proceeding brought by the

Department of Corporations, the Department of Real Estate, or the

Department of Financial Institutions against a respective licensee, in addition

to any other remedies available to these entities. This subdivision shall be

inoperative on January 1, 2018.

SEC. 21. Section 2924.18 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.18. (a) (1) If a borrower submits a complete application for a first

lien loan modification offered by, or through, the borrower’s mortgage

servicer, a mortgage servicer, trustee, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized

agent shall not record a notice of default, notice of sale, or conduct a trustee’s

sale while the complete first lien loan modification application is pending,

and until the borrower has been provided with a written determination by

the mortgage servicer regarding that borrower’s eligibility for the requested

loan modification.

(2) If a foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing

prior to the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of default

under either of the following circumstances:

(A) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial or

permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

(B) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing

by all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder,

and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has

been provided to the servicer.

94

Ch. 86 22

(3) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing after

the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of sale or conduct

a trustee’s sale under either of the following circumstances:

(A) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial or

permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

(B) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing

by all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder,

and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has

been provided to the servicer.

(b) This section shall apply only to a depository institution chartered

under state or federal law, a person licensed pursuant to Division 9

(commencing with Section 22000) or Division 20 (commencing with Section

50000) of the Financial Code, or a person licensed pursuant to Part 1

(commencing with Section 10000) of Division 4 of the Business and

Professions Code, that, during its immediately preceding annual reporting

period, as established with its primary regulator, foreclosed on 175 or fewer

residential real properties, containing no more than four dwelling units, that

are located in California.

(c) Within three months after the close of any calendar year or annual

reporting period as established with its primary regulator during which an

entity or person described in subdivision (b) exceeds the threshold of 175

specified in subdivision (b), that entity shall notify its primary regulator, in

a manner acceptable to its primary regulator, and any mortgagor or trustor

who is delinquent on a residential mortgage loan serviced by that entity of

the date on which that entity will be subject to Sections 2923.55, 2923.6,

2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, and 2924.12, which date shall be the first

day of the first month that is six months after the close of the calendar year

or annual reporting period during which that entity exceeded the threshold.

(d) For purposes of this section, an application shall be deemed

“complete” when a borrower has supplied the mortgage servicer with all

documents required by the mortgage servicer within the reasonable

timeframes specified by the mortgage servicer.

(e) If a borrower has been approved in writing for a first lien loan

modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative, and the servicing

of the borrower’s loan is transferred or sold to another mortgage servicer,

the subsequent mortgage servicer shall continue to honor any previously

approved first lien loan modification or other foreclosure prevention

alternative, in accordance with the provisions of the act that added this

section.

(f) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(g) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and

as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted

before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 22. Section 2924.19 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

94

23 Ch. 86

2924.19. (a) (1) If a trustee’s deed upon sale has not been recorded, a

borrower may bring an action for injunctive relief to enjoin a material

violation of Section 2923.5, 2924.17, or 2924.18.

(2) Any injunction shall remain in place and any trustee’s sale shall be

enjoined until the court determines that the mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent has corrected and remedied the violation

or violations giving rise to the action for injunctive relief. An enjoined entity

may move to dissolve an injunction based on a showing that the material

violation has been corrected and remedied.

(b) After a trustee’s deed upon sale has been recorded, a mortgage

servicer, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall be liable to a

borrower for actual economic damages pursuant to Section 3281, resulting

from a material violation of Section 2923.5, 2924.17, or 2924.18 by that

mortgage servicer, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent where the

violation was not corrected and remedied prior to the recordation of the

trustee’s deed upon sale. If the court finds that the material violation was

intentional or reckless, or resulted from willful misconduct by a mortgage

servicer, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent, the court may award

the borrower the greater of treble actual damages or statutory damages of

fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).

(c) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent

shall not be liable for any violation that it has corrected and remedied prior

to the recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale, or that has been corrected

and remedied by third parties working on its behalf prior to the recordation

of the trustee’s deed upon sale.

(d) A violation of Section 2923.5, 2924.17, or 2917.18 by a person

licensed by the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial

Institutions, or the Department of Real Estate shall be deemed to be a

violation of that person’s licensing law.

(e) No violation of this article shall affect the validity of a sale in favor

of a bona fide purchaser and any of its encumbrancers for value without

notice.

(f) A third-party encumbrancer shall not be relieved of liability resulting

from violations of Section 2923.5, 2924.17 or 2924.18, committed by that

third-party encumbrancer, that occurred prior to the sale of the subject

property to the bona fide purchaser.

(g) The rights, remedies, and procedures provided by this section are in

addition to and independent of any other rights, remedies, or procedures

under any other law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, limit,

or negate any other rights, remedies, or procedures provided by law.

(h) A court may award a prevailing borrower reasonable attorney’s fees

and costs in an action brought pursuant to this section. A borrower shall be

deemed to have prevailed for purposes of this subdivision if the borrower

obtained injunctive relief or damages pursuant to this section.

(i) This section shall apply only to entities described in subdivision (b)

of Section 2924.18.

94

Ch. 86 24

(j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and as

of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before

January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 23. Section 2924.20 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.20. Consistent with their general regulatory authority, and

notwithstanding subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 2924.18, the Department

of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department

of Real Estate may adopt regulations applicable to any entity or person

under their respective jurisdictions that are necessary to carry out the

purposes of the act that added this section. A violation of the regulations

adopted pursuant to this section shall only be enforceable by the regulatory

agency.

SEC. 24. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of

this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other

provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid

provision or application.

SEC. 25. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section

6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that

may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because

this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction,

or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of

Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime

within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California

Constitution.

Senate Bill No. 900

CHAPTER 87

An act to amend and add Sections 2923.5 and 2923.6 of, to amend and

repeal Section 2924 of, to add Sections 2920.5, 2923.4, 2923.7, 2924.17,

and 2924.20 to, to add and repeal Sections 2923.55, 2924.9, 2924.10,

2924.18, and 2924.19 of, and to add, repeal, and add Sections 2924.11,

2924.12, and 2924.15 of, the Civil Code, relating to mortgages.

[Approved by Governor July 11, 2012. Filed with

Secretary of State July 11, 2012.]

legislative counsel’s digest

SB 900, Leno. Mortgages and deeds of trust: foreclosure.

(1) Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a mortgagee, trustee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent to contact the borrower prior to filing a

notice of default to explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure,

as specified. Existing law requires a notice of default or, in certain

circumstances, a notice of sale, to include a declaration stating that the

mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has contacted the

borrower, has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower, or that no

contact was required for a specified reason.

This bill would add mortgage servicers, as defined, to these provisions

and would extend the operation of these provisions indefinitely, except that

it would delete the requirement with respect to a notice of sale. The bill

would, until January 1, 2018, additionally require the borrower, as defined,

to be provided with specified information in writing prior to recordation of

a notice of default and, in certain circumstances, within 5 business days

after recordation. The bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording a notice of default

or, until January 1, 2018, recording a notice of sale or conducting a trustee’s

sale while a complete first lien loan modification application is pending,

under specified conditions. The bill would, until January 1, 2018, establish

additional procedures to be followed regarding a first lien loan modification

application, the denial of an application, and a borrower’s right to appeal a

denial.

(2) Existing law imposes various requirements that must be satisfied

prior to exercising a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust,

including, among other things, recording a notice of default and a notice of

sale.

The bill would, until January 1, 2018, require a written notice to the

borrower after the postponement of a foreclosure sale in order to advise the

borrower of any new sale date and time, as specified. The bill would provide

that an entity shall not record a notice of default or otherwise initiate the

93

foreclosure process unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under

the deed of trust, the original or substituted trustee, or the designated agent

of the holder of the beneficial interest, as specified.

The bill would prohibit recordation of a notice of default or a notice of

sale or the conduct of a trustee’s sale if a foreclosure prevention alternative

has been approved and certain conditions exist and would, until January 1,

2018, require recordation of a rescission of those notices upon execution of

a permanent foreclosure prevention alternative. The bill would until January

1, 2018, prohibit the collection of application fees and the collection of late

fees while a foreclosure prevention alternative is being considered, if certain

criteria are met, and would require a subsequent mortgage servicer to honor

any previously approved foreclosure prevention alternative.

The bill would authorize a borrower to seek an injunction and damages

for violations of certain of the provisions described above, except as

specified. The bill would authorize the greater of treble actual damages or

$50,000 in statutory damages if a violation of certain provisions is found

to be intentional or reckless or resulted from willful misconduct, as specified.

The bill would authorize the awarding of attorneys’ fees for prevailing

borrowers, as specified. Violations of these provisions by licensees of the

Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and

the Department of Real Estate would also be violations of those respective

licensing laws. Because a violation of certain of those licensing laws is a

crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would provide that the requirements imposed on mortgage

servicers, and mortgagees, trustees, beneficiaries, and authorized agents,

described above are applicable only to mortgages or deeds of trust secured

by residential real property not exceeding 4 dwelling units that is

owner-occupied, as defined, and, until January 1, 2018, only to those entities

who conduct more than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting

period, except as specified.

The bill would require, upon request from a borrower who requests a

foreclosure prevention alternative, a mortgage servicer who conducts more

than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting period to establish

a single point of contact and provide the borrower with one or more direct

means of communication with the single point of contact. The bill would

specify various responsibilities of the single point of contact. The bill would

define single point of contact for these purposes.

(3) Existing law prescribes documents that may be recorded or filed in

court.

This bill would require that a specified declaration, notice of default,

notice of sale, deed of trust, assignment of a deed of trust, substitution of

trustee, or declaration or affidavit filed in any court relative to a foreclosure

proceeding or recorded by or on behalf of a mortgage servicer shall be

accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence.

The bill would require that, before recording or filing any of those

documents, a mortgage servicer shall ensure that it has reviewed competent

and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and the right to

93

Ch. 87 2

foreclose, including the borrower’s loan status and loan information. The

bill would, until January 1, 2018, provide that any mortgage servicer that

engages in multiple and repeated violations of these requirements shall be

liable for a civil penalty of up to $7,500 per mortgage or deed of trust, in

an action brought by specified state and local government entities, and would

also authorize administrative enforcement against licensees of the

Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and

the Department of Real Estate.

The bill would authorize the Department of Corporations, the Department

of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real Estate to adopt

regulations applicable to persons and entities under their respective

jurisdictions for purposes of the provisions described above. The bill would

provide that a violation of those regulations would be enforceable only by

the regulating agency.

(4) The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature in

relation to foreclosures in the state generally, and would state the purposes

of the bill.

(5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local

agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory

provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for

a specified reason.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) California is still reeling from the economic impacts of a wave of

residential property foreclosures that began in 2007. From 2007 to 2011

alone, there were over 900,000 completed foreclosure sales. In 2011, 38 of

the top 100 hardest hit ZIP Codes in the nation were in California, and the

current wave of foreclosures continues apace. All of this foreclosure activity

has adversely affected property values and resulted in less money for schools,

public safety, and other public services. In addition, according to the Urban

Institute, every foreclosure imposes significant costs on local governments,

including an estimated nineteen thousand two hundred twenty-nine dollars

($19,229) in local government costs. And the foreclosure crisis is not over;

there remain more than two million “underwater” mortgages in California.

(b) It is essential to the economic health of this state to mitigate the

negative effects on the state and local economies and the housing market

that are the result of continued foreclosures by modifying the foreclosure

process to ensure that borrowers who may qualify for a foreclosure

alternative are considered for, and have a meaningful opportunity to obtain,

available loss mitigation options. These changes to the state’s foreclosure

process are essential to ensure that the current crisis is not worsened by

unnecessarily adding foreclosed properties to the market when an alternative

to foreclosure may be available. Avoiding foreclosure, where possible, will

93

3 Ch. 87

help stabilize the state’s housing market and avoid the substantial,

corresponding negative effects of foreclosures on families, communities,

and the state and local economy.

(c) This act is necessary to provide stability to California’s statewide and

regional economies and housing market by facilitating opportunities for

borrowers to pursue loss mitigation options.

SEC. 2. Section 2920.5 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2920.5. For purposes of this article, the following definitions apply:

(a) “Mortgage servicer” means a person or entity who directly services

a loan, or who is responsible for interacting with the borrower, managing

the loan account on a daily basis including collecting and crediting periodic

loan payments, managing any escrow account, or enforcing the note and

security instrument, either as the current owner of the promissory note or

as the current owner’s authorized agent. “Mortgage servicer” also means a

subservicing agent to a master servicer by contract. “Mortgage servicer”

shall not include a trustee, or a trustee’s authorized agent, acting under a

power of sale pursuant to a deed of trust.

(b) “Foreclosure prevention alternative” means a first lien loan

modification or another available loss mitigation option.

(c) (1) Unless otherwise provided and for purposes of Sections 2923.4,

2923.5, 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, 2924.18, and

2924.19, “borrower” means any natural person who is a mortgagor or trustor

and who is potentially eligible for any federal, state, or proprietary

foreclosure prevention alternative program offered by, or through, his or

her mortgage servicer.

(2) For purposes of the sections listed in paragraph (1), “borrower” shall

not include any of the following:

(A) An individual who has surrendered the secured property as evidenced

by either a letter confirming the surrender or delivery of the keys to the

property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.

(B) An individual who has contracted with an organization, person, or

entity whose primary business is advising people who have decided to leave

their homes on how to extend the foreclosure process and avoid their

contractual obligations to mortgagees or beneficiaries.

(C) An individual who has filed a case under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 of

Title 11 of the United States Code and the bankruptcy court has not entered

an order closing or dismissing the bankruptcy case, or granting relief from

a stay of foreclosure.

(d) “First lien” means the most senior mortgage or deed of trust on the

property that is the subject of the notice of default or notice of sale.

SEC. 3. Section 2923.4 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2923.4. (a) The purpose of the act that added this section is to ensure

that, as part of the nonjudicial foreclosure process, borrowers are considered

for, and have a meaningful opportunity to obtain, available loss mitigation

options, if any, offered by or through the borrower’s mortgage servicer,

such as loan modifications or other alternatives to foreclosure. Nothing in

93

Ch. 87 4

the act that added this section, however, shall be interpreted to require a

particular result of that process.

(b) Nothing in this article obviates or supersedes the obligations of the

signatories to the consent judgment entered in the case entitled United States

of America et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al., filed in the United

States District Court for the District of Columbia, case number

1:12-cv-00361 RMC.

SEC. 4. Section 2923.5 of the Civil Code is amended to read:

2923.5. (a) (1) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary,

or authorized agent may not record a notice of default pursuant to Section

2924 until both of the following:

(A) Either 30 days after initial contact is made as required by paragraph

(2) or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence requirements as described

in subdivision (e).

(B) The mortgage servicer complies with paragraph (1) of subdivision

(a) of Section 2924.18, if the borrower has provided a complete application

as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 2924.18.

(2) A mortgage servicer shall contact the borrower in person or by

telephone in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore

options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the

mortgage servicer shall advise the borrower that he or she has the right to

request a subsequent meeting and, if requested, the mortgage servicer shall

schedule the meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the

borrower’s financial situation and discussion of options may occur during

the first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose.

In either case, the borrower shall be provided the toll-free telephone number

made available by the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

Any meeting may occur telephonically.

(b) A notice of default recorded pursuant to Section 2924 shall include

a declaration that the mortgage servicer has contacted the borrower, has

tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section,

or that no contact was required because the individual did not meet the

definition of “borrower” pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 2920.5.

(c) A mortgage servicer’s loss mitigation personnel may participate by

telephone during any contact required by this section.

(d) A borrower may designate, with consent given in writing, a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency, attorney, or other advisor to

discuss with the mortgage servicer, on the borrower’s behalf, the borrower’s

financial situation and options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. That

contact made at the direction of the borrower shall satisfy the contact

requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). Any loan modification or

workout plan offered at the meeting by the mortgage servicer is subject to

approval by the borrower.

(e) A notice of default may be recorded pursuant to Section 2924 when

a mortgage servicer has not contacted a borrower as required by paragraph

(2) of subdivision (a) provided that the failure to contact the borrower

93

5 Ch. 87

occurred despite the due diligence of the mortgage servicer. For purposes

of this section, “due diligence” shall require and mean all of the following:

(1) A mortgage servicer shall first attempt to contact a borrower by

sending a first-class letter that includes the toll-free telephone number made

available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgage servicer shall attempt

to contact the borrower by telephone at least three times at different hours

and on different days. Telephone calls shall be made to the primary telephone

number on file.

(B) A mortgage servicer may attempt to contact a borrower using an

automated system to dial borrowers, provided that, if the telephone call is

answered, the call is connected to a live representative of the mortgage

servicer.

(C) A mortgage servicer satisfies the telephone contact requirements of

this paragraph if it determines, after attempting contact pursuant to this

paragraph, that the borrower’s primary telephone number and secondary

telephone number or numbers on file, if any, have been disconnected.

(3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the telephone

call requirements of paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the mortgage servicer

shall then send a certified letter, with return receipt requested.

(4) The mortgage servicer shall provide a means for the borrower to

contact it in a timely manner, including a toll-free telephone number that

will provide access to a live representative during business hours.

(5) The mortgage servicer has posted a prominent link on the homepage

of its Internet Web site, if any, to the following information:

(A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to afford

their mortgage payments and who wish to avoid foreclosure, and instructions

to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore those options.

(B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be

prepared to present to the mortgage servicer when discussing options for

avoiding foreclosure.

(C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss

options for avoiding foreclosure with their mortgage servicer.

(D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(f) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(g) This section shall apply only to entities described in subdivision (b)

of Section 2924.18.

(h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and as

of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before

January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 5. Section 2923.5 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2923.5. (a) (1) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary,

or authorized agent may not record a notice of default pursuant to Section

2924 until both of the following:

93

Ch. 87 6

(A) Either 30 days after initial contact is made as required by paragraph

(2) or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence requirements as described

in subdivision (e).

(B) The mortgage servicer complies with subdivision (a) of Section

2924.11, if the borrower has provided a complete application as defined in

subdivision (f) of Section 2924.11.

(2) A mortgage servicer shall contact the borrower in person or by

telephone in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore

options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the

mortgage servicer shall advise the borrower that he or she has the right to

request a subsequent meeting and, if requested, the mortgage servicer shall

schedule the meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the

borrower’s financial situation and discussion of options may occur during

the first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose.

In either case, the borrower shall be provided the toll-free telephone number

made available by the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

Any meeting may occur telephonically.

(b) A notice of default recorded pursuant to Section 2924 shall include

a declaration that the mortgage servicer has contacted the borrower, has

tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section,

or that no contact was required because the individual did not meet the

definition of “borrower” pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 2920.5.

(c) A mortgage servicer’s loss mitigation personnel may participate by

telephone during any contact required by this section.

(d) A borrower may designate, with consent given in writing, a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency, attorney, or other advisor to

discuss with the mortgage servicer, on the borrower’s behalf, the borrower’s

financial situation and options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. That

contact made at the direction of the borrower shall satisfy the contact

requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). Any loan modification or

workout plan offered at the meeting by the mortgage servicer is subject to

approval by the borrower.

(e) A notice of default may be recorded pursuant to Section 2924 when

a mortgage servicer has not contacted a borrower as required by paragraph

(2) of subdivision (a) provided that the failure to contact the borrower

occurred despite the due diligence of the mortgage servicer. For purposes

of this section, “due diligence” shall require and mean all of the following:

(1) A mortgage servicer shall first attempt to contact a borrower by

sending a first-class letter that includes the toll-free telephone number made

available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgage servicer shall attempt

to contact the borrower by telephone at least three times at different hours

and on different days. Telephone calls shall be made to the primary telephone

number on file.

(B) A mortgage servicer may attempt to contact a borrower using an

automated system to dial borrowers, provided that, if the telephone call is

93

7 Ch. 87

answered, the call is connected to a live representative of the mortgage

servicer.

(C) A mortgage servicer satisfies the telephone contact requirements of

this paragraph if it determines, after attempting contact pursuant to this

paragraph, that the borrower’s primary telephone number and secondary

telephone number or numbers on file, if any, have been disconnected.

(3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the telephone

call requirements of paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the mortgage servicer

shall then send a certified letter, with return receipt requested.

(4) The mortgage servicer shall provide a means for the borrower to

contact it in a timely manner, including a toll-free telephone number that

will provide access to a live representative during business hours.

(5) The mortgage servicer has posted a prominent link on the homepage

of its Internet Web site, if any, to the following information:

(A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to afford

their mortgage payments and who wish to avoid foreclosure, and instructions

to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore those options.

(B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be

prepared to present to the mortgage servicer when discussing options for

avoiding foreclosure.

(C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss

options for avoiding foreclosure with their mortgage servicer.

(D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(f) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.

SEC. 6. Section 2923.55 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2923.55. (a) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or

authorized agent may not record a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924

until all of the following:

(1) The mortgage servicer has satisfied the requirements of paragraph

(1) of subdivision (b).

(2) Either 30 days after initial contact is made as required by paragraph

(2) of subdivision (b) or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence

requirements as described in subdivision (f).

(3) The mortgage servicer complies with subdivision (c) of Section

2923.6, if the borrower has provided a complete application as defined in

subdivision (h) of Section 2923.6.

(b) (1) As specified in subdivision (a), a mortgage servicer shall send

the following information in writing to the borrower:

(A) A statement that if the borrower is a servicemember or a dependent

of a servicemember, he or she may be entitled to certain protections under

the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. Sec. 501 et seq.)

regarding the servicemember’s interest rate and the risk of foreclosure, and

counseling for covered servicemembers that is available at agencies such

as Military OneSource and Armed Forces Legal Assistance.

93

Ch. 87 8

(B) A statement that the borrower may request the following:

(i) A copy of the borrower’s promissory note or other evidence of

indebtedness.

(ii) A copy of the borrower’s deed of trust or mortgage.

(iii) A copy of any assignment, if applicable, of the borrower’s mortgage

or deed of trust required to demonstrate the right of the mortgage servicer

to foreclose.

(iv) A copy of the borrower’s payment history since the borrower was

last less than 60 days past due.

(2) A mortgage servicer shall contact the borrower in person or by

telephone in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore

options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the

mortgage servicer shall advise the borrower that he or she has the right to

request a subsequent meeting and, if requested, the mortgage servicer shall

schedule the meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the

borrower’s financial situation and discussion of options may occur during

the first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose.

In either case, the borrower shall be provided the toll-free telephone number

made available by the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

Any meeting may occur telephonically.

(c) A notice of default recorded pursuant to Section 2924 shall include

a declaration that the mortgage servicer has contacted the borrower, has

tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section,

or that no contact was required because the individual did not meet the

definition of “borrower” pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 2920.5.

(d) A mortgage servicer’s loss mitigation personnel may participate by

telephone during any contact required by this section.

(e) A borrower may designate, with consent given in writing, a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency, attorney, or other advisor to

discuss with the mortgage servicer, on the borrower’s behalf, the borrower’s

financial situation and options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. That

contact made at the direction of the borrower shall satisfy the contact

requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). Any foreclosure prevention

alternative offered at the meeting by the mortgage servicer is subject to

approval by the borrower.

(f) A notice of default may be recorded pursuant to Section 2924 when

a mortgage servicer has not contacted a borrower as required by paragraph

(2) of subdivision (b), provided that the failure to contact the borrower

occurred despite the due diligence of the mortgage servicer. For purposes

of this section, “due diligence” shall require and mean all of the following:

(1) A mortgage servicer shall first attempt to contact a borrower by

sending a first-class letter that includes the toll-free telephone number made

available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgage servicer shall attempt

to contact the borrower by telephone at least three times at different hours

93

9 Ch. 87

and on different days. Telephone calls shall be made to the primary telephone

number on file.

(B) A mortgage servicer may attempt to contact a borrower using an

automated system to dial borrowers, provided that, if the telephone call is

answered, the call is connected to a live representative of the mortgage

servicer.

(C) A mortgage servicer satisfies the telephone contact requirements of

this paragraph if it determines, after attempting contact pursuant to this

paragraph, that the borrower’s primary telephone number and secondary

telephone number or numbers on file, if any, have been disconnected.

(3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the telephone

call requirements of paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the mortgage servicer

shall then send a certified letter, with return receipt requested, that includes

the toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(4) The mortgage servicer shall provide a means for the borrower to

contact it in a timely manner, including a toll-free telephone number that

will provide access to a live representative during business hours.

(5) The mortgage servicer has posted a prominent link on the homepage

of its Internet Web site, if any, to the following information:

(A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to afford

their mortgage payments and who wish to avoid foreclosure, and instructions

to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore those options.

(B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be

prepared to present to the mortgage servicer when discussing options for

avoiding foreclosure.

(C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss

options for avoiding foreclosure with their mortgage servicer.

(D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a

HUD-certified housing counseling agency.

(g) This section shall not apply to entities described in subdivision (b)

of Section 2924.18.

(h) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(i) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and as

of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before

January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 7. Section 2923.6 of the Civil Code is amended to read:

2923.6. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that any duty that

mortgage servicers may have to maximize net present value under their

pooling and servicing agreements is owed to all parties in a loan pool, or to

all investors under a pooling and servicing agreement, not to any particular

party in the loan pool or investor under a pooling and servicing agreement,

and that a mortgage servicer acts in the best interests of all parties to the

loan pool or investors in the pooling and servicing agreement if it agrees to

or implements a loan modification or workout plan for which both of the

following apply:

93

Ch. 87 10

(1) The loan is in payment default, or payment default is reasonably

foreseeable.

(2) Anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout plan

exceeds the anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net present value

basis.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the mortgage servicer offer the

borrower a loan modification or workout plan if such a modification or plan

is consistent with its contractual or other authority.

(c) If a borrower submits a complete application for a first lien loan

modification offered by, or through, the borrower’s mortgage servicer, a

mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall

not record a notice of default or notice of sale, or conduct a trustee’s sale,

while the complete first lien loan modification application is pending. A

mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall

not record a notice of default or notice of sale or conduct a trustee’s sale

until any of the following occurs:

(1) The mortgage servicer makes a written determination that the borrower

is not eligible for a first lien loan modification, and any appeal period

pursuant to subdivision (d) has expired.

(2) The borrower does not accept an offered first lien loan modification

within 14 days of the offer.

(3) The borrower accepts a written first lien loan modification, but

defaults on, or otherwise breaches the borrower’s obligations under, the

first lien loan modification.

(d) If the borrower’s application for a first lien loan modification is

denied, the borrower shall have at least 30 days from the date of the written

denial to appeal the denial and to provide evidence that the mortgage

servicer’s determination was in error.

(e) If the borrower’s application for a first lien loan modification is

denied, the mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized

agent shall not record a notice of default or, if a notice of default has already

been recorded, record a notice of sale or conduct a trustee’s sale until the

later of:

(1) Thirty-one days after the borrower is notified in writing of the denial.

(2) If the borrower appeals the denial pursuant to subdivision (d), the

later of 15 days after the denial of the appeal or 14 days after a first lien

loan modification is offered after appeal but declined by the borrower, or,

if a first lien loan modification is offered and accepted after appeal, the date

on which the borrower fails to timely submit the first payment or otherwise

breaches the terms of the offer.

(f) Following the denial of a first lien loan modification application, the

mortgage servicer shall send a written notice to the borrower identifying

the reasons for denial, including the following:

(1) The amount of time from the date of the denial letter in which the

borrower may request an appeal of the denial of the first lien loan

modification and instructions regarding how to appeal the denial.

93

11 Ch. 87

(2) If the denial was based on investor disallowance, the specific reasons

for the investor disallowance.

(3) If the denial is the result of a net present value calculation, the monthly

gross income and property value used to calculate the net present value and

a statement that the borrower may obtain all of the inputs used in the net

present value calculation upon written request to the mortgage servicer.

(4) If applicable, a finding that the borrower was previously offered a

first lien loan modification and failed to successfully make payments under

the terms of the modified loan.

(5) If applicable, a description of other foreclosure prevention alternatives

for which the borrower may be eligible, and a list of the steps the borrower

must take in order to be considered for those options. If the mortgage servicer

has already approved the borrower for another foreclosure prevention

alternative, information necessary to complete the foreclosure prevention

alternative.

(g) In order to minimize the risk of borrowers submitting multiple

applications for first lien loan modifications for the purpose of delay, the

mortgage servicer shall not be obligated to evaluate applications from

borrowers who have already been evaluated or afforded a fair opportunity

to be evaluated for a first lien loan modification prior to January 1, 2013,

or who have been evaluated or afforded a fair opportunity to be evaluated

consistent with the requirements of this section, unless there has been a

material change in the borrower’s financial circumstances since the date of

the borrower’s previous application and that change is documented by the

borrower and submitted to the mortgage servicer.

(h) For purposes of this section, an application shall be deemed

“complete” when a borrower has supplied the mortgage servicer with all

documents required by the mortgage servicer within the reasonable

timeframes specified by the mortgage servicer.

(i) Subdivisions (c) to (h), inclusive, shall not apply to entities described

in subdivision (b) of Section 2924.18.

(j) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(k) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and

as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted

before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 8. Section 2923.6 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2923.6. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that any duty mortgage

servicers may have to maximize net present value under their pooling and

servicing agreements is owed to all parties in a loan pool, or to all investors

under a pooling and servicing agreement, not to any particular party in the

loan pool or investor under a pooling and servicing agreement, and that a

mortgage servicer acts in the best interests of all parties to the loan pool or

investors in the pooling and servicing agreement if it agrees to or implements

a loan modification or workout plan for which both of the following apply:

(1) The loan is in payment default, or payment default is reasonably

foreseeable.

93

Ch. 87 12

(2) Anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout plan

exceeds the anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net present value

basis.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the mortgage servicer offer the

borrower a loan modification or workout plan if such a modification or plan

is consistent with its contractual or other authority.

(c) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.

SEC. 9. Section 2923.7 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2923.7. (a) Upon request from a borrower who requests a foreclosure

prevention alternative, the mortgage servicer shall promptly establish a

single point of contact and provide to the borrower one or more direct means

of communication with the single point of contact.

(b) The single point of contact shall be responsible for doing all of the

following:

(1) Communicating the process by which a borrower may apply for an

available foreclosure prevention alternative and the deadline for any required

submissions to be considered for these options.

(2) Coordinating receipt of all documents associated with available

foreclosure prevention alternatives and notifying the borrower of any missing

documents necessary to complete the application.

(3) Having access to current information and personnel sufficient to

timely, accurately, and adequately inform the borrower of the current status

of the foreclosure prevention alternative.

(4) Ensuring that a borrower is considered for all foreclosure prevention

alternatives offered by, or through, the mortgage servicer, if any.

(5) Having access to individuals with the ability and authority to stop

foreclosure proceedings when necessary.

(c) The single point of contact shall remain assigned to the borrower’s

account until the mortgage servicer determines that all loss mitigation options

offered by, or through, the mortgage servicer have been exhausted or the

borrower’s account becomes current.

(d) The mortgage servicer shall ensure that a single point of contact refers

and transfers a borrower to an appropriate supervisor upon request of the

borrower, if the single point of contact has a supervisor.

(e) For purposes of this section, “single point of contact” means an

individual or team of personnel each of whom has the ability and authority

to perform the responsibilities described in subdivisions (b) to (d), inclusive.

The mortgage servicer shall ensure that each member of the team is

knowledgeable about the borrower’s situation and current status in the

alternatives to foreclosure process.

(f) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(g) (1) This section shall not apply to a depository institution chartered

under state or federal law, a person licensed pursuant to Division 9

(commencing with Section 22000) or Division 20 (commencing with Section

50000) of the Financial Code, or a person licensed pursuant to Part 1

(commencing with Section 10000) of Division 4 of the Business and

93

13 Ch. 87

Professions Code, that, during its immediately preceding annual reporting

period, as established with its primary regulator, foreclosed on 175 or fewer

residential real properties, containing no more than four dwelling units, that

are located in California.

(2) Within three months after the close of any calendar year or annual

reporting period as established with its primary regulator during which an

entity or person described in paragraph (1) exceeds the threshold of 175

specified in paragraph (1), that entity shall notify its primary regulator, in

a manner acceptable to its primary regulator, and any mortgagor or trustor

who is delinquent on a residential mortgage loan serviced by that entity of

the date on which that entity will be subject to this section, which date shall

be the first day of the first month that is six months after the close of the

calendar year or annual reporting period during which that entity exceeded

the threshold.

SEC. 10. Section 2924 of the Civil Code, as amended by Section 1 of

Chapter 180 of the Statutes of 2010, is amended to read:

2924. (a) Every transfer of an interest in property, other than in trust,

made only as a security for the performance of another act, is to be deemed

a mortgage, except when in the case of personal property it is accompanied

by actual change of possession, in which case it is to be deemed a pledge.

Where, by a mortgage created after July 27, 1917, of any estate in real

property, other than an estate at will or for years, less than two, or in any

transfer in trust made after July 27, 1917, of a like estate to secure the

performance of an obligation, a power of sale is conferred upon the

mortgagee, trustee, or any other person, to be exercised after a breach of

the obligation for which that mortgage or transfer is a security, the power

shall not be exercised except where the mortgage or transfer is made pursuant

to an order, judgment, or decree of a court of record, or to secure the payment

of bonds or other evidences of indebtedness authorized or permitted to be

issued by the Commissioner of Corporations, or is made by a public utility

subject to the provisions of the Public Utilities Act, until all of the following

apply:

(1) The trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their authorized

agents shall first file for record, in the office of the recorder of each county

wherein the mortgaged or trust property or some part or parcel thereof is

situated, a notice of default. That notice of default shall include all of the

following:

(A) A statement identifying the mortgage or deed of trust by stating the

name or names of the trustor or trustors and giving the book and page, or

instrument number, if applicable, where the mortgage or deed of trust is

recorded or a description of the mortgaged or trust property.

(B) A statement that a breach of the obligation for which the mortgage

or transfer in trust is security has occurred.

(C) A statement setting forth the nature of each breach actually known

to the beneficiary and of his or her election to sell or cause to be sold the

property to satisfy that obligation and any other obligation secured by the

deed of trust or mortgage that is in default.

93

Ch. 87 14

(D) If the default is curable pursuant to Section 2924c, the statement

specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2924c.

(2) Not less than three months shall elapse from the filing of the notice

of default.

(3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), after the lapse of the three months

described in paragraph (2), the mortgagee, trustee, or other person authorized

to take the sale shall give notice of sale, stating the time and place thereof,

in the manner and for a time not less than that set forth in Section 2924f.

(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the mortgagee, trustee, or other person

authorized to take sale may record a notice of sale pursuant to Section 2924f

up to five days before the lapse of the three-month period described in

paragraph (2), provided that the date of sale is no earlier than three months

and 20 days after the recording of the notice of default.

(5) Until January 1, 2018, whenever a sale is postponed for a period of

at least 10 business days pursuant to Section 2924g, a mortgagee, beneficiary,

or authorized agent shall provide written notice to a borrower regarding the

new sale date and time, within five business days following the

postponement. Information provided pursuant to this paragraph shall not

constitute the public declaration required by subdivision (d) of Section

2924g. Failure to comply with this paragraph shall not invalidate any sale

that would otherwise be valid under Section 2924f. This paragraph shall be

inoperative on January 1, 2018.

(6) No entity shall record or cause a notice of default to be recorded or

otherwise initiate the foreclosure process unless it is the holder of the

beneficial interest under the mortgage or deed of trust, the original trustee

or the substituted trustee under the deed of trust, or the designated agent of

the holder of the beneficial interest. No agent of the holder of the beneficial

interest under the mortgage or deed of trust, original trustee or substituted

trustee under the deed of trust may record a notice of default or otherwise

commence the foreclosure process except when acting within the scope of

authority designated by the holder of the beneficial interest.

(b) In performing acts required by this article, the trustee shall incur no

liability for any good faith error resulting from reliance on information

provided in good faith by the beneficiary regarding the nature and the amount

of the default under the secured obligation, deed of trust, or mortgage. In

performing the acts required by this article, a trustee shall not be subject to

Title 1.6c (commencing with Section 1788) of Part 4.

(c) A recital in the deed executed pursuant to the power of sale of

compliance with all requirements of law regarding the mailing of copies of

notices or the publication of a copy of the notice of default or the personal

delivery of the copy of the notice of default or the posting of copies of the

notice of sale or the publication of a copy thereof shall constitute prima

facie evidence of compliance with these requirements and conclusive

evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for

value and without notice.

(d) All of the following shall constitute privileged communications

pursuant to Section 47:

93

15 Ch. 87

(1) The mailing, publication, and delivery of notices as required by this

section.

(2) Performance of the procedures set forth in this article.

(3) Performance of the functions and procedures set forth in this article

if those functions and procedures are necessary to carry out the duties

described in Sections 729.040, 729.050, and 729.080 of the Code of Civil

Procedure.

(e) There is a rebuttable presumption that the beneficiary actually knew

of all unpaid loan payments on the obligation owed to the beneficiary and

secured by the deed of trust or mortgage subject to the notice of default.

However, the failure to include an actually known default shall not invalidate

the notice of sale and the beneficiary shall not be precluded from asserting

a claim to this omitted default or defaults in a separate notice of default.

SEC. 11. Section 2924 of the Civil Code, as amended by Section 2 of

Chapter 180 of the Statutes of 2010, is repealed.

SEC. 12. Section 2924.9 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.9. (a) Unless a borrower has previously exhausted the first lien

loan modification process offered by, or through, his or her mortgage servicer

described in Section 2923.6, within five business days after recording a

notice of default pursuant to Section 2924, a mortgage servicer that offers

one or more foreclosure prevention alternatives shall send a written

communication to the borrower that includes all of the following information:

(1) That the borrower may be evaluated for a foreclosure prevention

alternative or, if applicable, foreclosure prevention alternatives.

(2) Whether an application is required to be submitted by the borrower

in order to be considered for a foreclosure prevention alternative.

(3) The means and process by which a borrower may obtain an application

for a foreclosure prevention alternative.

(b) This section shall not apply to entities described in subdivision (b)

of Section 2924.18.

(c) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and

as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted

before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 13. Section 2924.10 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.10. (a) When a borrower submits a complete first lien modification

application or any document in connection with a first lien modification

application, the mortgage servicer shall provide written acknowledgment

of the receipt of the documentation within five business days of receipt. In

its initial acknowledgment of receipt of the loan modification application,

the mortgage servicer shall include the following information:

(1) A description of the loan modification process, including an estimate

of when a decision on the loan modification will be made after a complete

application has been submitted by the borrower and the length of time the

borrower will have to consider an offer of a loan modification or other

foreclosure prevention alternative.

93

Ch. 87 16

(2) Any deadlines, including deadlines to submit missing documentation,

that would affect the processing of a first lien loan modification application.

(3) Any expiration dates for submitted documents.

(4) Any deficiency in the borrower’s first lien loan modification

application.

(b) For purposes of this section, a borrower’s first lien loan modification

application shall be deemed to be “complete” when a borrower has supplied

the mortgage servicer with all documents required by the mortgage servicer

within the reasonable timeframes specified by the mortgage servicer.

(c) This section shall not apply to entities described in subdivision (b)

of Section 2924.18.

(d) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(e) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and

as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted

before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 14. Section 2924.11 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.11. (a) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing

prior to the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of default

under either of the following circumstances:

(1) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial or

permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

(2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing by

all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder,

and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has

been provided to the servicer.

(b) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing after

the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of sale or conduct

a trustee’s sale under either of the following circumstances:

(1) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial or

permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

(2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing by

all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder,

and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has

been provided to the servicer.

(c) When a borrower accepts an offered first lien loan modification or

other foreclosure prevention alternative, the mortgage servicer shall provide

the borrower with a copy of the fully executed loan modification agreement

or agreement evidencing the foreclosure prevention alternative following

receipt of the executed copy from the borrower.

(d) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall record a rescission

of a notice of default or cancel a pending trustee’s sale, if applicable, upon

the borrower executing a permanent foreclosure prevention alternative. In

the case of a short sale, the rescission or cancellation of the pending trustee’s

sale shall occur when the short sale has been approved by all parties and

93

17 Ch. 87

proof of funds or financing has been provided to the mortgagee, beneficiary,

or authorized agent.

(e) The mortgage servicer shall not charge any application, processing,

or other fee for a first lien loan modification or other foreclosure prevention

alternative.

(f) The mortgage servicer shall not collect any late fees for periods during

which a complete first lien loan modification application is under

consideration or a denial is being appealed, the borrower is making timely

modification payments, or a foreclosure prevention alternative is being

evaluated or exercised.

(g) If a borrower has been approved in writing for a first lien loan

modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative, and the servicing

of that borrower’s loan is transferred or sold to another mortgage servicer,

the subsequent mortgage servicer shall continue to honor any previously

approved first lien loan modification or other foreclosure prevention

alternative, in accordance with the provisions of the act that added this

section.

(h) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(i) This section shall not apply to entities described in subdivision (b) of

Section 2924.18.

(j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and as

of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before

January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 15. Section 2924.11 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.11. (a) If a borrower submits a complete application for a

foreclosure prevention alternative offered by, or through, the borrower’s

mortgage servicer, a mortgage servicer, trustee, mortgagee, beneficiary, or

authorized agent shall not record a notice of sale or conduct a trustee’s sale

while the complete foreclosure prevention alternative application is pending,

and until the borrower has been provided with a written determination by

the mortgage servicer regarding that borrower’s eligibility for the requested

foreclosure prevention alternative.

(b) Following the denial of a first lien loan modification application, the

mortgage servicer shall send a written notice to the borrower identifying

with specificity the reasons for the denial and shall include a statement that

the borrower may obtain additional documentation supporting the denial

decision upon written request to the mortgage servicer.

(c) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing prior to

the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of default under

either of the following circumstances:

(1) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial or

permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

(2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing by

all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder,

93

Ch. 87 18

and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has

been provided to the servicer.

(d) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing after

the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of sale or conduct

a trustee’s sale under either of the following circumstances:

(1) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial or

permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

(2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing by

all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder,

and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has

been provided to the servicer.

(e) This section applies only to mortgages or deeds of trust as described

in Section 2924.15.

(f) For purposes of this section, an application shall be deemed “complete”

when a borrower has supplied the mortgage servicer with all documents

required by the mortgage servicer within the reasonable timeframes specified

by the mortgage servicer.

(g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.

SEC. 16. Section 2924.12 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.12. (a) (1) If a trustee’s deed upon sale has not been recorded, a

borrower may bring an action for injunctive relief to enjoin a material

violation of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, or

2924.17.

(2) Any injunction shall remain in place and any trustee’s sale shall be

enjoined until the court determines that the mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has corrected and remedied the

violation or violations giving rise to the action for injunctive relief. An

enjoined entity may move to dissolve an injunction based on a showing that

the material violation has been corrected and remedied.

(b) After a trustee’s deed upon sale has been recorded, a mortgage

servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall be liable

to a borrower for actual economic damages pursuant to Section 3281,

resulting from a material violation of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7,

2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, or 2924.17 by that mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent where the violation was not corrected

and remedied prior to the recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale. If the

court finds that the material violation was intentional or reckless, or resulted

from willful misconduct by a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent, the court may award the borrower the

greater of treble actual damages or statutory damages of fifty thousand

dollars ($50,000).

(c) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized

agent shall not be liable for any violation that it has corrected and remedied

prior to the recordation of a trustee’s deed upon sale, or that has been

corrected and remedied by third parties working on its behalf prior to the

recordation of a trustee’s deed upon sale.

93

19 Ch. 87

(d) A violation of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10,

2924.11, or 2924.17 by a person licensed by the Department of Corporations,

Department of Financial Institutions, or Department of Real Estate shall be

deemed to be a violation of that person’s licensing law.

(e) No violation of this article shall affect the validity of a sale in favor

of a bona fide purchaser and any of its encumbrancers for value without

notice.

(f) A third-party encumbrancer shall not be relieved of liability resulting

from violations of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10,

2924.11, or 2924.17 committed by that third-party encumbrancer, that

occurred prior to the sale of the subject property to the bona fide purchaser.

(g) A signatory to a consent judgment entered in the case entitled United

States of America et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al., filed in the

United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case number

1:12-cv-00361 RMC, that is in compliance with the relevant terms of the

Settlement Term Sheet of that consent judgment with respect to the borrower

who brought an action pursuant to this section while the consent judgment

is in effect shall have no liability for a violation of Section 2923.55, 2923.6,

2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, or 2924.17.

(h) The rights, remedies, and procedures provided by this section are in

addition to and independent of any other rights, remedies, or procedures

under any other law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, limit,

or negate any other rights, remedies, or procedures provided by law.

(i) A court may award a prevailing borrower reasonable attorney’s fees

and costs in an action brought pursuant to this section. A borrower shall be

deemed to have prevailed for purposes of this subdivision if the borrower

obtained injunctive relief or was awarded damages pursuant to this section.

(j) This section shall not apply to entities described in subdivision (b) of

Section 2924.18.

(k) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and

as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted

before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 17. Section 2924.12 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.12. (a) (1) If a trustee’s deed upon sale has not been recorded, a

borrower may bring an action for injunctive relief to enjoin a material

violation of Section 2923.5, 2923.7, 2924.11, or 2924.17.

(2) Any injunction shall remain in place and any trustee’s sale shall be

enjoined until the court determines that the mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has corrected and remedied the

violation or violations giving rise to the action for injunctive relief. An

enjoined entity may move to dissolve an injunction based on a showing that

the material violation has been corrected and remedied.

(b) After a trustee’s deed upon sale has been recorded, a mortgage

servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall be liable

to a borrower for actual economic damages pursuant to Section 3281,

resulting from a material violation of Section 2923.5, 2923.7, 2924.11, or

2924.17 by that mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or

93

Ch. 87 20

authorized agent where the violation was not corrected and remedied prior

to the recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale. If the court finds that the

material violation was intentional or reckless, or resulted from willful

misconduct by a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or

authorized agent, the court may award the borrower the greater of treble

actual damages or statutory damages of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).

(c) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized

agent shall not be liable for any violation that it has corrected and remedied

prior to the recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale, or that has been

corrected and remedied by third parties working on its behalf prior to the

recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale.

(d) A violation of Section 2923.5, 2923.7, 2924.11, or 2924.17 by a

person licensed by the Department of Corporations, Department of Financial

Institutions, or Department of Real Estate shall be deemed to be a violation

of that person’s licensing law.

(e) No violation of this article shall affect the validity of a sale in favor

of a bona fide purchaser and any of its encumbrancers for value without

notice.

(f) A third-party encumbrancer shall not be relieved of liability resulting

from violations of Section 2923.5, 2923.7, 2924.11, or 2924.17 committed

by that third-party encumbrancer, that occurred prior to the sale of the subject

property to the bona fide purchaser.

(g) The rights, remedies, and procedures provided by this section are in

addition to and independent of any other rights, remedies, or procedures

under any other law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, limit,

or negate any other rights, remedies, or procedures provided by law.

(h) A court may award a prevailing borrower reasonable attorney’s fees

and costs in an action brought pursuant to this section. A borrower shall be

deemed to have prevailed for purposes of this subdivision if the borrower

obtained injunctive relief or was awarded damages pursuant to this section.

(i) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.

SEC. 18. Section 2924.15 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.15. (a) Unless otherwise provided, paragraph (5) of subdivision

(a) of Section 2924, and Sections 2923.5, 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9,

2924.10, 2924.11, and 2924.18 shall apply only to first lien mortgages or

deeds of trust that are secured by owner-occupied residential real property

containing no more than four dwelling units. For these purposes,

“owner-occupied” means that the property is the principal residence of the

borrower and is security for a loan made for personal, family, or household

purposes.

(b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and

as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted

before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 19. Section 2924.15 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.15. (a) Unless otherwise provided, Sections 2923.5, 2923.7, and

2924.11 shall apply only to first lien mortgages or deeds of trust that are

secured by owner-occupied residential real property containing no more

93

21 Ch. 87

than four dwelling units. For these purposes, “owner-occupied” means that

the property is the principal residence of the borrower and is security for a

loan made for personal, family, or household purposes.

(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.

SEC. 20. Section 2924.17 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.17. (a) A declaration recorded pursuant to Section 2923.5 or, until

January 1, 2018, pursuant to Section 2923.55, a notice of default, notice of

sale, assignment of a deed of trust, or substitution of trustee recorded by or

on behalf of a mortgage servicer in connection with a foreclosure subject

to the requirements of Section 2924, or a declaration or affidavit filed in

any court relative to a foreclosure proceeding shall be accurate and complete

and supported by competent and reliable evidence.

(b) Before recording or filing any of the documents described in

subdivision (a), a mortgage servicer shall ensure that it has reviewed

competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and

the right to foreclose, including the borrower’s loan status and loan

information.

(c) Until January 1, 2018, any mortgage servicer that engages in multiple

and repeated uncorrected violations of subdivision (b) in recording

documents or filing documents in any court relative to a foreclosure

proceeding shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to seven thousand five

hundred dollars ($7,500) per mortgage or deed of trust in an action brought

by a government entity identified in Section 17204 of the Business and

Professions Code, or in an administrative proceeding brought by the

Department of Corporations, the Department of Real Estate, or the

Department of Financial Institutions against a respective licensee, in addition

to any other remedies available to these entities. This subdivision shall be

inoperative on January 1, 2018.

SEC. 21. Section 2924.18 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.18. (a) (1) If a borrower submits a complete application for a first

lien loan modification offered by, or through, the borrower’s mortgage

servicer, a mortgage servicer, trustee, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized

agent shall not record a notice of default, notice of sale, or conduct a trustee’s

sale while the complete first lien loan modification application is pending,

and until the borrower has been provided with a written determination by

the mortgage servicer regarding that borrower’s eligibility for the requested

loan modification.

(2) If a foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing

prior to the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of default

under either of the following circumstances:

(A) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial or

permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

(B) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing

by all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder,

and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has

been provided to the servicer.

93

Ch. 87 22

(3) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing after

the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of sale or conduct

a trustee’s sale under either of the following circumstances:

(A) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written trial or

permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

(B) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing

by all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder,

and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has

been provided to the servicer.

(b) This section shall apply only to a depository institution chartered

under state or federal law, a person licensed pursuant to Division 9

(commencing with Section 22000) or Division 20 (commencing with Section

50000) of the Financial Code, or a person licensed pursuant to Part 1

(commencing with Section 10000) of Division 4 of the Business and

Professions Code, that, during its immediately preceding annual reporting

period, as established with its primary regulator, foreclosed on 175 or fewer

residential real properties, containing no more than four dwelling units, that

are located in California.

(c) Within three months after the close of any calendar year or annual

reporting period as established with its primary regulator during which an

entity or person described in subdivision (b) exceeds the threshold of 175

specified in subdivision (b), that entity shall notify its primary regulator, in

a manner acceptable to its primary regulator, and any mortgagor or trustor

who is delinquent on a residential mortgage loan serviced by that entity of

the date on which that entity will be subject to Sections 2923.55, 2923.6,

2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, and 2924.12, which date shall be the first

day of the first month that is six months after the close of the calendar year

or annual reporting period during which that entity exceeded the threshold.

(d) For purposes of this section, an application shall be deemed

“complete” when a borrower has supplied the mortgage servicer with all

documents required by the mortgage servicer within the reasonable

timeframes specified by the mortgage servicer.

(e) If a borrower has been approved in writing for a first lien loan

modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative, and the servicing

of the borrower’s loan is transferred or sold to another mortgage servicer,

the subsequent mortgage servicer shall continue to honor any previously

approved first lien loan modification or other foreclosure prevention

alternative, in accordance with the provisions of the act that added this

section.

(f) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust described

in Section 2924.15.

(g) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and

as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted

before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 22. Section 2924.19 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

93

23 Ch. 87

2924.19. (a) (1) If a trustee’s deed upon sale has not been recorded, a

borrower may bring an action for injunctive relief to enjoin a material

violation of Section 2923.5, 2924.17, or 2924.18.

(2) Any injunction shall remain in place and any trustee’s sale shall be

enjoined until the court determines that the mortgage servicer, mortgagee,

beneficiary, or authorized agent has corrected and remedied the violation

or violations giving rise to the action for injunctive relief. An enjoined entity

may move to dissolve an injunction based on a showing that the material

violation has been corrected and remedied.

(b) After a trustee’s deed upon sale has been recorded, a mortgage

servicer, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall be liable to a

borrower for actual economic damages pursuant to Section 3281, resulting

from a material violation of Section 2923.5, 2924.17, or 2924.18 by that

mortgage servicer, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent where the

violation was not corrected and remedied prior to the recordation of the

trustee’s deed upon sale. If the court finds that the material violation was

intentional or reckless, or resulted from willful misconduct by a mortgage

servicer, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent, the court may award

the borrower the greater of treble actual damages or statutory damages of

fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).

(c) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent

shall not be liable for any violation that it has corrected and remedied prior

to the recordation of the trustee’s deed upon sale, or that has been corrected

and remedied by third parties working on its behalf prior to the recordation

of the trustee’s deed upon sale.

(d) A violation of Section 2923.5, 2924.17, or 2917.18 by a person

licensed by the Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial

Institutions, or the Department of Real Estate shall be deemed to be a

violation of that person’s licensing law.

(e) No violation of this article shall affect the validity of a sale in favor

of a bona fide purchaser and any of its encumbrancers for value without

notice.

(f) A third-party encumbrancer shall not be relieved of liability resulting

from violations of Section 2923.5, 2924.17 or 2924.18, committed by that

third-party encumbrancer, that occurred prior to the sale of the subject

property to the bona fide purchaser.

(g) The rights, remedies, and procedures provided by this section are in

addition to and independent of any other rights, remedies, or procedures

under any other law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, limit,

or negate any other rights, remedies, or procedures provided by law.

(h) A court may award a prevailing borrower reasonable attorney’s fees

and costs in an action brought pursuant to this section. A borrower shall be

deemed to have prevailed for purposes of this subdivision if the borrower

obtained injunctive relief or damages pursuant to this section.

(i) This section shall apply only to entities described in subdivision (b)

of Section 2924.18.

93

Ch. 87 24

(j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and as

of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before

January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.

SEC. 23. Section 2924.20 is added to the Civil Code, to read:

2924.20. Consistent with their general regulatory authority, and

notwithstanding subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 2924.18, the Department

of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department

of Real Estate may adopt regulations applicable to any entity or person

under their respective jurisdictions that are necessary to carry out the

purposes of the act that added this section. A violation of the regulations

adopted pursuant to this section shall only be enforceable by the regulatory

agency.

SEC. 24. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of

this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other

provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid

provision or application.

SEC. 25. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section

6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that

may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because

this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction,

or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of

Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime

within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California

Constitution.

O

93

Watchdog Report: Foreclosure Review Scrapped On Eve Of Critical, Congressman Says

Image

Posted: 12/31/2012 3:53 pm EST  |  Updated: 12/31/2012 4:08 pm EST

Foreclosure Review
242
5
103
211
Get Business Alerts:

The surprising decision by regulators to scrap a massive and expensive foreclosure review program in favor of a $10 billion settlement with 14 banks — reported by The New York Times Sunday night — came after a year of mounting concerns about the independence and effectiveness of the controversial program.

The program, known as the Independent Foreclosure Review, was supposed to give homeowners who believe that their bank made a mistake in handling their foreclosure an opportunity for a neutral third party to review the claim. It’s not clear what factors led banking regulators to abandon the program in favor of a settlement, but the final straw may have been a pending report by the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, which was investigating the review program.

Rep. Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat, told The Huffington Post that the report, which has not been released, was “critical” and that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which administers the review, was aware of its findings. Miller said that that one problem the GAO was likely to highlight was an “unacceptably high” error rate of 11 percent in a sampling of bank loan files.

The sample files were chosen at random by the banks from their broader pool of foreclosed homeowners, who had not necessarily applied for relief. The data suggests that of the 4 million families who lost their homes to foreclosure since the housing crash, more than 400,000 had some bank-caused problem in their loan file. It also suggests that many thousands of those who could have applied for relief didn’t — because they weren’t aware of the review, or weren’t aware that their bank had made a mistake. Some of these mistakes pushed homeowners into foreclosure who otherwise could have afforded to keep their homes.

Miller said the news that a settlement to replace the review was in the works caught him by surprise, and stressed that he had no way of knowing whether the impending GAO report had triggered the decision.

It’s not clear what will happen to the 250,000 homeowners who have already applied to the Independent Foreclosure Review for relief. The Times, citing people familiar with the negotiations, said that a deal between the banks and banking regulators, led by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, could be reached by the end of the week. It wasn’t clear how that money would be distributed or how many current and former homeowners who lost their homes to foreclosure — or who were hit with an unnecessary fee — might qualify.

Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for the OCC, which administers the program, declined to comment on the Times’ story. Hubbard told HuffPost, “The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is committed to ensuring the Independent Foreclosure Review proceeds efficiently and to ensuring harmed borrowers are compensated as quickly as possible.”

Since the housing market crashed in 2007, thousands of foreclosed homeowners have complained that their mortgage company made a mistake in the management of their home loan, such as foreclosing on someone making payments on a loan modification plan. The Independent Foreclosure Review emerged from a legal agreement in April 2011 between 14 mortgage companies and bank regulators over these abusive “servicing” practices. It was supposed to give homeowners an opportunity to have an unbiased third party review their foreclosure and determine whether they might qualify for a cash payout of up to $125,000.

The initial response was tepid, at best. Homeowners and advocates complained that the application forms were confusing and that information about what type of compensation they might get was missing. Some told HuffPost that they were so disillusioned by the federal government’s anemic response to widely reported bank errors that they weren’t going to bother to apply.

In one instance, Daniel Casper, an Illinois wedding videographer, applied to the program in January after years of combat with Bank of America over his home loan. As The Huffington Post reported in October, he was initially rejected, because, according to the bank, his mortgage was not in the foreclosure process during the eligible review period. Promontory Financial Group, which Bank of America hired to review his loan, apparently did not double check Bank of America’s analysis against the extensive documentation that Chase submitted. That documentation clearly showed that his loan was eligible for review.

In recent months ProPublica, an investigative nonprofit, has issued a series of damning articles about the Independent Foreclosure Review. The most recent found that supposedly independent third-party reviewers looking over Bank of America loan files were given the “correct” answers in advance by the bank. These reviewers could override the answers, but they weren’t starting from a blank slate.

Banks, if they did not find a “compensable error,” did not have to pay anything, giving them a strong incentive to find no flaws with their own work.

“It was flawed from the start,” Miller said of the review program. “There was an inherent conflict of interest by just about everyone involved.”

Also on HuffPost:

Related News On Huffington Post:

Bank Of America Supplied Answers For ‘Independent’ Foreclosure Reviewers

ProPublica: The Independent Foreclosure Review is the government’s main effort to compensate homeowners for harm they suffered at the hands of banks — and, as…

Central Valley Foreclosures: Few Homeowners Taking Advantage Of Reviews

MODESTO — Nearly 50,000 Northern San Joaquin Valley homeowners potentially may be owed compensation for financial losses they incurred because of errors made during foreclosure…

Foreclosure-Prevention Roadshow Still Drawing Crowds Indicating Not All Is Well In The Housing Market

* NACA has hosted more than 100 events to assist homeowners * Group plays middleman between borrowers and banks * Foreclosures down from last year,…

Rebecca Mairone, BofA Exec Who Allegedly Enabled Fraud, Now Head Of JPMorgan Chase Foreclosure Review

by Paul Kiel ProPublica, Nov. 9, 2012, 1:18 p.m. An executive who the Justice Department says facilitated a scheme to defraud Fannie Mae and…

“Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007” has been extended!

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 1:47 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: "Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007" has been extended!

“American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012’’

Extends

"Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007"

H. R. 8 passed at 2:07am Eastern time on January 1, 2013. Since this wasn’t passed before midnight it retroactively extends the "Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007." The extension is through midnight December 31, 2013. The vote was 89 – 8.

I have attached a copy of H.R. 8 for you.

Here is the pertinent language from H.R. 8:

"TITLE II—INDIVIDUAL TAX EXTENDERS

SEC. 202. EXTENSION OF EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF DISCHARGE OF QUALIFIED PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE INDEBTEDNESS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section 108(a)(1) is amended by striking ‘‘January 1, 2013’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2014’’.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section shall apply to indebtedness discharged after December 31, 2012."

2013-01-01, American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.pdf

Weekly legal newsletter has arrived

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@ldapro.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:44 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Weekly legal newsletter has arrived

The topic of the newsletter this week is a brief discussion of some of the issues involved for a party filing a motion to dismiss an adversary complaint for fraud filed against them in United States Bankruptcy Court on the grounds that the adversary complaint fails to state a claim.

This type of motion is often called a 12(b)(6) motion as it is based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure § 12(b)(6) (FRCP), or Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure § 7012(b)(6) (FRBP. A party may also request in the alternative, that the party be required to provide a more definite statement under FRCP § 12(e) or FRBP § 7012(e).

FRCP and FRBP §§12 (e) states in pertinent part that, “A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired”.

The motion for a more definite statement may be joined with the motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP and FRBP §§ 12(g).

Many adversary complaints filed in bankruptcy courts are made under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) on the grounds of fraudulent representations. Note that FRCP 9(b) states in pertinent part that, “In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake”. This is a federally imposed requirement. although the Court will examine state law to determine if the elements of fraud have been sufficiently alleged.

“It is established law, in this circuit and elsewhere, that Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement applies to state-law causes of action. "While a federal court will examine state law to determine whether the elements of fraud have been pled sufficiently to state a cause of action, the Rule 9(b) requirement that the circumstances of the fraud must be stated with particularity is a federally imposed rule." Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. 317 F. 3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted).

The reason for the particularity requirement is due to the fact that fraud is a serious charge against another party.

As the author works on cases from Southern California, the great majority of the cases he works on are in the Central District of California and any fraud claims would most likely be a California cause of action.

California law requires that four (4) elements be specifically pleaded in any cause of action for fraud.

“A complaint for fraud must allege the following elements: (1) a knowingly false representation by the defendant; (2) an intent to deceive or induce reliance; (3) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and (4) resulting damages. Every element must be specifically pleaded.” Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1816 (1996).

Whatever form it takes, injury or damage from fraud must not only be distinctly alleged but its causal connection with reliance on representations must be shown…. In order to recover for fraud, as in any other tort, the plaintiff must plead and prove the detriment proximately caused by the defendant’s tortious conduct. Deception without resulting loss is not actionable fraud. Whatever form it takes, the injury or damage must not only be distinctly alleged but its causal connection with the reliance on the representations must be shown. Service by Medallion, Inc.,

44 Cal.App.4th 1807, supra at 1818.

And in California, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 338(d) there is a three-year statute of limitations for an action for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake. The cause of action is not deemed to have accrued until the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.

An action based on fraud may be brought more than three years after the fraud occurred if the plaintiff shows not only that he did not discover the facts but he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered them within that time. The complaint must set forth specifically (1) the facts of the time and manner of discovery; and (2) the circumstances which excuse the failure to have made an earlier discovery. Olson v. County of Sacramento 274 Cal.App 2d 316, 327 (1969) (internal citations omitted).

While leave to amend is usually granted if a motion to dismiss is successful, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that leave to amend does not need to be granted where amending the complaint would be futile, and that any discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended their complaint.

“Leave need not be granted where the amendment of the complaint . . . constitutes an exercise in futility," and "the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint." Ascon Properties v. Mobil Oil Co. 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989).

A motion to dismiss and/or a motion for a more definite statement are very useful when used in the right situation as many adversary complaints for fraud are filed but fail to allege the fraud with particularity, or they are so vague and ambiguous that the defendant cannot reasonably prepare a proper response.

In the author’s experience filing a motion to dismiss can be particularly useful when it is obvious that plaintiff has a weak case. This will force plaintiff to seek leave to amend. Once plaintiff has previously amended their adversary complaint some judges will deny leave to amend where the moving party can show that amendment would be futile as plaintiff cannot state a cause of action for fraud.

Copyright 2012 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this newsletter, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this newsletter is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

These materials and information contained in this newsletter have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this newsletter is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the sender and receiver. Subscribers and any other readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

MERS Assignments-AWL/BofA et al.

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 5:55 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: MERS Assignments-AWL/BofA et al.

Do you know of authority (particularly if from MERS themselves) showing MERS cannot assign a Note or DOT for a non-MERS member? I’ve looked for something many times but never finish my research being interrupted by something else so I never remember where I was and what I found (or didn’t…maybe that’s the problem.)

America’s Wholesale Lender was never a MERS member. Countrywide Bank , FSB is/was as a purported “investor” (address in Alexandria, VA) but I see no listing of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. nor Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. dba America’s Wholesale Lender as a member either. Neither is Bank of America Corporation by the way, the supposed assigned owner of the Service Mark America’s Wholesale Lender (assigned in 2008, Recorded January 2009). I also find it interesting that MERS has so many designations for Bank of America (when BofA mixes and matches names and typestyles to suit their needs and confuse courts all over the Country) (By the way, how is Bank of America, National Association different than Bank of America, N.A. and with different addresses I might add…only so far, distinguished differently on MERS site.):

Please Select A Company Below:

Bank of America Warehouse Lender
Bank of America, N.A.
Bank of America, National Association
Bank of America, National Association as Trustee
Bank of America.
Bank of American Fork
Back To Member Search

USPTO Assignments on the Web AWL Transfer from CWHL to BofA.pdf

Fraudulent “Independent” Foreclosure Reviews – It Didn’t Pass the Smell Test From The Start

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 6:32 AM
Cc: ‘AAli Mohammad’; ‘Alison Marlow’; ‘Andrew Cameron Bailey’; ‘Anita Carr’; ‘Ann Castro’; ‘Antonia Woghiren’; ‘Art Fleming’; ‘Barbara Gilbert’; ‘Barbara Griswold’; ‘Barbara Hart’; ‘Barbara Webb’; ‘Beth Findsen’; ‘Bill Paatalo’; ‘Bob Lund’; ‘Brent Hunsberger’; ‘Brian Davies’; ‘Brian Longley’; ‘Bruce Kamperman’; ‘Carl Cox’; ‘Carol Molloy’; ‘Carson Pay’; ‘Catherine King’; ‘CFOmkin’; ‘Charles Koppa’; ‘Chris Ebling’; ‘Chris Gardas’; ‘Chris McLaughlin’; ‘Christian Kluge’; ‘Christie Baca’; ‘Christopher Thompson’; ‘Claude bennett’; ‘Clayton’; ‘Clint Allen’; ‘Colin Davis’; ‘Colin Doyle’; ‘Constance Anne Dudley’; ‘Dan Hanecak’; Dan McCauley; ‘Daniel Edstrom’; ‘Darrell Blomberg’; ‘Dave Mowett’; ‘David Fahrny’; ‘David Silber’; ‘David Slayter’; ‘Deby Morrow’; ‘Denny Armstrong’; ‘Derrick Barnett’; ‘Don Klug’; ‘Don Loeb’; ‘Doug Gillies’; ‘Ed Peckham’; ‘Ellen Brown’; ‘Felix Trejo’; ‘Frank DeCarlo’; ‘Gail Williamson’; ‘Gary Silverman’; ‘George Bye’; ‘George Christian’; ‘George Daniel’; ‘Gerald Gandrup’; ‘Grace Adams’; ‘Harry Paez’; ‘Iris Lansdown’; ‘Jake Naumer’; ‘James Chappell’; ‘James Stout’; ‘Jean’; Jeffrey Cancilla; ‘Jeffrey Olson’; ‘Jim Curtis’; ‘Joanne Kopp’; ‘Joe Caracciolo’; ‘John Dunn’; ‘John St. Claire’; ‘Jon Lindeman’; ‘Joseph La Costa’; ‘Josiah Morgan’; ‘Judy Hoffman’; ‘Judy Moore’; ‘Kartika Ingram’; ‘Kathie Lustig’; Kaye DeVito; ‘Ken Johnson’; ‘Kerry Hurd’; ‘Kimberly Cromwell’; ‘Lee Ann Hildhal’; ‘Leon Miles’; ‘Linda Hamilton’; ‘Linda Howarth’; ‘Lizette Espinosa’; ‘Luis Reyes’; ‘Lynette Rhodes’; ‘Marc Findsen’; ‘Marilyn Yee’; ‘Mario Marsden’; ‘Mark Didak’; ‘Marla Buchwald’; ‘Marshall Foxworthy’; ‘Matt Cee’; ‘Matt Crehan’; mdgattorney@gmail.com; ‘Michael Moore’; Michelle Constantini; ‘Neil Garfield’; ‘Norm Redhead’; ‘Oktay Senvar’; ‘Patrick Hutchinson’; ‘Patti Lyles’; ‘Peter Coleman’; ‘Phil Johnson’; ‘Phyllis Harb’; ‘Precy Haw’; ‘Rami Nabi’; ‘Ramirez’; ‘Ramon Fuentes’; ‘Reinhold Sommerstedt’; ‘Rich Billin’; ‘Richard Hall’; ‘Richard Hubbard’; ‘Robert Bows’; ‘Robert Kincaid’; ‘Rod Ciferri’; ‘Ron Freshman’; ‘Ronda Edgar’; ‘Satish Shetty’; ‘Scottie Johnson’; ‘Shai Benmoshe’; ‘Sheri Deterling’; ‘Simona’; ‘Stan Thompson’; ‘Stephen Agar’; ‘Steve Campbell’; ‘Steve Foos’; ‘Steve Skidmore’; ‘Susan Lange’; ‘Suzanne Clements’; ‘Tim Fong’; ‘Tim McCandless’; ‘Valerie Lopez’; ‘Vermont Trotter’; ‘Vince Nguyen-NLG’; ‘Vinluan Manny’; ‘Will Doherty’; ‘William Ball’
Subject: Fraudulent "Independent" Foreclosure Reviews – It Didn’t Pass the Smell Test From The Start

From Naked Capitalism:

OCC Foreclosure Reviewer: “Independent” Reviews Were Controlled by Banks, Which Suppressed Any Findings of Harm to Foreclosed Homeowners

You simply must read this post if you care at all about the rule of law or can stand to see the gory mechanisms by which “regulation” has now become a fig leaf for criminal corporate conduct.

Reader Luxtexente submitted this comment yesterday, describing his experience as a Claim Reviewer for one of the 14 servicers, in theory working under the direction of Promontory Group and the OCC. He makes clear, contrary to other banks, which hired very junior people who had little understanding of real estate law and foreclosure procedures (see Adam Levitin and Abigail Field for examples) or foreclosure review firms who held themselves out as experts but have yawning gaps in their knowledge, that he and many of the other reviewers he worked with were very well qualified to screen servicer records. He describes how these reviews were systematically gutted.

Remember, the review firms were supposed to be independent, selected according to criteria set by the OCC and paid for by the banks, but supposedly not accountable to them. We had dismissed that idea early on as ridiculous. From a May 2011 post:

Let’s see…who chose these reviewers? The banks. Who is paying their bills? The banks. Who is a potential future client if all goes smoothly? The banks. And Walsh seriously expects us to believe the reviewers are independent, even before we get to the rampant conflicts?

But as Luxtexente tells us, it was much worse than that. It wasn’t simply that the consulting firms airbrushed out unflattering findings so as not to ruffle their current and hoped-for future meal tickets. The banks were actively involved in overseeing the project and the results were shameless rejection of any and every possible basis for borrowers getting recompense. He provides numerous examples of unquestionably abusive conduct, such as foreclosing on homeowners in non-judicial states without advertising the notice of sale as required by law, or failing to send a notice of acceleration. Enough of the reviewers understood state law requirements that they would find many, often over a dozen, violations on a single file. So how did the bank and the OCC conspire to solve this problem? They redefined the review process so as to omit matters of law. I am not making this up.

This is what corruption looks like at the operational level. I suggest you read this piece closely; it’s chock full of damning tidbits. For instance, Luxtexente gives us one reason why the cost of this process got to be so high: he and his colleagues were being paid early on to do nothing.

From Luxtexente:

It is a first time one of a kind project. In theory those of us who joined were actually going to make a major financial debacle right again. We were going to examine 1.8 million mortgage foreclosures for technical error, misrepresentations, fraud, and failure to comply with Federal and state foreclosure laws or procedures.

Many of us are older and have been in the mortgage business in one way or another for 20 plus years. We came from every walk of the industry including Foreclosure Law Firms. So we should all have been skeptical, but the way we were selected for the job set aside our skepticism, we were hopeful that we might fix, at least for some people, this horrendous mortgage debacle all of us saw unfold for almost a decade.

I often refused to sign off on loans because of the complete lack of sense they made. I constantly warned superiors of the tremendous risk we ran by accepting Appraisals on properties that accelerated at 25, 30, and 50% annually or even semi-annually.

My wife ran a small mortgage business and she refused to sell the option payment arms, and the interest only 1.25% teaser rates that produced negative amortization. She would not and did not sell the ever increasing products that lacked any of the traditional restraints on credit risk, ability to pay and property review. She only sold the standard fixed rate and term products and warned hundreds of clients and potential clients of the dangers of what they were trying to do. Most would not listen. Some did. We slept at night when the debacle came crashing down.

However, this 25 billion dollar settlement with the banks seemed like a way to help fix the mess the Government, Banks, Realtors, and Appraisers got us into. Yes, some of it was just plain ignorance and greed on the part of consumers, but it was also sold as the American Dream, the chance of a life time to get ahead, to make a better life for our children, to achieve financial freedom, educate our children at schools we couldn’t even consider before this. It was a sold as a chance to move up to better, bigger, safer neighborhoods. It was sold as the chance of a lifetime. Many of us in the industry knew better, we tried to warn clients, bosses, banks, lenders, but who listens to the peons in the chairs drawing a paycheck.

This 25 billion dollar settlement seemed like the chance to help make it right. The head hunters called us by the hundreds and thousands. It was going to be a program where people with our skills in underwriting, processing, title work, insurance, bankruptcy, foreclosure law, and credit counseling could help right this sinking Titanic. We were told we can make a difference and help make things right for millions of people, and it paid well.

I was with the second wave of “recruits”. I was impressed. In a training class of 70 people at the bank I was to work with most of us were underwriters and processors with a smattering of actual Bar registered lawyers. The amount of mortgage and foreclosure knowledge was tremendous. From what I could see and hear, it seemed we could fix this debacle pretty quick. Across the country and with the 14 major banks and lenders involved there would be thousands of us, all with years of experience and a determination to make this right. Our instructors were from the banks and lenders.

I didn’t like that idea. I had originally thought that I would be instructed on procedures and goals by a third party entity called Promontory and or the government agency OCC. That did not happen. However, the training was interesting, and seemed straight forward, review the file, find the problems, and report them so they could be fixed. The goal, make wronged borrowers whole again as nearly as possible or so we thought.

After the training we arrived on the “floor” to begin a more in-depth training. We learned at that point that there was nothing ready for us to work on, but this nothing paid well, we could wait. Things did progress though, and our review procedures began to develop. We began in January, by April there were 500 of us at the location I was in and it was projected to reach 750 by June. Forty of us were actually reviewing files.

This is where we began to see the sham of the project. By the time I began reviewing files there were on 57000 files to review. The trigger for a review was that a borrower had to file a written complaint with the OCC. The problem with getting people to write a complaint was that all the advertising was direct mail to their homes and only to people that had been foreclosed on between January 2009 and December 2010. At a meeting involving the entire staff across the country (by phone) the question was asked “why just direct mail”, the answer, “TV, Radio and Print Media would attract too many of the wrong people and the banks and lenders didn’t want that.” When it was mentioned that it was two to three years after the borrower had been evicted we were told that “they should have put in a forwarding address with us”. I was dumbfounded, how could they expect people who lost everything to the bank to keep updating their addresses with the bank? It made no sense. But we kept plugging away at our task knowing now the battle was going to be tougher than we thought.

There was another issue. We were supposedly independent contractors, but we worked directly under bank and lenders authority and supervision. Any findings we made were quality controlled by the bank. Any findings we made came directly under the scrutiny of the bank. Any arguments over our findings, and whether they should be changed or not could and often did result in termination from the program without cause or warning and we had no recourse because we were contractors.

Other issues began to come up. Many of the tests and procedures we used to test a particular loan for harm to the borrower were State Specific in regard to the foreclosure laws of that State. As we began to delve into the files we found sometimes a dozen or more violations of the foreclosure laws with a specific file. The situation was becoming heated as Claim Reviewers (as we were called) began finding more and more issues of law, not to mention, incompetence, and immorality and poor judgment. Often times it was just a lack of communications between departments within the bank that caused the problem. None the less, there were tensions building between Claim Reviewers and bank managers as the list of harm on borrowers grew. However, the bank and the OCC did find a solution. Take the questions out of the tests we were doing that asked about issues of law. So one test that had 2200 investigative questions (there are about a dozen tests for a file review) now became about 550 questions. Issues of law were removed. At another of our group meetings we were told that if a borrower did not specifically cite the law or statute that was violated in their complaint that we were not to address a violation of law found in the file as it was now irrelevant to the issues at hand. When the questions was asked “how is a borrower going to know if a specific law or statute was violated since they are not trained in the law” the answer was that we only address what the borrower specifically complained about. The problem was that usually a borrower only had a feeling they got shafted somehow, but did not specifically know how. The complaint form also didn’t mention to the borrower that they had to be specific about issues of law. The form only asked generic questions about what happened. Now it was very evident that we were there as window dressing and not the compassionate heroes we thought we were.

Those were only the general issues that were causing friction. The sham was becoming more and more evident in the details. Some of the details involve foreclosure timelines, missing documents, misapplied funds, multiple modifications and similar programs at one time, it was amazing.

For example, in one case I reviewed the borrower paid approximately 25K to reinstate his mortgage. Then he began to make his mortgage payments as agreed. Each time he made a payment the payment was sent back stating he had to be current for the bank to accept a payment. He made three payments and each time the response was the same. Each time he wrote and called stating he had sent in the $25K to reinstate the loan and had the canceled check to prove it. After several months the bank realized that they had put the 25K in the wrong account. At that time that notified him that they were crediting his account, but because of the delay in receiving the reinstatement funds into the proper account he owed them more interest on the monies, late fees for the payments that had been returned and not credited and he was again in default for failing to continue making his payment. The bank foreclosed when he refused to pay additional interest and late fees for the banks error. I was told that I shouldn’t show that as harm because he did quit making his payments. I refused to do that.

There was another instance when there was no evidence that the bank had properly published the notice of sale in the newspaper as required by law. The argument the bank made when it was listed as harm to the borrower was “here is the foreclosure sale deed, obviously we followed proper procedure, and you should change your answer as to harm.”

Often there is no evidence of a borrower being sent a proper notice of intent to accelerate the mortgage. When these issues are noted in a file we are told to ignore them and transfer those files to a “special team” set up to handle that kind of situation. You choose whatever meaning you like for that scenario.

As far as modifications and forbearance go, I saw multiple cases in which a borrower would be given a forbearance agreement. It would be signed and properly executed and before the borrower could make the first payment the borrower would be offered a trial modification. Before that payment was due the borrower would be offered a permanent modification, but because there was already a forbearance and a trial modification offered and in place the borrower would be told that he/she must cancel the other offers in writing. Once that was done the modification offered would be denied for lack of performance on the other programs offered and then further assistance would be denied because of the borrower turning down assistance on the other programs. Then the argument was that we shouldn’t say the borrower was harmed financially because he turned down the help offered.

Time after time scenarios would go something like this. The borrower would call in and ask for help with a modification. Usually they called or were referred to the collections department. The bank employee would tell the borrower that in order to receive help they must bring the mortgage current. The borrower would send the money in, usually to the bank collection agent who gave the information and then the modification department would deny the borrower assistance because the mortgage was current and they had to be behind to receive assistance. Of course the bank argued that there was no harm because the borrower obviously could make the payment.

More often than not a borrower would be foreclosed on even though the bank had said they could apply for a modification if they would send in the financial paperwork required. The borrower would do this, 2, 3,4,5,6 or more times and the bank would “loose” the paperwork time and time again, until the house was finally foreclosed on. The borrowers would call, write, and call immediately after faxing the paperwork, be told it was received only to be denied later because they failed to send in any paperwork. The banks argument was that there was no harm to the borrower because they didn’t send in the paperwork, even though more often than not with a little searching the paperwork would be found in the system somewhere.

Often the paperwork would be sent in and not reviewed for four, five or six months and then the borrower would be sent a letter requesting they send it again because everything the bank had was too old to use. Many times this was done even after the home was already sold at foreclosure. The argument by the bank was no harm was done because they did not send the paperwork again.

The bottom line, agree or be fired. When the independent contractors who are there to independently judge the situation are ruled and judged by the very people that are responsible for the debacle in the first place is ludicrous. So many times I was told to not argue because I could be let go without notice or cause, it was difficult to hold my tongue. Most people would change the results and simply make notes in the system about being ordered by management to make the changes. But the banks and lenders control the notes. Others left the position. I actually thought there was hope when the OCC took the decision about financial harm to the borrower away from the banks and lenders and gave it to Promontory. It was called the H test. But that was short lived when we were told the banks and lenders were being allowed to form review teams to determine if Promontory made the right decision about financial harm. That was decided by the OCC. The joke is on the American people. Actually, the American people are being made the punch line.

Source: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/occ-foreclosure-file-reviewer-independent-reviews-were-controlled-by-banks-which-suppressed-any-findings-of-harm-to-foreclosed-homeowner.html

Ruling Against Bank In Mortgage Modification Suit

Judge Rules Against Bank In Mortgage Modification Suit

Shah Gilani Shah Gilani, Contributor
Half million dollar house in Salinas, Californ...Image via Wikipedia

A recent ruling by a California appeals court clears the way for fraud charges against a lender that promised a loan modification but then foreclosed on the borrower.

The ruling throws into question the legality of hundreds of thousands of foreclosures.

Not only was the ruling a frontal assault on the empty promises made by servicers and banks, the case highlighted some despicable tactics often employed to force foreclosures.

Claudia Aceves, who originally sued U.S. Bank, NA in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, had taken out an $845,000 mortgage with Option One Mortgage Corporation. Option One later assigned the loan over to U.S. Bank.

The interest on Aceves’ adjustable rate note ratcheted up two years after it was entered into. By January 2008 she was falling behind on her payments. Shortly after March 26, 2008 when the loan’s servicer recorded a “Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust,” Aceves filed for bankruptcy protection under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The bankruptcy filing imposed an automatic stay on the foreclosure proceedings.

After being offered financial help from her husband, Aceves converted her bankruptcy case from a chapter 7 to a chapter 13 case. Chapter 7, entitled “Liquidation,” would allow Aceves to discharge her debt on the home but not allow her to keep it. Chapter 13, entitled “Adjustment of Debts of an Individual with Regular Income,” has protections for homeowners that allows them to reinstate loan payments, pay arrearages, avoid foreclosure and keep their home.

U.S. Bank, upon learning of the original bankruptcy filing, filed a motion to lift the stay in order to execute a nonjudicial foreclosure and take the house back.

What happens next is indicative of the underhandedness of many servicers and banks.

Aceves’ bankruptcy attorney gets a letter from counsel to the loan’s servicer (American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.) that asks for permission to talk directly to Aceves to “explore Loss Mitigation possibilities.”  Aceves calls the servicer’s attorney because she wants a loan modification, which they are promising. But they tell her they can’t do anything or talk to her until their motion to lift the bankruptcy stay is granted.

So, Aceves doesn’t oppose the motion to lift the stay and further decides not to file the chapter 13 bankruptcy. All in the hopes that a modification would be negotiated.

On December 4, 2008 the stay is lifted. And, unbeknownst to Aceves, on December 9, 2008 U.S. Bank schedules the home for public auction one month later on January 9, 2009.

On December 10, 2008 Aceves sends in documents to American Home aiming to modify and reinstate the loan. Then on December 23, 2008 the servicer tells Aceves a “negotiator” will contact her on or before January 13, 2009.

Too bad for Aceves January 13, 2009 is going to be four days after her home is sold at auction. Which it is, with none other than U.S. Bank as the buyer.

But just to cover its promise to modify the loan, one day before the home is to be sold at auction the negotiator for American Home presents a unilateral offer to raise the loan balance from the original $845,000 to $965,926.22 and make the new monthly payments $7,200 as opposed to the original monthly payment amount of $4,857.09.

Aceves told them where to go.

She lost her home and sued. She lost when the Superior Court found that the defendants had met their obligations. The three-judge panel Appeals Court disagreed in its January 27, 2010 ruling.

The crux of the ruling, which in part relied on a decision in a previous case (Garcia v. World Savings, FSB) determined that “To be enforceable, a promise need only be ”’definite enough that a court can determine the scope of the duty.”’

Further illuminating its stance the Court said the point is, “simply whether U.S. Bank made and kept a promise to negotiate with Aceves, not whether the bank promised to make a loan, or more precisely, to modify a loan” is what matters.

As far as the servicer’s offer of a modification, the Appeals Court found that the promise to negotiate is “not based on a promise to make a unilateral offer but on a promise to negotiate in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable loan modification.”

With all the unkept promises by banks and servicers to negotiate loan modifications that were never entertained, new litigation on top of all the foreclosure cases already being pursued is bound to cloud the future of real estate for the foreseeable future.

Tax Break for Mortgage Forgiveness Set to Expire on December 31, 2012

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 6:02 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Tax Break for Mortgage Forgiveness Set to Expire on December 31, 2012

Tax Break for Mortgage Forgiveness Set to Expire on December 31, 2012

by Jonathan Ginsberg, Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Unless Congress acts, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 will expire on December 31, 2012.

What is this law, you may ask. Stated simply the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act waives any tax due on debt forgiveness if you are able to negotiate a mortgage modification. Without this waiver, any amount of forgiven debt will be treated as ordinary income and taxed accordingly.

Here’s an example: let’s say that you owe $100,000 on your mortgage. Your property value has gone down and you are able to convince the bank to reduce your principal balance to $80,000, The $20,000 of debt forgiveness would be considered income by the IRS and you would be taxed on this. Currently, this tax is eliminated by the Mortgage Forgiveness law, but this waiver comes to an end on December 31, 2012.

Mortgage modification is already a time consuming, difficult process. Homeowners typically apply for modifications because they are struggling financially. If these homeowners discover that they will be facing a tax bill for debt forgiveness, many will conclude that there is no point in pursuing a modification and will decide to either walk away or file bankruptcy to deal with their upside down mortgages.

In November, 2012, forty-one state attorney’s general sent Congress a letter urging lawmakers to extend the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Act. In this letter the attorney’s general note that the elimination of the Mortgage Forgiveness break will greatly undercut the $20 billion mortgage settlement negotiated earlier this year with the nation’s largest mortgage lenders.

Senate bill 3521 has been introduced by Senator Max Baucus of Montana but it currently has no co-sponsors. If you are contemplating a modification with your bank, I urge you to contact your Senator or Representative to urge him/her to support S.3521.

by Jonathan Ginsberg, Atlanta bankruptcy

California court holds that omission of trustee does not preclude nonjudicial foreclosure

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 6:02 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: California court holds that omission of trustee does not preclude nonjudicial foreclosure

Yet one more lousy ruling putting more nails in the coffin of home ownership and perpetuating the bankster controlled judiciary. And of course they easily publish this case.

A case of first impression? Seems to me I sent out citations from California related to this issue some time back.

Note:

· No objection to RJN on at least two occasions (and finally making the objection on the same RJN after the SAC demurrer, which of course failed)

· An assumed “Beneficial Interest” in the Deed of Trust by MERS

· Post foreclosure action…no Tender or offer of Same and no arguing Tender Rule Exceptions

· No pleading additional material facts in the SAC

· No attempt to distinguish out of state citations

· No attempt to argue “commencing a non-judicial foreclosure sale” v. sustaining a foreclosure sale are very different!

· Failure to argue prejudice when no indorsed note was provided timely…apparently failing to claim forgery

· The court claiming Plaintiffs were :”in default;” “owned more than 90k in back payments;” “continue to occupy the Property “rent free,””

· Since when is forging a note indorsement; failure to name a trustee; substituting a trustee when there was none (what about the term “substitute” do you not understand!) merely “seek shelter in MINOR ministerial omissions” (emphasis added)…well, I guess certainly in California!

Sound familiar?

Also interesting is the court cites probate cases re failure of a trust does not occur for lack of a trustee but it appears, there was never addressed the fact that similar statutory authority exists that an unfunded trust DOES NOT EXIST. (while on the other hand stating the trustee serves as a common agent in the typical argument on these issues) The pick and choose your law out of context (from any jurisdiction they want, even if non-controlling) to argue your point still seems to succeed only for the banksters…

Yet more bad law made on what appears to be another poorly litigated case.

The theft of real property continues with the blessing of the judiciary.

Shuster v. BAC.docx

Shuster v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 7:50 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Re: Shuster v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

Thread posted by April Charney:

Oce a Failed REMIC, Never a REMIC

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:51 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Oce a Failed REMIC, Never a REMIC

See Paper attached.

Thanks Deontos!

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: www.BayLiving.com; www.FdnPro.com and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Paralegal; Litigation Support and Expert Witness Services; Forensic Loan Analyst; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker.

REMIC not a REMIC Brooklyn Law School Paper.pdf

Foreclosure Defense Argument that Promissory Notes are not “negotiable instruments”

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:20 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Foreclosure Defense Argument that Promissory Notes are not "negotiable instruments"

Here is Matt Weidner’s video of his oral argument on this issue.

And attached is the brief

He states we need one trial judge to be honest with the facts.

Initial Brief.docx

National Mortgage Database – Promoting the MERS Infection and Model – The Evisceration of State’s Rights Continues

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 5:57 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: National Mortgage Database – Promoting the MERS Infection and Model – The Evisceration of State’s Rights Continues

U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announce plans for a new national mortgage database

· Dechert LLP

· Patrick D. Dolan , Robert H. Ledig, Ralph R. Mazzeo and Gordon Miller

· USA

·

· November 14 2012

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have agreed to collaborate to create a National Mortgage Database to chart housing market trends and support policymaking and research efforts. The database is also intended to fulfill a requirement under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 for the FHFA to conduct a monthly mortgage market survey.

The mortgage database, which will date back to 1998, will be updated on a monthly basis and will include information such as the borrower’s financial and credit profile; the mortgage product and terms; the property purchased or refinanced; and the ongoing payment history of the loan. The database will create datasets on mortgages by matching informational files, such as property valuation models, to a nationwide sampling of credit bureau files on borrowers’ mortgages and payment histories.

Goals for the Creation of the Mortgage Database

While multiple state and federal databases and private databases currently exist, the FHFA and the CFPB intend to create one large, comprehensive database concerning the mortgage market to accomplish the following goals:

  • Streamline data for research and policy purposes;
  • Monitor the health of mortgage markets and consumers by providing detailed mortgage loan performance information regarding payments, modifications, foreclosures and bankruptcies;
  • Better understand consumer decision making through the use of surveys;
  • Monitor the volume and performance of new and emerging products in the mortgage market;
  • Increase transparency regarding first and second mortgages outstanding to a particular borrower and how they are performing; and
  • Better understand emerging borrower trends and overall consumer debt burdens by providing information regarding a borrower’s other debt obligations.

Concerns Regarding the Database

The FHFA stated that the database will not contain personally identifiable information and that appropriate precautions will be taken by the agencies to ensure that individual consumers cannot be identified through the database or any datasets that may be available to researchers or the public. However, observers have expressed concerns with regard to the level of detailed borrower information that the agencies intend to collect and include in the database, and how the information will be used. Market participants also worry that the database may increase burdens on lenders by requiring them to hire additional personnel to compile information for the government, and expose lenders to potential liability regarding the accuracy of such information.

Conclusion

The FHFA and the CFPB have signed an Inter-Agency Agreement regarding the terms for developing, maintaining and funding the database, and expect an early version of the full dataset to be complete in 2013.

http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/24621/NMDFHFACFPB110112F.pdf


National Mortgage Database.pdf

Moynihan Depo

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 6:23 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Moynihan Depo

Matt Taibbi; Rolling Stone Politics:

Thank God for Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan. If you’re a court junkie, or have the misfortune (as some of us poor reporters do) of being forced professionally to spend a lot of time reading legal documents, the just-released Moynihan deposition in MBIA v. Bank of America, Countrywide, and a Buttload of Other Shameless Mortgage Fraudsters will go down as one of the great Nixonian-stonewalling efforts ever, and one of the more entertaining reads of the year.

In this long-awaited interrogation – Bank of America has been fighting to keep Moynihan from being deposed in this case for some time – Moynihan does a full Star Trek special, boldly going where no deponent has ever gone before, breaking out the "I don’t recall" line more often and perhaps more ridiculously than was previously thought possible. Moynihan seems to remember his own name, and perhaps his current job title, but beyond that, he’ll have to get back to you.

The MBIA v. Bank of America case is one of the bigger and weightier lawsuits hovering over the financial world. Prior to the crash, MBIA was, along with a company called Ambac, one of the two largest and most reputable names in what’s called the "monoline" insurance business.

Bank of America: Too Crooked to Fail

The monolines sell a kind of investment insurance – if you invest in a municipal bond or in mortgage-backed securities backed or "wrapped" by a monoline, you have backing in case the investment goes south. If a municipality defaults on its bond payments, or homeowners in a mortgage-backed security default on their mortgage payments, the investors in those instruments can collect from the monoline insurer.

When companies like Countrywide issued their giant piles of crappy subprime mortgages and then chopped them up and turned them into AAA-rated securities to sell to suckers around the world, they often had these mortgage-backed securities insured by companies like MBIA or Ambac, to make their customers feel doubly safe about investing in their product.

The pitch firms like Countrywide made went like this: not only are these mortgages triple-A rated by reputable ratings agencies like Moody’s, they’re fully insured by similarly reputable insurance companies like MBIA. You can’t lose!

With protection like that, why shouldn’t your state pension fund or foreign trade union buy billions’ worth of these mortgage-backed products? It’s not like it would ever turn out that Countrywide made those products by trolling the cities of America stuffing mortgages in the pockets of anything with a pulse.

After 2007-8, when all of those mortgage-backed securities started blowing up, suddenly all of those insurance companies started having to pay out billions in claims. Ambac went bankrupt and MBIA was downgraded from AAA to near-junk status. The entire monoline industry was shattered.

The analogy one could make is that Countrywide sold a million flood-insured houses in New Orleans and Biloxi even though they could already see Katrina gathering in the Caribbean. Then, after the storm, the insurers decided to sue.

MBIA sued Bank of America (which acquired Countrywide in 2008), claiming that Countrywide lied to MBIA about its supposedly strict underwriting standards, when in fact the firm was cranking out mortgages hand over fist, without doing any real due diligence at all. (Whether the monolines should have known better, or its agents perhaps did know better and sold the mountains of insurance anyway, is another matter). In its suit, MBIA claimed that Countrywide turned itself into a veritable machine of mortgage approvals:

Countrywide Home Loans’ senior management imposed intense pressure on underwriters to approve mortgage loans, in some instances requiring underwriters to process 60 to 70 mortgage loan applications in a single day and to justify any rejections…

As a result of all of this, MBIA got stuck insuring a Himalayan mountain range of dicey mortgages. When the securities those mortgages backed started to fail, MBIA ended up paying out $2.2 billion in claims, helping crack the hull of the formerly staid, solid, AAA-rated firm.

Suits like this have the whole financial world on edge. The possibility that the banks might still have to pay gigantic claims to companies like MBIA (among a wide range of other claimants) has left Wall Street in a state of uncertainty about the future of some of the better-known, Too-Big-To-Fail companies, whose already-strained balance sheets might eventually be rocked by massive litigation payouts.

In the case of Bank of America, MBIA has long wanted to depose Moynihan because it was precisely Moynihan who went public with comments about how B of A was going to make good on the errors made by its bad-seed acquisition, Countrywide. "At the end of the day, we’ll pay for the things Countrywide did," was one such comment Moynihan made, in November of 2010.

As it turns out, Moynihan was deposed last May 2. But the deposition was only made public this week, when it was filed as an exhibit in a motion for summary judgment. In the deposition, attorney Peter Calamari of Quinn Emmanuel, representing MBIA, attempts to ask Moynihan a series of questions about what exactly Bank of America knew about Countrywide’s operations at various points in time.

Early on, he asks Moynihan if he remembers the B of A audit committee discussing Countrywide. Moynihan says he "doesn’t recall any specific discussion of it."

He’s asked again: In the broadest conceivable sense, do you recall ever attending an audit committee meeting where the word Countrywide or any aspect of the Countrywide transaction was ever discussed? Moynihan: I don’t recall.

Calamari counters: It’s a multi-billion dollar acquisition, was it not?
Moynihan: Yes, it was. Well, isn’t that the kind of thing you would talk about?
Moynihan: not necessarily . . .

This goes on and on for a while, with the Bank of America CEO continually insisting he doesn’t remember ever talking about Countrywide at these meetings, that you’d have to "get the minutes." Incredulous, Calamari, a little sarcastically, finally asks Moynihan if he would say he has a good memory.

"I would – I could remember things, yes," Moynihan deadpans. "I have a good memory."

Calamari presses on, eventually asking him about the state of Countrywide when Moynihan became the CEO, leading to the following remarkable exchange, in which the CEO of one of the biggest companies in the world claims not to know anything about the most significant acquisition in the bank’s history (emphasis mine):

Q: By January 1st, 2010, when you became the CEO of Bank Of America, CFC – and I’m using the initials CFC, Countrywide Financial Corporation – itself was no longer engaged in any revenue-producing activities; is that right?

Moynihan: I wouldn’t be the best person to ask about that because I don’t know.

There are no sound effects in the transcript, but you can almost hear an audible gasp at this response. Calamari presses Moynihan on his answer.

"Sir," he says, "you were CEO of Bank Of America in January, 2010, but you don’t know what Countrywide Financial Corporation was doing at that time?"

In an impressive display of balls, Moynihan essentially replies that Bank of America is a big company, and it’s unrealistic to ask the CEO to know about all of its parts, even the ones that are multi-billion-dollar suckholes about which the firm has been engaged in nearly constant litigation from the moment it acquired the company.

"We have several thousand legal entities," is how Moynihan puts it. "Exactly what subsidiary took place [sic] is not what you do as the CEO. That is [sic] other people’s jobs to make sure."

The exasperated MBIA lawyer tries again: If it’s true that Moynihan somehow managed to not know anything about the bank’s most important and most problematic subsidiary when he became CEO, well, did he ever make an effort to correct that ignorance? "Do you ever come to learn what CFC was doing?" is how the question is posed.

"I’m not sure that I recall exactly what CFC was doing versus other parts," Moynihan sagely concludes.

The deposition rolls on like this for 223 agonizing pages. The entire time, the Bank of America CEO presents himself as a Being There-esque cipher who was placed in charge of a Too-Big-To-Fail global banking giant by some kind of historical accident beyond his control, and appears to know little to nothing at all about the business he is running.

In the end, Moynihan even doubles back on his "we’ll pay for the things Countrywide did" quote. Asked if he said that to a Bloomberg reporter, Moynihan says he doesn’t remember that either, though he guesses the reporter got it right.

Well, he’s asked, assuming he did say it, does the quote accurately reflect Moynihan’s opinion?

"It is what it is," Moynihan says philosophically.

There’s nothing surprising about any of this – it’s natural that a Bank of America executive would do everything he could to deny responsibility for Countrywide’s messes. But that doesn’t mean it’s not funny. By about the thirtieth "I don’t recall," I was laughing out loud.

It’s also more than a little infuriating. In the pre-crash years, Countrywide was the biggest, loudest, most obvious fraud in a marketplace full of them, and the legion of complainants who’ve since sued (ranging from the U.S. government to Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund to state pension funds in Iowa and Oregon, among others) have found it painstaking work trying to get Bank of America to do the right thing and pay back the money its subsidiary took in its various ripoffs. And with executives boasting such poor memories, this story is going to drag on and on even longer.

Moynihan Depo BofA.pdf

Deutsche Bank Sues Foreclosure Fraud Expert’s Son

Deutsche Bank Sues Foreclosure Fraud Expert’s Son With No Financial Interest In Her Case

Foreclosure

First Posted: 05/13/2011 7:17 pm Updated: 07/13/2011 5:12 am

React

share this story

388
75
Get Business Alerts
Submit this story

This article has been updated

WASHINGTON — Deutsche Bank appears to have retaliated against a high-profile foreclosure fraud expert, whose years-long battle against her own foreclosure helped reveal a wave of apparent malfeasance, by suing her son.

The expert, Lynn Szymoniak, an attorney who specializes in white-collar crime, is widely considered on Capitol Hill to be one of the nation’s top experts on foreclosure law. When Deutsche Bank attempted to jack up the interest rate on the mortgage for her Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., home in May 2008, she contested the move, setting off an investigation which unveiled mountains of forged signatures and fraudulent bank paperwork associated with the foreclosure process.

Szymoniak alerted other attorneys, neighborhood advocates, lawmakers and the media about the apparent rampant fraud. She appeared on “60 Minutes” in April to discuss the broader foreclosure scandal .

Her own home has been in foreclosure since June 2008. A month earlier, she had been notified that the interest rate on her adjustable-rate mortgage was being raised, increasing her monthly payments by about $1,000. But the terms of her mortgage only allowed interest-rate hikes at certain dates.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Szymoniak noted that Deutsche Bank was not acting within the allowed timeframe.

“They missed my adjustment date, and then when they figured it out, they just slapped that higher payment on anyway,” she said. “I paid one payment at the higher rate and then I said, ‘This is ridiculous.’ And I stopped paying and then they sued me in June ’08.”

After she’d been sued, Szymoniak said, she began investigating the documentation on Florida foreclosures, uncovering alarming irregularities, including signatures that were apparently forged. If so, those signatures allowed banks to push foreclosures through overly quickly, charge improper fees and assert improperly inflated borrower debts.

Shortly after appearing on “60 Minutes” Szymoniak won a major victory in her own foreclosure case. The court found that Deutsche Bank was unable to demonstrate ownership of her mortgage, which had originally been issued by the defunct subprime mortgage lender Option One, and threw the case out.

Deutsche Bank was permitted to refile their case if the bank could obtain proper documentation, however. And on Friday, May 6, Szymoniak received a notification from the bank’s lawyers that she was again being sued for foreclosure.

But Deutsche Bank wasn’t just going after her. The bank was also attempting to sue her son, Mark Cullen, who is currently pursuing a graduate degree in poetry at the New School in New York. Cullen hasn’t lived in Szymoniak’s house for seven years and is not a party to any aspect of her mortgage — he has no interest in either the property or the loan, and never has had any such interest, according to Szymoniak.

“It is just absolute harassment,” Szymoniak said. “He doesn’t own anything, for god’s sake! He’s getting a masters in poetry. He not only doesn’t have any money, he’s never going to have any money.”

And other Florida foreclosure experts say it’s difficult to interpret Deutsche Bank’s move as anything other than retaliation for Szymoniak’s media presence. If it is not, in fact, retaliation, they argue, then Deutsche Bank’s lawyers have demonstrated rank incompetence.

“It sounds crazy,” said Margery Golant, a principal with the foreclosure defense law firm of Golant & Golant PA in Florida. “I can think of no legitimate reason, if he doesn’t have some connection to the property or to the mortgage, to include him in an action to foreclosure.”

“It’s an intimidation tool,” said Matt Englett, a partner at the Florida law firm Kaufman Englett Lynd PLLC. “Most people, they get scared and they get nervous and I think that’s the effect that they’re trying to have on him and his mother.”

“If he’s not an owner of the house, it’s pretty clearly just vindictive,” said Joshua Rosner, the managing director of Graham Fisher & Co., a mortgage investment firm. “If they’re doing it intentionally, that’s one hell of a statement. If they’re doing it randomly, that’s still pretty incredible.”

The experts said the lawsuit against Szymoniak’s son could also have negative implications for him beyond the immediate costs of fighting the foreclosure case, even though he has no financial interest in anything related to it.

“He’s going to have a lawsuit out there against him,” Englett said, “so if someone were to do some kind of background check against him, that would come up.”

Watch Szymoniak’s “60 Minutes” interview:

Update:

Deutsche Bank maintains that it is not to blame, and notes that while it is legally listed as the plaintiff in the Szymoniak foreclosure case, another company directs the actual legal maneuvering.

“Pursuant to the aforementioned contracts for securitization trusts, loan servicers, and not the trustee, are responsible for foreclosure-related legal proceedings. The attorneys and law firms who oversee foreclosure proceedings on behalf of the trusts are engaged by loan servicers rather than the trustee. Loan servicers are obligated to adhere to all legal requirements, and Deutsche Bank, as trustee, has consistently informed servicers that they are required to execute these actions in a proper and timely manner,” said Deutsche Bank spokesman John Gallagher

Add skills and expertise like “Legal Writing” to make your profile easier to find

LinkedInSkills & Expertise
David:
Do you have skills and expertise that people are looking for? Every area of expertise you add to your profile makes you easier to find. Start adding skills and expertise.
ext?w=70&h=70&hash=KU0axj%2Btzwcxh7FrMnsHZZFBHSM%3D&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.linkedin.com%2Fscds%2Fcommon%2Fu%2Fimg%2Ficon%2Ficon_no_skill_logo_60x60.png Legal Writing 803,689 people
Add
bg_shadow_corner_left_4x4.png
More skills and expertise you can add:
ext?w=70&h=70&hash=KU0axj%2Btzwcxh7FrMnsHZZFBHSM%3D&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.linkedin.com%2Fscds%2Fcommon%2Fu%2Fimg%2Ficon%2Ficon_no_skill_logo_60x60.png Legal Research

icon_plus_circle_12x13.png Add

ext?w=70&h=70&hash=KU0axj%2Btzwcxh7FrMnsHZZFBHSM%3D&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.linkedin.com%2Fscds%2Fcommon%2Fu%2Fimg%2Ficon%2Ficon_no_skill_logo_60x60.png Commercial Litigation

icon_plus_circle_12x13.png Add

ext?w=70&h=70&hash=KU0axj%2Btzwcxh7FrMnsHZZFBHSM%3D&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.linkedin.com%2Fscds%2Fcommon%2Fu%2Fimg%2Ficon%2Ficon_no_skill_logo_60x60.png Civil Litigation

icon_plus_circle_12x13.png Add

ext?w=70&h=70&hash=KU0axj%2Btzwcxh7FrMnsHZZFBHSM%3D&url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.linkedin.com%2Fscds%2Fcommon%2Fu%2Fimg%2Ficon%2Ficon_no_skill_logo_60x60.png Litigation

icon_plus_circle_12x13.png Add

bg_shadow_corner_right_4x4.png

You are receiving Skills & Expertise emails. Unsubscribe

© 2012, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043

David, do you know Rodney Koopmans, yugeshnie sooprayen or Valdelene De Ramos Oliveira?

David, see who’s on LinkedIn! LinkedIn Logo
The best way to keep up with colleagues and find job opportunities is to get connected. Start now.
icon_no_photo_60x60.png Rodney Koopmans, Pastor of St. Croix Reformed Church
pymk-connect.gif CONNECT
icon_no_photo_60x60.png yugeshnie sooprayen, —
pymk-connect.gif CONNECT
03b044a.jpg Valdelene De Ramos Oliveira, Profissional independente de Ensino fundamental/médio
pymk-connect.gif CONNECT
1f99fdd.jpg Kerry O’Neill, Experienced Project Manager across multiple disciplines and industries
pymk-connect.gif CONNECT

See who else you already know on LinkedIn

Add people you already know

You are receiving LinkedIn emails. Unsubscribe. This email was intended for David Silver (Attorney at Silber Law Group). Learn why we included this. © 2012, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct. Mountain View, CA 94043, USA eenpvd-h9s6qmva-68.gif

LinkedIn Network Updates, 11/20/2012

LinkedIn
What are your connections up to?

Stay on top of what’s happening in your network.

See all updates
PROFILE CHANGES IN YOUR NETWORK Update your profile
073d862.jpg
Timothy McCandless has uploaded a new profile picture

Update your photo

WHAT YOUR NETWORK IS SAYING
Timothy McCandless
Timothy McCandless

How to Contact Chase
How to Contact Chase

How to Contact Chase Here is all the additional contact information we have come across. (See the bottom of this post for the latest info) If you are calling Chase’s main banking number, here is a …

Comment

Timothy McCandless
Timothy McCandless

How to chase Chase – People sometimes ask me why do you publish all this stuff. My slogan IF YOUR ENEMY IS MY ENEMY THAN WE ARE FRIENDS !!!!
How to chase Chase – People sometimes ask me why do you publish all…

People sometimes ask me why do you publish all this stuff. My slogan IF YOUR ENEMY IS MY ENEMY THAN WE ARE FRIENDS Chase-Sucks.org 2. RESOURCES — Pleadings, Orders, and Exhibits On this page you wi…

Comment

Timothy McCandless
Timothy McCandless

LinkedIn Network Updates, 11/17/2012
LinkedIn Network Updates, 11/17/2012

LinkedIn Network Updates, Nov 10 – Nov 17 Featured Updates View All Updates PROFILE CHANGES Timothy McCandless has an updated profile (Education) Update your profile Timothy McCandless has ad…

Comment

Timothy McCandless
Timothy McCandless

Banks are double talking settlement
Banks are double talking settlement

Some big numbers start looking smaller when you take a close look. A case in point: The $85 million Missouri has so far reaped from last February’s national mortgage settlement with big banks…

Comment

Timothy McCandless
Timothy McCandless

David, get the most out of LinkedIn!
David, get the most out of LinkedIn!

David, Here are some tips to help you make the most out of your new LinkedIn Account. See people you may know Get connected to at least 50 people. Find past colleagues and classmates to help you op…

Comment

Timothy McCandless
Timothy McCandless

David, welcome to LinkedIn!
David, welcome to LinkedIn!

Welcome to LinkedIn! Make sure recruiters and colleagues see all you have to offer. David Silver Add Photo Attorney at Silber Law Group Sacramento, California Area | Law Practice Current Silber Law…

Comment

Timothy McCandless
Timothy McCandless

Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

From Timothy McCandless Attorney at California Justice Foundation Greater Los Angeles Area I’d like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. – Timothy Confirm that you know Timothy …

Comment

NEW CONNECTIONS
073d862.jpg new-connection-arrows.gif icon_no_photo_40x40.png Timothy McCandless is now connected to Grady Hanshaw

and 13 other people

See all updates
You are receiving Network Updates emails. Unsubscribe.

This email was intended for David Silver (Attorney at Silber Law Group). Learn why we included this. © 2012, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct. Mountain View, CA 94043, USA

David, Get LinkedIn for iPad

Linkedin
The LinkedIn iPad App
The simplest way to prepare for your day
Designed with you in mind, see your calendar, top industry news, and network updates all in one view.
Continue
ipad
This is an occasional email to help you get the most out of LinkedIn. Unsubscribe.
If you need assistance or have questions, please contact LinkedIn Customer Service.
© 2012, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA.

Stopa: Summary Judgment for Borrowers!

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 7:54 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Stopa: Summary Judgment for Borrowers!

Blazing the Trail

Posted on October 31st, 2012 by Mark Stopa, www.stayinmyhome.com

Have you ever made an argument in a foreclosure case, and you think it’s a solid, well-taken argument, but there is no case law directly on point? It can create a sinking feeling. “I think I’m right, but how will I ever get a judge to agree with me when there aren’t any appellate court decisions which have ruled this way already?” The tendency, when presented with such a situation, can be to shy away from the argument. To back down. To let someone else try to make the argument first. “I don’t want to look foolish.” “I don’t want to be wrong.” “If this is such a good argument, why aren’t there any cases that have ruled this way already?”

While I understand this feeling, this is absolutely and unequivocally the wrong mindset.

As foreclosure defense lawyers, many of the issues with which we are confronted are novel. That’s just the nature of the beast. Just think of it this way – when, prior to now, in the entire history of America, have property values collapsed by half (or more), causing millions of Americans to face foreclosure, essentially all at once? Obviously, the answer is “never.” These are unprecedented times, so it should come as no surprise that, in the history of jurisprudence, our court system has never before been confronted with some of the legal issues with which we now deal on a daily basis. As a result, to defend homeowners the right way, we have no choice but to argue things we may have never argued before – to present arguments to judges they may have never heard before, for which there is no case law.

One such example? Asking a judge to enter summary judgment for a homeowner in a foreclosure case.

In Florida, I know of no appellate decisions that directly authorize this. Such case law may exist, for example, if it’s undisputed the homeowner paid the mortgage in full all along, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about cases where homeowners are behind on their mortgage payments, perhaps significantly behind, and the bank has filed suit for foreclosure, but the homeowner is entitled to prevail on that case anyway.

I introduced this concept a few months ago, via this blog post. In the ensuing months, I’ve made that same argument many times before Florida judges, often before judges who had never heard it before.

Sometimes, quite candidly, it’s not easy. A few times, the judge seemed to think I was nuts, at least at first, when I told the court that I wanted summary judgment for my client. Typically, however, once I get into the argument, and explain why my client should prevail, that initial skepticism is replaced with intrigue at the argument. Often, in fact, these judges have agreed with my position, entering orders granting summary judgment and dismissing the case.

Invariably, do you know what happens when I go back before that same judge a second time? Or a third time? It’s easier. The judge is familiar with the argument. The judge understands the legal issues and knows how they apply. I’m no longer the crazy lawyer asking for a client who hasn’t paid his/her mortgage to prevail, but the lawyer making sound, legitimate arguments that are perfectly consistent with the law.

Do you know what makes all of this a bit easier? When the judge I’m arguing before sees that other judges have agreed with my argument. That’s why, whenever I have a hearing on this issue, I bring the Orders I’ve obtained which entered summary judgments for my clients in other cases. It’s one thing for me to argue something – it’s another for the judge to see that 5, 10, or 15 other, Florida judges have agreed with my argument and dismissed the case as a result.

In the grand scheme of things, my “success” here is limited. I know that this argument isn’t being made everywhere in Florida. I know there are many capable judges who have yet to hear the argument. I can’t argue this for everyone.

It’s time to get the word out, folks.

Below are several of the Orders I’ve obtained upon making these arguments. By posting these Orders, I am not suggesting that the same result will happen in any particular case. That said, it’s certainly possible, and I have to think the chances for any particular homeowner will improve if/when the judge sees that numerous other, Florida judges have agreed with this argument. Hence, that’s the point here – to blaze a trail. To help everyone (including judges unfamiliar with the argument) realize this argument has worked, and can work in the future. Everyone in foreclosure-world should be aware of these arguments.

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge Carven Angel (Hernando County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge Amy Williams (Pinellas County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge Pamela Campbell (Pinellas County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge John Schaefer (Pinellas County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge Amy Williams (Pinellas County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge W. Douglas Baird (Pinellas County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge Robert Foster (Hillsborough County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge Donald Evans (Hillsborough County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge Michele Sisco (Hillsborough County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge Frank Gomez (Hillsborough County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge James Barton (Hillsborough County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge J. Rogers Padgett (Hillsborough County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge Robert Foster (Hillsborough County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge James Barton (Hillsborough County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge Donald Evans (Hillsborough County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge Donald Evans (Hillsborough County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge George Shahood (St. Lucie County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge Thomas Kirkland (Orange County)

Order Granting Summary Judgment – Judge Lynn Tepper (Pasco County)

For those of you counting, that’s 14 different Florida judges who have entered summary judgment for a homeowner in a foreclosure case. (Undoubtedly there may be more of which I’m not aware.)

So take these arguments. Use them and apply them, as appropriate. Keep fighting. And, more than anything, realize that there are virtually always defenses that homeowners can utilize, even those facing foreclosure.

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: www.BayLiving.com; www.FdnPro.com and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Paralegal; Litigation Support and Expert Witness Services; Forensic Loan Analyst; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker.

Today’s Legal Research

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:25 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Today’s Legal Research

I found the following I thought interesting as it related to my own case:

As I contend America’s Wholesale Lender was NOT a corporation organized and existing under the laws of New York as stated in the Deed of Trust…

A deed transferred to a corporation having no legal existence does not pass title [Copeland v. Fairview Land (1913) 165 Cal. 148, 162, 131 P. 119; but see Lanktree v. Spring Mt. Acres, Inc. (1931) 213 Cal. 362, 365, 2 P.2d 338 (deed executed in favor of nonexistent corporation held to be valid when it was given to third party to be held until corporation came into existence and, subsequently, was delivered to and accepted by existing corporation)]. In California, a corporation attains legal status on the filing of its articles of incorporation. Once the articles have been filed, the corporation is an existing entity and can receive title to real property [Corp. Code §§ 200(c), 207; Cavin Memorial Corp. v. Requa (1970) 5 Cal. App. 3d 345, 353, 85 Cal. Rptr. 107.]

And, related to the bogus “verifications” sent with the discovery responses I’m contesting:

Presumption Exists That Documents Signed by Two Specified Officers Were Signed on Behalf of Corporation.

A statutory presumption exists that contracts and other specified documents, when signed by at least two specified corporate officers, were validly signed on the corporation’s behalf. This presumption applies unless there is a showing that the other person had actual knowledge that the signing officers had no authority to execute the instrument [Corp Code § 313]. The presumption applies to contracts signed by the chair of the board, the president, or any vice president, and any of the following officers [Corp Code § 313]:

•Secretary.

•Any assistant secretary.

•Chief financial officer.

•Any assistant treasurer.

The statute provides a conclusive, rather than a merely rebuttable, evidentiary presumption of authority on the part of the specified corporate officers to enter into the agreement [Snukal v. Flightways Mfg., Inc. (2000) 23 C4th 754, 782, 98 CR2d 1, 3 P3d 286].

The signature of one person is sufficient to bind the corporation if that person holds corporate offices in each of the two groups listed above, even if the instrument lists only one of his or her offices [Snukal v. Flightways Mfg., Inc. (2000) 23 C4th 754, 784, 786–787, 98 CR2d 1, 3 P3d 286].

Cal. Corp. Code

313. Subject to the provisions of subdivision (a) of Section 208,

any note, mortgage, evidence of indebtedness, contract, share

certificate, initial transaction statement or written statement,

conveyance, or other instrument in writing, and any assignment or

endorsement thereof, executed or entered into between any corporation

and any other person, when signed by the chairman of the board, the

president or any vice president and the secretary, any assistant

secretary, the chief financial officer or any assistant treasurer of

such corporation, is not invalidated as to the corporation by any

lack of authority of the signing officers in the absence of actual

knowledge on the part of the other person that the signing officers

had no authority to execute the same.

As indicated in my “meet and confer”… I don’t see “Assistant Vice President” or “Attorney-in-Fact” on the list, do you?

I also find this interesting as it relates to any of these bogus “corporate officers” these banksters seem to produce with such creative titles:

300. (a) Subject to the provisions of this division and any
limitations in the articles relating to action required to be
approved by the shareholders (Section 153) or by the outstanding
shares (Section 152), or by a less than majority vote of a class or
series of preferred shares (Section 402.5), the business and affairs
of the corporation shall be managed and all corporate powers shall be
exercised by or under the direction of the board. The board may
delegate the management of the day-to-day operation of the business
of the corporation to a management company or other person provided
that the business and affairs of the corporation shall be managed and
all corporate powers shall be exercised under the ultimate direction
of the board.
312. (a) A corporation shall have a chairman of the board or a
president or both, a secretary, a chief financial officer and such
other officers with such titles and duties as shall be stated in the
bylaws or determined by the board and as may be necessary to enable
it to sign instruments and share certificates. The president, or if
there is no president the chairman of the board, is the general
manager and chief executive officer of the corporation, unless
otherwise provided in the articles or bylaws. Any number of offices
may be held by the same person unless the articles or bylaws provide
otherwise.
 (b) Except as otherwise provided by the articles or bylaws,
officers shall be chosen by the board and serve at the pleasure of
the board, subject to the rights, if any, of an officer under any
contract of employment. Any officer may resign at any time upon
written notice to the corporation without prejudice to the rights, if
any, of the corporation under any contract to which the officer is a
party.
317. (a) For the purposes of this section, "agent" means any person
who is or was a director, officer, employee or other agent of the
corporation, or is or was serving at the request of the corporation
as a director, officer, employee or agent of another foreign or
domestic corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust or other
enterprise, or was a director, officer, employee or agent of a
foreign or domestic corporation which was a predecessor corporation
of the corporation or of another enterprise at the request of the
predecessor corporation; "proceeding" means any threatened, pending
or completed action or proceeding, whether civil, criminal,
administrative or investigative; and "expenses" includes without
limitation attorneys' fees and any expenses of establishing a right
to indemnification under subdivision (d) or paragraph (4) of
subdivision (e).

Just a few interesting things I found nosing around today…

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox
Email: mailto:Charles@BayLiving.com
Websites: www.BayLiving.com; www.FdnPro.com and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Paralegal; Litigation Support and Expert Witness Services; Forensic Loan Analyst; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker.

Lexis Forms-

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 3:30 PM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Lexis Forms-

Found these on Lexis doing my research today…you might (or might not) find some interesting parts in them…

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: www.BayLiving.com; www.FdnPro.com and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Paralegal; Litigation Support and Expert Witness Services; Forensic Loan Analyst; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker.

Deed Procured by Fraud.docx
Brach of implied covenant against encumbrances.docx
Cancel Deed and Quiet Title.docx
Declaratory relief for declaration of rights under deed.docx

How to Contact Chase

How to Contact Chase

Here is all the additional contact information we have come across.

(See the bottom of this post for the latest info)

If you are calling Chase’s main banking number, here is a visual phone tree.

VP of Customer Service (so we are told) at Chase:

Deb Walden
PO BOX 15919
Wilmington, DE 19850
(302) 594-4000 office
(888) 643-9628 fax

Here is another Chase contact to try to ask for help when you can’t find anyone else to help you:

Mr. Frank Bisignano
Chief Administrative Officer
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
270 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017-2014

Having a problem with the banking side of Chase? Here is a contact to try:

Heather Joyner
Executive Specialist
800.242.7399 ext. 51279
713-262-1279 Direct Line
FAX: 281-915-0984
heather.joyner@chase.com

Having a problem with Chase? Email Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon for help at jamie.dimon@jpmchase.com or try executive.office@chase.com or send him snail mail at:

James Dimon
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
JP Morgan Chase
270 Park Avenue, 39th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-270-1111
Fax : 212-270-1121
E-Mail Address: jamie.dimon@jpmchase.com

Charlie Scharf CEO Retail Financial Services (i.e. head of JPMorgan Chase retail banking)
Phone: 212-270-5447
Fax: 212-270-5448
E-Mail Address: charlie.scharf@chase.com

Gerald A. Smith CEO Credit Card Services
Phone: 302-282-3100
Fax: 302-282-3939
E-Mail Address: gordon.smith@chase.com

Marc Sheinbaum CEO-Retail Auto and Education Finance
Phone: 516-745-3838
Fax: 516-745-4040
E-Mail Address: marc.x.sheinbaum@jpmchase.com

David B. Lowman CEO Home Lending
Phone: 636-735-2121
Fax: 314-256-2800
E-Mail Address: david.b.lowman@jpmchase.com

Kevin D. Cook, Home Lending Executive Office Supervisor
614-422-7839 (phone)
614-388-9912 (fax)
kevin.d.cook@chase.com

Here is a link to lots of contact information for Chase.

Here is a number supposedly for the Chase Executive Team, whatever that is: 800-242-7339

Numbers for Chase executive customer service:

713-262-3866 (Banking, Michelle Crabtree)
800-242-7399 (Banking, General number)
888-622-7547 x 4350 (Credit card, general)
888-622-7547 x 6833 (Credit card, Jessica)
888-622-7547 x 6164 (Credit card, Sharon)
888-622-7547 x 6838 (Credit card, Patrick)

Direct numbers for WaMu loss mitigation (if you are behind on your mortgage and need help). We haven’t verified these numbers

(866) 926-8937
(888) 453-3102
(800) 478-0036
(800) 254-3677

Thanks Consumerist! (link and link)

Here is a handy guide to the Chase phone tree to get to where you want quicker.

Frustrated WaMu customer Alan tells gave me this number to get directly to a live person at WaMu without any prompts: 866-394-4034. He also designed WaMu a new logo:

If you want to record your phone conversations with WaMu/Chase, read this.

Update 8/23/12:  A reader gave us the helpful number:

Chase executive office 888 622 7547 ext 6773 Esmeralda Vasquez, she was very helpful and she truly was a customer advocate.  She assisted me with a fraud account opened in my name and later charged off and sold to some collection agency that took me to court. She retrieved the account(that was sold over 5 years ago) and had those jerks release the judgment.

Also I got a hold of Ms. Vasquez by first calling the banking side executive office at 800-242-7399 for all of those that have issued related to banking

How to chase Chase – People sometimes ask me why do you publish all this stuff. My slogan IF YOUR ENEMY IS MY ENEMY THAN WE ARE FRIENDS !!!!

People sometimes ask me why do you publish all this stuff. My slogan IF YOUR ENEMY IS MY ENEMY THAN WE ARE FRIENDS

ChaseSucks.org

2. RESOURCES — Pleadings, Orders, and Exhibits

On this page you will find descriptions and links to various pleadings, orders, and exhibits filed by attorneys as well as individuals representing themselves. Where the outcome is known, that information is included. These documents are public records and are made available for your information, but their accuracy, competency, and effectiveness have not been verified. Only a judge can rule on a pleading and only an appellate court opinion that is certified for publication can be cited as precedent. That said, it can be both educational and entertaining to see how the great race is unfolding in the historic controversy of People v. Banks. For an entertaining public outing of history’s all-time greatest pickpockets, go see the documentary “Inside Job.”

Federal District Court

Carswell v. JPMorgan Chase, Case No. CV10-5152 GW

George Wu, Judge, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles
Douglas Gillies, attorney for Margaret Carswell

Plaintiff sued to halt a foreclosure initiated by JPMorgan Chase and California Reconveyance Co. on the grounds of failure to contract, wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment, RESPA and TILA violations, and fraud. She asked for quiet title and declaratory relief. Chase responded with a Motion to Dismiss. At a hearing on September 30, 2010, Judge Wu granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed on October 18. It begins:

It was the biggest financial bubble in history. During the first decade of this century, banks abandoned underwriting practices and caused a frenzy of real estate speculation by issuing predatory loans that ultimately lowered property values in the United States by 30-50%. Banks reaped the harvest. Kerry Killinger, CEO of Washington Mutual, took home more than $100 million during the seven years that he steered WaMu into the ground. Banks issued millions of predatory loans knowing that the borrowers would default and lose their homes. As a direct, foreseeable, proximate result, 15 million families are now in danger of foreclosure. If the legions of dispossessed homeowners cannot present their grievances in the courts of this great nation, their only recourse will be the streets.

Chase responded with yet another Motion to Dismiss, Carswell filed her Opposition to the motion, and a hearing is scheduled for January 6, 2011, 8:30 AM in Courtroom 10, US District Court, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA.

 

Khast v. Washington Mutual, JPMorgan Chase, and CRC, Case No. CV10-2168 IEG

Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Kaveh Khast in pro se

A loan mod nightmare where Khast did everything right except laugh out loud when WaMu told him that he must stop making his mortgage payments for 90 days in order to qualify for a loan modification. As Khast leaped through the constantly shifting hoops tossed in the air, first by WaMu, then by Chase, filing no less than four applications, Chase issued a Notice of Trustee’s Sale.

Khast filed a pro se complaint in federal court. The District Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order to stop the sale. Hearing on a Preliminary Injunction is now scheduled for December 3. The court wrote that the conduct by WAMU appears to be “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers,” and thus satisfies the “unfair” prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus.&Prof.Code §17200. Plaintiff has stated that he possesses documents which support his contention that Defendant WAMU instructed Plaintiff to purposefully enter into default and assured Plaintiff that, if he did so, WAMU would restructure his loan. Accordingly, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

The court also relied upon the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Under this doctrine a promisor is bound when he should reasonably expect a substantial change of position, either by act or forbearance, in reliance on his promise. He who by his language or conduct leads another to do what he would not otherwise have done shall not subject such person to loss or injury by disappointing the expectations upon which he acted.

 

Saxon Mortgage v. Hillery, Case No. C-08-4357

Edward M. Chen, U.S. Magistrate, Northern District of California
Thomas Spielbauer, attorney for Ruthie Hillery

Hillery obtained a home loan from New Century secured by a Deed of Trust, which named MERS as nominee for New Century and its successors. MERS later attempted to assign the Deed of Trust and the promissory note to Consumer. Consumer and the loan servicer then sued Hillery. The court ruled that Consumer must demonstrate that it is the holder of the deed of trust and the promissory note. In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F. Supp. 2d 650, 653 (S.D. Oh. 2007) held that to show standing in a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must show that it is the holder of the note and the mortgage at the time the complaint was filed. For there to be a valid assignment, there must be more than just assignment of the deed alone; the note must also be assigned. “The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident…an assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.” Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 274 (1872).

There was no evidence that MERS held the promissory note or was given the authority by New Century to assign the note to Consumer. Without the note, Consumer lacked standing. If Consumer did not have standing, then the loan servicer also lacked standing. A loan servicer cannot bring an action without the holder of the note. In re Hwang, 393 B.R. 701, 712 (2008).

 

Serrano v. GMAC Mortgage, Case No. 8:09-CV-00861-DOC

David O. Carter, Judge, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles
Moses S. Hall, attorney for Ignacio Serrano

Plaintiff alleged in state court that GMAC initiated a non-judicial foreclosure sale and sold his residence without complying with the notice requirements of Cal. Civil Code Sec. 2923.5 and 2924, and without attaching a declaration to the 2923.5 notice under penalty of perjury stating that defendants tried with due diligence to contact the borrower. Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, and described in detail the defects in the Complaint with directions how to correct the defects. Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on 4/01/2010.

 

Sharma v. Provident Funding Associates, Case No. 3:2009-cv-05968

Vaughn R Walker, Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Marc A. Fisher, attorney for Anilech and Parma Sharma

Defendants attempted to foreclose and plaintiffs sued in federal court, alleging that defendants did not contact them as required by Cal Civ Code § 2923.5. In considering plaintiffs’ request for an injunction to stop the foreclosure, the court found that plaintiffs had raised “serious questions going to the merits” and would suffer irreparable injury if the sale were to proceed. Property is considered unique. If defendants foreclosed, plaintiffs’ injury would be irreparable because they might be unable to reacquire it. Plaintiffs’ remedy at law, damages, would be inadequate. On the other hand, defendants would not suffer a high degree of harm if a preliminary injunction were ordered. While they would not be able to sell the property immediately and would incur litigation costs, when balanced against plaintiffs’ potential loss, defendants’ harm was outweighed.

The court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from selling the property while the lawsuit was pending.

 

Federal Bankruptcy Court

In re: Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (2008), Case No. 08-15337 Chapter 7

Samuel L. Burford, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Los Angeles
Robert K. Lee, attorney for Kang Jin Hwang

As the servicer on Hwang’s promissory note, IndyMac was entitled to enforce the secured note under California law, but it must also satisfy the procedural requirements of federal law to obtain relief from the automatic stay in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. These requirements include joining the owner of the note, because the owner of the note is the real party in interest under Rule 17, and it is also a required party under Rule 19. IndyMac failed to join the owner of the note, so its motion for relief from the automatic stay was denied.

Reversed on July 21, 2010. District Court Judge Philip Gutierrez reversed the Judge Burford’s determination that IndyMac is not the real party in interest under Rule 17 and that Rule 19 requires the owner of the Note to join the Motion.

 

In re: Vargas, Case No. 08-17036 Chapter 7

Samuel L. Burford, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Los Angeles
Marcus Gomez, attorney for Raymond Vargas

 

In re: Walker, Case No. 10-21656 Chapter 11

Ronald H. Sargis, Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Sacramento
Mitchell L. Abdallah, attorney for Rickie Walker

MERS assigned the Deed of Trust for Debtor’s property to Citibank, which filed a secured claim. Debtor objected to the claim. Judge Sargis ruled that the promissory note and the Deed of Trust are inseparable. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the Deed of Trust alone is a nullity. MERS was not the owner of the note, so it could not transfer the note or the beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust. The bankruptcy court disallowed Citibank’s claim because it could not establish that it was the owner of the promissory note.

 

California State Court

Cabalu v. Mission Bishop Real Estate

Superior Court of California, Alameda County
Brian A. Angelini, attorney for Cecil and Natividad Cabalu

 

Davies v. NDEX West, Case No. INC 090697

Randall White, Judge, Superior Court of California, Riverside County
Brian W. Davies, in pro per

 

Edstrom v. NDEX West, Wells Fargo Bank, et. al., Case No. 20100314

Superior Court of California, Eldorado County
Richard Hall, attorney for Daniel and Teri Anne Edstrom

A 61-page complaint with 29 causes of action to enjoin a trustee’s sale of plaintiffs’ residence, requesting a judicial sale instead of a non-judicial sale, declaratory relief, compensatory damages including emotional and mental distress, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and rescission.

 

Mabry v. Superior Court and Aurora Loan Services
185 Cal.App.4th 208, 110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 201 (4th Dist. June 2, 2010)
California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3
California Supreme Court, Petition for Review filed July 13, 2010.

Moses S. Hall, attorney for Terry and Michael Mabry

The Mabrys sued to enjoin a trustee’s sale of their home, alleging that Aurora’s notice of default did not include a declaration required by Cal. Civil Code §2923.5, and that the bank did not explore alternatives to foreclosure with the borrowers. The trial court refused to stop the sale. The Mabrys filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate and the Court of Appeal granted a stay to enjoin the sale. Oral argument was heard in Santa Ana on May 18, 2010.

Aurora argued that a borrower cannot sue a lender that fails to contact the borrower to discuss alternatives to foreclosure before filing a notice of default, as required by §2923.5, because §2923.5 does not explicitly give homeowners a “private right of action.” Aurora also argued that a declaration under penalty of perjury is not required because a trustee, who ordinarily files the notice of default, could not have personal knowledge of a bank’s attempts to contact the borrower. Nobody mentioned that the trustee is not authorized by the statute to make the declaration. §2923.5 states that a notice of default “shall include a declaration from the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent that it has contacted the borrower…”

The Court of Appeal ruled that a borrower has a private right of action under § 2923.5 and is not required to tender the full amount of the mortgage as a prerequisite to filing suit, since that would defeat the purpose of the statute. Under the court’s narrow construction of the statute, §2923.5 merely adds a procedural step in the foreclosure process. Since the statute is not substantive, it is not preempted by federal law. The declaration specified in §2923.5 does not have to be signed under penalty of perjury. The borrower’s remedy is limited to getting a postponement of a foreclosure while the lender files a new notice of default that complies with §2923.5. If the lender ignores the statute and makes no attempt to contact the borrower before selling the property, the violation does not cloud the title acquired by a third party purchaser at the foreclosure sale. Therefore §2923.5 claims must be raised in court before the sale. It is a question of fact for the trial court to determine whether the lender actually attempted to contact the borrower before filing a notice of default. If the lender takes the property at the foreclosure sale, its title is not clouded by its failure to comply with the statute. Finally, the case is not suitable for class action treatment if the lender asserts that it attempted to comply with the statute because each borrower will present “highly-individuated facts.”

In a petition for review to the California Supreme Court, the Mabrys noted that more than 100 federal district court opinions have considered §2923.5 and an overwhelming majority have rejected a private right of action under the statute. The petition for review was denied.

After the case was remanded to the trial court, Mabry’s motion for preliminary injunction was granted. The trial court found that the Notice of Default contained the form language required by the statute, i.e. that the lender contacted the borrower, tried with due diligence to contact the borrower, etc. However, the declaration on the Notice of Default was not made under panalty of perjury, and therefore had no evidentiary value to show whether the defendant satisfied §2923.5

 

Moreno v. Ameriquest

Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Thomas Spielbauer, attorney for Gloria and Carlos Moreno

Complaint for declaratory relief and fraud against lender for misrepresenting the terms of the loan, promising fixed rate with one small step after two years both orally and in the Truth In Lending Statement. Loan was actually variable rate with negative amortization. Morenos would have qualified for fixed rate 5% for 30 years, but instead received an exploding 7% ARM. Notary rushed plaintiffs through signing of documents with little explanation. Complaint requests a declaration the note is invalid, unconscionable and unenforceable and the Notice of Trustees Sale is invalid.

 

Other State Courts

JPMorgan Chase Bank v. George, Case No. 10865/06

Arthur M. Schack, Supreme Court Judge, Kings County, New York
Edward Roberts, attorney for Gertrude George

 

Florida Judge tosses foreclosure lawsuit

Homeowners dispute who owns mortgage

by Steve Patterson
St. Augustine Record
June 15, 2010

Changing stories about who owns a mortgage and seemingly fresh evidence from a long-closed bank led a judge to throw out a foreclosure lawsuit. It’s the second time in as many months that Circuit Judge J. Michael Traynor has dismissed with prejudice a foreclosure case where homeowners disputed who owns the mortgage. Lawyers representing New York-based M&T Bank gave three separate accounts of the ownership, with documentation that kept changing.

“The court has been misled by the plaintiff from the beginning,” the judge wrote in his order. He added that documents filed by M&T’s lawyers seemed to contradict each other and “have changed as needed to benefit the plaintiff.”

The latest account was that Wells Fargo owned the note, and M&T was a servicer, a company paid to handle payments and other responsibilities tied to a mortgage. To believe that, the judge wrote, the “plaintiff is asking the court to ignore the documents filed in the first two complaints.” He added that Wells Fargo can still sue on its own, if it has evidence that it owns the mortgage.

More and more foreclosure cases are being argued on shaky evidence, said James Kowalski, a Jacksonville attorney who represented homeowners Lisa and Larry Smith in the fight over their oceanfront home. “I think it’s very representative of what the banks and their lawyers are currently doing in court,” Kowalski said.

He said lawyers bringing the lawsuits are often pressed by their clients to close the cases quickly. But it’s up to lawyers to present solid evidence and arguments. “We are supposed to be better than that,” Kowalski said. “We are supposed to be officers of the court.”

 

Exhibits

Department of Treasury and FDIC Report on WaMu, 4/16/2010

The Offices of Inspector General for Department of the Treasury and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation released its evaluation of the regulatory oversight of Washington Mutual on April 16. The table of contents tells the story. WaMu pursued a high-risk lending strategy which included systematic underwriting weaknesses. They didn’t care if borrowers could pay back their loans. WaMu did not have adequate controls in place to manage its reckless “high-risk” strategy. OTS examiners found weaknesses in WaMu’s strategy, operations, and asset portfolio but looked the other way.

 

OCC Advisory Letters

How could the regulators allow this breakdown to happen? Was it really fraud when banks arranged loans for homeowners who would inevitably go into defrault, sold them to Wall Street to be bundled into securities, then purchased insurance so that the bank would collect the unpaid balances when the borrowers lost their homes? Did anybody really know that repealing Glass-Steagall and permitting Wall Street banks to get under the covers with Main Street banks would cause so many borrowers to lose their homes? The Glass-Steagall Act, enacted in 1933, barred any institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. It was repealed in 1999, and the repercussions have been immense.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued Advisory Letter 2000-7 only months after Glass-Steagall was repealed. It warned regulators to be on the lookout for indications of predatory or abusive lending practices, including Collateral or Equity Stripping – loans made in reliance on the liquidation value of the borrower’s home or other collateral, rather than the borrower’s independent ability to repay, with the possible or intended result of foreclosure or the need to refinance under duress.

Proving fraud is a painstaking process. Getting inside the mind of a crook requires a careful foundation, and admissable evidence is not always easy to obtain. Many courts will take judicial notice of official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States. See Cal Evidence Code Sec. 452(c).

Here is a set of smoking guns in the form of a series of Advisory Letters issued by OCC:

The Washington Mutual logo prior to its acquis...
The Washington Mutual logo prior to its acquisition by JPMorgan Chase. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Banks are double talking settlement

Some big numbers start looking smaller when you take a close look. A case in point: The $85 million Missouri has so far reaped from last February’s national mortgage settlement with big banks.

The bulk of it, $30 million, went to short sales. But banks were doing short sales before the settlement. They’ve picked up the pace this year, but it’s not clear if the settlement was part of the reason.

Banks often save money on short sales. They save the cost of foreclosing and maintaining an empty house. That house usually sells for more in a short sale than in a foreclosure.

In metro St. Louis, for instance, short sale homes sell at a 30 percent discount to similar homes. Foreclosed hopes go at a 40 percent discount, according to figures from RealtyTrac. If the home can attract a decent offer on the market, it’s clearly in the bank’s interest to accept a short sale rather than foreclose.

Troubled homeowners prefer short sales because the banks generally forgive the remaining debt – the difference between the sale price and the amount owed on the mortgage. The $30 million from the settlement represents that forgiven debt.

That raises the question: Would the banks have forgiven that debt even without the settlement? Have banks found a nifty way to reduce the amount $25 billion they agreed to pay to settle the suit over their foreclosure practices?

The figures are similar across the nation. At least 60 percent of the money is supposed to go to homeowner relief. But the bulk of that is going for short sales.

In Missouri, 6.6 million has gone to principal reduction on mortgages, and $1.2 million was in mortgage refinancing, according to Attorney General Chris Koster’s figures.  Another $7.7 million went to other, unspecified consumer relief. Koster said another $28 million was in the process of being provided to Missouri borrowers as of June 30.

The settlement was reached between five giant banks, the federal government and state attorneys general.

Multnomah County gears up to sue national mortgage giant MERS

Dana Tims, The Oregonian By Dana Tims, The Oregonian
on November 09, 2012 at 4:47 PM, updated November 09, 2012 at 7:10 PM

mers.JPG An electronic registry of mortgages has resulted in thousands of home foreclosures nationally. Multnomah County is now preparing to sue the mortgage giant MERS, in part to collect recording fees the county says are being avoided. Associated Press

In an action that has implications for tens of thousands of area homeowners, Multnomah County is taking on a mortgage-industry giant in hopes of recouping potentially millions of dollars in recording fees the county says have been avoided illegally.

County commissioners on Thursday will vote to make Multnomah the first county in Oregon to file a lawsuit against the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, a Virginia-based conglomerate created by large national banks to bundle and sell loans without having to record each new transaction.

“What MERS does is take the property recording system we have in Multnomah County and make it worthless,” said Jeff Cogen, commission chairman. “Anyone who buys, sells or owns a home in this county is affected.”

As a result of MERS’ practices, few people know who actually owns their mortgage, he said. Consequently, a public-records search alone on thousands of properties in Multnomah County may be utterly insufficient in identifying a clear title-holder.

Before the rise of MERS’ electronic registry in 1997, anyone buying a house would record the deed with the county. Those recording fees, in turn, provided the public service of making clear who owned which piece of property.

Cogen and others say the outcome of the lawsuit is far from certain. Nationally, MERS has won more suits than it has lost by arguing that it can legally be listed as a “beneficiary” on home-mortgage papers.

“It’s not a sure thing,” said Jenny Morf, Multnomah County counsel. “But we wouldn’t be here if we didn’t think we could succeed.”

The county’s lawsuit will allege that MERS has hopelessly muddied mortgage records by allowing the mortgages to be bought and sold numerous times without a recording fee being paid each time. That process shorts the county what it is due in fees, according to the county’s complaint, in addition to confusing title records.

“Maintaining these records is core to the county’s mission,” Cogen said. “We believe the banks, acting through MERS, have corrupted our public records and deprived the county of money it is entitled to.”

The county, if successful, could collect damages of anywhere from $3 million to $24 million, he said. The actual amount would depend on how many unpaid “conveyances” — selling and re-selling of mortgages among various banking interests — are determined to be involved.

If the county prevails and wins damages, Cogen said, he and other board members would use the proceeds to help county homeowners who have “suffered at the hands of MERS” through non-judicial foreclosures.

Many of the foreclosures that have hit Multnomah County homeowners since the housing meltdown that started in 2007 are a result of MERS being able to stand in as the “beneficiary” on recording documents, Cogen said. Lacking that ability, the housing giant would not have been able to proceed with the raft of non-judicial foreclosures that have left many people on the street.

Jason Lobo, MERS’ corporation communications director, declined to comment on the prospect of the county’s lawsuit.

“As a matter of regular course, we don’t comment on cases outstanding or not yet filed,” he said. “We don’t want to litigate this in the media.”

He did, however, provide information on several cases nationally that have been decided in MERS’ favor. Those include lawsuits filed in Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky and Iowa.

Attorneys advising the county say more recent outcomes have broken in favor of public and private parties suing MERS.

An Oregon Court of Appeals ruling handed down in July, for instance, found that MERS’ controversial document-registry system could not be used to get around state recording law in non-judicial foreclosures.

The Oregon Supreme Court is expected to resolve that lawsuit, filed by Rhododendron real estate agent Rebecca Niday.

A key factor in persuading county commissioners to proceed at this time is the relative lack of risk involved.

Its legal team — a Lake Oswego law firm partnering with an Alabama-based firm that has filed other anti-MERS suits nationally — is working on a contingency basis. Those firms will split one-third of any monetary award, while the county will owe nothing if the case falters.

“The county is only on the hook for a maximum of $20,000 in filing fees and associated court costs,” Cogen said. “In reality, we think the figure will be much less than that.”

Commissioner Deborah Kafoury said it makes sense for the county to take the lead on the issue since it’s county-backed homeless shelters that are now absorbing many who have lost their homes in non-judicial foreclosures over the past few years.

“The system is broken,” she said. “This is one way to start repairing it.”

N. California Couple Wins ‘Dual Tracking’ Wrongful Foreclosure Suit, But Gets Hammered Anyway; Damages Limited To ‘Lost Equity’, Leaving Underwater Homeowners Empty-Handed

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 6:47 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: N. California Couple Wins ‘Dual Tracking’ Wrongful Foreclosure Suit, But Gets Hammered Anyway; Damages Limited To ‘Lost Equity’, Leaving Underwater Homeowners Empty-Handed

THE HOME EQUITY THEFT REPORTER

WELCOME TO THE HOME EQUITY THEFT REPORTER, A BLOG DEDICATED TO INFORMING THE CONSUMER PUBLIC AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION ABOUT HOME EQUITY THEFT ISSUES. THIS BLOG WILL CONSIST OF INFORMATION DESCRIBING THE VARIOUS FORMS OF HOME EQUITY THEFT AND LINKS TO NEWS REPORTS & OTHER INFORMATIONAL SOURCES FROM THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY ABOUT THE VICTIMS OF HOME EQUITY THEFT AND WHAT GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND OTHERS ARE DOING ABOUT IT.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 06, 2012

N. California Couple Wins ‘Dual Tracking’ Wrongful Foreclosure Suit, But Gets Hammered Anyway; Damages Limited To ‘Lost Equity’, Leaving Underwater Homeowners Empty-Handed

In Brisbane, California, the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

  • While Mark and Jenny Gin were making dozens of calls and submitting reams of paperwork to get a loan modification from OneWest Bank, another department of the bank proceeded to foreclose on their Brisbane home.

    That’s not unusual. Thousands of homeowners have complained about such "dual tracking" – so many, in fact, that California will ban the practice starting Jan. 1, when the state Homeowners Bill of Rights takes effect.

    What distinguishes the Gin family is that they sued – and won. A San Mateo Superior Court jury last month found that OneWest acted fraudulently. Legal experts said it may be the first instance of a California jury finding that a bank committed wrongful foreclosure by dual tracking.

    However, the jury awarded the Gins just $13,500, which didn’t even cover their legal expenses. To get the house back, they’d have to pony up the full amount they owe on the mortgage, which they can’t do.

    A cautionary tale

    Their story is a cautionary tale that illuminates California’s legal landscape for the many homeowners who feel they were wrongfully foreclosed upon. Even in the rare instances where borrowers prevail against banks in court, the rewards may not be worth their trouble.

***

  • His attorney, Steven Finley of San Francisco’s Hennefer, Finley & Wood, explained the reasoning. The jury "found that the foreclosure was wrongful and fraudulent, but because the property was underwater, (the Gins) received no damages," he said. "Under wrongful foreclosure actions, you only get lost equity."

    California offers just two remedies for wrongful foreclosure, Finley said. One is damages, but they are limited to lost equity. The other is to get the house back, but that requires tendering all the money owed on the mortgage.

    "California really screws the borrower. If your house was wrongfully foreclosed and you want it back, you have to offer the whole amount," Finley said.

    The jury declined to award punitive damages. "Jurors said, ‘We feel your client has been defrauded but it wasn’t directed maliciously against him,’ " Finley said.

    The $13,500 awarded to the Gins was to pay them back for a remodeling project they had started. With their first child on the way, they borrowed money from relatives to make the house more child-friendly after being assured by OneWest that they would receive a loan modification, Gin said.

For more, see Legal win means little after foreclosure.

POSTED BY HOME EQUITY THEFT REPORTER AT 4:00 AM

Foreclosure Reviews-“Consultants” paid $12.5k to dole out an average

From: Charles Cox [mailto:charles@bayliving.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 11:34 AM
To: Charles Cox
Subject: Foreclosure Reviews-"Consultants" paid $12.5k to dole out an average

Get ready to be disgusted yet again.

PricewaterhouseCoopers paid $250 million to pay out $35-60 million to harmed homeowners.

http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/177_212/foreclosure-reviews-exorbitant-for-banks-gold-mines-for-consultants-1054069-1.html?zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

Charles
Charles Wayne Cox
Email: mailto:Charles
Websites: www.BayLiving.com; www.FdnPro.com and www.ForensicLoanAnalyst.com
1969 Camellia Ave.
Medford, OR 97504-5403
(541) 727-2240 direct
(541) 610-1931 eFax

Paralegal; Litigation Support and Expert Witness Services; Forensic Loan Analyst; CA Licensed Real Estate Broker.

New Facebook page I need you to Like CALIFORNIA JUSTICE FOUNDATION

http://www.facebook.com/pages/California-Justice-Foundation/170293853045518?ref=hl# CLICK IT