THE HOUSE OF FRAUD STARTS TO FALL: MERS’ PRESIDENT QUITS, JUDGES ORDERING PRODUCTION OF MERS AND TRUST DISCOVERY IN SECURITIZATION CASES (via Foreclosureblues)

THE HOUSE OF FRAUD STARTS TO FALL: MERS’ PRESIDENT QUITS, JUDGES ORDERING PRODUCTION OF MERS AND TRUST DISCOVERY IN SECURITIZATION CASES THE HOUSE OF FRAUD STARTS TO FALL: MERS’ PRESIDENT QUITS, JUDGES ORDERING PRODUCTION OF MERS AND TRUST DISCOVERY IN SECURITIZATION CASES Today, January 27, 2011, 54 minutes ago | Jeff Barnes January 27, 2011 The tide is finally, after years of struggle, starting to turn, at least in some jurisdictions. As most of you know from the web this week, MERS’ President William Hultman has resigned. MERS is under attack from all directions, and a securiti … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

"Rigged Game"! (via Foreclosureblues)

"Rigged Game"! "Rigged Game"! Today, January 27, 2011, 3 hours ago | Millie This is a "Rigged Game"!   This "game" we are playing against the banks in the judicial system is like unto a blindfolded novice chess player up against a world champion who can see and who cheats and who changes the rules as the game goes along, only the novice isn't told the new hidden rules, nor can he use them, for he has his own limited set of rules (double standard)…and the … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

US Bankruptcy Trustee Takes Interest in “Ta Dah” Documents Mysteriously Appearing in Foreclosures (aka Probable Fabrications)

One of the sorry reminders of the decline of the rule of law in the United States is the frequency with which incidents of what look like document forgeries take place in foreclosure cases. The fact that a now-shuttered subsidiary of Lender Processing Services, a vendor to the servicing industry, had a price list for creating mortgage-related documents out of whole cloth attests to the long-standing demand for this sort of product.

The reason for this activity is simple. As we’ve stressed in various posts, in so-called private label securitizations (the non-Fannie/Freddie type), a great deal of evidence indicates that the originators and packagers of these deals did not bother complying with the contracts they created to govern these transactions on a widespread, perhaps pervasive basis sometime after 2003. And their shortcomings only come to light in foreclosures, and then (possibly) if the foreclosure is contested. Given how low foreclosure rates were historically, this was a risk the securitization industry seemed willing to take, and it is now reaping the fruit of this short-sighted bet.

The big problem for servicers and trustees (the parties that are responsible for the trust that holds the assets of the securitization) is that the pooling and servicing agreement which governs the securitization required that the note (the borrower’s IOU) be transferred though a specific set of parties by a specified time not all that long after the deal closed. Increasingly savvy anti-foreclosure lawyers recognize that the party attempting to foreclose may not have the legal standing to do so.

A new development is that the US Bankruptcy Trustee, which is part of the Department of Justice, has started poking around the nether world of slipshod and possible made-up documents, and is asking banks to explain what they are up to. These inquiries may be paving the ground for broader-based action.

The case in question is a Connecticut Chapter 13 filing (hat tip April Charney).

US Trustee Motion in CT for 2004 Examination

DeutscheBank purports to be the trustee for a particular 2005 mortgage securitization which contains the mortgage at issue. This is a partial list of the documentation problems; the motion itself makes for instructive reading:
In the first filing, Deutsche provides a copy of an undated promissory note which is not made out to the trust but the originator. A few days later, Deutshce filed an objection to the debtor’s plan of reorganization, and in it said the mortgage (the lien, not the note) had been recorded as transferred from the originator to Sand Canyon (a unit of Option One) in 2005 and then transferred to Deutsche less than two weeks before the bankruptcy filing. Note that a 2010 transfer is well outside the time parameters stipulated in the pooling and servicing agreement.

The borrower’s side asks what happened to the note, since there is no evidence it was transferred.

Several months later, Deutsche shows up in court with the usual fix for this sort of problem, an allonge (an attachment to a note that is so firmly secured that it is supposed to be inseparable to allow extra room for signatures. Query if the allonge were properly attached, how would it be possible to make a copy of the original note and not see at least part of the allonge?)

The truly creative part is these documents include an assignment of mortgage dated June 11, 2010, but effective as of May 1, 2005. I never knew law offices had time machines as part of their standard equipment. The trustee separately questions the 2010 assignment, since it was signed by an employee of Sand Canyon, when Sand Canyon did not own any mortgages or mortgage servicing rights at that point in time.

Even though the bankruptcy trustee is merely requesting a Rule 2004 examination (which means it wants someone from Deutsche to appear and answer questions about the case under oath), it is clear that he does not like what he sees so far:

The United States Trustee has reviewed the documents filed by Deutsche in this case and
has concerns about the integrity of those documents and the process utilized by Deutsche….Bankruptcy Courts have discussed the need for secured lenders to provide accurate information in filings before the Court… Consequently, “cause” exists authorizing the issuance of a subpoena to compel document production under Bankruptcy Rules 2004(c) and 9016…

The US Trustee has asked for a pretty extensive list of documents related to this bankruptcy. I’d love to be a fly on the wall and see the Deutsche employee try to explain his way out of this one.

State of the Union the real story ! Foreclosure activity up across most US metro areas

LOS ANGELES – The foreclosure crisis is getting worse as high unemployment and lackluster job prospects force homeowners in an increasing number of U.S. metropolitan areas into dire financial straits.

In Seattle, Houston and Chicago, cities that were relatively insulated from foreclosures early on in the housing bust, a growing number of homeowners are falling behind on mortgage payments and finding themselves on the receiving end of foreclosure warnings. Others have already seen their homes repossessed by lenders.

All told, foreclosure activity jumped in 149 of the country’s 206 largest metropolitan areas last year, foreclosure listing firm RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday.

The firm tracks notices for defaults, scheduled home auctions and home repossessions — warnings that can lead up to a home eventually being lost to foreclosure.

Job loss, rather than time-bomb mortgages resetting to higher payments, has become the main driver behind rising foreclosures.

“We’ve actually had a sea change in what’s causing foreclosures, from the overheated home prices and bad loans to a second wave of foreclosures actually caused by unemployment and economic displacement,” says Rick Sharga, a senior vice president at RealtyTrac.

The Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown metropolitan area in Texas saw its foreclosure rate jump 26 percent from 2009, the largest increase among the top 20 biggest metro areas, the firm said.

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, in Washington, ranked second with an increase of nearly 23 percent, while the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta metro area in Georgia was third with a 21 percent bump.

In the Chicago-Naperville-Joliet metropolitan area, foreclosure activity rose 16 percent, while home repossessions climbed nearly 20 percent, RealtyTrac said.

“As the economy and unemployment improve, you’ll see those markets recover fairly quickly, whereas you’re still going to have a bit of a hangover in places like California, Florida and Nevada,” Sharga said.

Those states, and Arizona, remain the country’s foreclosure hotbeds, accounting for 19 of the top 20 metropolitan areas with the highest foreclosure rates in 2010.

Still, foreclosure activity in many of the metro areas in these states actually declined last year.

Las Vegas-Paradise, Nev., registered the highest foreclosure rate in the nation, with one in every nine households receiving a foreclosure-related notice in 2010 — nearly five times the national average. But the metropolitan area’s foreclosure activity fell 7 percent from the prior year.

Three California metro areas posted among the biggest annual drops in foreclosure activity: Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, down 20 percent; San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, down 17 percent; and, Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, down 16 percent.

A big reason for the decline is lenders took steps to delay foreclosure actions in these states as they sought to manage the flow of troubled properties coming onto their books. In the final months of last year, several lenders went further, temporarily halting foreclosure activity to deal with allegations of improper evictions.

Most banks have since resumed taking action against borrowers behind in payments, however, and the pace of foreclosures is expected to pick up this year and ultimately outpace 2010 levels.

“We believe we’re going to see an abnormally high growth of foreclosure activity in the first quarter and we do expect that 2011 will be another record year for foreclosure activity and bank repossessions,” Sharga said, adding he projects bank repossessions will rise by at least 20 percent.

That’s likely to drag down home values further, potentially pushing more homeowners into negative equity — when a borrower owes more on their mortgage than the market value of their home.

About 2.4 million U.S. homeowners have only 5 percent or less equity in their homes, according to data from CoreLogic.

Lenders took back 1 million properties in 2010, and no metro area saw more homes repossessed by lenders than Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale in Arizona.

Some 55,372 properties were taken back by lenders there last year, up 17 percent from the year before.

The Chicago metro area was second, followed by the Detroit-Warren-Livonia metro area in Michigan. Its home repossessions rose 19 percent.

getting a mod with a 998

Some folks have told me that they got their modification approved using a California Civil Code 998.

Now a 998 traditionally was used in personal injury cases to put pressure on the insurance companies to settle rather than incur both sides of the litigation cost. But it applies to all civil actions. I see the advantage of a 998 in that you don’t have to file litigation to use it. This could be a useful way to start negotiation without incurring the expense of a lawsuit. Once again it costs nothing to try. The other benefit is it may get your case transferred to legal rather than some loss mitigator hence a better result in a faster time frame.

1. What is a California Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 offer to compromise?
CCP Section 998 is a statute that gives litigants leverage to settle cases. The mechanism of Section 998 is for a party to make an offer to compromise and settle a case. The offer must be in writing and must offer something in consideration for settlement. This does not necessarily need to be a dollar amount but must be something of value, such as an offer to waive costs.

There can be significant consequences to failing to accept an offer to compromise and then not securing a judgment or award better than the offer. For plaintiffs who refuse a defendant’s offer and then either suffer a defense verdict or a judgment or award less than that offer, they do not recover their post-offer statutory costs normally allowed by CCP Sections 1032 and 1033.5, and they must pay the defendant’s same costs. Further, they may be required to pay the defendant’s “actually incurred and reasonably necessary” expert witness costs, including costs incurred pre-offer.1 For defendants who reject a plaintiff’s offer and then suffer a verdict or judgment in excess of the value of the offer, they may be required to pay the plaintiff’s statutory costs, as well as post-offer expert witness costs. In personal injury actions, defendants also will be liable for prejudgment interest.2

A statutory offer also can be a strategic tool to force a settlement. Applied with care and foresight, counsel can structure the value of an offer as a reasonable settlement amount, which then puts pressure on the other party to either accept the offer or risk having to reimburse the other side’s regular and expert witness costs.

Class Actions or Mass joinder cases Widespread Wrongful Foreclosures, Failure to Reinstate Loans

It is no secret that the United States remains in the throes of one of the worst “mortgage meltdowns” in history. The problem is so widespread that the numbers are almost hard to believe. The consensus is that it will take years for the effects of this economic disaster to be unwound through any process, whether free market, government run or a combination of both. Just days ago, CNBC reported that the monthly foreclosures for January was an ALL TIME HIGH. This story ran simultaneously with the emergence of allegations of widespread “robo-signing” borrowerrs into foreclosure without regard to the actual status of their loan.

In the case of the wrongful foreclosure, the fact pattern generally goes as follows. First, borrower takes out a mortgage on his property and lender takes back a promissory note and deed of trust. Second, the borrower misses one or two payments, or falls behind one or two payments, and then catches up. Third, the lender notifies the borrower that the loan is in default, fails to reinstate the loan, and begins to generate fees and costs that must be paid by the borrower — before the lender will reinstate its loan — including but not limited to: (1) attorneys fees; (2) default interest; (3) late charges; (4) appraisal fees and (5) other costs. The lender goes on to threaten the buyer with foreclosure if the buyer fails to pay all the banks fees and costs, in addition to the principal and interest on the underlying loan this is called reinstatement.

What’s the big deal? These “default” fees and costs are quickly piled on, eroding any equity that the borrower may have slowly built up on the property (in effect paying it to the Bank), draining the borrower’s bank account and leaving the borrower unable to make up the payments or resist foreclosure. On the bank side, it’s a beautifully profitable transaction, they bleed the borrower dry, and then take the property back. Additionally they could not even initiate foreclosure in California till they comply with civil code 2923.5. One problem…..it’s illegal.

The recent case against Bank of America was based on abusive practices such as these, and resulted in a settlement of $108 million, affecting nearly 200,000 borrowers!

In California, borrowers also have the protection of a special statute, California Civil Code Section 2924c. California Civil Code § 2924c applies to any obligation secured by a deed of trust on real property, and permits the trustor, who is in default under the terms of the deed of trust, to cure the default unilaterally, by paying to the beneficiary or the successor in interest:

“(A) all amounts of principal, interest, taxes, assessments, insurance premiums, or advances actually known by the beneficiary to be, and that are, in default and shown by the beneficiary to be, and that are, in default and shown in the notice of default, under the terms of the deed of trust or mortgage and the obligation secured thereby, (B) all amounts in default on recurring obligations not shown in the notice of default, and (C) all reasonable costs and expenses, subject to subdivision (c), which are actually incurred in enforcing the terms of the obligation, deed of trust, or mortgage, and trustee’s or attorney’s fees, subject to subdivision (d), other than the portion of principal as would not then be due had no default occurred…”

If the trustor cures the default pursuant to this section, then “all proceedings theretofore had or instituted shall be dismissed or discontinued and the obligation and deed of trust or mortgage shall be reinstated and shall be and remain in force and effect, the same as if the acceleration had not occurred”. Bottom line, if a borrower tenders payment to the lender as required under 2924c, reinstatement is mandatory!

A recently filed a class action in LA Superior Court against Greystone Bank for alleged violations of California Civil Code 2924c. Read Complaint. If you are a borrower that has been: (1) subjected to, or threatened with wrongful foreclosure, or (2) forced to pay improper fees and costs in order to avoid foreclosure, by Greystone Bank or Greystone Servicing Corporation, we would like to talk with you about your situation.

Also, if you have had a wrongful foreclosure experience with any other large bank, other than Greystone Bank or Greystone Servicing Corporation, we would like to talk with you about your experience as well. Call Southern California 909-890-9192 in Northern California 925-957-9797

Robosigning Scandal Just As Bad (If Not Worse) In Non-Judicial Foreclosure States (via Foreclosureblues)

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 Robosigning Scandal Just As Bad (If Not Worse) In Non-Judicial Foreclosure States CNBC reports: It's the next big shoe to drop in the robo-signing foreclosure scandal. Call it part two. We already know some banks halted foreclosure sales nationwide in October when it was discovered that servicers took short cuts, so-called "robo-signing" in the foreclosure sale process in judicial foreclosure states – about half the co … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Hawaiian Attorney Non-Judicial Foreclosure – Due Process Violation Question to the US Supreme Court (via Foreclosureblues)

Hawaiian Attorney Non-Judicial Foreclosure – Due Process Violation Question to the US Supreme Court Hawaiian Attorney Non-Judicial Foreclosure – Due Process Violation Question to the US Supreme Court Today, January 26, 2011, 2 hours ago | Foreclosure Fraud This is the first real chance in 100 years for the United States Supreme Court to do something about nonjudicial foreclosures. Due Process Questions USSC re non-judicial foreclosure View this document on Scribd ~ 4closureFraud.org … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

How the U.S. Government Has Corrupted the Banking Industry and the Foreclosure System (via Foreclosureblues)

How the U.S. Government Has Corrupted the Banking Industry and the Foreclosure System How the U.S. Government Has Corrupted the Banking Industry and the Foreclosure System Today, January 26, 2011, 10 minutes ago | Mark Stopa A few years ago, if I came across a blog titled “How the U.S. Government has Corrupted the Banking Industry and the Foreclosure System,” I’d have thought the author was paranoid, crazy, or both.  Now?  After years of defending Florida homeowners facing foreclosure, I wholeheartedly believe it.  In fact, my con … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Notaries to Take the Fifth (via Foreclosureblues)

Notaries to Take the Fifth Foreclosure Document Fraud Drives Notaries to Take the Fifth Today, January 26, 2011, 35 minutes ago | Abigail Field Yet another problem has begun surfacing in the documents banks have been using to foreclose on homes: false notarizations. Notaries have been attesting legally to signatures they didn't witness, sometimes by people who didn't actually sign, and it's adding to the tangled mess of ownership confusion. Continue reading Foreclosure Doc … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

The Lawsuit to be Heard ‘Round the World'? (via Foreclosureblues)

The Lawsuit to be Heard ‘Round the World'? The Lawsuit to be Heard ‘Round the World? Today, January 26, 2011, 6 hours ago | Editor Investors, including New York Life, have filed a 194-page complaint against Countrywide and Bank of America, alleging…essentially, what homeowners and consumer attorneys have been pointing out all along. You can read an excellent summary at Mandelman Matters, but this allegation is worth spotlighting again here: Countrywide routinely failed to comply with the … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

mers in court cases

MERS v. Nebraska Dept of Banking and Finance – State Appellate, MERS demands to be recognized as having no actionable interest in title. 2005, Cite as 270 Neb 529
Merscorp, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Edward P. Romaine, & c., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant the fact that the Mortgage and Deed of Trust are separated is recognized (concurring opinion). While affirming MERS could enter in the records as “nominee”, the court recognized many inherent problems. Rather than resolve them, they sloughed them off to the legislature. 2006
The Boyko Decision -Federal District Judge Christopher Boyko of the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Ohio Federal Court overturns 14 foreclosure actions with a well reasoned opinion outlining the failure of the foreclosing party to prove standing. This decision started the movement of challenging the standing of the foreclosing party. Oct 2007
Landmark National Bank v Kesler – KS State Supreme Court – MERS has no standing to foreclose and is, in fact, a straw man. Oct 2009.
The importance of the findings of the Supreme Court of Kansas cannot be overemphasized. It is generally the law in all states that if the law of one state has not specifically addressed a specific legal issue that the court may look to the law of states which have. The Kansas Court acknowledged that the case was one of “first impression in Kansas”, which is why the Kansas Court looked to legal decisions from California, Idaho, New York, Missouri, and other states for guidance and to support its decision. As we have previously reported, the Ohio Courts have looked to the legal decisions of New York to resolve issues in foreclosure defense, most notably issues of standing to institute a foreclosure.
It is practically certain that this decision will be the subject of review by various courts. MERS has already threatened a “second appeal” (by requesting “reconsideration” by the Supreme Court of Kansas of its decision by the entire panel of Judges in that Court). However, for now, the decision stands, which decision is of monumental importance for borrowers. It thus appears that the tide is finally starting to turn, and that the courts are beginning to recognize the extent of the wrongful practices and fraud perpetrated by “lenders” and MERS upon borrowers, which conduct was engaged in for the sole purpose of greed and profit for the “lenders” and their ilk at the expense of borrowers.
MERS, Inc., Appellant v Southwest Homes of Arkansas, Appellee The second State Supreme Court ruling – AR 2009
BAC v US Bank – FL Appellate court upholds the concept of determining the standing of the foreclosing party before allowing summary judgement. All cases in FL must now go through this process. If you want to have fun, read the plaintiff’s brief. 2007
Wells Fargo NAS v Farmer Motion to vacate in Supreme Court, Kings County, NY 2009
In Re: Joshua & Stephanie Mitchell – US Federal Bankruptcy Court, NV 2009
In Re: Wilhelm et al., Case No. 08-20577-TLM (opinion of Hon. Terry L. Myers, Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, July 9, 2009) – Chief US Bankruptcy Judge, ID – MERS, by its construction, separates the Deed from the Mortgage
MERS v Johnston – Vermont Superior Court Decision
Wells Fargo v Jordon – OH Appellate Court
Weingartner et al v Chase Home Finance et al – US District Court (Nev): Two pro se plaintiffs sue for relief re: MERS assignments. Very technical decision but two things are apparent. First, the court has little patience for pro se plaintiffs who throw everything out there wasting the court’s time and second, even though the court threw out most of what the plaintiffs were arguing for, they did side with the plaintiff. Provides a good insight to the court’s reasoning vis a vis MERS assignments. Also makes clear you shouldn’t try this from home. Please seek legal counsel.
Schneider et al v Deutsche Bank et al (FL): Class action suit (the filing) seeking to recover actual and statutory damages for violations of the foreclosure process. Provides an excellent description of the securitization process and the problems with assignments. Any person named as a defendant in a suit by Deutsche Bank should contact the firms involved for inclusion in this suit.
JP Morgan Chase v New Millenial et. al. – FL Appellate which clearly demonstrates the chaos which can ensue when there is a failure to register changes of ownership at the county recorder’s office. Everyone operates in good faith, then out of nowhere, someone shows up waving a piece of paper. The MERS system, while not explicitly named, is clearly the culprit of the chaos. 2009
In Re: Walker, Case No. 10-21656-E-11 – Eastern District of CA Bankruptcy court rules MERS has NO actionable interest in title. “Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.” “MERS could not, as a matter of law, have transferred the note to Citibank from the original lender, Bayrock Mortgage Corp.” The Court’s opinion is headlined stating that MERS and Citibank are not the real parties in interest.
In re Vargas, 396 B.R. at 517-19. Judge Bufford made a finding that the witness called to testify as to debt and default was incompetent. All the witness could testify was that he had looked at the MERS computerized records. The witness was unable to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 803, as applied to computerized records in the Ninth Circuit. See id. at 517-20. The low level employee could really only testify that the MERS screen shot he reviewed reflected a default. That really is not much in the way of evidence, and not nearly enough to get around the hearsay rule.
In Re: Joshua and Stephanie Mitchell, Case No. BK-S-07-16226-LBR [U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada, Memorandum Opinion of August 19, 2008]. Federal Court in Nevada attacked MERS’ purported “authority”, finding that there was no evidence that MERS was the agent of the note’s holder
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Girdvainis, Sumter County, South Carolina Court of Common Pleas Case No. 2005-CP-43-0278 (Order dated January 19, 2006, citing to the representations of MERS and court findings in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Nebraska Dept. of Banking and Finance, 270 Neb. 529, 704 NW 2d. 784). As such, ALL MERS assignments are suspect at best, and may in fact be fraudulent. The Court of Common Pleas of Sumter County, South Carolina also found that MERS’ rights were not as they were represented to be; that MERS had no rights to collect on any debt because it did not extend any credit; none of the borrowers owe MERS any money; that MERS does not own the promissory notes secured by the mortgages; and that MERS does not acquire any loan or extension of credit secured by a lien on real property.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. v. SAUNDERS 2010 ME 79 Docket: Cum-09-640.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. | Ordered dated August 12, 2010. We conclude that although MERS is not in fact a “mortgagee” within the meaning of our foreclosure statute, 14 M.R.S. §§ 6321-6325, and therefore had no standing to institute foreclosure proceedings, the real party in interest was the Bank and the court did not abuse its discretion by substituting the Bank for MERS. Because, however, the Bank was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
MERS ‘AGENT’ PREVIOUS MTG FRAUD SCHEME| Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Folkes, 2010 NY Slip Op 32007 – NY: Supreme Court The settlement agent on all of the MERS documents was listed as Peter Port, Esq., undeniably plaintiffs agent. According to an affidavit, with documents attached from Ms. Nichole M. Orr, identified as an Assistant Vice President and Senior Operational Risk Specialist for Bank of America Home Loans, the successor-in-interest to plaintiff America’s Wholesale Lender (April 1, 2010)[1] certain wire transfers were made on November 23, 2004 to Mr. Port. The money appears to have come from an account with JP Morgan, but one of the documents also shows, inexplicably, that Mr. Port then sent $435,067.73 of this money to Cheron A. Ramphal at 14917 Motley Road, Silver Springs, MD. It should also be noted, as it was in the decision of February 5, 2008 by Judge Payne, that Mr. Port pled guilty in March 2006 in Federal District Court in New Jersey to providing false documents in a scheme to commit mortgage fraud.
‘NO PROOF’ MERS assigned BOTH Mortgage and NOTE to HSBC|HSBC Bank, etc. v. Miller, et al. The “Assignment of Mortgage,” which is attached as exhibit E to the opposition papers, makes no reference to the note, and only makes reference to the mortgage being assigned. The Assignment has a vague reference to note wherein it states that “the said assignor hereby grants and conveys unto the said assignee, the assignor’s beneficial interest under the mortgage, “but this is the only language in the Assignment which could possibly be found to refer to the note.
Contrary to the affirmation of Ms. Szeliga in which she represented, in paragraph 17, that there was language in the assignment which specifically referred to the note, the assignment in this case does not contain °a specific reference to the Note.
In light of the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that there is insufficient proof to establish that both the note and the mortgage have been assigned to the Plaintiff, and therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff has no standing to maintain the foreclosure action; and it is further ORDERED that the application of Defendant, Jeffrey F. Miller, to dismiss is granted, without prejudice, to renew upon proof of a valid assignment of the note.
Judge ARTHUR SCHACK’s COLASSAL Steven J. BAUM “MiLL” SMACK DOWN!! MERS TWILIGHT ZONE! | HSBC BANK v. Yeasmin The MERS mortgage twilight zone was created in 1993 by several large “participants in the real estate mortgage industry to track ownership interests in residential mortgages. Mortgage lenders and other entities, known as MERS members, subscribe to the MERS system and pay annual fees for the electronic processing and tracking of ownership and transfers of mortgages. Members contractually agree to appoint MERS to act as their common agent on all mortgages they register in the MERS system.
UNION BANK CO. v. NORTH CAROLINA FURNITURE EXPRESS, LLC.: MERS ‘GETS FORECLOSED’| ASSIGNS NADA TO BAC fka COUNTRYWIDE OHIO COURT OF APPEAL: While an assignment typically transfers the lien of the mortgage on the property described in the mortgage, as BAC acknowledged in its reply brief, an assignee can only take, and the assignor can only give, the interest currently held by the assignor. R.C. 5301.31. With that stated, it is clear under the facts of this case that BAC never obtained an interest in the property; thus, it could not have been substituted as a party-defendant in the 2008 foreclosure action. Here, with respect to the 2008 foreclosure action, the date the last party was served with notice was on January 28, 2009, which was almost six months before the purported assignment from MERS to BAC. Next, on March 11, 2009, the trial court issued a judgment entry of default against MERS foreclosing on its interest in the property. Once again, this default judgment was entered against MERS almost three months before the purported assignment from MERS to BAC occurred. The effect of this default judgment against MERS resulted in MERS having “no interest in and to said premises and the equity of redemption of said Defendants in the real estate described in Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be forever cut off, barred, and foreclosed.” (2008 CV 0267, Mar. 10, 2009 JE). Nevertheless, according to the documents filed by BAC to evidence its assignment from MERS, MERS assigned its interest to BAC on June 1, 2009. (2009 CV 312, Oct. 7, 2009 JE, Ex. A). Consequently, as a result of the already entered default judgment against MERS, when BAC was assigned MERS’ interest in the property on June 1, 2009, BAC did not receive a viable interest in the property. See Quill v. Maddox (May 31, 2002), 2nd Dist. No. 19052, at *2 (mortgagee’s assignee failed to establish that it had an interest in the property, as mortgagee’s interest was foreclosed by the court before mortgagee assigned its interest to assignee, which could acquire no more interest than mortgagee held). Thus, we find that it was reasonable for the trial court to have denied the motion to substitute BAC as a party-defendant for MERS given its lack of interest in the property.
HSBC v. Thompson: HSBC’s Irregularities: Mortgage Documentation and Corporate Relationships with Ocwen, MERS, and Delta Even if HSBC had provided support for the proposition that ownership of the note is not required, the evidence about the assignment is not properly before us. The alleged mortgage assignment is attached to the rejected affidavits of Neil. Furthermore, even if we were to consider this “evidence,” the mortgage assignment from MERS to HSBC indicates that the assignment was prepared by Ocwen for MERS, and that Ocwen is located at the same Palm Beach, Florida address mentioned in Charlevagne and Antrobus. See Exhibit 3 attached to the affidavit of Chomie Neil. In addition, Scott Anderson, who signed the assignment, as Vice-President of MERS, appears to be the same individual who claimed to be both Vice-President of MERS and Vice-President of Ocwen. See Antrobus, 2008 WL 2928553, * 4, and Charlevagne, 2008 WL 2954767, * 1.
MERS v. TORR NY JUDGE SPINNER DENIES Deutsche & MERS for NOT Recording Mortgage, Make up Affidavit and Assignment! MERS ‘QUIET TITLE’ FAIL: To establish a claim of lien by a lost mortgage there must be certain evidence (e.s.) demonstrating that the mortgage was properly executed with all the formalities required by law and proof of the contents (e.s.) of such instrument. … Here Burnett’s affidavit simply states that the original mortgage is not in Deutsch Bank’s files, and that he is advised(e.s.) that the title company is out of business. Burnett gives no specifics as to what efforts were made to locate the lost mortgage…. More importantly, there is no affidavit from MLN by an individual with personal knowledge of the facts that the complete file concerning this mortgage was transferred to Deutsch Bank and that the copy of the mortgage submitted to the court is an authentic copy of Torr’s Mortgage.” (e.s.)
LPP MORTGAGE v. SABINE PROPERTIES: FINAL DISPOSITION| NO Evidence ‘MERS’ Owned The NOTE, Could NOT ASSIGN IT NY SUPREME COURT: FINAL DISPOSITION
Here, there are no allegations or evidence that MERS was the owner of the note such that it could assign it to LPP. Thus, the assignment from MERS was insufficient to confer ownership of the note to LPP and it has no standing to bring this action. Kluge v. F umz ~1, 45 AD2d at 538 (holding that the assignment of a mortgage without transfer of the debt is a nullity); Johnson v. Melnikoff, 20 Misc3d 1142(A), “2 (Sup Ct Kings Co. 2008), n. 2, afr, 65 AD3d 519 (2d Dept 20 1 Oj(noting that assignments by MERS which did not include the underlying debt were a legal nullity); m e Elect ro pic Registration Svstem v, Coakley, 41 AD3d 674 (2d Dept 2007)(holding that MERS had standing to bring foreclosure proceeding based on evidence that MERS was the lawful holder of the promissory note and the mortgage).
Thus, even assuming arguendo that the language of the assignment from MERS to LPP could be interpreted as purporting to assign not only the mortgage but also the note, such assignment is invalid since based on the record, MERS lacked an ownership interest in the note. $ee LaSalle Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Lamv, 12 Misc3d 1191(A), “3 (Sup Ct Suffolk Co. 2006) (noting that “the mortgage is merely an incident of and collateral security for the debt and an assignment of the mortgage does not pass ownership of the debt itself ’);
WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, against –STUART BRENNER, et aI. : Defendant’ s answer contains a defense of “lack of standing.” Plaintiff has failed to establish it was the holder of the note and the mortgage securing it when the action was commenced. In that regard, plaintiff relies on an undated assignment of the mortgage by MERS as nominee acknowledged by a Texas notary on July 18, 2009. The note sued on does not contain an indication it has been negotiated. The undated assignment by MERS contains a provision at the assignment of the mortgage is “TOGETHER with the notes described in said mortgage.” The record before me is devoid of proof that MERS as nominee for purposes of recording had authority to assign the mortgage. However, assuming it had such authority since it is a party to the mortgage and such authority might be implied , there has been a complete failure to establish MERS, as a non-party to the note, to negotiate its transfer. A transfer of the note effects a transfer of the mortgage MERS vs. Coakley, 41 AD3 674), the assignment of a mortgage without a valid transfer of the mortgage note is a nullity(Kluge vs. Fugazv, 145 AD2 537).

BofA Unit Ordered to Halt Foreclosures in Nevada

Thanks to Charles Cox for forwarding this article
By David McLaughlin – Jan 25, 2011 4:19 PM PT
A Bank of America Corp. unit, ReconTrust Co. N.A., was ordered by a Nevada judge to temporarily stop foreclosures in the state that aren’t approved by a court order.
Judge Robert W. Lane in Nye County, Nevada, issued a preliminary ruling that blocks ReconTrust from conducting nonjudicial foreclosures until he holds a hearing Feb. 28 on whether to make the ban permanent, according to a Jan. 20 order provided by the court. The injunction was sought in a Nevada homeowner’s lawsuit against Bank of America and ReconTrust.
Stopping the foreclosures is necessary to prevent the “irreparable injury” that would result from “unlawful” seizure of the plaintiff’s home by ReconTrust Co., the judge wrote. The ruling applies to any real estate or personal property in Nevada.
In nonjudicial foreclosures, lenders can seize property without a court order. Some states require a court order, other don’t, and in some, including Nevada, both are used, according to RealtyTrac, which collects foreclosure data. Nevada foreclosures are primarily executed out of court, according to RealtyTrac’s website.
‘Ecstatic’
Suzanne North, the homeowner suing Bank of America and ReconTrust, said in a telephone interview that she’s “ecstatic” about the ruling. She received a default notice after seeking a loan modification from Bank of America and going through a trial period. When she received the notice at her Pahrump, Nevada, home, she contacted the bank and learned she didn’t qualify for the modification, she said.
“I think it’s great because I’m not the only one in this boat,” North said about the judge’s order.
Nevada had the highest U.S. foreclosure rate in 2010 for the fourth consecutive year, with more than 9 percent of the state’s households receiving a filing. Arizona was second at 5.7 percent and Florida third at 5.5 percent.
Jumana Bauwens, a Bank of American spokeswoman, said ReconTrust faced such an order in Utah and “prevailed in challenging that order in federal court.”
“Until the current situation is resolved, ReconTrust intends to comply with the order,” Bauwens said by e-mail. She didn’t respond to a question about how many properties are affected by the ruling.
John Christian Barlow, a lawyer who represents North, said the lawsuit claims ReconTrust doesn’t have the authority to foreclose on homes in Nevada. Bank of America and other banks use ReconTrust to seize homes in Nevada, he said. Barlow said he will seek class-action, or group, status for the lawsuit.
“If a company’s going to foreclose, they’ve got to do it right,” he said.
The case is North v. Bank of America Corp., CV31506, Fifth Judicial District, Nevada, Nye County.
Editors: Fred Strasser, Charles Carter
To contact the reporter on this story: David McLaughlin in New York at dmclaughlin9@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: David Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net

MERS MEANS QUIET TITLE IN SALT LAKE CITY

Posted on January 17, 2011 by Foreclosureblues

How accurate are property records?
By Tom Harvey
The Salt Lake Tribune
Published: January 16, 2011 04:41PM
Updated: January 16, 2011 01:01AM

Chris Detrick | The Salt Lake Tribune

Walter Keane poses for a portrait at his office Friday January 7, 2011. Keane has filed lawsuit that resulted in homeowners getting title to their property even if they owed someone money because of flaws introduced into the nation’s property recording system by an entity created by the Mortgage Bankers Association.
A Utah court case in which the owner of a Draper townhouse got clear title to the property, even though he still owed $132,000 on it, raises new legal and financial questions about a property-records database created by mortgage bankers.
The award of a title free of liens means that whoever owns the promissory note on the Draper property — likely a group of faraway investors — no longer has the right to foreclose to collect on a delinquent loan. Indeed, the townhouse owner has sold the property and kept the money. Those who own the promissory note probably don’t even know what occurred.
Decisions such as the one 3rd District Judge Glen Iwasaki handed down in the Draper case could have a big impact as the state wends its way through hundreds of lawsuits involving foreclosures, loans on properties for more than they’re worth and predatory lending practices that led Utahns to lose their homes as the real-estate bubble burst.

Quiet title • Last year, the owner of the Draper property contacted attorney Walter T. Keane to help him deal with lenders, though Keane won’t say what the problem was and the owner declined an interview request.
Keane filed what’s called a “quiet title action,” a lawsuit in which the owner seeks clear title to a property free of liens by lenders or others.
In Utah, when you take out a mortgage loan to buy a home, you sign a promissory note held by the lender and a deed of trust that is recorded at the county recorder’s office. The promissory note gives the holder the right to collect payments on the loan. The recording of the deed of trust gives the lender the right to foreclose on the property if you default on the loan.
A trustee appointed by the lender also is recorded with the county and actually holds legal title to your property subject to the conditions of the trust deed.
The lawsuit over the title to the townhouse named Garbett Mortgage and Citibank FSB as the holders of promissory notes as recorded on trust deeds filed with the recorder’s office. Integrated Title Services was listed as trustee of the Garbett Mortgage trust deed, while First American Title was the trustee of the CitiBank trust deed.

Trust deed tag-along • But there also was another entity listed on the trust deeds called the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The Mortgage Bankers Association, the Washington, D.C.-based trade group that represents major mortgage lenders, created MERS in the mid-1990s.
MERS is a database where promissory note owners are recorded, with MERS itself then listed on trust deeds at county recorder offices as the “beneficiary” of the note instead of the real lenders or note owners.
The new arrangement greased the way for mortgages to be packaged together and sold to investors who were relieved of the need under the traditional system to record the true owner of the promissory notes and to pay the county recording fees, which average around $35. Attorneys charge MERS is largely an instrument to avoid paying fees every time a promissory note is sold and resold and eventually packaged with others and owned by group of investors.
During the latter part of the real-estate boom, hundreds of thousands of subprime loans were packaged and sold using the MERS system. MERS has registered about 31 million loans, the company’s chief executive said in congressional testimony in November. CEO R.K. Arnold also said in a 2009 deposition that the system had saved its members an estimated $2.4 billion that would have gone to county governments.

Who’s the beneficiary? • Under the state’s quiet title laws, Keane said he did not have to name MERS or serve it legal papers in the lawsuit because it was not the legal owner of title to the property. Those were title companies. In addition, attorneys contend, MERS cannot be the “beneficiary” or holder of the promissory note because it readily has admitted it has no financial interest in any notes or mortgages.
Normally, a trustee named in a trust deed has a legal duty in Utah to the entity that holds the promissory note and for fair dealing with the homeowner. But in the townhouse case, First American Title filed a response to the quiet title action saying that it had no idea who had the right to collect payments on the promissory note, nor did it admit to knowing any other basic information about the property.
“The fact of the matter is First American Title doesn’t know who the beneficiary of the trust deed is and basically they disavow any interest in it,” Keane said. “It’s an acknowledgement [the recording system on this property is] a fiction, that they don’t have any real interest in it.”
Garbett Mortgage also told the court it no longer held an interest in the property. Integrated Title never filed a response to the lawsuit but did withdraw as a trustee with the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office.
“Considering the owner of the property [the title companies who were trustees] failed to dispute the matter, and further considering that the original lender claims no further interest, the court nullified the trust deeds prior to setting any type of trial date,” Keane said.
So in the four months that the process took, the owner was able to gain title and deny the owners of his loan the ability to foreclose on the property for nonpayment. That means the promissory note owned by investors may be worth far less than they paid for it because it is no longer backed by an asset.

Record reliability • MERS spokeswoman Karmelo Lejarde said MERS actually added reliability to the system of county recording offices.
“Prior to the creation of MERS [when servicers routinely held the mortgage lien for the note owner], the information in the public land records was not accurate due to delays in recording assignments or missing assignments that never got recorded,” she said in e-mail that appears to be a boilerplate response to questions about MERS’ role in the nation’s property registration system.
“With the MERS System, mortgage data is more accurate and title information more reliable. The MERS process creates accountability and transparency, helps keep costs low, reduces the risk of errors in record keeping and makes it easier to keep track of the lien if a loan is sold to other banks and investors.”
Gary Ott, the elected Salt Lake County recorder for the past 10 years, disagrees. He characterizes his office as a neutral party that permanently safeguards records, all of which are available for public inspection. In the past, parties were able to record each transaction or lien involving a property so a clear picture emerges of the title history of a property, Ott said, adding that with computerization, the recording is now nearly instantaneous once documents are received by his office.
“You can trust what you see at the recorder’s office because it’s up to this date, everything is in order,” said Ott, “and you can’t see at MERS if it’s in order at all. That’s the scary part, and people’s homes are something you shouldn’t mess with.”

Default judgment • Keane said he’s been able to obtain quiet title in the same manner in two other cases. Another attorney, Abraham Bates, said he recently also won a quiet title action in a similar case in Salt Lake County.
In Bates’ case, a couple who owed $417,000 on a house whose value had dropped way below that also sued for quiet title.
He named the original lender and a title company listed as trustee on the trust deed. Because neither responded to the lawsuit as legally required, the judge granted the couple a default judgment that still must be verified in court, Bates said.
Bates said under Utah laws, it was not necessary to serve MERS legal papers, as it was not in the Draper townhouse case.
“MERS is not the beneficiary of the trust deed,” Bates said. “MERS did not make the mortgage loan.”

New questions • While these decisions stripped the owners of the promissory notes of the ability to foreclose on the property to recoup missed payments, it does not preclude them from suing the people who signed the notes to try to recover lost monies.
But that action would open up a new line of questions about the MERS method of property recording, said Christopher Peterson, a University of Utah law professor who has made a national name for himself recently by questioning the legal foundations of MERS’ appearance in property-recording records and its role in foreclosures.
Under laws adopted by all 50 states, the owner of a “negotiable instrument” such as a promissory note must be in physical possession of the document, said Peterson. Otherwise it would be like someone trying to cash a photocopy of a check instead of the actual check.
“One cannot be a holder of a note unless one is in physical possession of that note,” he said.
But Peterson said evidence is coming out in courts that shows the actual promissory notes or mortgages signed by buyers were not transferred as the notes made their way into the mortgage-backed securities investment pools.
That could mean in these cases that no one is in a position to try to collect because the actual notes are lost or destroyed, potentially making some promissory notes investors think they hold worthless.

Right to foreclose • Bates said he has more than 100 lawsuits pending over MERS-related questions and has hired more attorneys for his firm to handle the increasing load.
State courts have been more favorable than federal courts to homeowners seeking to halt foreclosure proceedings based on questions about MERS’ legal standing under state and federal laws, the attorneys say.
Rulings have gone different ways in different courts. But Bates said he and Peterson are teaming up to appeal a recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell that dismissed a lawsuit claiming MERS did not have the legal right to initiate foreclosure proceedings.
The attorneys are appealing Campell’s ruling as it relates to Utah law to the Utah Supreme Court. A decision will help sort out the issues with MERS over whether it actually can initiate foreclosures even if it does not have any financial interest in the promissory note, Bates said.
A ruling favorable to the homeowner “would be an absolute tsunami in terms of foreclosure in the state of Utah,” he said.
If MERS is not able to start a foreclosure action, “then there will be a brick wall put up over all nonjudicial foreclosures prosecuted in this state,” Bates said.
tharvey@sltrib.com

What is MERS?
The Mortgage Bankers Association created the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, or MERS, in the mid-1990s. It is a database that holds the names of the entities that have a financial interest in a particular mortgage, such as investment funds that bought bundles of mortgages called mortgage-backed securities. MERS is recorded on many property deeds of trust in Utah as the “beneficiary” of a loan taken out on a property even if that loan is sold and resold many times. MERS allows the actual loan owners to avoid paying fees every time a loan is sold.

MERS CEO R.K. Arnold Leaving Company go figure!

Who knows, maybe his resignation has something to do with this article where he admits that they have bifuricated the note from the mortgage and have been doing so for many years with the servicers,

As investors bought more and more loans in the secondary market, many of them began to contract with servicing
companies to handle loan servicing obligations. A servicer is a company that a mortgage loan investor hires to handle
payment processing, tax and insurance escrows, foreclosure and other matters related to the loan or the property. Often, the servicer is the same lender that originated the loan, sold the beneficial ownership in the secondary market and agreed to continue servicing the loan for the new beneficial owner.

For these servicing companies to perform their duties satisfactorily, the note and mortgage were bifurcated. The
investor or its designee held the note and named the servicing company as mortgagee, a structure that became standard. Some servicing companies have grown quite large, and a very active secondary market in servicing contracts has developed as well. Now more than $ 400 billion in servicing contracts trade annually.

A servicing contract is not an interest in real estate. Unlike a mortgage, it has nothing to do with legal title to the
property and is personal property under UCC § 9-106. Even before MERS, servicers had no reason to appear in the
public land records, except to receive the legal process they need to service loans properly.

The bifurcated structure worked fine for a long time, but the sheer volume of transfers between servicing
companies and the resulting need to record assignments caused a heavy drag on the secondary market. The burden
affected lenders, title companies, consumers and even local recorders. Assignment processing for the sale of a relatively modest loan portfolio can take up to six months to complete. Error rates as high as 33% are common. With the active secondary market in servicing contracts, more than four million loans are affected annually. Loan servicing can trade several times before even the first assignment in a chain is recorded, leaving the public land records clogged with unnecessary assignments. Sometimes these assignments are recorded in the wrong sequence, clouding title to the property.

see full article “There is Life on MERS”
MERS CEO R.K. Arnold Leaving Company

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/21/2011 14:23 -0500
Is the biggest fraud in the history of the US housing market about to come unglued? If so, take our prediction of a $100 billion total in future BofA rep and warranty reserves and triple it.
From the WSJ:
The chief executive of the privately-held Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, or MERS, is planning to leave the company and an announcement could come within days, according to people familiar with the matter.

The company has been under fire by Congress and state officials for its role in the mortgage-document crisis. The firm’s board of directors has met in recent days to address the fate of the company and its chief executive, R.K. Arnold, the people said.

Arnold and other MERS executives didn’t respond to requests for comment. A MERS spokeswoman Friday declined comment. Arnold, a former U.S. Army Ranger, has served as the CEO and president of Merscorp Inc., the parent company of MERS, since 1998 and has been with the company since its inception 15 years ago, according to a corporate biography.

MERS was built by Fannie Mae (FNMA), Freddie Mac (FMCC), and several large U.S. banks in 1996 as an electronic registry of land records. That created a parallel database to facilitate the packaging of loans into securities that could be sold and re-sold without being recorded in local county courthouses, reducing costs for banks. The company’s name is listed as the agent for mortgage lenders on more than 65 million home loans.

But the company’s practices have begun to receive heavy scrutiny from state prosecutors and federal regulators, particularly in light of foreclosure-document problems that surfaced last fall. State and federal lawmakers have begun to consider bills that would make it harder for banks to use or foreclose on properties through MERS.

MERS’s legal standing also has been challenged by legal experts because it doesn’t own the underlying debt. Previously, the mortgage and the promissory note weren’t split between different parties.

Critics of the company have raised concerns over whether notes were properly assigned or tracked within the electronic system. Judges have also begun to question the company’s practices of “deputizing” hundreds of bank executives to handle foreclosures by naming them “vice presidents” of MERS.

Ibanez case

The full story of the Ibanez case in Pictures

The full story of the Ibanez case

Posted by Tracy Alloway on Jan 18 19:04.

Back in 2005 in Springfield, Massachusetts…

What happened next currently has the mortgage and housing market palpitating.

US Bank filed a foreclosure complaint on the above loan, but soon found itself embroiled in a legal battle which would become known as the ‘Ibanez’ case.

There’s a second mortgage — the LaRace mortgage — involved in the various court cases too but for simplicity’s sake, we’ve focused on Ibanez in the above graphics.

Is the outcome of the legal wrangling a positive?

Is it housing market catastrophe risk?

The truth, as ever, probably lies somewhere in between.

Skip this if you know what a mortgage note is

First a technical note. A mortgage loan actually consists of two parts; the note and the mortgage. The note is a legal obligation between borrower and lender, with the borrower promising to pay back a specific principal and interest amount over a certain amount of time. The mortgage is the security interest in property held by the lender.

When mortgage loans are securitised — turned into Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (RMBS) — the notes are assigned to the securitisation trust, either in endorsed (signed) or blank (unsigned) form. Both the Ibanez and LaRace loans had assignments in blank to the MBS trustees, US Bank and Wells Fargo, respectively.

Cue the problems.

About a week and a half ago, the Massachusetts (MA) High Court judge sided with earlier rulings by the MA Land Court, and said the two trustee banks had not proven they have the right to foreclose on either the Ibanez or the LaRace loans.

One of the issues is the so-called ‘mortgage in blank’ procedure. In the Ibanez case, for instance, the last mortgage assignment with a full set of names on it is from Rose Mortgage to Option One. After that, the mortgage is assigned in blank throughout the securitisation. There’s no assignment with ‘US Bank’ on it anywhere, though the bank did try to go back and finish off the assignment after it moved to foreclose.

This, according to SNR Denton lawyer Stephen Ornstein, is pretty standard practice in Massachusetts — it’s called “confirmatory assignments” done “after the fact,” which in this instance would be foreclosure. (Interestingly, we don’t think the judge invalidated assignment in blank/confirmatory assignment altogether — it looks like the problem was confirmatory assignments done without prior assignment.)

But moving swiftly on…

The PSA fallback

Normally, a trustee might be able to overcome such an assignment issue by providing the schedule to the Pooling & Service Agreements (PSAs) which accompanied the securitisation of the relevant mortgages. These are part of the documentation made for every MBS transaction, and — it was hoped by the trustee banks — they could help prove that the mortgage note transfer took place before foreclosure.

But with the Ibanez mortgage, the PSA for the relevant MBS couldn’t be found. All they had was something called a Private Placement Memorandum (PPM), which was basically the marketing document for the deal. Not quite the same thing.

And with the LaRace mortgage, all Wells Fargo had was a redacted PSA schedule, without names, which had been sent to the SEC as part of the deal requirements.

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the High Court judge ruled that the Ibanez PPM and the LaRace PSA only demonstrated “an intent” to transfer the mortgages to the MBS trusts, not legal evidence that they had actually done so.

Case closed

What we have in the Ibanez case, then, is a curious combination of a stricter interpretation of existing MA state law and extremely sloppy paperwork.

Unfortunately the latter is not likely to be unique — more on which later.

As for the wider impact — think ever-increasing timelines to foreclosure, not necessarily the collapse of the foreclosure process altogether. Massachusetts is one of 30 ‘title theory’ states (and non-judicial to boot), which means the lending bank holds the legal title to the property, in order to secure the debt. (By contrast in a lien theory state, the borrower keeps the legal title and the lender gets an interest)

This legal difference tends to lead to faster foreclosure times in title theory states, as the below from Deutsche Bank’s Ying Shen shows. The MA ruling, however, might end up pushing the foreclosure rate in title states closer to their lien counterparts.

It also pretty much destroys the concept put forth by the American Securitization Forum (ASF) that the mortgage follows the note, at least in title theory states. So it’s also a timely reminder that US real estate is still a hodge podge of state and local law.

As Deutsche’s Ying Shen and Steven Abrahams note:

Although the ruling focused on the narrow issues surrounding rights for a securitization trustee to foreclose loans in Massachusetts, it reveals a major weakness of the residential mortgage securitization framework: a one-size-fits-all securitization process may not conform with the documentation requirements governed by local real estate laws.

Indeed.

Sorting out the mess

This is the big one. CNBC’s John Carney rightly notes that foreclosing on the Ibanez and LaRace mortgages could still be extremely difficult for the trustees. In the Ibanez mortgage, for instance, one of the players in the securitisation chain (Lehman Brothers) doesn’t even exist anymore. Will US Bank be able to fix the chain of title given that part of it is now defunct? At what cost and/or length? Will they bother?

As Adam Levitin also points out, many PSAs will not be able to meet the standards set forth by the MA High Court. You know, things like stating names (ahem).

Meanwhile, we wonder if fixing the chain of title could invalidate the so-called Remic structure of mortgage trusts? Remics get tax-free status, but only if they do not acquire any new assets after the trust closes. Mending the chain of title could violate that condition, in which case MBS investors would see their investment distorted.

And finally, let’s go back 148 years

We’ll end with a very old (from a US perspective, anyway) warning.

It’s worth, after all, considering why all these standard securitisation practices — like assignment in blank — became standard in the first place. Unfortunately, and like many things, it usually boils down to time and money. Assignments in blank can help banks save on some paperwork and also avoid fees at real estate record offices.

But there is a trade-off.

Here’s a nice bit of 1863 MA law that’s quoted in an Ibanez Amicus brief:

The convenience which men might occasional find in leaving blanks in scaled instruments to be filled after delivery, would be but a slight compensation for the evils which would follow the abrogation of the ancient rule of the common law.

The end.

Related links:
Ibanez and securitization fail – Credit Slips
A court case to challenge securitisation standards – FT Alphaville
The MBS mess from the beginning – the deal docs – FT Alphaville

This entry was posted by Tracy Alloway on Tuesday, January 18th, 2011 at 19:04 and is filed under Capital markets. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , . Edit this entry.

How the Housing Crisis Will End the U.S.A. as We Know It

04:25 by John Galt. Filed under: Whatever

By John Galt
October 5, 2010

I know that a lot of fans of my writings are expecting another “get in yur bunker and clutch them thar guns and Bibles” type of story but this is, in my humble opinion, a reasonably well thought out picture of America just one to two years from now unless a massive if not tectonic shift in government and the apathy of the citizens occurs within the next ninety days. There will be readers from the lunatic left who will blame the events about to occur in our nation on those evil capitalists and bankers who were unwilling to work with the poor, downtrodden citizens and help them to save their homes, their property, and their standard of living. On the other hand the RINO right will blame excessive government meddling, insensitivity to the needs of the “system” to operate as it was with less regulation, and of course, the current administration for the upcoming disaster.

In reality it is you and I who are responsible for what is about to happen, because we voted for and trusted people into these positions within the economic and political realm to act as responsible caretakers of the power assigned to them, becoming too lazy to engage in oversight, too busy getting “more” in our homes and driveways if not more of a home than to participate and reject the policies and changes which have been inserted into our nation’s economic and political systems over the last eighty years.

Thus the question arises, how does the collapse of the housing system created by a closet Socialist in the person of one Franklin Delano Roosevelt, create the very power vacuum he and his ilk attempted to fill by packing the Supreme Court and creating legislative nightmares of which some still haunt us today? The system as envisioned with shared government oversight and participation within a system of banking and commerce has run full circle as many warned it would during the 1930′s. The insertion of the government as a participant in the marketplace all but guaranteed new standards for home lending on an almost annual basis initially, and an almost quarterly basis in the current era.

The Road Map History has Provided

“We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.”

-Theodore Roosevelt, August 6, 1912 final line from the speech “A Confession of Faith” before the National Progressive Party convention

To understand where we are going as a society it is not necessary to rehash the goals of this administration nor the leftist elites who have been drifting our society towards a Statist form of government since 1893. The quote from the 1880′s book by Professor Richard Ely’s book An Introduction to Political Economy, Chapter V is still appropriate to this discussion:

“The danger to freedom appears to be a very real one. It is frankly admitted that up to a certain point there is a tendency on the part of government to improve as its functions increase. But would this hold with the indefinite extension of the sphere of government? Let us admit that our livelihood would depend on the efficiency of government all the force and energy which now go into private services would be turned into public channels. But what would happen if, in spite of all precautions, some unscrupulous combination should secure the control of government?”

The entirety of the socialist experiment is summed up in the statement above as I surmised in my piece of May 2009 titled “Blame Wisconsin” where I outlined how the Marxist/Progressive movement evolved from a test tube case environment in Wisconsin into a national ideal under Theodore Roosevelt. Fast forward to FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, etc. and the evolution of our modern housing finance system should not be shocking nor as disturbing once you pause and reflect on a little history. The plan all along was to insure a universal standard of living for the lower 90% of the population where income distribution was approximately equal and the mercantile class with the cooperation of the banking system and Federal government would insure the economy would function adequately to provide equilibrium of opportunity while providing the mask of capitalism to cover for their exercise of power and oversight.

Fast forward to the era where we are in which began shortly after the Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) which almost destroyed the financial system due to the Russian debt default in 1998 and has now culminated in the greatest era of financial strife for the U.S. economy since the Great Depression. The danger is this time that there is no safety net other than the threat of hyperinflation from the Federal Reserve and the guarantee that our government (aka, Taxpayers) will undertake any and all actions to preserve the system’s status quo, shaky as that is. Thus to preserve a standard of living being eroded by the very powers entrusted to oversee and manage the economy now lies with the ability or gullibility of the average citizen to accept the ideas about to be presented for the “common good.”

The Average American’s Perilous Addiction To Things

The conversion that evolved with the moral revolution of the 1960′s from a “Greatest Generation” economic model where saving and frugality were usurped by the Baby Boomers consumerism model of owning “stuff” including one or two homes, several cars, televisions, etc., even if the financial means were unavailable at that moment to acquire the goods desired. The economic theory of housing during this evolution included the false impression provided that real estate in the form of a home was an “investment” and that this item should be used not just as a home, but to build a nest egg for the future and if possible use it during the good times to leverage up and acquire more items or investments of any type.

As the past two decades have demonstrated, the average American citizen has become addicted to the art of acquisition, even if they can not afford the items in question by using leverage to spread the payments of months, years, or in the case of a home, decades. The model worked well with modest inflation from the post-Volcker era until the late 1990′s but when LTCM imploded, the managers of America’s and Europe’s financial system realized that the stakes needed to be raised and the accelerated use of credit by the citizenry was a necessity if the bankers were to recover their losses from both the Savings and Loan disaster coupled with the ill advised ventures within the developing world. Hence the creation of new investing instruments for average citizens to participate with plus the evolution of creative financing for real estate purchases or investing were developed. The creation of the first bubble worked beyond their wildest dreams as the tech bubble demonstrated in the late 1990′s, inflating equity markets in many nations to levels that were only dreamed of during that era. The popping of that bubble and the wealth destruction in conjunction with the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 only increased the desperation of the political and financial class, which helped to enhance the evolution of the “ownership society” President Bush envisioned and the bankers salivated over so profits could be as leveraged as much as their balance sheets.

The American citizen’s additional credit card guaranteed by GSE’s like Fannie and Freddie enabled many to take advantage of Greenspan’s new bubble in the last decade and instead of saving to plan for a second or retirement home, the first home was refinanced at a very low rate and the equity extracted to buy “things.” Some of those “things” Americans purchased were courtesy of the belief that this was the ground floor for a real estate boom and you had to get into it now as “real estate always goes up” and this was the time to lock in a mortgage for that budding vacation home, time share, or future retirement home now. I believe that part of the boom was the famous myth propagated by both Realtors and bankers alike was that real estate always goes up in price so you had best get your slice of the American Dream now. This belief fueled speculation not just by professional real estate investors but by middle class citizens who viewed home equity extraction as an excuse to acquire those things their years of hard work had left them “due” and an opportunity to join the upper strata of society without having to work as hard to obtain that distinction. These middle class “investors” figured out the house flipping game at the very end of the bubble, just as they had discovered again the joys of using home equity to purchase stocks and other diverse investments in the 2005-2008 era.

Those beliefs along with the total destruction of housing values and retirements for three generations of Americans co-existing in our society now provides the formula for a national will to accept new ideas to preserve what they believe they have always deserved. Thus one of those dangerous intersections in history is upon us again and the next ninety days will do more to determine the course than any action we have seen since the fateful events of 1859 and 1860.

Preserving the Status Quo With Change

The crisis we face tonight and through the first crisp winter days of the new year will move with dazzling speed and keep historians busy for decades writing about it. The news from Monday was bleak, between the crisis of the “robo-signers” in the processing of foreclosures at the various major institutions to the continuing deterioration of home purchases as report after report is issued by the government and the National Association of Realtors. The most disturbing report was from Amherst Securities, LLC in an article on DNSNews.com October 4th ( Amherst: One of Five Borrowers Could Lose Their Homes ) where they postulate:

If governmental policy on foreclosure prevention does not change, 11.5 million borrowers are in danger of losing their homes, according to the analysts at Amherst Securities Group LP.

The staggering figure put forth by the mortgage investment brokerage equates to one out of every five borrowers – an astronomical 20 percent default rate that Amherst says “politically cannot happen.”

1 in 5 gang, let that sink in. If you think that a change in policy will not occur to stop such an event, you, the reader are on crack. The United States government for all of its flaws, devious or not, is not ignorant nor are the political and banking elites of whom we have given charge to manage the economy. The first course of action that will be undertaken has already been rumored with the idea that spread like wildfire throughout the financial system today of a ninety day mortgage moratorium would be imposed by the Federal Government to allow the system to clean up the mess created by the back log of fraudulent and erroneous paper trails. Unfortunately for the government, this does nothing but forestall the day of reckoning as the loss of valuation for many of the distressed homeowners speculated on in the Amherst report above is so grave that even if the homeowners wore able to work out a “sponsored” refinancing program, they would not have any equity for twenty years if housing prices resumed their normal pace of price appreciation.

This means that more creative solutions will have to be engaged in and that is the danger I foresee in our immediate future. Thus “change” to preserve the status quo or to prevent millions more citizens from losing their homes and accompanying crashing of a large portion of the financial system will be the order of the day. What does that sort of action entail beyond the prior solutions postulated like forced forbearance, government loan modifications, or worse?

The “Or Worse” Solutions to Repair the Housing Crisis and Start of Our National Nightmare

Everything in this section is pure speculation on my part as the author, but when you look at some of the proposals of this administration and the financial community it is not that far fetched. The bottom line is that the American system used to finance and purchase homes is irrevocably broken. The blame can be spread to both political parties, the Wall Street Ponzi game, and the irresponsible behavior of the banking community which was initiated under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and culminated with the then CEO of Goldman Sachs, one Hank Paulson the U.S. Treasury Secretary to be, persuading the government to release the limitations on leverage which allowed the mortgage and debt securitization industry to explode in less than two years. This expansion of the credit bubble did not lift all ships equally so the Congress stuck its nose under the tent and accelerated the reduction in standards which allowed totally unqualified buyers to purchase homes who now in turn are abandoning them or part of the problem by the millions.

Thus the solutions become quite obvious and palatable to the members of the financial community because their losses will be minimized if not eliminated and the future liabilities the responsibility of others. The first proposal I look for is a massive expansion of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac system under the auspices of a Republican House with strong support from the banking system and the administration to either merge the agencies and create a super housing authority or new GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise). Within this newly chartered instrument, the government will buy upwards of ninety-five percent of all mortgages, securitized or not, on the market at no less than ninety cents on the dollar plus assume the role for one hundred percent of origination for all mortgages under $750,000 nationally. This would still leave the banking system with the “appearance” of having some private role in the mortgage origination business, while in reality less than 2% of all mortgages created would be their responsibility and they would have the ability to manage the qualifications as they used to, on a case by base basis with strict fiduciary oversight.

Once this super GSE is in place, the mortgages for all delinquent homeowners could be purchased using the power of the taxpayer and the process of selective forbearance begun. This is not only a process which relieves the banking system of the stress of mortgage servicing (unless they wish to act as a contractor to the government, which they would have to initially as the system is created) and the torrid pace of default, but installs a program where jobs are created for former employees who specialize in mortgage finance and accounting, this time though as a government employee. The process of forbearance would be relatively straightforward and the homeowner would be forced into an obligation of thirty to sixty years refinancing based on income, age, and geographical criteria. If the homeowner declines the terms, the government would foreclose then seize the property in question and using a newly expanded Internal Revenue Service have the ability to collect deficiency payments for upwards of a decade to recoup some of their lost investment. This might sound insane but this is the type of radical solution you should be looking for as the alternative is worse than the collapse of late 2008.

That is only the precursor of our national nightmare however.

Imagine a world where you must report to a government official in a bank or other financial institution, maybe even a government office building to apply for a mortgage. Think about the new “green” wave of regulatory bureaucracy plus OSHA style ergonomic designs which will be instituted to “protect” the government’s investment in you the homeowner. For example if a husband and wife of eight years with two children walked into a home that they felt they could afford, the government regulatory regime could determine that this particular home is not ergonomically friendly enough for their children and the transportation costs in carbon would be excessive as the husband and/or wife would live too far from their place of employment. Sound insane? Review the stories emanating from the Mother Country of Jolly Old England regarding absurd regulations and government meddling in their citizen’s daily affairs.

Take this one example then consider the consequences of Kelo v. City of New London decision which could force a homeowner who are current with their payments out of their homes as the Federal Government owns all of the properties within a subdivision and their presence disrupts the ideal of economic diversity because they did not need nor want a government mortgage and their inhabiting of that property could make the new residents feel inferior, thus causing emotional distress. Or worse, if the one homeowner refuses to sell to a potential government sponsored buyer because the seller feels the price is inferior to market conditions the government could force the price to meet the standards of the bureaucratically established level of financing to match the price or use eminent domain to seize the property at the price level some beanie head feels is “just” for the GSE to pay.

This goes far beyond the concepts of financing, buying, and selling homes however. The entire real estate industry will end up subservient to a government master in Washington, D.C. Want to build a new subdivision? Better submit the homes to a standardized review to the Department of Housing Development team. Want to modify your GSE financed home by building a tool shed in the back? Fill out GSE form 4417-E/109.1367 available at your local bank’s GSE department or Federal office building and pray they approve it before the apocalypse. Want to sell to the family that wants to pay cash for the home instead of waiting for the minority who has the fifty year mortgage financing that is offering you 4% less? Nope, that would be discrimination and you no longer have control over property which technically belongs to the people.

See where this is leading?

Once the bankers and government elect to divert full control of the residential real estate market, or at least a majority of it, to Federal control, all private property rights cease in the United States. Want to grow a garden? Apply at the appropriate Federal agencies like the Department of Agriculture. Want to add a pool or a patio? Better hope the EPA carbon impact study doesn’t prevent that from happening. The U.S. will not only have legal physical control of your property outside of the home, but the inside where smart electrical grid systems will become mandatory, ten ounce water conserving slow flush toilets, twenty second showers, and those stupid General Electric Chi-Com manufactured mercury loaded curly bulbs being the only ones permitted. You will comply or the government will penalize you for abusing their home and regulations.

The final straw will expand control into the areas of landlord and property management which shall be regulated via the government buying up those property’s loans and lastly small scale commercial real estate enterprises as the community banking system will implode without direct government intervention and soon. In the end this probably leaves less than twenty percent of all domestic real estate concerns either invested in or owned outright by private entities. With the preservation of the banking system, pension funds invested in REITs, plus the potential “Municide” or collapse of the municipal bond system (as I’ve been warning about since 2008) as a result of the housing collapse, there is little doubt in my mind that this devious yet effective plan to usurp private property rights will be sold as the only solution to the banking and housing crisis without allowing the entire economy to fail and reset. This new initiative will be reinforced with a bailout of the municipal bond system and states which are teetering on default so as to sell support for the program proposed and both political parties will be involved in the process to give it that “bi-partisan” appearance. Knowing the average American’s desire to obtain and keep “things” including their future retirement or home be it ten months or ten years out, look for the political and financial elites to act in a Machiavellian manner which leaves those freedoms God gave us and our Founding Fathers codified as a distant memory to those of us pining for the good old days.

finding who holds the note

http://dtc-systems.net/2010/11/cnbc-mortgage-meltdown/

BIG DECISION IN THE NON JUDICIAL STATE OF TEXAS FROM JAMES MCGUIRE (via Foreclosureblues)

Always said, you take Texas and you swing the country. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION TO: THE HONORABLE JAMES NOWLIN UNITED STATES SENIOR JUDGE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE http://www.scribd.com/doc/47282955/Norwood-v-Chase-Summary-Judgement-Against -Chase-and-Barret-Daffin … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Reader Has Stumbled onto the Real Reason for the "MERS Paperwork Issue"…The Loans were used for Multiple Collaterizations. (via Foreclosureblues)

I would like the following points regarding MERS to be clear to all: 1) It’s not a PAPERWORK issue – it’s an OWNERSHIP issue. Whenever we see the word ‘paperwork’ describing the MERS scam, we should know that the correct word is ‘ownership’. ‘Paperwork’ is defined as: written or clerical work, as records or reports, forming a necessary but often a routine and secondary part of some work or job. That is not the issue with MERS. The issue is one of … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

The full story of the Ibanez case in Pictures (via Foreclosureblues)

The full story of the Ibanez case in Pictures The full story of the Ibanez case Posted by Tracy Alloway on Jan 18 19:04. Back in 2005 in Springfield, Massachusetts… What happened next currently has the mortgage and housing market palpitating. US Bank filed a foreclosure complaint on the above loan, but soon found itself embroiled in a legal battle which would become known as the ‘Ibanez’ case. There’s a second mortgage — the LaRace mortgage — involved in the various court cases too but for s … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Josh Rosner: 'Landmark Foreclosure Ruling' In Massachusetts Ibanez Case – Bloomberg Video (via Foreclosureblues)

Josh Rosner: 'Landmark Foreclosure Ruling' In Massachusetts Ibanez Case - Bloomberg Video Josh Rosner: 'Landmark Foreclosure Ruling' In Massachusetts Ibanez Case – Bloomberg Video Today, January 20, 2011, 4 hours ago | DailyBail New clip from Rosner – not posted before. Read the Rosner piece from last week for a quick refresher… Video – Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) — Joshua Rosner, an analyst at Graham Fisher & Co., talks about the implications of a court ruling against U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. in a Massachusetts foreclosu … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Daily Finance | Fixing Massachusetts Foreclosures Won’t Be So Easy (via Foreclosureblues)

Daily Finance | Fixing Massachusetts Foreclosures Won’t Be So Easy Daily Finance | Fixing Massachusetts Foreclosures Won’t Be So Easy Today, January 14, 2011, 7 minutes ago | Foreclosure Fraud Fixing Massachusetts Foreclosures Won’t Be So Easy By ABIGAIL FIELD Last week, the top court in Massachusetts handed down a ruling chastising banks for their “carelessness” during the securitization of Massachusetts mortgages. That carelessness has clouded the title of thousands of already-foreclosed properties and creates … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Is The Fix In- Will The Wall Street Banks Beat Down The New Jersey Court? (via Foreclosureblues)

Is The Fix In- Will The Wall Street Banks Beat Down The New Jersey Court? Is The Fix In- Will The Wall Street Banks Beat Down The New Jersey Court? Today, January 14, 2011, 52 minutes ago | Matthew D. Weidner, Esq. I’m increasingly concerned that the banks and institutions, the Wall Street Fat Cats are too powerful, that they in fact own and control this country, everyone in it and that even our courts….the highest courts in the land…are not above being bullied and intimidated by the forces aligned against our fundamen … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

HOUSING PRICE DROP TOPS GREAT DEPRESSION AND IS GOING LOWER

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

appraisal-fraud-description-and-new-rules

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Great Depression showed us that housing prices could drop 25.9%. The Great “recession” has now passed that drop and so far, has fallen 26%. There IS a difference however. In the run up to the Great Depression loose capital combined with other factors sent asset prices upward, but if you look at Schiller and Case Schiller Analysis you see four differences graphically.

The first difference is that in the time leading up to the Great Depression real banks were lending real money and therefore they had the constraint of risk on their own capital. Liars loans didn’t exist. It always was up to the bank’s underwriters to confirm every fact or representation made by or on behalf of the borrower, who incidentally didn’t use mortgage brokers because mortgage brokers, for the most part, didn’t exist. In the time leading up to the Great Recession, there were no real banks taking real risks. Whoever was named as payee on the note never handled the money much less funded it. Whoever was named as lender on the mortgage or deed of trust suffered the same impairment.  Mortgage brokers were sent out in virtual armies with minimal training other than scripted sales pitches.

  • Thus without any risk of loss on the loans and the business model being that the “loan originator” would merely present itself as the lender in exchange for a fee, and there being no underwriting process for which anyone could point their finger at and make a claim the object changed from making good loans that would enhance the income and balance sheet of the party representing itself at closing as the lender, to a different business model: get all the people you can regardless of qualifications to sign loan papers.
  • In Florida these armies of “Loan counselors” or mortgage brokers included 10,000 convicted felons — so it was obvious that Wall Street wanted. The lender identified by the mortgage broker was usually not the lender identified on the closing papers and the lender on the closing papers was not the lender who advanced the money to fund the loan.

The second difference is that the run up didn’t get much out of standard territory in relation to median income adjusted for inflation. It peaked for sure and back then it was considered an extraordinary peak, but it didn’t come close to the run-up in prices preceding the Great Recession.

The third difference is that there was no specific correlation between housing prices and target markets for Wall Street backed mortgages. In fact, there were no Wall Street backed mortgages. So the decline was felt throughout the country, some parts more than others. The types of mortgages available were limited to what you could count on one hand in the time preceding the Great Depression. The number of mortgage “flavors” preceding he Great recession burgeoned to over 400 different kinds of mortgages — a number that baffled Alan Greenspan along with mortgage brokers, borrowers and those who assisted borrowers at closing. The same stack of papers were thrown at the borrower at closing — but only in size and form — the content of those papers was very different from borrower to borrower.

And the fourth difference is that rampant falsely inflated appraisals were absent in the Great Depression but the cornerstone of the Great Recession.

So the takeaway idea in this article is that the whole securitization scheme was a scam that artificially raised the APPARENT housing prices in entire geographical areas that had been targeted by Wall Street. Thus the “decline” in prices is merely a correction to come back in line with median income which has been stagnating for 30+ years. And THAT is why I say that principal reduction is unnecessary. It is a PRINCIPAL CORRECTION back to reality and away from the fraudulent claims at closing and all the way up the securitization chain.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Housing Market Slips Into Depression Territory

By: Cindy Perman
CNBC.com Staff Writer

As the economy revs back to life, with signs of hiring on the horizon, the housing market is being left behind like Macaulay Culkin in “Home Alone.”

Macaulay Culkin
AP
Macaulay Culkin

In the past few years, we’ve all been careful to choose our words carefully, not calling it a recession until it fit the technical definition and avoiding any inappropriate use of the “D” word — Depression.

Things were bad but the broader economy never reached Depression territory. The housing market, on the other hand, just crossed that threshold.

Home values have fallen 26 percent since their peak in June 2006, worse than the 25.9-percent decline seen during the Depression years between 1928 and 1933, Zillow reported.

November marked the 53rd consecutive month (4 ½ years) that home values have fallen.

What’s worse, it’s not over yet: Home values are expected to continue to slide as inventories pile up, and likely won’t recover until the job market improves.

And while the president is physically protected in an emergency, whisked to a bunker at an undisclosed location, the actual White House is not: The value of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has dropped by $80 million, or nearly 25 percent since the peak of the housing boom. It’s current value is $251.6 million, according to Zillow, down from $331.5 million.

Oh-h say can you see … by the dawn’s ear-ly light …

Recent Massachusetts High Court Ibanez Ruling Leaves Question On 3rd Party Bona Fide Purchaser Unanswered (Or Did It?) (via Foreclosureblues)

Thursday, January 13, 2011 Recent Massachusetts High Court Ibanez Ruling Leaves Question On 3rd Party Bona Fide Purchaser Unanswered (Or Did It?) One question that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the recent Ibanez ruling left unanswered is noted in this excerpt from Justice Robert J. Cordy's concurring opinion, with whom Justice Margot Botsford joined: What is more complicated, and not addressed in this opinion, because the issue was … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

2010 – The year foreclosurefraud makes case law! (via Foreclosureblues)

2010 - The year foreclosurefraud makes case law! 2010 – The year foreclosurefraud makes case law! Today, January 13, 2011, 40 minutes ago | Rob Harrington Hat tip Catherine. Huffington Post/Randall Wray Randall states: As I have been arguing in a series of pieces (see here and here and here), in their haste to commit lender fraud, the banks that securitized mortgages also perpetrated tax fraud and securities fraud. The inevitable outcome of those frauds is foreclosure fraud. As Lynn Szymoniak a … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Government Says No to Helping States and Main Street, While Continuing to Throw Trillions at the Giant Banks (via Foreclosureblues)

Government Says No to Helping States and Main Street, While Continuing to Throw Trillions at the Giant Banks Thursday, January 13, 2011 Government Says No to Helping States and Main Street, While Continuing to Throw Trillions at the Giant Banks   The Wall Street Journal noted last week: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Friday ruled out a central bank bailout of state and local governments strapped with big municipal debt burdens, saying the Fed had limited legal authority to help and little will to use that authority. "We have no expectatio … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Third Way Comments on Foreclosure Fraud Policy in the Post-Ibanez Landscape (via Foreclosureblues)

Third Way Comments on Foreclosure Fraud Policy in the Post-Ibanez Landscape Third Way Comments on Foreclosure Fraud Policy in the Post-Ibanez Landscape Today, January 13, 2011, 1 hour ago | Mike You can tell that the landscape is changing.  Third Way has just released a memo titled Fixing “Foreclosure-gate” which details out a policy solution to the current foreclosure fraud crisis. That the post-Ibenez landscape is so drastically different that groups are mobilizing in a policy way should tell us that things may move in … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Marlow of Cameron Baxter Films Searching for Outrage: Me Too (via Foreclosureblues)

Marlow of Cameron Baxter Films Searching for Outrage: Me Too Marlow of Cameron Baxter Films Searching for Outrage: Me Too Today, January 13, 2011, 10 hours ago | Neil Garfield Dear Editor: Is anyone paying attention? Is anyone outraged? If not, go see “Inside Job” at the Wheeler this week. Hats off to the Filmfest Academy Screening committee/Wheeler Film Society for presenting this Wall Street-damning documentary, as well as “The Company Men.” Both films show that it was not those “pesky homeowners who bou … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Opinion: Ibanez and the Wall Street PR Machine (via Foreclosureblues)

Opinion: Ibanez and the Wall Street PR Machine   January 13, 2011 by christine Alina forwarded me this article from Naked Capitalism, which is, as usual, a fine blog analysis. The reason I don’t write about every piece of Wall Street garbage is because I don’t want to add any energy to what they are doing. Today I’m making an exception because it’s illustrative of a point I’ve wanted to make for a long time now: that many of us are falling v … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Unemployed homeowners up to $18,000 each over six months to pay their mortgage

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/01/09/BU4N1H5FOR.DTL

On Monday, more than two months behind schedule, the California Housing Finance Agency will begin taking applications for a federally funded program that will give some unemployed homeowners up to $18,000 each over six months to pay their mortgage.

To qualify, homeowners must meet income and other restrictions and their loan servicer must participate in the program. As of Friday, only three servicers had signed up, but CalHFA expects to have up to 10 by the end of this week.

The program is the first of four in California that will be financed by the Hardest Hit Fund, a $7.6 billion pot of money the Treasury Department is providing to 18 states with high unemployment rates or big drops in housing prices.

The Obama administration announced the fund in February but kept adding states and money to it throughout last year. California was one of the first states to qualify and stands to receive almost $2 billion, but has not yet launched a program.

The other three CalHFA programs, which go under the umbrella name Keep Your Home California, will:

— Give homeowners who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments up to $15,000 to reinstate them.

— Reduce principal balances by up to $50,000 for borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth.

— Provide up to $5,000 in transition assistance to homeowners who give up their homes in connection with a short sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure.

A homeowner might qualify for more than one program, but can’t get more than $50,000 in total assistance.

CalHFA had promised to start taking applications for all four programs Nov. 1, but each one requires loan servicers to participate and their assistance has not been easy to get, even though lenders stand to benefit.

That’s partly because each state getting hardest-hit funds can design its own program and that has created administrative burdens for national servicers.

“They have asked us to have a unified process,” says Evan Gerberding, a spokeswoman for CalHFA.

Unemployment program

California’s unemployment assistance program, which begins Monday, has many requirements.

— You must be receiving unemployment benefits, but you can not be within 90 days of exhausting them.

— Your income must be 120 percent or less of the median income for a family of four in your county. In San Francisco, your income must be $119,300 or less. For other counties, see sfg.ly/g58tX0.

— Your loan must have originated on or before Jan. 1, 2009, and the balance cannot exceed $729,750.

— You must be delinquent or at risk of becoming delinquent, but you can’t be in foreclosure or more than three months past due.

— You must live in the home or condo, and you cannot own any other real estate.

— You will not qualify if you refinanced your mortgage for more than the outstanding balance (except to pay for mortgage-related fees). If you refinanced just to get a lower rate, you will not be disqualified.

— If you have a stand-alone second mortgage, such as a home equity loan or line of credit, you will not qualify.

Homeowners can get up to $3,000 per month or 100 percent of their mortgage payment, whichever is less, for up to six months.

The assistance will be structured as a non-recourse, non-interest-bearing lien against the property that is forgiven after three years. If you default on your payments, sell or refinance within three years, you might have to repay it.

To apply, contact your servicer or call a toll-free number that CalHFA will post on its website by Monday. If you call the number, a housing counselor will help determine if you are eligible and if so, work with your servicer. For more information, see keepyourhomecalifornia.org.

Other programs

As of Friday, only three servicers – Chase, CalVet and CalHFA itself – had signed up for the unemployment assistance program.

Representatives for Chase, Wells Fargo and CitiMortgage say they will participate in California’s unemployment assistance and mortgage reinstatement programs but have no immediate plans to sign up for the other two.

A spokesman for Bank of America would not say which if any of the California programs BofA will sign up for. In a statement, BofA said it supports the Hardest Hit Fund concept but it will “focus our collaborative efforts on implementing consistent programs nationally.”

Gerberding says CalHFA hopes to launch the other programs in mid to late February.

Getting lenders into the principal reduction plan could be a challenge because they must match any reductions the program provides dollar for dollar.

“Where principal reduction is appropriate, we are focusing on the HAMP principal reduction alternative,” Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda says, referring to a new option under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program. “That allows us to do principal reductions in all 50 states.”

Under that program, Wells is only reducing principal on loans it owns, not those it services for others, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Fannie and Freddie have not allowed principal reductions on loans they own or back – and these account for the majority of home loans. (They have allowed principal to be reduced for the purposes of calculating a modified mortgage payment, but this principal is not forgiven.)

Whether Fannie and Freddie can permanently reduce principal under state hardest hit programs “is under review,” says a spokeswoman for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie.

TARP funding

CalHFA has allocated $875 million of its hardest hit funds for unemployment assistance, $790 million for principal reduction, $129 million for mortgage reinstatement and $32 million for transition assistance.

If one program does not use all of its funding, “then we will spread it among the others,” Gerberding says. She estimates that funds could be available for up to three years.

Hardest hit funds are coming out of the $50 billion set aside for foreclosure prevention under the Troubled Assets Relief Program. Although funding for new TARP programs ended in October, “existing programs already allocated under TARP will continue to run,” says Treasury Department spokeswoman Andrea Risotto.

Risotto says that 12 states that have received hardest hit funds are testing or operating programs. By March, she says, all 18 states, plus the District of Columbia, will be operational.

For more information on the Hardest Hit Fund, see finan cialstability.gov/roadtostabil ity/hardesthitfund.html.

WHEN DOES THE 3 YEAR RIGHT TO BEGIN START? WHEN IS A LOAN “CONSUMMATED”? IS THERE EQUITABLE TOLLING OF THE TILA RIGHT TO RESCIND? (via Foreclosureblues)

WHEN DOES THE 3 YEAR RIGHT TO BEGIN START? WHEN IS A LOAN “CONSUMMATED”? IS THERE EQUITABLE TOLLING OF THE TILA RIGHT TO RESCIND? WHEN DOES THE 3 YEAR RIGHT TO BEGIN START? WHEN IS A LOAN “CONSUMMATED”? IS THERE EQUITABLE TOLLING OF THE TILA RIGHT TO RESCIND? Today, January 11, 2011, 3 hours ago | Foreclosure Defense Attorney Steve Vondran The following is an overview of a few cases I was looking at in the area of Truth in Lending (“TILA”) law.  We get a lot of questions about when TILA three years begins to run.  THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

LAW FIRMS RE-ASSESS RELATIONSHIP WITH SECURITIZING BANKS (via Foreclosureblues)

LAW FIRMS RE-ASSESS RELATIONSHIP WITH SECURITIZING BANKS LAW FIRMS RE-ASSESS RELATIONSHIP WITH SECURITIZING BANKS Today, January 11, 2011, 4 hours ago | Neil Garfield COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary I am receiving confidential reports that lawyers who work for firms representing securitizing banks consider themselves working for “the dark side.” From the junior lawyers on up attorneys are reconsidering their representation of would-be foreclosers or e … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Reader's Question: What Makes This A Federal Issue? Court Deals Blow to Banks in Foreclosure Case. Can You Say, "Critical Mass!" (via Foreclosureblues)

Reader's Question: What Makes This A Federal Issue? Court Deals Blow to Banks in Foreclosure Case. Can You Say, "Critical Mass!" Reader's Question: What Makes This A Federal Issue? Court Deals Blow to Banks in Foreclosure Case. Can You Say, "Critical Mass!" Today, January 11, 2011, 2 hours ago | noreply@blogger.com (The Rosey Outlook) A reader had some sound questions after reading:  Court Deals Blow to Banks in Foreclosure Case Rosey, Who owns property? As a buyer, I always bought title insurance to protect me. With slicing of the mortgage who is the owner of the property … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

The Market Ticker – For Those Who Think The MA Supremes Don't Matter…. (via Foreclosureblues)

The Market Ticker - For Those Who Think The MA Supremes Don't Matter.... The Market Ticker – For Those Who Think The MA Supremes Don't Matter…. Today, January 11, 2011, 6 hours ago | genesis I'd read this. In any case, getting the assignment from Lehman wouldnt really help you. Youd still have a gap in the chain from Option One to Lehman. Its probably best to skip over Lehman all together and go directly to Option One to ask for the assignment. But you have a bit of a problem. You didnt buy the mortgage from Option … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

WELLS FARGO WHISTLEBLOWER REVEALS BLACK HOLE FOR DOCUMENTS AND PROCEDURES (via Foreclosureblues)

WELLS FARGO WHISTLEBLOWER REVEALS BLACK HOLE FOR DOCUMENTS AND PROCEDURES WELLS WHISTLEBLOWER REVEALS BLACK HOLE FOR DOCUMENTS AND PROCEDURES Today, January 11, 2011, 29 minutes ago | Neil Garfield COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary EDITOR’S COMMENT: LIVINGLIES HAS INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED EVERY STATEMENT OF THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER. IT OPENS THE DOOR TO A WHISTLE-BLOWER LAWSUIT, A QUI TAM ACTION IN WHICH THE RELATER OR WHISTLE-BLOWER CAN RECEIVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

JUDGE SCHACK| Dismisses Case With Prejudice Against Citibank Due To Counsel Failure To Comply (via Foreclosureblues)

JUDGE SCHACK| Dismisses Case With Prejudice Against Citibank Due To Counsel Failure To Comply JUDGE SCHACK| Dismisses Case With Prejudice Against Citibank Due To Counsel Failure To Comply Posted on11 January 2011. Tags: administrative order, affidavit, Arthur M. Schack, cancelled, citibank, discharged, foreclosure fraud, Jennifer M. Mcann, Judge Ann T. Pfau, judge schack, Law Office Of Steven J. Baum, Megan B. Szeliga, new york, notice of pendency, ny supreme court, prejudice, Santiago Murillo, Steven J. Baum p.c. Citibank, N.A. AS TRUSTE … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

New Florida Attorney General Report on Fraudclosures Presented to the FL Senate Banking and Insurance Committee (via Foreclosureblues)

New Florida Attorney General Report on Fraudclosures Presented to the FL Senate Banking and Insurance Committee New Florida Attorney General Report on Fraudclosures Presented to the FL Senate Banking and Insurance Committee Today, January 11, 2011, 36 minutes ago | Foreclosure Fraud Not as entertaining and colorful as the original report but interesting none the less… Enjoy! ~ 4closureFraud.org ~ New Florida Attorney General Report on Fraudclosures Presented to the FL Senate Banking and Insurance Committee View this document on Scribd … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Strategic Default: Watch Elites Freak Out To the Trend That Isn’t Happening. (via Foreclosureblues)

Strategic Default: Watch Elites Freak Out To the Trend That Isn’t Happening. Strategic Default: Watch Elites Freak Out To the Trend That Isn’t Happening. Today, January 11, 2011, 21 minutes ago | Mike Remember this guy?  David Walker of the Peterson Institute gets nostalgic about debtors prisons for strategic defaulters. There is a norm asymmetry being ruthlessly exploited between how people and businesses view debt.   Strategic default is not a phenomenon in any empirical data, but it is a boogeyman that needs to be ruth … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

MISSOURI TRUSTEE FAILS ON MOTION TO DISMISS IN PENDING QUIET TITLE ACTION (via Foreclosureblues)

MISSOURI TRUSTEE FAILS ON MOTION TO DISMISS IN PENDING QUIET TITLE ACTION Today, January 11, 2011, 2 hours ago | Dave Krieger TRUSTEE FAILS ON MOTION TO DISMISS IN PENDING QUIET TITLE ACTION By Dave Krieger Most of the judges and foreclosure attorneys on both sides are watching this case carefully. It should be noted here that former civil rights lawyer and 30-year trial litigator Gwen Caranchini, no stranger to the blog sites by any means, had her best day in court in years in her case against Bank of America, MERS an … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

TILA law: Truth in Lending $2,000.00 for violation, statutory damages; I paid more for the Audit ?? !!

TRUTH-IN-LENDING

DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS, VIOLATIONS, AND REMEDIES


PURPOSE OF THE TRUTH-IN-LENDING ACT (TILA)

TILA seeks to assure meaningful disclosure of credit terms and conditions that the consumer will be informed with accurate costs and benefits of their credit transaction, allowing them to shop for the best credit terms available on the market. 15 U.S.C. § 1601(a).

STANDARD OF LAW

Since TILA specifically remedial in nature, its provisions must be strictly construed. A creditor must comply with TILA in all credit transactions and “misleading disclosure is as much a violation of TILA as a failure to disclose at all.” Smith v. Chapman, 614 F.2d 968, 977 (5th Cir. 1980). It is not sufficient to attempt to comply with the Act, but rather, creditors are required to strictly comply with all the requirements of the Act. There is no need to show that the consumer was misled or deceived by ambiguous credit terms in order to prevail. Noel v. Fleet Finance, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 1102 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

Congress did not intend for creditors to escape liability for merely technical violations, that even minor or technical violations impose liability upon the creditors. Huff v. Steward-Gwinn Furniture Co., 713 F.2d 67, 69 (4th Cir. 1983). See also, Washington v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 2006 W.L. 1980201 (N.D. Ill.).

SCOPE

TILA applies to most consumer credit transactions and was specifically enacted to ensure accurate and meaningful disclosure of the charges involved in a transaction, allowing consumers to make their own decisions about obtaining a loan.

A lawsuit for violation of TILA may be based upon a lenders failure to comply with disclosure requirements. U.S.C. §§ 1631-34. Most of TILA violations involve the creditor’s failure to charge the correct amount, failure to disclose all the material terms, or failure to provide necessary forms or documents required by the Act.

TILA does not apply to the following transactions:

  1. Transactions that are made for business, commercial, or agricultural purposes. 15 U.S.C. § 1603(1); Reg. Z § 226.3(a)(1).
  2. Extensions of Credit to Organizations as opposed to natural persons. U.S.C. § 1603(1); Reg. Z. § 2026.3(a)(2).
  3. Credit over $25,000 Not Secured by Real Property or a Dwelling. U.S.C. § 1603(3); Reg. Z. § 226.3(b).
  4. Student Loans. U.S.C. § 1603(7); Reg. Z. § 226.3(f).
  5. Transactions under Public Utility Tariffs. U.S.C. § 1603(4); Reg. Z. § 226.3(c).
  6. Securities or Commodities transactions that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. U.S.C. § 1603(2); Reg. Z. § 226.3(d).

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

When a violation of TILA occurs, the one-year limitations period applicable to actions for statutory and actual damages begins to run. U.S.C. § 1641(e).

A TILA violation may occur at the consummation of the transaction between a creditor and its consumer if the transaction is made without the required disclosures.

A creditor may also violate TILA by engaging in fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive practices that conceal the TILA violation occurring at the time of closing. Often consumers do not discover any violation until after they have paid excessive charges imposed by their creditors. Consumers who later learn of the creditor’s TILA violations can allege an equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. When the consumer has an extended right to rescind or pursue other statutory remedies because a violation occurs, the statute of limitations for all the damages the consumers seek extends to three years from the date the violation is revealed. McIntosh v. Irwin Union Bank & Trust Co., 215 F.R.D. 26, 30 (D. Mass. 2003).

TILA AND REGULATION Z

Congress delegated authority for the implementation of TILA to the Federal Reserve Board (FRB). The Board of Governors (the Board) of the FRB interpreted TILA and promulgated a detailed and comprehensive set of rules that sets out the Board’s interpretation known as Regulation Z. Regulation Z is an official set of rules and most pleadings alleging TILA violations also alleging violations of Regulation Z as well.

DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AND VIOLATIONS

  1. 1. Form Of Disclosure

TILA requires specific disclosures before the closing of a credit transaction. Disclosures must be “clear and conspicuously, in writing, in a form that the consumer may keep.” § 1632(a); § 226.5(a)(1).

Disclosure statement is a written document that a creditor is required to provide the consumer prior to closing, which contains TILA required material terms[1] related to the costs of the credit transaction. In this statement, a creditor must disclose to the person who is obligated on a consumer credit transaction the information required under TILA.

The Act calls for disclosures to be made in a manner that is reasonably to understand by ordinary persons. Most courts agree that “sufficiency of TILA mandated disclosures is to be viewed from the standpoint of an ordinary consumer, not the perspective of a Federal Reserve Board member, federal judge, or English professor.” Smith v. Cash Store Mgmt., 195 F.3d 325, 328 (7th Cir. 1999). Edmondson v. Allen-Russell Ford, Inc., 577 F.2d 291, 296 (5th Cir. 1978) (“we must assess the adequacy of disclosure […] by the audience for which disclosure was intended).

  1. a. Required Disclosures Must be Clear and Conspicuous. U.S.C. § 1632(a). Courts usually look at the particular Disclosure Statement and its content to determine whether it was sufficiently clear and conspicuous.

1)                  Creditor violates TILA for failure to clearly and conspicuously disclose the requirements by disclosing required information in fine print. There was “nothing in the disclosure statement that would call a person’s attention to the relevant clause.” Violation found when disclosures were buried near the bottom of the form. Re Wright, 11 B.R. 590, 592 (S.D. Miss. 1981).

2)                  TILA violation found where a financial company fails to disclose the cost of credit life and disability insurance in the disclosure statement, making the interest of the loan appear less than its actual cost. Woods v. Beneficial Finance Co. of Eugene, 395 F. Supp. 9, 12 (DC Or 1975).

3)                  Disclosures are not clear and conspicuous when the disclosure statement includes contradicting terms. Varner v. Century Finance Co. Inc., 738 F.2d 1143 (11th Cir. 1984) (disclosing two different dollar amounts under the same heading is confusing). See also Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank, 240 F.R.D 612, 618 (E.D. Wis. 2007) (Disclosure found unclear where the Truth-In-Lending Disclosure Statement shows the APR is 4.047 percent and other disclosure that “strongly implie[s] that the cost of the loan expressed as a yearly rate” at 1.950 percent); Ralls v. Bank of N.Y., 230 B.R. 508, 516 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (where there is a contradiction between TILA disclosures and other information provided by the lender, the disclosures are unclear).

  1. b. The terms “finance charge” and “annual percentage rate” (APR) shall be more conspicuous than any other terms. U.S.C. § 1632(a). These terms can be disclosed more conspicuously by using a contrasting type size or boldness and/or placing borders around them. Commentary § 226.5(a)(2)-2.

1)                  Violate for printing the terms “finance charge” and annual percentage rate” in the same typeface as other material terms. Brown v. Payday Check Advance, Inc., 202 F.3d 987, 990 (7th Cir. Ill. 2000). See also, Herrera v. First Northern Sav. & Loan Asso’n, 805 F.2d 896, 898 (NM 1986) (TILA violated when the term “annual percentage rate” appeared on the disclosure statement in identical size, style, and boldness with over 30 other terms and phrases).

2)                  No violation where the term “annual percentage rate” appears in a bolded box and is highlighted by all capital and bolded letter.” Robinson v. First Franklin Financial Corp., 2006 WL 2540777 (E.D. Pa.).

  1. c. TILA disclosures must be grouped together and segregated from all unrelated information. U.S.C. § 1632(a). Disclosures must be organized in the contrast so that each section of the disclosure statement is complete without any extra information that confuses the consumers. Reg. Z. § 226.5(b)(1).

1)                  A paragraph at the bottom of the contract referring to the “property described above” is ambiguous and does not comply with the requirement that disclosures be grouped together. Leathers v. Toyota-Volvo, 824 F. Supp. 155 (C.D. Ill. 1993). See also, In re Cook, 76 B.R. 661, 663 (C.D. Ill. 1987) (information in the disclosure statement referred back and forth violates TILA, because the required disclosures must be simplified and grouped in a single location and segregated from everything else).

2)                  Failure to disclose time of payment in the disclosure statement violates TILA because “the timing of payments […] must be grouped with the other required disclosure” such as number of payments and amount of payments. Jones v. Ameriquest Mort. Co., 2006 WL 273545 (N.D. Ill.). See Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank, 240 F.R.D at 617 (the creditor listed the period of payments in a different place than the number and amount of payments violate TILA requires to group related information together).

  1. d. Additional information. Lenders can include additional information on the disclosure statement so long as the additional information relates to the required disclosures. U.S.C. § 1632(b).

1)                  Disclosure of an additional interest rate of 1.950 percent, which only applied to the first monthly payment, in the disclosure statement is violation, because it causes the loan to “appear more attractive than it actually was and serve no useful purpose.” Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank, 240 F.R.D at 620.

2)                  Additional information setting out the Note Rate disclosed on the Disclosure Statement found “helpful and important to consumers.” Smith v. Anderson, 801 F.2d 661, 663 (Ct. App. Va. 1986).

  1. e. The home equity brochure published by the Board or a suitable substitute shall be provided. U.S.C. § 1637A(e). Creditors are required to provide the consumer with a brochure prepared by the FRB describing the home equity plans. If a creditor provides a substitute brochure, the brochure must be comparable to the Board’s brochure in substance and comprehensiveness. Reg. Z. § 226.5b(e)-1. When a third party has provided the consumer with a brochure, the creditor does not have to give the consumer a second copy of the brochure. Reg. Z. § 226.5b(e)-2.
  2. 2. Time of Disclosures: “The disclosures and brochure required … shall be provided at the time an application is provided to the consumer.”
    1. a. Creditor failed to provide the consumer disclosure statement at the consummation of the credit transaction violates TILA. Family Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Davis, 172 B.R. 437 (D.C. 1994); In re Schweizer, 354 B.R. 272, 281 (Id. 2006).
    2. b. No Violation where the creditor presents to the consumer, prior to the consummation of the credit transaction, a contract with multiple copies and allows the consumer to keep one of the copies before signing the contract. Queen v. Lynch Jewelers, LLC, 55 P.3d 914, 916 (Kan. App. 2002).
  3. 3. Required Disclosures for Open-End Credit Plan

TILA requires the following information to be disclosed, to the extent applicable. U.S.C. § 1637(a).

  1. a. Disclosure of the Finance Charge Accrual Date: The conditions under which a finance charge may be imposed together with either the time period, if any in which the customer may pay without incurring additional finance charges or there is no free ride period. Reg. Z. § 226.6(a)(1).
  2. b. Disclosure of the Periodic Rate, Range of Balances, and APR: For each period, a creditor must disclose the periodic rate that will be used to compute the finance charge; the balances to which the rate is applied; the corresponding nominal annual percentage rate; if deferent rates apply to different types of transactions, they must be disclosed; and penalty rate and possible conditions that trigger the penalty rate. Reg. Z. § 226.6(a)(2).
  3. c. Disclosure of the Periodic Rate, Range of Balances, and APR: The method used to determine the balance on which the finance charged is imposed, and a complex method calls for a more detailed explanation. Reg. Z. § 226.6(a)(3).
  4. d. Disclosure of the Finance Charge Amount: The method used to determine the amount of finance charge, including any minimum or fixed amount. Reg. Z. § 226.6(a)(4).
  5. e. Disclosure of Charges Other than Finance Charge: Identification of other charges which may be imposed and their method of computation in accordance with the FRB regulations. Significant charges such as membership fees, late charges, default charges, charges for exceeding the credit limit of an account, fee for providing copies of documents, taxes imposed on the credit transaction, real estate charges, and other charges must be disclosed. Reg. Z. §§ 226.6(b), 226.4.
  6. f. Disclosure of Security Interest: If a security interest will be secured in connection with the transaction, the collateral must be identified, even if the property is not owed by the consumer. Reg. Z. § 26.2(a)(25).
  7. g. Disclosure of Billing Error Right: A statement as to billing error rights and the right to assert claims and defenses in a form prescribed by the FRB must be provided to the consumer at the consummation of a transaction. Reg. Z. § 226.2(a)(d).
  8. 4. Required Disclosures of Residential Mortgage Transactions

Most home mortgages are subject to the disclosure requirements of TILA. U.S.C. § 1638. The required disclosures must be provided to the homeowner prior to the consummation of a credit transaction. Homeowners have the right to rescind most credit transactions, including home equity loans and home improvement loans, in which the home is taken as collateral.

  1. a. Disclosure of the Creditor: The name of the creditor must be provided and the address and/or telephone number are not required but may be included. U.S.C. § 1602(f); Reg. Z. § 226.2(a)(17).

Failure to disclose of the creditor’s identity properly entitles the consumer only actual damages, if any.

  1. b. Amount Financed: This term must be used in disclosure statement, and a brief description of the amount financed must be provided. U.S.C. § 1638(a)(2)(A).

Failures to properly disclose the amount financed gives rise to statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and any actual damages. Reg. Z. § 1640(a)(3). Its violation may also extend the consumer’s right to rescind. U.S.C. § 1602(u); Reg. Z. § 226.23 n. 48.

  1. c. Finance Charge: The term “finance charge” must be used and A brief description must be provided. U.S.C. § 1638(a)(3); Reg. Z. § 226.18(d). It can be disclosed only as a total amount, and there is no requirement to itemize finance charge, and overstating finance charge does not violate TILA. Vandenbroeck v. Commonpoint Mortg. Co., 22 F.Supp. 2d 677 (W.D. Mich. 1998).

In real estate closing charges, fees may be excluded from the finance charge are real property and title-related fees; document fees; closing agent, attorney fees; and notary, appraisal, and credit report fees. U.S.C. § 1605(e); Reg. Z. § 226.4(c)(7).

  1. d. APR: The term must be used and disclosure must be accurate. U.S.C. §1638(a)(4); Reg. Z. §§ 226.18(e). The APR is accurately disclosed when it is not more than 1/8 of 1 percentage point (.125%) above or below the actual APR. In variable-rate transactions, the description must inform the consumer that the interest rate is subject to change. A historical example illustrating the effects of interest rate changes implemented according to the loan program may be provided to the borrowers. U.S.C. § 1638(a)(14); Reg. Z. § 226.18(f).

Improper disclosure of the APR is a material violation of TILA that extends the consumer’s right to rescind. U.S.C. § 1602(u); Reg. Z. § 226.23 n 48. Statutory damage, attorney’s fee, and actual damage are also available. U.S.C. § 1640(a)(3).

  1. e. Payment Schedule: Payment schedule includes the number of payments, the amount of each payment, and the timing of payments scheduled to repay the obligation. U.S.C. § 1638(5)-(6); Reg. Z. § 226.18(g). Failure to disclose that payments were due monthly violates TILA. Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank, 240 F.R.D. at 617.

Violation of these requirements entitles the consumer statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and actual damages. U.S.C. § 1640(a)(3) Improper disclosure is also a material violation for purposes of rescission. U.S.C. § 1602(u); U.S.C. § 1602(u); Reg. Z. § 226.23 n 48.

  1. f. Total Sale Price in a Sale of Property: The total of the cash price of the property or services, additional charges, and the finance charge must be disclosed. U.S.C. § 1638(a)(7). Reg. Z. § 226.18(j). Actual damages may be available for violation to disclose this factor. U.S.C. § 1640(a).
  2. g. A statement regarding the taking of the security interest in the property: The creditor must disclose whether it acquires a security interest in the property being purchased, or in other property, as part of the transaction.

Violate this requirement will give rise to statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and actual damages. U.S.C. § 1640(a)(3).

  1. h. Late charges: The dollar amount or the percentage charge may be imposed for late charge. U.S.C. § 1638(a)(10); Reg. Z. § 226.18(l). Actual damages may be available for failure to state the late charges. U.S.C. § 1640(a).
  2. i. Any Rebate Available: Any funds given to the consumer must be disclose whether it is in the form of cash, check, deposit in a savings or checking account. Reg. Z. § 226.18(r). Actual damages may be available for this violation. U.S.C. § 1640(a).
  3. j. Disclosure of Reference to Additional Documents: Information regarding nonpayment, default, and the right to accelerate the maturity of the debt. Prepayment rebates and penalties are not required to be disclosed to simplify the closing process. Instead, the creditor can provide appropriate documents that consumer could refer to. Reg. Z. § 226.17(a)(4). Actual damages may be available for failure to disclose this requirement. U.S.C. § 1640(a).
  4. 5. Required Disclosures for Adjustable Rate Mortgages

Adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs), which secured by the borrower’s principal dwelling with a maturity longer than one year, are required to be disclosed with additional information. To simplify disclosure requirements for variable rate loans, creditors may disclose any variable rate transaction applying the ARMs disclosure rule. However, the reverse is not allowed. Reg. Z. § 226.18(f); 52 Fed. Reg. 48665 (Dec. 24, 1987).

Failure to disclose properly and accurately the requirements of variable rate loans entitles the consumer statutory and actual damages and also rescission right. In re Fidler, 210 B.R. 411 (D. Mass. 1997).

  1. a. Rate Cap Disclosure: The maximum interest rate that may be imposed during the term of the obligation must be disclosed to the borrower. Reg. Z. § 226.30(a); Fed. Reg. 45611 (Dec. 1, 1987).
  2. b. ARM brochure: The Consumer Handbook on Adjustable Rate Mortgages, published by the Board and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, may be provided to the consumer to fulfill this requirement. Creditors can also provide a suitable consumer handbook that is comparable to the Board’s Consumer Handbook in substance and comprehensiveness. Reg. Z. § 226.19(b)(1).
  3. c. Timing of Disclosures: The required disclosures and the Consumer Handbook must be provided to the borrower when an application form is furnished or before the payment of a non-refundable fee is made, whichever earlier. Reg. Z. § 226.19(b). Where the borrower receives the application by mail or a third party agent, the required information must be placed in the mail or delivered within three business days. Reg. Z. § 226.19 (b), n. 45b.
  4. d. Specific Disclosures Required for Variable Rate Loan: Major aspects of the variable rate loan program, which the consumer is considering, must be specifically disclosed.

1)                  The Index: Identification of the index will be used to calculate the interest rate and a brief description of the method used in calculating the interest rate are required by the Regulation. § 226.19(b)(2)(ii).

2)                  Current Margin Value and Interest Rate: A statement must be provided to the consumer suggesting the consumer ask for the current margin and interest rate. Reg. Z. § 226.19(b)(2)(iv).

3)                  Frequency of rate change and payment adjustment must be disclosed. Reg. Z. § 226.19(b)(2)(vi).

4)                  Negative Amortization: A statement to inform the consumer the consequences of negative amortization. A creditor must disclose the rules relating to the option, including the effects of exercising the option such as the increase of interest rate will occur and the payment amount will increase. Reg. Z. § 226.19(b)(2)(vii); commentary § 226.19(2). Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank, 240 F.R.D at 620 (no violation found where the creditor informs the borrowers what will occur when the interest rate increases).

5)                  Conversion Feature: If the loan has a conversion feature, the amount of fees will be charge and the method of the fixed rate interest to be determined must be disclosed. Reg. Z. § 226.19(b)(2)(vii)-3.

  1. e. Historical Example Disclosure: Creditors have the option to disclose the maximum interest rate and payment amount for a $10,000 loan amount or the historical example of changes in the index being used. U.S.C. § 1638; Reg. Z. 226.9(b)(2)(viii). If the former method is used, a statement that the periodic payment may increase or decrease substantially. Reg. Z. § 226.19(b)(2)(viii)(B).
  2. f. Subsequent Disclosures: Disclosures concerning rate adjustments are required for all variable rate loans. Reg. Z. § 226.19(b). Notice of the adjusted payment amount, interest rate, index rate, and loan balance is required to disclose to the borrower in a timely manner. Reg. Z. § 226.20(c)(1)-(4).

If payment adjustment may accompany interest rate adjustment, creditors are required to send borrowers notice at least 25, but not more than 120, days prior to the due date of a payment at the new interest rate. Notice is required to be sent to borrowers whenever there is an adjustment in interest rate. Reg. Z. § 226.20(c).

If interest rate adjustments are made without a corresponding payment adjustment, the notice can be sent to the borrower once a year. Id.

Incorrect adjustment or used of index value or incorrect disclosing the new payment amount that does not comport with the contract terms violate TILA requirements, giving rise to statutory and actual damages. U.S.C. § 1640(a).

Statue of limitations for an affirmative violation is “one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation” that starts running when the erroneous notice is sent. U.S.C. § 1604(e).

  1. 6. Required Disclosure of Rescission Rights: Rescission rights arise when the transaction is a consumer credit transaction, in which a non-purchase lien or security interest is placed on the consumer’s principal dwelling unit. TILA rescission remedies reflect Congress’ intent to keep homeowners from placing their homes in jeopardy without a reasonably clear understanding of the financial risks and benefits of the transaction.
    1. a. Rescission right is vested in the owner of the property that is the subject of the security interest. Reg. Z. §§ 226.15(a)(1)(i), 226.15(b), 226.23(a)(1).
    2. b. The security interest must be the principal residence of the owner of the interest. Reg. Z. § 226.2(a)(11).
    3. c. Time of Delivery: The rescission notice may be given after consummation, though the rescission period does not begin to run until it is effectively delivered. Official Staff Commentary § 226.23(b)-4. It is not effectively delivered until it is given in a form the consumer can keep. Reg. Z. § 226.15(b). A written acknowledgement of receipt of rescission notice creates a rebuttable presumption of delivery. Cole v. Lovett, 672 F. Supp. 947 (S.D. Miss. 1987).
    4. d. Providing Rescission Notice: Each person who has the right to rescind a credit transaction must be provided two copies of rescission notice and the required disclosures in a credit transaction. U.S.C. § 1635(a); Reg. Z. §§ 226.5(b), 226.15(b). Notice of the right to rescind is also required for non-purchase money mortgages. U.S.C. § 1635(a). Giving the TILA notice and another notice of rescission at the same time, which have different rescission dates, confuses an ordinary consumer, violating the “clear and conspicuous” disclosure requirement. Jones v. Ameriquest.
    5. e. Time to Exercise Rescission Right: The consumers have until midnight of the third business day following the delivery of the rescission notice, the transaction, or the receiving of the Truth-In-Lending statement, whichever occurs last. See, Jones v. Ameriquest. Right to rescind can be exercised prior to the consummation of the loan. Community Mutual Sav. Bank v. Gillen, 655 N.Y.S.2d 271 (City Ct. 1997) (the consumer properly rescinds her loan at closing recovering fees paid to the creditor).

If the creditor fails to deliver the required notice of material disclosures, the consumer’s right to rescind is automatically extended from three business days to three years. Reg. Z. § 226.23(a)(3).

  1. f. Assignee’s Liability: An assignee is liable for statutory damages for violations by failure to disclosure TILA requirements by its predecessors and its own violation if it fails to respond properly to a rescission notice. Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 27 (1st Cir. 2006) (“if a creditor does not respond to a rescission request within twenty days, the debtor may file suit in federal court to enforce the rescission right). See also U.S.C. § 1635(b).
  2. g. Rescission Process: The consumer must send a written notice to the creditor to trigger the rescission process. When the notice of rescission has been mailed, the notice is considered given. Reg. Z. §§ 226.15(a)(2), 226.23(a)(2).

When the consumer rescinds, the security interest automatically becomes void. The consumer is relieved of any obligation to pay any finance charge or any other charge. U.S.C. § 1635(b); Reg. Z. §§ 226.15(d)(1), 226.23(d)(1). Rescission voids the mortgage and is a complete defense to foreclosure. Yslas v. K.K. Guenther Builders, Inc., 342 So.2d 859 (Fla.2d D.C.A. 1977). See Beach v. Great Western Bank, 670 So.2d 986 (Fla. 4th  D.C.A. 1996).

The creditor has twenty days from receipt of the consumer’s rescission notice to return any money or property given to anyone and to take appropriate and necessary action to reflect the termination of the security interest. U.S.C. § 1635(b); Reg. Z. §§ 226.15(d)(2), 226.23(d)(2).

After the creditor has complied with the preceding mandate, the consumer tenders back to the creditor any money or property received. U.S.C. § 1635(b); Reg. Z. §§ 226.15(d)(3), 226.23(d)(3).

OTHER AVAILABLE REMEDIES

Only creditors are subject to the civil penalties of TILA. U.S.C. § 1640(a). Civil damages are appropriate when disclosure requirements have been violated, and liability is imposed despite the creditor’s alleged good faith and reasonableness. Ratner v. Chemical Bank N.Y. Trust Co., 329 F. Supp. 270 (S.D.N.Y. 1971).

  1. 1. Statutory Damages

Violations of the general requirements and rescission requirements give rise to statutory damage claims. U.S.C. § 1640(a). For open-end credit transactions, statutory damages are awarded in the amount twice of the amount of finance charge. If the action arises out of a credit transaction secured by a dwelling, the consumer is entitled to a minimum award of $200 but not more than $2,000. U.S.C. § 1640(a)(2)(A)(i-iii). Only one statutory recovery is allowed even there are multiple disclosure violations in a transaction. U.S.C. § 1640(g).

  1. 2. Attorney’s Fees

Consumers are awarded attorney’s fees in a successful action or when they are “determined to have a right of rescission under section 1635,” even if the consumer is not obligated to pay his or her attorney. U.S.C. § 1640(3); Andrews v. Chevy Chase Bank, 240 F.R.D. at 621 (“because […] plaintiffs have a right of rescission, they are entitled to attorneys’ fees”); Kessler v. Associates Financial Servs. Co. of HI, Inc., 639 F.2d 498, 499 (C.A. Hi. 1981) (attorney’s fees are awarded even the plaintiffs are represented without charge by legal services attorneys). Attorney’s fees include the cost of the action and “a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court.” U.S.C. § 1640(3).

  1. 3. Actual Damages

A consumer is entitled for actual damages when a creditor fails to comply with the requirements imposed by TILA, in the amount equal to the sum of any actual damage sustained by the consumer as a result of the creditor’s violation. U.S.C. § 1640(a)(1). Courts may require the consumer to show actual reliance upon the accuracy of the disclosures in order to claim actual damages. Perrone v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 232 F.3d 433, 435-439 (5th Cir. 2000); Peters v. Jim Lupient Oldsmobile Co., 220 F.3d 915, 917 (8th Cir. 2000) (detrimental reliance is established when the plaintiff shows that she read and understood the disclosures and that if the disclosures have been accurate, she would have sought and obtained a lower loan).


[1] Material terms are annual percentage rate, finance charge, method of determining the finance charge and the balance, amount financed, total of payments, the number and amount of payments, due dates or periods of payments scheduled to repay the indebtedness. U.S.C. § 1602(u); Reg. Z. § 226.23 n. 48.

California 2923.5 does not work for homeowners

Laws in California and with the recent ruling on Mabry v. Superior Court Docket Sup.Ct. Docket Mabry on June 2,201o and other states requiring mortgage companies to talk to troubled homeowners before foreclosing on them are toothless, according to a study released Wednesday.

The National Consumer Law Center, which analyzed programs in 14 states, said they have failed to help homeowners stave off foreclosure because they lack sanctions or accountability for banks.

“There is as yet no data to confirm that foreclosure-mediation programs anywhere have led to a substantial number of affordable and sustainable loan modifications,” the report said. “The existing programs routinely fail to impose significant obligations on mortgage servicers (without which) it is unlikely that mediations will lead to fewer foreclosures.”

Geoff Walsh, a staff attorney at the Boston law center who wrote the report, said in a conference call that the programs’ potential is in jeopardy.

“While these programs could provide significant help to homeowners, they suffer from the same lack of industry accountability that has plagued the voluntary federal programs that have sought to encourage large-scale modifications over the past two years,” he said.

California’s foreclosure-mediation law says mortgage servicers cannot file a notice of default until 30 days after they have contacted delinquent borrowers by phone, in person or via certified letter “to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure.”

The law took effect in September 2008 and immediately slowed down the foreclosure process. However, once the system was in place, the number of foreclosures returned to previous levels, according to public records.

Other states have enacted similar requirements as scores of borrowers nationwide have fallen behind on mortgage payments. In August, 7.58 percent of American mortgage holders were at least 30 days delinquent on their home loans.

Walsh laid out some changes that he said would make state programs more effective. They included: requiring banks to show the cost of a foreclosure versus the cost of a loan modification; requiring proof of who actually owns the loan; imposing sanctions on banks that don’t negotiate in good faith; and requiring banks to prove they considered alternatives to foreclosure such as loan modifications, short sales and government-assistance programs. The report recommended that a mediator or court certify bank compliance with those requirements before allowing a foreclosure to proceed.

‘Everything we can’

Jason Menke, a spokesman for Wells Fargo, declined to comment directly on the report, but said: “We’re doing everything we can to reach out to customers very early in delinquency proactively.” Walsh characterized the implementation of loan-modification efforts, including the government’s Home Affordable Modification Program, as haphazard and chaotic, and said homeowners “have been confused and rebuffed in their efforts to talk to individuals who are authorized” to help with loan modifications.

Graeme Card of San Pablo said he experienced frequent rebuffs in his efforts to contact Wells Fargo about the mortgage on his condo. He paid $402,000 for the unit and owes $381,000, though it is now worth about $200,000. His loan payments will go up next year, and because of medical expenses from an injury, he’s already cash-strapped.

Card, 38, a scientist at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in Menlo Park, said that in January, he started to call, fax and write Wells seeking a loan modification or short sale. “I got fed up with the delaying tactics of the bank, (which) refused to give me an answer, despite numerous documented promises,” he said.

In May, he stopped paying his mortgage.

“When I couldn’t get any traction with the bank, I said I’ll stop paying and it will make them sit up and take notice,” he said.

Better to walk away?

Like an increasing number of borrowers, he also made the calculation that he’s so far upside-down that he may be better off walking away unless his loan principal is reduced in line with his home’s current value.

“I’m paying into a massive hole of the $200,000 that it is underwater,” he said. “No matter how much I paid, I could never make any headway on that. I worked out it would be maybe 14 or 15 years to get back to the price at which I bought it ($401,000).”

Regarding Card, Wells’ Menke said: “It’s clearly a difficult situation, similar to what a number of our customers are facing. We understand that, that’s why we want to make sure we exhaust every option we can before we look at liquidation.”

 

Foreclosures May Be Undone by State Ruling on Mortgage Transfer

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Foreclosures May Be Undone by State Ruling on Mortgage Transfer

Posted on06 January 2011. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Foreclosures May Be Undone by State Ruling on Mortgage Transfer

By Thom Weidlich – Jan 6, 2011 12:01 AM ET

Massachusetts’s highest court is poised to rule on whether foreclosures in the state should be undone because securitization-industry practices violate real- estate law governing how mortgages may be transferred.

The fight between homeowners and banks before the Supreme Judicial Court in Boston turns on whether a mortgage can be transferred without naming the recipient, a common securitization practice. Also at issue is whether the right to a mortgage follows the promissory note it secures when the note is sold, as the industry argues.

A victory for the homeowners may invalidate some foreclosures and force loan originators to buy back mortgages wrongly transferred into loan pools. Such a ruling may also be cited in other state courts handling litigation related to the foreclosure crisis.

“This is the first time the securitization paradigm is squarely before a high court,” said Marie McDonnell, a mortgage-fraud analyst in Orleans, Massachusetts, who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of borrowers. The state court, under its practices, is likely to rule by next month.

Claims of wrongdoing by banks and loan servicers triggered a 50-state investigation last year into whether hundreds of thousands of foreclosures were properly documented as the housing market collapsed. The probe came after JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Ally Financial Inc. said they would stop repossessions in 23 states where courts supervise home seizures and Bank of America Corp. froze U.S. foreclosures. Massachusetts is one of 27 states where court supervision of foreclosures generally isn’t required.

Elizabeth Warren: Good Words, Now Let's See Deeds (via Foreclosureblues)

Elizabeth Warren: Good Words, Now Let's See Deeds Elizabeth Warren: Good Words, Now Let's See Deeds Today, January 01, 2011, 27 minutes ago | genesis From The Huffington Post (although not originally there) in reference to the mortgage servicing mess with Foreclosuregate and similar nonsense: While federal and state investigators are still examining exactly what has gone wrong and why, two things are clear. First, several financial services companies have already admitted that they used "robo-si … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

2011- The American Apocalypse (via Foreclosureblues)

2011- The American Apocalypse 2011- The American Apocalypse Yesterday, January 01, 2011, 7:24:05 PM | Matthew D. Weidner, Esq. My critics out there that accuse me of suffering from paranoid delusions when I share my fears of economic collapse and very real Civil War/Revolution.  My delusions derive from the day to day experience with clients in my office and what’s happening in courtrooms all across this country.  Real people are experiencing real suffering while those at the … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

“Robo-Signing” Woman Kept Signing Docs- 13 Years After Her Death (via Foreclosureblues)

“Robo-Signing” Woman Kept Signing Docs- 13 Years After Her Death “Robo-Signing” Woman Kept Signing Docs- 13 Years After Her Death Today, January 02, 2011, 5 hours ago | twist Who says that just because you’re dead you can’t keep on working?  In what is certainly the most blatant case of robo-signing I’ve seen to date, one company had a woman signing hundreds of documents- for thirteen years after her death.  [Hat tip Freedoms Phoenix.] How, may you ask, can a woman who has been dead since 1995 sign documents m … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Search terms for this blog

Search Views
timothy mccandless 1,564
substitution of trustee 861
http://www.timothymccandless.wordpress.com 599
mortgage electronic registration systems inc 481
timothy mccandless attorney 342
california civil code 2923.5 318
california civil code 2923.6 300
mortgage electronic registration system 292
timothy mccandless blog 260
tim mccandless 259
mers mortgage fraud 227
timothymccandless.com 222
loan audit checklist 196
timothymccandless 176
2923.5 158
mortgage audit checklist 155
mers mortgage 155
california civil code 2932.5 153
motion to consolidate california 152
when does a substitution of trustee have to be recorded in california 131
mortgage electronic registration systems 131
sue your lender 128
substitution of trustee california 124
tim mccandless attorney 117
civil code 2923.5 115
aurora loan services complaints 115
http://www.timothymccandless.com 109
california civil code 2823.6 91
2923.6 84
mers 82
sb 1137 80
aurora loan services v. stella d. onyeu 80
substitution of trustee foreclosure 76
wrongful foreclosure california 72
what is substitution of trustee 70
california civil code section 2923.5 69
motion to consolidate unlawful detainer 68
civil code 2932.5 68
tila complaint 64
california civil code section 2923.6 63
foreclosure class action 62
civil code 2923.6 61
timothy mccandless wordpress 61
law offices of timothy mccandless 60
foreclosure class action lawsuit 60
timothy mccandles 60
california motion to consolidate 58
beating foreclosure 58
ccp 1161a 54
ca civil code 2923.5 54
truth in lending checklist 53
loan compliance checklist 50
california civil code 2924 50
mortgage electronic registration systems inc registered agent 49
promissory note holder 48
civil complaint template 48
what is a substitution of trustee 48
ccp 2923.5 47
mers problems 45
how to fight an unlawful detainer 45
how to sue your lender 45
motion to consolidate 44
motion to consolidate cases california 43
sample wrongful foreclosure complaint 41
mers foreclosure california 41
ca civil code 2923.6 40
2932.5 40
mers california 39
sb1137 38
civil code section 2923.5 38
niel garfield 38
timothymccandless.wordpress.com 38
tim mccandless blog 37
eloise figueroa 37
livinglies.wordpress.com 37
mortgage loan audit checklist 37
mers class action 37
mers florida 36
lasalle bank v. lamy 36
substitution trustee 35
securitized mortgage litigation 35
mers issues 34
invalid foreclosure 34
california substitution of trustee 33
how to fight unlawful detainer 33
timothy mccandless weblog 33
fighting unlawful detainer 33
ca civil code 2932.5 33
mortgage electronic registration systems, inc. 32
how to stop an unlawful detainer 32
ccc 2923.5 31
tim mccandles 30
mers law 30
wrongful foreclosure 29
truth in lending audit 29
ccp 2932.5 29
mortgage electronic recording system 29
respa audit checklist 28
problem with mers 27
mers problem 27
respa compliance checklist 27
timothy mcandless 27
mortgage electronic registration systems, inc 26
what is mers 26
foreclosure defense checklist 26
mortgage electronic registration systems inc california 26
the problem with mers 25
motion to consolidate cases 25
senate bill no. 1137 24
california civil code 2923 24
civil conspiracy lender broker california 23
truth in lending audit checklist 23
wrongful foreclosure action 23
ccp 2015.5 23
mers litigation 23
civil code section 2923.6 22
template of a injunction and stop foreclosure in west virginia 22
predatory lending checklist 22
california code 2923.6 22
how to stop unlawful detainer 22
california civil code section 2932.5 22
mortgage compliance checklist 22
tro foreclosure 22
sample tila complaint 22
tim mccandless lawsuit 21
aurora loan complaints 21
california wrongful foreclosure 21
what is mers mortgage 20
mabry 2923.5 20
the law offices of timothy mccandless 20
2923.5 california civil code 20
what are the technical circumstances that can be used to stop the evictionon bankruptcy filed after the unlawful detainer case is lost the last day if we filed for bankruptcy in california 20
motion to stay unlawful detainer 20
foreclosure attorney fees 20
mortgage electronic registration 20
wells fargo wrongful foreclosure 19
promissory note enforcement 19
attorney timothy mccandless 19
civil code section 2932.5 19
fighting mers 19
law office of timothy mccandless 19
civil code 2924 19
mortgage electronic systems 19
2923.5 civil code 18
mortgage electronic registration systems inc flint mi 18
mers registration 18
class action foreclosure 18
ca civil code section 2923.6 18
california 2923.6 18
duly perfected 18
california code 2923.5 18
mers service of process 18
aurora loan services v. stella d. onyeu. 17
mortgage electronic 17
garcia v. homeq servicing corp. 17
2823.6 17
timothy mccandless esq 17
2923.6 california civil code 17
produce the note illinois 16
respa violations 16
ccp 2923.6 16
foreclosure cases, 521 f. supp. 2d 650, 2007 16
truth in lending audits 16
strategic bankruptcy 16
mers california foreclosure 16
amhsi mortgage company 16
mccandless timothy 16
california code section 2923.5 16
“timothy mccandless” 16
california civil code 2823.6(a) 16
hoepa checklist 15
timothy mccandless.com 15
mers real estate 15
wrongful foreclosure complaint 15
mers issue 15
ca civil code section 2932.5 15
mortgage registration systems 15
fight unlawful detainer 15
eb5 visa processing time 15
invalid substitution of trustee 15
californin 2932.5 15
servicer substitution fo trustee 15
“substitution of trustee” 15
mers attorney 14
cal civil code 2923.5 14
foreclosure ways to stay in house after eviction 14
timothy mcandles 14
cal civ code 2923.5 14
mers mortgages 14
wrongful foreclosure class action 14
holder promissory note 14
mccandless foreclosure 14
mortgage electronic registration systems inc. 14
foreclosure class action suits 14
mers short sale 14
2923.5 declaration 14
california civil cde 2923.5 tro 14
unlawful detainer delays 14
pretender lenders 14
wrongful foreclosure complaint california 13
perata mortgage relief act 13
renters in foreclosure what are their rights 13
where does the fraud begin 13
oliver@ipa.net 13
http://www.mariokenny.wordpress.com 13
subsitution of trustee 13
calif civil code 2923.5 13
holder of promissory note 13
linda harris de novo financial solutions 13
respa predatory loan remedy lawsuit instructions 13
california assignments must recorded 13
mers officers 13
california complaint template 13
brett mearkle 13
california 2923.5 13
ex parte application for stay of execution 13
how to sue mers 13
sb 94 13
stop unlawful detainer 13
timothy mccandless attorney ca 13
mortgage electronic recording systems 13
11 usc 362 13
electronic mortgage registration system 13
related:www.mersinc.org/ mers 13
sue lender 12
california 2932.5 12
tila foreclosure 12
ca civil code 2924 12
mark brajnikoff 12
civil code 2823.6 12
can fight unlawful detainer 12
produce the note california style 12
tender foreclosure california 12
how do i sue predatory lender in california 12
substituion of trustee: code violation 12
foreclosure class actions 12
tim mccandless, attorney at law 12
substitution of trustee in california 12
mabry v. aurora loan services, case number g042911 12
wrongful foreclosure cases 12
mortgage loan compliance checklist 12
timothymccandless’s weblog 12
jeffrey dembicer 12
motions to avoid foreclosure eviction 12
pretender lender 12
american broker conduit respa tila violations 12
mers registered agent 12
banks summary judgement for unlawful detainers 12
john mendaros 11
moore v. munger unlawful detainer demurrer 11
timothy mccandless foreclosure 11
https://timothymccandless.wordpress.com 11
ccc 2932.5 11
taylor v deutsche bank 11
fight mers 11
template adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court-fight foreclosure 11
injunction to stop foreclosure in california 11
mers litigation california 11
countrywide property 11
foreclosure sample civil discovery california 11
stay of execution eviction 11
lending compliance checklists 11
sample complaint for wrongful foreclosure 11
problems with mers 11
vella v. hudgins 11
predatory lending audit 11
carter v. deutsche bank 11
how to stop a unlawful detainer 11
litigation against mers 10
ccc 2923.6 10
motion to consolidate unlawful detainer california 10
california civil code 2823.6(b) 10
california civil code 2923.5 effective date 10
california code 2932.5 10
motion to consolidate ca 10
wrongful foreclosure damages 10
class action mers california 10
tim mcandless 10
temporary restraining order to stay the eviction 10
tort wrongful foreclosure 10
timothy mccandless law 10
mers fraud 10
mortgage electronic re 10
tila sample complaint 10
california mers rulings 10
invalid notice of default 10
tim mccandless foreclosure 10
section 2923.5 10
unlawful detainer trial 10
mers violations 10
motion to quash unlawful detainer 10
aurora loan services lost note 10
sue the lender 10
no assignment no foreclosure 10
what is mortgage electronic registration systems inc 10
aurora loan services 10
cal civil code 2932.5 10
johnny mendaros 10
mortgage electronic registration systems, inc. californa legal cases 10
unlawful detainer motion to consolidate 10
invalid trustee substitution 9
mortgage fraud mers 9
timothy mccandless, attorney at law 9
foreclosure defense george gingo book 9
issues with mers 9
hoepa audit 9
assignee liability respa 9
tim mc candless blog 9
injunction foreclosure california 9
eviction timothy 9
mers california court 9
affirmative defenses unlawful detainer 9
individual foreclosure stories 9
2923.5 effective date 9
trout v trout 220 cal 652 9
wrongful foreclosure tort 9
tim mccandless esq 9
mers electronic 9
california civil code 1161a 9
substitute trustee california 9
how to stop foreclosure timothy mccandless e 9
https://timothymccandless.wordpress.com/join-the-class-action-to-enjoin-wrongful-foreclosures/ 9
save your home post foreclosure!! facing unlawful detainer action? 9
timothy mccandless esq. 9
california civil code 3301 9
california civil complaint template 9
complaint for non-compliance 2923.5 9
lending audit 9
motion summary judgment template 9
ex parte app for tro template ca 9
app for tro for foreclosure 9
maher soliman 9
attorney fees for foreclosure 9
where’s the note who’s the holder 9
california class action wrongful foreclosures 9
service of process on mers 9
sample predatory lending complaint 9
california civil code §2932.5 9
pcu2008032 9
mers and mortgage fraud 9
mers in california 9
how to sue your mortgage company in federal court and get your deed 9
greenpoint brokers targeted by new york 9
mortgage electronic reg sys 9
foreclosure tro 9
mers california litigation 9
substitution document 9
substitution of trustees 9
mers foreclosure problems 9
does an nod have to be notorized 9
substitution of trustee foreclosure california 9
melissa tomlin mers 9
timothy mccandless california attorney 9
timmothy mcandles 9
mers in florida 9
tro foreclosure california 9
ca civil code section 2923.5 9
california civil code section 2923.5(b) 9
pharns genece 8
unlawful detainer demurrer sample california 8
downey savings foreclosures 8
ex parte motion to consolidate unlawful detainer action 8
stopping unlawful detainer 8
501-228-0877 8
ca duly perfected title after foreclosure 8
jeff dembicer 8
motion to consolidate california superior court 8
mortgage electronic registration systems foreclosure 8
sample wrongful foreclosure complaint, 2923.5 8
mortgage electronic registry system 8
cal. civ. code § 2923.5 8
california civil code 2923.5(c) 8
timothy mccandless legal documents in all motions in foreclosure 8
class action wrongful foreclosure 8
respa checklist 8
timothy candless 8
truth in lending compliance checklist 8
badbizfinder 8
mers corporate charter 8
cc 2923.6 8
bankruptcy unperfected mortgage 8
ca 2923.6 8
ca civil code 2823.6(b) 8
foreclosure defense options 8
how do you present issues of standing in court when your lender has filed foreclosure on your home 8
lime financial tila respa violations 8
how much are attorney fees for foreclosure 8
after the short sale i have second loan heloc purchase money chase bank put to the collection agency but is c .a law 8
mers cant no foreclosure in californai 8
unlawful detainer defense to 1161a 8
2046 balance sheet as it relates to the original loan 8
foreclosure cases+countrywide+california 8
california tender rule 8
tro to stop foreclosure 8
complaints against aurora loan services 8
truth in lending audit program 8
timothy l. mccandless esq 8
pro value properties inc v quality loan service corp 8
kevin lamson 8
mers loses in court 8
mortgage mers 8
sue my lender 8
ex parte application 8
california civil code 2932 8
petition to cancel note and mortgage, claim in recoupment, 8
napa county procedure to evict tenant after sheriff’s foreclosure sale pursuant to a writ of execution, california 8
timothy mccandels 8
bank of america foreclosure fraud 8
mccanless complaint for illegal foreclosure 8
site:timothymccandless.wordpress.com tim mccandless attorney 8
when was 2923.5 enacted 8
timothy mccandless law firm 8
foreclosured and facing eviction 8
wrongful foreclosure california complaint 8
california vs mers 8
fight foreclosure california 8
timothy mccandless motion for summary judgement 8
mortgage electronic registry systems 8
timothy mccandless class action no assignment no foreclosure 8
ccp 1162 7
timothy mccandless defendants motion for summary judgement ud 7
wrongful foreclosure template 7
mortgage electronic registration system california 7
california civil code 2932.5. 7
cause of action wrongful foreclosure 7
mortgage electronic registration systems inc mers 7
countrywide rico 7
(916)361-6583 7
ca civil code 2823.6 7
aurora loan services fraud 7
foreclosure complaint template 7
how to fight tender rule in california 7
foreclosure fraud 7
complaint to enjoin trustee’s sale ca 7
timothy mccandless removal of beneficiary 7
mers ocala florida 7
california civil code 29241 7
mers mortgage problems 7
mortgage electronic recording service 7
nielgarfield.wordpress .com 7
timothymccandles 7
678-380-3752 7
plaintiff must produce note at unlawful detainer 7
complaint form california stop foreclosure 7
is mers a creditor 7
california mccandless sample of notice of lis pendens 7
commercial holdover owner after foreclosure defenses to unlawful detainer in california 7
timothy mccandless sepora 7
mortgage electronic system 7
wrongful foreclosure california trustee sale 7
timothy maccandless 7
senate bill 1137 california civil code 7
duly perfected title 7
north american mortgage company correspondent lenders 7
civil code section 2923.6 lawsuits 7
aurora loan services lawsuit 7
california state\’s latest help for homeowners 7
complaint template 7
mers standing florida 7
notice of non-compliance ca stop foreclosure 7
chapter 11 bankruptcy individual 7
stop eviction attorneys in fresno, ca 7
enjoining foreclosures in probate 7
forclosure class action 7
timothy mccandless federal action for attempted theft 7
mccandless tim 7
can i sue mers 7
california foreclosure mers 7
timothy mccandless complaints 7
tila compliance checklist 7
sb 1137 declaration 7
substitution of trustee quality loan service 7
can mers foreclose in california 7
servicer of the loan liable for the fraud of the originator of the loan tila 7
timothy mccandless loan modifications 7
ccc 2823.6 7
notice of motion template 7
“mortgage electronic registration systems” 7
wrongful foreclosure settlement 7
timothy mc candless 7
asuncion case re unlawful detainer 7
lawyers guide for defense to an unlawful detainer 7
sample form complaint california produce the note 7
complaint to enjoin trustee’s sale, california 7
california commercial code 3301 7
2932.5 foreclosure 7
mortgage electronic registry 7
carter vs. deutsche bank cal 1-27-2010 7
sample form complaint respa tila violation note 7
timothy mccandless bank vs. martin, a – plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment – denied. the plaintiff as moving party has established a 7
kalima robertson 7
tila mortgage complaints 7
forecloser news 7
key elements in securitization mortgage foreclosure defense 7
lawyer timothy mccandless 7
-lamy a nominee of the owner of a note and mortgage may not effectively assign the note and mortgage to another for want of an ownership interest in said note and mortgage by the nominee.”) 7
motion to consolidate unlawful detainer in california 7
substitution of trustee california foreclosure 7
what does the the new vito mean for mortgages under mers

Max Gardner’s Top 11 Economic Predictions for 2011 (via Foreclosureblues)

Max Gardner’s Top 11 Economic Predictions for 2011 Max Gardner’s Top 11 Economic Predictions for 2011 Today, December 27, 2010, 1 hour ago | O. Max Gardner III At least 20 cities will be forced to file for Chapter 9 relief and the defaults on municipal bonds will hit all time highs.  Two major cities-such as Detroit and San Diego will join the others that go broke.  And, the Muni bonds are clearly headed for Puni-grounds. The number of Consumer Bankruptcy filings will reach an all time record and … Read More

via Foreclosureblues

Subpoenas Withdrawn: Ally (GMAC, owned by USA) to Pay Fannie (owned by USA) $462 Million for “BuyBacks” (via Foreclosureblues)

Subpoenas Withdrawn: Ally (GMAC, owned by USA) to Pay Fannie (owned by USA) $462 Million for “BuyBacks” Subpoenas Withdrawn: Ally (GMAC, owned by USA) to Pay Fannie (owned by USA) $462 Million for “BuyBacks” Today, December 28, 2010, 4 hours ago | Neil Garfield COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary COVER-UP CONTINUES EDITOR’S COMMENT: Confused? Ally, wholly owed by GMAC, which is 80% owed by our Federal government has agreed to pay $462 MILLION on “repurchase demands” (i.e. legal damages) to Fannie Mae … Read More

via Foreclosureblues