stop foreclosure – Page 3 – Works Rights Compliance Alliance

Plan of engagement: what to do “let them foreclose” or “Do something about it” what to do

UPDATE: This is THE OUTLINE of a plan that is current in its evolution but by no means complete or the last word. It replaces the entry I made in February of this year. The assumption here is that even without taking mortgage foreclosure cases into consideration, the percentage of cases that actually go to trial is between 5%-15% depending upon how you categorize “cases.” On the other hand, if you are not prepared for trial and counting on settlement, your opposition will generally know it and have the upper hand in negotiating a settlement. They are going to play for keeps. You should too. Don’t assume that the note in front of you is the actual original. Close inspection often reveals it is a color copy.

And for heaven sake don’t stand there with your mouth hanging open when someone says you are looking for a free house. You are looking for justice. You had your purse snatched in this transaction, you know there is an obligation, but you also know that they didn’t perfect the security interest (not your fault) and they received multiple payments from multiple parties on these securitized loans. You want a FULL accounting of all such transactions to determine what balance is due after insurance payments, who is subrogated or substituted on claims, and an opportunity to negotiate a settlement or modification with someone who actually has advanced money on THIS transaction and can show it to be so.

WORD OF CAUTION: IF YOU ARE ALREADY IN PROCESS, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ACT WITHIN THE TIMES SET FORTH BY STATE LAW, FEDERAL LAW, OR THE LAWS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. FAILURE TO DO SO LEAVES YOU IN AN UPHILL BATTLE TO REVERSE ACTIONS ALREADY TAKEN. ON THE OTHER HAND ACTIONS ALREADY TAKEN “FIX” THE POSITION OF YOUR OPPOSITION, SINCE THEY CAN NO LONGER ASSERT CHANGES IN CREDITOR, LENDER OR TRUSTEE. THUS IT MIGHT BE EASIER, ACCORDING TO SOME SUCCESSFUL LITIGATORS OUT THERE, TO WAIT UNTIL THE SALE HAS OCCURRED AND THEN ATTACK IT AS A FRAUDULENT SALE, THAN TO TRY TO STOP IT WITH A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ETC.

CONSIDER BANKRUPTCY, ESPECIALLY CHAPTER 13, WHERE THERE ARE MORE REMEDIES THAN YOU MIGHT THINK IF YOU FILL OUT YOUR SCHEDULES PROPERLY. WE ARE SEEING BETTER RESULTS IN SOME BANKRUPTCY COURTS THAN FEDERAL OR STATE CIVIL COURT PROCEEDINGS.

1. Get your act together, stop fighting amongst the members of your household and make a decision as to what you want to do — fight or flight?
2. GET SOME HELP NO MATTER WHAT YOU DECIDE. GET THE LOAN SPECIFIC TITLE SEARCH, GET A SECURITIZATION SEARCH, AND GET A LAWYER LICENSED IN THE COUNTY WHERE YOUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED AND MAKE SURE HE/SHE IS NOT STUCK ON THE PROPOSITION THAT YOU SHOULD LOSE.
3. If you choose flight, then by all means try the short-sale or jingle mail strategies that have been discussed on this blog. Do not try to make money on the short-sale, since nobody is going to give it to you. You can make a few dollars by riding out the time in foreclosure without making payments (and hopefully saving the money you would have paid) and by negotiating as high a price (a few thousand dollars) as you can in a deal known as “cash for keys.” Even for this, you should employ the services of a local licensed attorney — at least for consultation. There are several short-sale options that have evolved. Google Edge Simonson or Prime financial. I’ve been working on a short-sale-leaseback option that seems to be picking up steam.
4. STRATEGIC DEFAULTS RISING: More and more people of all walks of life including those that have some considerable wealth, are walking away from these properties that were the subject of transactions in which the presumed value of the property was preposterous. This is an option that scare the hair off the pretender lenders because it pouts the power in your hands. They in turn are trying to scare the public with threats of deficiency judgments etc and collections. It is doubtful that many or indeed any deficiency judgments would be awarded, even if they were allowed. But in many cases, particularly in non-judicial states, deficiency judgments are NOT allowed. A version of the strategic default that many people like is to stay as long as possible without paying and then walk. If you are smart about it, you raise your own capital by socking away the payments you would have made.
5. If the decision is fight — then the second decision to make is to answer the question “fight for what?” If you want to buy time, there are many strategies that can be employed, which basically are the same strategies as those used if you are fighting for real. And you might be surprised by the result. Some people get a year or two or even more without payments. You are going to take a FICO hit anyway so why not put some cash in your pocket while you hold back payments.
6. AVOID crazy deals where you give your property or share your property with a stranger. If you persist in engaging such people at least call references and make sure the references are real. Ask questions about their situation and how they feel it worked out to them. Get as much detail as possible.
7. AVOID mortgage modification firms. If you persist in engaging such people at least call references and make sure the references are real. Ask questions about their situation and how they feel it worked out to them. Get as much detail as possible. My opinion is that if they don’t pursue an aggressive litigation strategy the statistical probability of you accomplishing anything by going to them is near zero.
8. In all cases, if at all possible:

(a) Get all your information together along with a short executive summary of your “journal” (even if you create the journal now). That means all closing documents, any information you have on title, recording in the county recorder’s office, the names of all parties who were “at” closing (that means not just the actual people who were there, but he names of companies that were represented or mentioned at closing). Also, include in the file any notices of default(NOD) or notice of Trustee sale (NOTS) or summons from a court.

(b) Get a MORTGAGE ANALYSIS of the loan transaction itself. THIS INVOLVES THREE PARTS — (1) LOAN SPECIFIC TITLE SEARCH AND CHAIN OF TITLE, EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENTS, SIGNATURES, AND DATES OF DOCUMENTS PURPORTING TO BE REAL, (2) SECURITIZATION SEARCH THAT CHASES THE MONEY TRAIL AND WILL PROBABLY LEAD YOU TO SOME IMPORTANT ISSUES LIKE THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE “TRUST” ASSERTING IT HAS THE RIGHT TO FORECLOSE AS WELL AS MONETARY ISSUES SUCH AS APPLICATION OR ALLOCATION OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE INVESTOR WHO ADVANCED THE FUNDS FOR THE LOAN AND (3) COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS THAT IS USABLE BY AN ATTORNEY IN COURT SUCH THAT HE/SHE CAN ARGUE THAT THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT ENTITLING YOU TO PURSUE DISCOVERY. IF YOU WIN THAT POINT YOU ARE ON YOUR WAY TO A SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION. BUT NOBODY IS GOING TO MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU.

(c) Who is your creditor? The TILA Audit alone does nothing without taking further steps. The Trustee’s “Take-down” report should be demanded in non-judicial states and if the house is in foreclosure, your written objection should be sent to the Trustee.

(d) If someone tells you they are “pretty sure” or can “definitely” stop your foreclosure or promises a favorable outcome, and asks for money up front, then run like hell. This is a scam. IF THEY TELL YOU THEY WILL DO WHAT THEY CAN, AND THEY GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT THEY WILL BE DOING FOR YOU THEN LISTEN AND GET REFERENCES.

(e) Only a Court order stops foreclosure or a Trustee Sale. No letter of any form or substance will stop it unless the other side is intimidated into stopping the action, which sometimes happens when they know their paperwork is “out of order.”

(f) Get a Forensic Mortgage Analysis Report OR AN EXPERT DECLARATION that summarizes in a few pages the potential issues that you should be investigating AND WHICH LENDS SUPPORT TOY OUR DENIAL OF THE DEFAULT, DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF THE OPPOSING PARTY TO CLAIM A DEFAULT, DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF THE OPPOSING PARTY TO FORECLOSE.

(g) Get an Expert Declaration that uses the forensic report and the expert opinions of specific experts (like appraisers, title analysts) and which identifies the probable chain of securitization and the money trail. You’ll be surprised when you find out there were two yield spread premiums not disclosed to you and that they can total as much or more than the “loan” itself. GET EXPERT OPINION ON PROBABLE DAMAGES INCLUDING RETURN OF UNDISCLOSED FEES, INTEREST, ETC. (SEE LAWYER’S WORKBOOK FROM GARFIELD CONTINUUM).

(h) Send the Forensic Report and expert declaration to the known parties, with an instruction to forward it to all other parties known to them in the securitization chain. Include a Qualified Written Request(QWR) AND a Debt Validation Letter(DVL) (which is really a debt verification letter). Don’t be surprised if your pretender lenders will come back and tell you your QWR is defective or improper in some way, but that’s OK, you have followed statutory procedure and they didn’t. With the help of an attorney and with consultation with your experts decide on what resolution you will demand — damages, rescission, etc.

(i) Don’t believe a word about modification. Practically none of them go through. They are leading you into default so they can collect more service fees, and get money out of you that you think is stopping the foreclosure.

(j) Don’t believe a word that any pretender lender or representative says or represents, even if they are a lawyer, particularly verbal communications that they refuse to confirm in writing. Challenge everything.
(k) Don’t accept any document as authentic. Many documents are being fabricated or forged, including affidavits. This is why you need a lawyer and an expert and a Forensic mortgage analysis — to determine what documents and parties are suspect and what you should be asking for in discovery and in the QWR and DVL.

(l) YOUR FIRST STRATEGY IS TO RAISE NOT PROVE ISSUES OF FACT. BY PRODUCING A FORENSIC REPORT AND EXPERT DECLARATION, NEITHER YOU NOR YOUR LAWYER NEEDS TO ACQUIRE EXPERTISE IN SECURITIZED LOANS. YOU ONLY NEED TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF FACT BY SHOWING THE COURT THAT YOU HAVE EXPERTS WHO SAY THE PRETENDER LENDERS/TRUSTEES ETC. ARE NOT CREDITORS AND NOT AUTHORIZED AGENTS WORKING FOR THE CREDITORS. THEY SAY THEY ARE IN FACT THE CREDITORS OR HAVE SOME AUTHORITY GRANTED BY AN ALLEGED CREDITOR. IT IS NOT FOR THE COURT TO ACCEPT ONE VIEW OR THE OTHER, BUT RATHER TO ALLOW DISCOVERY AND AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON THE ISSUE OF STANDING (SEE MANY RECENT CASES REPORTED SINCE FEBRUARY ON THIS BLOG).

(m) Be very aggressive on discovery. They will argue that even if they are not the creditor and even if they refuse to disclose the identity of the creditor, they are still entitled to disclose because they are the holder of the note and/or mortgage. Your argument will probably be that they still have a duty to disclose the identity of the creditor and the source of the their authority to represent the creditor, along with proof that the creditor has received notice of these proceedings.

A Homeowners’ Rebellion: Could 62 Million Homes be Foreclosure-Proof?

62 MILLION HOMES ARE LEGALLY FORECLOSURE -PROOF

Posted 7 hours ago by Neil Garfield on Livinglies’s Weblog

EDITOR’S NOTE: YES IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS — WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR THREE YEARS. BUT JUST BECAUSE SOME JUDGES REALIZE THAT THIS IS THE ONLY CORRECT LEGAL INTERPRETATION DOESN’T MEAN ALL OF THEM WILL ABIDE BY THAT. QUITE THE REVERSE. MOST JUDGES REFUSE TO ACCEPT AND CAN’T WRAP THEIR BRAINS AROUND THE FACT THAT THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY THAT SET THE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PERFECTING A SECURITY INTEREST IN RESIDENTIAL HOME MORTGAGES COULD HAVE SCREWED UP LIKE THIS.

THE ANSWER OF COURSE IS THAT THEY DIDN’T — WALL STREET DID IT. I KNOW FOR A FACT AND HAVE SEEN THE INTERNAL MEMORANDUM WRITTEN IN 2003-2006 THAT LAWYERS WHO WERE PREPARING THE SECURITIZATION DOCUMENTS KNEW AND INFORMED THEIR CLIENTS THAT THIS COULD NOT WORK.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU GET A FREE HOUSE. BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT AT THE MOMENT ANY HOUSE IN WHICH MERS WAS INVOLVED DOES NOT HAVE A PERFECTED SECURITY INTEREST AS AN ENCUMBRANCE. AND THAT MEANS THAT ANY FORECLOSURE BASED UPON DOCUMENTS OR PRESUMPTIONS REGARDING MERS ARE VOID. AND THAT MEANS THAT IF YOU FALL INTO THIS CLASS OF PEOPLE — AND MOST PEOPLE DO — IT IS POSSIBLE AND EVEN PROBABLE THAT YOU COULD BE AWARDED QUIET TITLE ON A HOME THAT WAS FORECLOSED AND SOLD EVEN YEARS AGO.

BUT BEWARE: JUST BECAUSE THEY SCREWED UP THE PAPERWORK AND THEY DON’T HAVE THE REMEDY OF FORECLOSURE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE DOESN’T MEAN THAT NOBODY LENT YOU MONEY NOR DOES IT MEAN THAT YOU DON’T OWE ANY MONEY NOR DOES IT MEAN THAT THEY COULD NOT CREATE AN EQUITABLE LIEN ON YOUR PROPERTY THAT COULD AMOUNT TO A MORTGAGE THAT COULD BE FORECLOSED. BUT THAT IS STRICTLY A JUDICIAL PROCESS EVEN IN SO-CALLED NON-JUDICIAL STATES.

WE ARE NOW CLOSING IN ON THE REALITY. THE INEVITABLE OUTCOME IS PRINCIPAL REDUCTION WHETHER THE BANKS LIKE IT OR NOT. EVEN IF THEIR LIEN WAS PERFECTED AND ENFORCEABLE THEY STILL CANNOT GET ANY MORE MONEY THAN THE HOUSE IS WORTH. WITHOUT THE ENCUMBRANCE, THEY ARE FORCED TO NEGOTIATE A WHOLE NEW PATH WITH ONLY THE PARTIES THAT ARE NOW LEFT HOLDING THE BAG ON THE LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ORIGINAL LOAN ON YOUR PROPERTY, AFTER ADJUSTMENTS FOR PAYMENTS RECEIVED BUT NOT RECORDED OR ALLOCATED.

IN ORDER TO HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE, YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE ORIGINAL SECURITIZATION SCHEME AND INSIST ON PROOF OF WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE INITIAL SECURITIZATION PLAN WAS PUT IN PLACE. REMEMBER THAT THIS IS NOT A FIXED EVENT. THIS IS SINGLE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE BORROWER AND AN ONGOING PROCESSION OF SUCCESSORS EACH OF WHOM HAS QUESTIONABLE RIGHTS TO THE NOTE, MORTGAGE OR EVEN THE OBLIGATION SINCE THEY WERE ONLY ASSIGNED A RECEIVABLE FROM A PARTY WHO WAS NEITHER THE BORROWER NOR THE ORIGINATING LENDER.

A Homeowners’ Rebellion: Could 62 Million Homes be Foreclosure-Proof?

*
The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones’ Facebook Infowars store

Ellen Brown
Web of Debt
August 20, 2010

Over 62 million mortgages are now held in the name of MERS, an electronic recording system devised by and for the convenience of the mortgage industry. A California bankruptcy court, following landmark cases in other jurisdictions, recently held that this electronic shortcut makes it impossible for banks to establish their ownership of property titles—and therefore to foreclose on mortgaged properties. The logical result could be 62 million homes that are foreclosure-proof.

Victims of predatory lending could end up owning their homes free and clear—while the financial industry could end up skewered on its own sword.

Mortgages bundled into securities were a favorite investment of speculators at the height of the financial bubble leading up to the crash of 2008. The securities changed hands frequently, and the companies profiting from mortgage payments were often not the same parties that negotiated the loans. At the heart of this disconnect was the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, a company that serves as the mortgagee of record for lenders, allowing properties to change hands without the necessity of recording each transfer.

MERS was convenient for the mortgage industry, but courts are now questioning the impact of all of this financial juggling when it comes to mortgage ownership. To foreclose on real property, the plaintiff must be able to establish the chain of title entitling it to relief. But MERS has acknowledged, and recent cases have held, that MERS is a mere “nominee”—an entity appointed by the true owner simply for the purpose of holding property in order to facilitate transactions. Recent court opinions stress that this defect is not just a procedural but is a substantive failure, one that is fatal to the plaintiff’s legal ability to foreclose.

That means hordes of victims of predatory lending could end up owning their homes free and clear—while the financial industry could end up skewered on its own sword.

California Precedent

The latest of these court decisions came down in California on May 20, 2010, in a bankruptcy case called In re Walker, Case no. 10-21656-E–11. The court held that MERS could not foreclose because it was a mere nominee; and that as a result, plaintiff Citibank could not collect on its claim. The judge opined:

Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.

In support, the judge cited In Re Vargas (California Bankruptcy Court); Landmark v. Kesler (Kansas Supreme Court); LaSalle Bank v. Lamy (a New York case); and In Re Foreclosure Cases (the “Boyko” decision from Ohio Federal Court). (For more on these earlier cases, see here, here and here.) The court concluded:

Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this case.

The broad impact the case could have on California foreclosures is suggested by attorney Jeff Barnes, who writes:

This opinion . . . serves as a legal basis to challenge any foreclosure in California based on a MERS assignment; to seek to void any MERS assignment of the Deed of Trust or the note to a third party for purposes of foreclosure; and should be sufficient for a borrower to not only obtain a TRO [temporary restraining order] against a Trustee’s Sale, but also a Preliminary Injunction barring any sale pending any litigation filed by the borrower challenging a foreclosure based on a MERS assignment.

While not binding on courts in other jurisdictions, the ruling could serve as persuasive precedent there as well, because the court cited non-bankruptcy cases related to the lack of authority of MERS, and because the opinion is consistent with prior rulings in Idaho and Nevada Bankruptcy courts on the same issue.

What Could This Mean for Homeowners?

Earlier cases focused on the inability of MERS to produce a promissory note or assignment establishing that it was entitled to relief, but most courts have considered this a mere procedural defect and continue to look the other way on MERS’ technical lack of standing to sue. The more recent cases, however, are looking at something more serious. If MERS is not the title holder of properties held in its name, the chain of title has been broken, and no one may have standing to sue. In MERS v. Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance, MERS insisted that it had no actionable interest in title, and the court agreed.

An August 2010 article in Mother Jones titled “Fannie and Freddie’s Foreclosure Barons” exposes a widespread practice of “foreclosure mills” in backdating assignments after foreclosures have been filed. Not only is this perjury, a prosecutable offense, but if MERS was never the title holder, there is nothing to assign. The defaulting homeowners could wind up with free and clear title.

In Jacksonville, Florida, legal aid attorney April Charney has been using the missing-note argument ever since she first identified that weakness in the lenders’ case in 2004. Five years later, she says, some of the homeowners she’s helped are still in their homes. According to a Huffington Post article titled “‘Produce the Note’ Movement Helps Stall Foreclosures”:

Because of the missing ownership documentation, Charney is now starting to file quiet title actions, hoping to get her homeowner clients full title to their homes (a quiet title action ‘quiets’ all other claims). Charney says she’s helped thousands of homeowners delay or prevent foreclosure, and trained thousands of lawyers across the country on how to protect homeowners and battle in court.

Criminal Charges?

Other suits go beyond merely challenging title to alleging criminal activity. On July 26, 2010, a class action was filed in Florida seeking relief against MERS and an associated legal firm for racketeering and mail fraud. It alleges that the defendants used “the artifice of MERS to sabotage the judicial process to the detriment of borrowers;” that “to perpetuate the scheme, MERS was and is used in a way so that the average consumer, or even legal professional, can never determine who or what was or is ultimately receiving the benefits of any mortgage payments;” that the scheme depended on “the MERS artifice and the ability to generate any necessary ‘assignment’ which flowed from it;” and that “by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity, specifically ‘mail or wire fraud,’ the Defendants . . . participated in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate commerce.”

Local governments deprived of filing fees may also be getting into the act, at least through representatives suing on their behalf. Qui tam actions allow for a private party or “whistle blower” to bring suit on behalf of the government for a past or present fraud on it. In State of California ex rel. Barrett R. Bates, filed May 10, 2010, the plaintiff qui tam sued on behalf of a long list of local governments in California against MERS and a number of lenders, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, for “wrongfully bypass[ing] the counties’ recording requirements; divest[ing] the borrowers of the right to know who owned the promissory note . . .; and record[ing] false documents to initiate and pursue non-judicial foreclosures, and to otherwise decrease or avoid payment of fees to the Counties and the Cities where the real estate is located.” The complaint notes that “MERS claims to have ‘saved’ at least $2.4 billion dollars in recording costs,” meaning it has helped avoid billions of dollars in fees otherwise accruing to local governments. The plaintiff sues for treble damages for all recording fees not paid during the past ten years, and for civil penalties of between $5,000 and $10,000 for each unpaid or underpaid recording fee and each false document recorded during that period, potentially a hefty sum. Similar suits have been filed by the same plaintiff qui tam in Nevada and Tennessee.

By Their Own Sword: MERS’ Role in the Financial Crisis

MERS is, according to its website, “an innovative process that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated, sold and tracked. Created by the real estate finance industry, MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans.” Or as Karl Denninger puts it, “MERS’ own website claims that it exists for the purpose of circumventing assignments and documenting ownership!”

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

MERS was developed in the early 1990s by a number of financial entities, including Bank of America, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, allegedly to allow consumers to pay less for mortgage loans. That did not actually happen, but what MERS did allow was the securitization and shuffling around of mortgages behind a veil of anonymity. The result was not only to cheat local governments out of their recording fees but to defeat the purpose of the recording laws, which was to guarantee purchasers clean title. Worse, MERS facilitated an explosion of predatory lending in which lenders could not be held to account because they could not be identified, either by the preyed-upon borrowers or by the investors seduced into buying bundles of worthless mortgages. As alleged in a Nevada class action called Lopez vs. Executive Trustee Services, et al.:

Before MERS, it would not have been possible for mortgages with no market value . . . to be sold at a profit or collateralized and sold as mortgage-backed securities. Before MERS, it would not have been possible for the Defendant banks and AIG to conceal from government regulators the extent of risk of financial losses those entities faced from the predatory origination of residential loans and the fraudulent re-sale and securitization of those otherwise non-marketable loans. Before MERS, the actual beneficiary of every Deed of Trust on every parcel in the United States and the State of Nevada could be readily ascertained by merely reviewing the public records at the local recorder’s office where documents reflecting any ownership interest in real property are kept….

After MERS, . . . the servicing rights were transferred after the origination of the loan to an entity so large that communication with the servicer became difficult if not impossible …. The servicer was interested in only one thing – making a profit from the foreclosure of the borrower’s residence – so that the entire predatory cycle of fraudulent origination, resale, and securitization of yet another predatory loan could occur again. This is the legacy of MERS, and the entire scheme was predicated upon the fraudulent designation of MERS as the ‘beneficiary’ under millions of deeds of trust in Nevada and other states.

Axing the Bankers’ Money Tree

If courts overwhelmed with foreclosures decide to take up the cause, the result could be millions of struggling homeowners with the banks off their backs, and millions of homes no longer on the books of some too-big-to-fail banks. Without those assets, the banks could again be looking at bankruptcy. As was pointed out in a San Francisco Chronicle article by attorney Sean Olender following the October 2007 Boyko [pdf] decision:

The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.

. . . The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail . . . .

Nationalization of these giant banks might be the next logical step—a step that some commentators said should have been taken in the first place. When the banking system of Sweden collapsed following a housing bubble in the 1990s, nationalization of the banks worked out very well for that country.

The Swedish banks were largely privatized again when they got back on their feet, but it might be a good idea to keep some banks as publicly-owned entities, on the model of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. For most of the 20th century it served as a “people’s bank,” making low interest loans to consumers and businesses through branches all over the country.

With the strengthened position of Wall Street following the 2008 bailout and the tepid 2010 banking reform bill, the U.S. is far from nationalizing its mega-banks now. But a committed homeowner movement to tear off the predatory mask called MERS could yet turn the tide. While courts are not likely to let 62 million homeowners off scot free, the defect in title created by MERS could give them significant new leverage at the bargaining table.

CLASS ACTION VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRGr9sGlIpg&feature=player_embedded

Southern California (909)890-9192 in Northern California(925)957-9797

GMAC FORECLOSING ON GM FAMILIES

Posted on August 3, 2010 by Foreclosureblues
GM, GMAC & the US Government… Have You No Shame?
Today, August 03, 2010, 2 hours ago | MandelmanGo to full article

Southern California (909)890-9192 in Northern California(925)957-9797

In 1984, General Motors and Toyota entered into a joint venture, and they called it the NUMMI plant in Freemont California. Up until May of 2010, NUMMI built an average of 6000 vehicles each week, or nearly eight million cars and trucks. GM saw the joint venture as an opportunity to learn about manufacturing from the Japanese company.

Then the financial meltdown of Wall Street came. Bankers constructed bonds that were designed to default, took advantage of holes in the ratings agencies systems, sold them around the world, leveraged themselves 30:1 and more, and profited immensely by betting against them with credit default swaps. It wasn’t the fault of the employees at GM’s NUMMI plant, they had nothing to do with it, but they were about to pay a steeper price than the Wall Street bankers would pay.

GM pulled out of the venture in June 2009, and several months later Toyota announced plans to pull out by March 2010. Roughly 5,000 people, many of whom had worked at the plant for twenty years would lose their jobs, their retirement plans… everything.

At 9:40am on April 1, 2010, the plant produced its last car, a red Toyota Corolla S. Production of Corollas in North America was moved to Canada. It was over.

The faces of the NUMMI plant.

Of course, it wasn’t the first time a GM plant had closed leaving thousands of workers without jobs, far from it. But this time it was different.

The NUMMI plant is in the Central Valley of California, the part of the state with the lowest literacy rates, and a favorite of home builders and Wall Street’s bankers. Billions of dollars were poured into the Central Valley and tens of thousands of homes were built and sold there during the real estate bubble. It would become Ground Zero of the foreclosure crisis.

The workers at the NUMMI plant were quite familiar with GMAC, because the mortgage lender was the only mortgage lender given access to the plant employees to sell them on refinancing their homes. “Put your cars, your credit cards… everything into a GMAC mortgage,” they were told at the numerous seminars held at the plant, “that way you won’t be in debt.”

GMAC actually had a booth inside the NUMMI plant… you could stop by for brochures 24/7 and 365 days a year. GMAC’s salespeople were on site at least two to three times a month to sell mortgages to plant workers. “GM employees pay no fees and no points with GMAC loans,” the workers were sold… I mean told. Everyone took out GMAC loans, it was like GMAC’s own personal gold mine.

Joe Phillippi, principal of AutoTrends, a consulting firm in Short Hills, N.J. said: “The thing that brought down GMAC was its sub-prime mortgage business.” GMAC lost $16.5 billion in its mortgage business from 2007 to 2009.

According to Bloomberg… GMAC Chief Executive Officer (for a month and a half of last year), and former Citibank executive, Michael Carpenter, was paid $1.2 million plus restricted stock options. He replaced former CEO Alvaro de Molina in mid-November of 2009, who received a $3.7 million salary.

But that’s not all… not even close. GMAC paid Chief Risk Officer Sam Ramsey $7.7 million, $5.7 million to Tom Marano, CEO of mortgage unit Residential Capital LLC. $4.9 million to finance chief Robert Hull, and Chief Marketing Officer Sanjay Gupta received about $4 million.

GMAC lost money in nine of the past 10 quarters. The company hasn’t reported earning a profit since the final quarter of 2008. The company posted a record $3.9 billion loss in the fourth quarter of 2009, and lost $10.3 billion for the year.

The Congressional Oversight Panel, in March of 2010 said that despite three separate bailouts of GMAC totaling $17.3 billion, GMAC Financial Services “continues to struggle with its troubled mortgage liabilities.”

The U.S. government now owns 56.3 percent of GMAC, which serves as the primary source of dealer and car buyer financing for GM and Chrysler. The Obama administration currently estimates that taxpayer losses on the GMAC bailout may be at least $6.3 billion.

The Congressional Oversight Panel said that bankruptcy, and merging GMAC back into GM, could have put GMAC on a sounder footing. Instead, the panel said, Treasury treated GMAC more like large banks such as Citigroup and Bank of America.

I just spent hours getting to know a couple that worked at the NUMMI plant for roughly twenty years. I don’t want to release their real name, so maybe we should just call them “THE DIRT FAMILY,” because that’s exactly how they’ve been treated by GMAC as they tried to apply for a loan modification.

They began their application for a loan modification in July 2009, they were current and had excellent credit… something in the FICO 750 range.

So, first they were told they had to be delinquent. Then, when they went delinquent, they were declined because the husband was told that he made enough to make the mortgage payment. They applied again… and were declined because he was told that he didn’t make enough to qualify for the loan modification.

Are we having fun yet?

They turned to Bruce Marks’ traveling tent show of an non-profit organization, NACA, for help. NACA said they’d put them at the front of the line, but months went by and nothing from NACA. A sale date was set and NACA told the DIRTS they would have to file bankruptcy to stop the sale, so they did, but within days GMAC filed for the removal of the stay, although no new sale date was scheduled.

NACA wanted to wait until MR. DIRT actually lost his job, saying that this would make obtaining the modification easier. GMAC sent a letter to the DIRT’S bankruptcy attorney saying that they couldn’t negotiate unless the lawyer signed a letter saying it was okay to speak directly with the DIRTS. Apparently GMAC was aware of California Civil Code 2923.5, which says the bank must engage in meaningful discussions with a homeowner about alternatives to foreclosure before they foreclose.

The bankruptcy lawyer signed the letter. GAMC never contacted the DIRTS to talk about anything. GMAC won’t tell them if there’s another sale date set. GAMC says they never got anything from NACA.

Next thing they hear is that they’re house is being auctioned in a matter of days. They hire a law firm to try to stop the sale. The DIRTS and their new law firm ask GMAC who is the owner of their loan. GMAC says its GMAC. As it turns out it’s Fannie Mae.

GMAC won’t postpone the sale. Why? Not enough time. GMAC says the DIRT’S waited until the last minute… they procrastinated… they’re procrastinators, shame on them.

He worked 21 years at the NUMMI plant. Four more years and he would have earned his retirement pension. She worked at the plant until she was injured on the job… GM’s work comp doctor said the pain was all in her head… until she needed multiple back and shoulder surgeries… didn’t sue GM because he was going to make supervisor. They raised three children. Next year will be twenty years of a loving marriage. Hard work, but his life was in that plant… until it wasn’t.

And GMAC sold their home. They couldn’t wait. Apparently the Central Valley needs another empty foreclosed home. Here’s the letter they found on their door the next day. It was from Steve Ewing of Keller Williams Realty in the Central Valley of California:

Steve Ewing
Keller Williams Realty
2291 West March Lane, Suite D-210
Stockton, CA 95207
THE NINES TEAM AT KELLER WILLIAMS, CENTRAL VALLEY

We all need a little help in difficult times…

We have been hired by the new owners of this property to bring it to market as quickly as possible. This bank owned property must be sold VACANT.

It is possible that we may be able to provide some financial help for your immediate move.

TIME IS NOT ON YOUR SIDE, PLEASE DON’T MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY!!

PLEASE CONTACT STEVE EWING
PHONE: 209-625-8231 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 209-625-8231 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
FAX: 866-790-8285
EMAIL: STEVE@THENINESTEAM.NET

ALL OF OUR CONVERSATIONS ARE CONFIDENTIAL

Are they, Steve? You scavenger piece of crap. Are all of your conversations confidential? Just between us girls, is that what you were thinking would be the case? Well, surprise, Steve-O, because I hate secrets. And it’s no secret that you are an inconceivably inconsiderate and insensitive jackass who doesn’t deserve to stand within a hundred yards of anyone in this family.

Do you even know what a real day’s work is Steverino? Because the father in this family definitely does, while you… you puny pompous paper pusher in search of his next commission… obviously doesn’t. How dare you leave a letter like that on their door, and then weasel away in your Mercedes, or whatever kind of import car I’m betting you scamper around in. Did you even know there was a GM plant near by? Did you ever stop to care about the people that worked hard there… that gave their lives there?

No, Mr. Earwhig, I’m telling you that you didn’t care then, and you care even less now. These are people in your community that need your help… your empathy… your understanding… not your asinine “time is not on your side” threatening notes.

So, I have a suggestion for you and Keller Williams… leave this family alone. Don’t go knocking on their door… in fact, don’t bother them at all. They’ve already been inconceivably and undeservedly been treated like DIRT by GM, GMAC and my federal government, they certainly don’t need to concern themselves with the likes of you.

Besides, they’re filing a lawsuit asap, so don’t plan on selling that house anytime soon anyway.

And GMAC… I have only just begun to uncover what unethical, incompetent, money-grubbing, greedy predatory pigs you guys are. You haven’t heard anywhere near the last of me… no you haven’t… I’m just warming up, as far as you’re concerned.

Now you want to be known as “Ally Bank?” Because you actually think that’s how we’re going to think of you? Like our “ally”? Well, bang up job so far, you ally you. With allies like you, who needs the axis?

Now… GMAC, GM, and the Obama Administration… you have a responsibility to these people whose lives you’ve so carelessly thrown by the wayside. These are people that built 8 million cars and trucks in and for this country, so the way I see it, they are responsible for creating a whole lot more jobs in this country than this or any administration has, I’ll say that for sure. So, Mr. President, its time to do the right thing.
GMAC has to act human here. Taxpayers bailed them out to the tune of $17.3 billion. And for what? Was GMAC was too PIG to fail?
LIKE A ROCK, RIGHT?
Well, you’re going to just LOVE this!

Here’s GMAC Corp. contact information, which is found on their Website here:
https://www.gmacmortgage.com/About_Us/Company_Info/OperatingCenters.html
It shows the following under “About Us” and Company Info:
GMAC Mortgage Corporate Headquarters
1100 Virginia Drive
Fort Washington, PA 19034
(215) 734-8899

SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU CALL THE NUMBER… COME ON… IT’S REALLY WORTH IT, I SWEAR IT IS. GRAB YOUR CELL RIGHT NOW AND CALL THE CORPORATE NUMBER FOR GMAC AFTER WE TAXPAYERS PUT $17.3 BILLION INTO IT. IT ONLY TAKES A MINUTE…
LIKE A ROCK! SING IT WITH ME… LIKE A ROCK!

Now, here’s a song performed by one of the unemployed workers from NUMMI:

Mandelman OUT!
Southern California (909)890-9192 in Northern California(925)957-9797

Gator Bradshaw and the BASICS

CASE INTERPRETATION BY ATTORNEY NEIL GARFIELD of livinglies:
“The real party in interest in relief from stay is whoever is entitled to enforce the obligation
sought to be enforced. Even if a servicer or agent has authority to bring the motion on
behalf of the holder, it is the holder, rather than the servicer, who must be the moving
party, and so identified in the papers and in the electronic docketing done by the moving
party’s counsel.”
For 2 years I have been saying “stick with the basics.” Black Letter Law will set you free. But
time and again attorneys, pro se litigants and judges go astray and find themselves in never-never
land. Most attorneys and Judges take preliminary motions with a grain of salt. Virtually all
foreclosures would be eliminated if lawyers and judges paid attention to the very beginning of
the case. Gator Bradshaw in Florida delivers a nice piece at our seminar on motion practice.
Your job is to immediately focus the Judge’s attention on the fatal defects presented by the
actions of the intermediaries in the securitization process and more specifically, whoever is
attempting to foreclose. By failing to challenge this at the outset you have effectively waived the
issue and now face an uphill battle. This case reported below shows that a mere objection from
the Trustee in BK Court caused the entire claim of the forecloser to completely collapse.
Seven (7) months ago, before any of the landmark decisions reported on these pages, Federal
Bankruptcy Judge Myers in Idaho was presented with an objection from the Trustee to Motion
for Relief From Stay.
The fact that the Trustee took up the cause is reason enough to note this case. What the Court did
with it, in an articulate, well-reasoned memorandum of decision, is nothing short of startling in
its clarity.
One by one, this Judge takes down the arguments and tactics of the intermediaries in the
securitization chain and basically says that none of them has a right to make a claim.
In short, just as in these pages, the Judge doesn’t say who CAN assert and enforce the claim; he
just says that none of these nominees, intermediaries, conduits, bookkeepers, servicers, MERS,
or pretender lenders has any pecuniary interest in the outcome and therefore they lack standing to
be in court. On jurisdictional grounds, therefore, the case is closed and these interlopers are
thrown out of court. Will the REAL Lender please stand up? Maybe, maybe not.
The Judge points out that “The Motion further alleges that Debtors were indebted at filing “to
Movant” and that the debt arose out of a promissory note and a deed of trust dated September 20,
2006 “naming Movant as beneficiary.”
Judge Myers calmly and correctly points out that this was a total lie. When pressed, the
attorney acknowledged that the movant was not owed any money and that MERS was
merely an agent for an undisclosed principal for an undisclosed purpose acting
purportedly for the real party in interest. But the Judge says quite clearly and correctly
that the rules require the real party in interest to be the movant.
This Judge also addresses the issue of burden of proof, a sticking point for many readers of this
blog. He states that the burden is on the movant to prove standing, not on the homeowner or
petitioner to prove lack of standing. In fact, pointing to the rules again, he says that the pleading
must “[p]rovide the details of the underlying obligation or liability upon which the motion
is based;”
In a stroke of his pen, this Judge ends the issue over who has the burden of proof and even
provides grounds BEFORE DISCOVERY for dumping fraudsters out of court. They must plead
the allegations, and they must attach documentation that shows their pleadings are true and
correct.
This Judge is telling fraudsters to stop coming to court with attorney affidavits that are not
evidence (see his memorandum) and to stop submitting affidavits, notes, revisions to notes, late
indorsements, assignments that don’t match up with the pleadings or the requirements of
pleading.
Edited by MSFraud.org
1 All chapter and section references are to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532,
unless otherwise indicated.
2 In 2008, this Court saw over 2,300 stay relief motions in the 5,224 cases filed.
3 See Local Bankruptcy Rule 4001.2 (addressing substantive and procedural
requirements for stay relief motions, and providing for entry of orders upon absence of objection
after notice).
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF IDAHO
IN RE )
) Case No. 08-20381-TLM
DARRELL ROYCE SHERIDAN, )
SHERRY ANN SHERIDAN, )
) Chapter 7
Debtors. )
________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
In this Chapter 7 case, the trustee, Ford Elsaesser (“Trustee”), objects to a
motion under § 362(d) for relief from the § 362(a) automatic stay.1 Motions under
§ 362(d) are common in bankruptcy cases.2 Most stay relief requests proceed
promptly to entry of an order, after proper notice, without any objection.3
However, changes in mortgage practices over the past several years have
created a number of new issues. The one highlighted in this case is the standing of
4 There was no objection, and the exemption was therefore allowed. Taylor v. Freeland
& Kronz, 503 U.S. 638, 643-44 (1992); Rainsdon v. Farson (In re Farson), 387 B.R. 784, 797
(Bankr. D. Idaho 2008). Debtors indicated in their § 521 statement of intention that they would
(continued…)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 2
the moving creditor. Serial assignments of the mortgagee’s interest(s) and the
securitization of mortgages have complicated what was previously a generally
straight-forward standing analysis. Though many creditors provide in their
motions adequate explanation and documentation of their standing to seek relief
on real estate secured debts, Trustee challenges the adequacy of the subject motion
in this case.
Following hearing and consideration of the arguments of the parties, the
Court determines that Trustee’s objection is well taken and the same will be
sustained. The motion for stay relief will be denied.
BACKGROUND AND FACTS
On June 24, 2008, Darrell and Sherry Ann Sheridan (“Debtors”) filed their
joint chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, schedules and statements. They scheduled a
fee ownership interest in a residence located in Post Falls, Idaho. See Doc. No. 1
at sched. A (the “Property”). Debtors asserted the Property’s value was
$225,000.00. Id. They indicated secured claims existed in favor of “Litton Loan
Servicing” ($197,000.00) and “Citimortgage” ($34,000.00). Id. at sched. D.
While this left no apparent equity in the Property, Debtors nevertheless claimed
the benefit of an Idaho homestead exemption. Id. at sched. C.4
4 (…continued)
reaffirm the secured debts on the Property.
5 Closing of the case as a no asset chapter 7 would constitute an abandonment of the
Property as a scheduled but not administered asset, see § 554(c), and the automatic stay would
terminate, see § 362(c)(1).
6 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. refers to itself, and is generally referred
to by others and in the case law, as “MERS.”
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 3
The § 341(a) meeting of creditors occurred on July 31, 2008. Debtors
received a discharge on October 3, 2008. While the case was noticed to creditors
as a “no asset” chapter 7, and though Trustee concedes there will be no anticipated
distribution to creditors, Trustee has not yet filed his final report of no distribution
which would allow the case to close.5
On October 16, 2008, the subject motion for relief from stay was filed. See
Doc. No. 21 (the “Motion”). It was filed by “Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc. as nominee HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Indenture
Trustee of the Fieldstone Mortgage Investment Trust Series 2006-3.” Id. at 1 (the
“Movant”).6 The Movant characterized itself as a “secured creditor and
Claimant.” Id. The Motion further alleges that Debtors were indebted at filing “to
Movant” and that the debt arose out of a promissory note and a deed of trust dated
September 20, 2006 “naming Movant as beneficiary.” Id.
Attached to the Motion is a promissory note (the “Note”) executed by
Debtors. It is payable to “Fieldstone Mortgage Company” as the “Lender.” See
7 The documents attached to the Motion were admitted into evidence at the final hearing,
by stipulation of the parties, as “Exhibit 1.”
8 A “final hearing” is contemplated under § 362(d) and (e). That it would be an
evidentiary hearing is a result of the presence of material, disputed facts, which under Fed. R.
Bankr. P. 9014(d) requires testimony in the same manner as in an adversary proceeding.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 4
Ex. 1.7 A portion of the Note states: “I understand Lender may transfer this Note.
Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive
payments . . . is called the Note Holder.”
The Note is secured by a deed of trust dated September 20, 2006 and
recorded in the real property records of Kootenai County, Idaho, on September 22,
2006 (the “Deed of Trust”). The Deed of Trust at paragraph (C) identifies and
defines the “Lender” as “Fieldstone Mortgage Company, a Maryland corporation.”
Paragraph (E) of the Deed of Trust recites:
MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as nominee for
Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. MERS is the beneficiary
under this Security Instrument.
Ex. 1.
Trustee objected to the Motion, contending that the Movant failed to
establish its interest in the Property or its standing to seek stay relief. Doc. No. 23.
At a preliminary hearing on November 4, 2008, the parties requested a final
hearing because the question of standing remained unresolved.8 A final hearing
was held on December 16, 2008, at which Trustee and counsel for Movant made
argument, but no evidence was presented other than the documents that, as noted
9 The Code establishes time frames for preliminary hearing, final hearing and ruling.
See § 362(e)(1), (2). In this case, the Motion was originally filed October 16, 2008. Under
§ 362(e)(2), the stay generally “shall terminate on the date that is 60 days after a request is made
by a party in interest” if the case is one under chapters 7, 11 or 13 and the debtor is an individual.
However, that period may be extended by either agreement of the parties or by the Court for good
cause. See § 362(e)(2)(B). Here, the scheduling of the hearings resulted in a final hearing on
December 16, 2008, about the 60th day after the request. This delay was by or with concurrence
of the parties. The Court concludes that additional delay to the date of this Decision was required
to address the contentions of the parties.
10 Another ground for stay relief with respect to acts against property is an absence of
equity in such property coupled with a lack of necessity of such property for an effective
reorganization. See § 362(d)(2). The Motion indicated a lack of equity in the Property and, in
light of the fact that this is a chapter 7 liquidation, the Property is not required for reorganization.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 5
above, were admitted by agreement.9
DISCUSSION AND DISPOSITION
A. Stay relief requires a motion by a party in interest with standing
The Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules and this District’s local rules
govern stay relief requests.
Under the Code, relief from the § 362(a) stay is authorized “[o]n request of
a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, . . . .” See § 362(d) (emphasis
added). See also § 362(e)(1) and (2), § 362(f), § 362(j) (all referring to requests
made by a “party in interest.”) One ground for stay relief is “cause, including the
lack of adequate protection of an interest in propertyof such party in interest[.]”
§ 362(d)(1) (emphasis added). The Motion here alleged “cause” based on
delinquent payments, see Doc. No. 21 at 2, thus implicating § 362(d)(1) even
though no specific citations to § 362(d)(1) are made.10
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 6
The Rules require that a stay relief request be made by a motion. See Fed.
R. Bankr. P. 9013 (“A request for an order, except when an application is
authorized by these rules, shall be by written motion, unless made during a
hearing.”) (emphasis added); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4001(a)(1) (“A motion for relief
from an automatic stay provided by the Code . . . shall be made in accordance with
Rule 9014[.]”) (emphasis added).
In addition to the Bankruptcy Rules, this District’s local rules require, inter
alia, that:
– the request shall be made by a “party in interest” and by “motion;”
– the motion shall “[p]rovide the details of the underlying obligation or
liability upon which the motion is based;” and
– the motion shall have attached “accurate and legible copies of all
documents evidencing the obligation and the basis of perfection of
any lien or security interest[.]”
LBR 4001.2(a), (b)(2), and (b)(5).
1. Party in interest, and standing
While the term “party in interest” is not defined by the Code, this Court has
held that such a party must have a “pecuniary interest” in the outcome of the
dispute before the Court. See In re Simplot, 2007 WL 2479664 at *9 n.45 (Bankr.
D. Idaho Aug. 28, 2007) (citing In re Elias, 05.2 I.B.C.R. 41, 42, 2005 WL
4705220 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2005), and In re Stone, 03.2 I.B.C.R. 134, 135 (Bankr.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 7
D. Idaho 2003)). See also Brown v. Sobczak (In re Sobczak), 369 B.R. 512, 517-
18 (9th Cir. BAP 2007) (noting that a “party in interest” may be one who has an
actual pecuniary interest in the case, one who has a practical stake in the outcome
of the case, or one who will be impacted in any significant way in the case).
Simplot not only defined party in interest, it addressed “standing” issues.
The question there was whether the J. R. Simplot Company, which was not a
creditor with a claim against the debtor or estate, “had sufficient party in interest
standing to be heard[.]” 2007 WL 2479664 at *9. This Court stated:
Hasso v. Mozsgai (In re La Sierra Fin. Servs.), 290 B.R. 718 (9th Cir.
BAP 2002), explained that the doctrine of standing encompasses both
constitutional limitations on federal court jurisdiction (i.e., the case or
controversy requirements of Article III), and prudential limitations on
the court’s exercise of that jurisdiction. Constitutional standing
requires an injury in fact, viz. an invasion of a judicially cognizable
interest. 290 B.R. at 726-27. Prudential standing requires that the
party’s assertions fall within the zone of interests protected by the
statute and, further, requires that the litigant assert only its own rights
and not those of another party. Id. at 727 (citing Bennett v. Spear, 520
U.S. 154, 162, 167-68 (1997). The party asserting standing exists has
the burden of proving it. Id. at 726. Though sometimes articulated in
the cases as principles applicable to standing on appeal, the same
propositions apply to a party at the bankruptcy court level.
Id. (footnote citations omitted). In Simplot, the Court concluded that “parties may
not assert . . . objections that relate solely to others, or that go to issues that do not
directly and adversely affect them pecuniarily.” Id. at *10 (footnote citations
omitted). These same standing requirements were recently highlighted in a stay
relief context by the court in In re Jacobson, ___ B.R. ___, 2009 WL 567188 at
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 8
*5-6 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Mar. 6, 2009).
2. Real party in interest
Under Rule 9014, which by virtue of Rule 4001(a)(1) governs stay relief
requests, certain “Part VII” rules are applicable. See Rule 9014(c). Among those
incorporated rules is Rule 7017, which in turn incorporates Fed. R. Civ. P. 17, and
Rule 17(a)(1) provides that “An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real
party in interest.”
Jacobson notes that its moving party, who claimed to be a servicer for the
holder of the note, “neither asserts beneficial interest in the note, nor that it could
enforce the note in its own right.” 2009 WL 567188 at *4. It concluded that Fed.
R. Civ. P. 17 applied, requiring the stay relief motion to be brought in the name of
the real party in interest. Id. (citing In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757, 767 (Bankr. C.D.
Cal. 2008)); see also In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511, 521 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008). As
Jacobson summarized:
The real party in interest in relief from stay is whoever is entitled to
enforce the obligation sought to be enforced. Even if a servicer or
agent has authority to bring the motion on behalf of the holder, it is the
holder, rather than the servicer, which must be the moving party, and
so identified in the papers and in the electronic docketing done by the
moving party’s counsel.
Id.
The upshot of these several provisions of the Code, Rules, local rules and
case law is this: to obtain stay relief, a motion must be brought by a party in
interest, with standing. This means the motion must be brought by one who has a
11 The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, 525 F.3d 855 (9th
Cir. 2008) does not require a different conclusion. Reusser held that a lender, Wachovia Bank,
did not violate the automatic stay by seeking to foreclose on the debtors’ property after the
bankruptcy court granted the loan servicer’s (Washington Mutual) § 362(d) motion. Id. at 861-
62. Although Wachovia did not join in the motion or separately seek stay relief, the court held
that the order entered “as to Washington Mutual” was effective as to Wachovia. Id. at 857, 861.
Notably, however, the Reussers never challenged Washington Mutual’s standing in bankruptcy
court; instead, they launched that attack in a subsequently filed district court action. Id. at 861-
62. The Ninth Circuit held that “a final order lifting an automatic stay is binding as to the
property or interest in question—the res—and its scope is not limited to the particular parties
before the court.” Id. at 861. The difference here is that Trustee has timely objected to Movant’s
standing and, of course, no final order has been entered.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 9
pecuniary interest in the case and, in connection with secured debts, by the entity
that is entitled to payment from the debtor and to enforce security for such
payment. That entity is the real party in interest. It must bring the motion or, if
the motion is filed by a servicer or nominee or other agent with claimed authority
to bring the motion, the motion must identify and be prosecuted in the name of the
real party in interest.11
B. The present Motion
Under the documents attached to the Motion and later admitted at hearing
as Ex. 1, Fieldstone Mortgage Company, a Maryland corporation, would certainly
appear to be a party in interest and have standing. It has an economic interest
according to the Note attached to the Motion and an interest in Debtors’ Property
according to the Deed of Trust that is also attached.
However, the Motion was not brought by Fieldstone Mortgage Company.
12 Idaho Code § 45-1502(1) defines beneficiary for purposes of the trust deed statute as
“the person named or otherwise designated in a trust deed as the person for whose benefit a trust
deed is given, or his successor in interest, and who shall not be the trustee.” Idaho Code § 45-
1502(3) defines trust deed as “a deed executed in conformity with this act and conveying real
property to a trustee in trust to secure the performance of an obligation of the grantor or other
person named in the deed to a beneficiary.” Id. (emphasis added).
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 10
1. MERS as “nominee” or “beneficiary”
Counsel for Movant argues that MERS, given its titular designation of
“beneficiary” under the Deed of Trust, is or should be able to prosecute the
Motion under the Code, Rules and Local Rules. Counsel conceded, however, that
MERS is not an economic “beneficiary” under the Deed of Trust. It is owed and
will collect no money from Debtors under the Note, nor will it realize the value of
the Property through foreclosure of the Deed of Trust in the event the Note is not
paid.12
Further, the Deed of Trust’s designation of MERS as “beneficiary” is
coupled with an explanation that “MERS is . . . acting solely as nominee for
Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns.” Ex. 1 (emphasis added). Movant’s
briefing suggests that a “nominee” is synonymous with an “agent.” See Doc. No.
26 at 2.
The Motion was filed by MERS “as nominee [for] HSBC Bank USA,
National Association, as Indenture Trustee of the Fieldstone Mortgage Investment
Trust Series 2006-3.” Even assuming that MERS as a “nominee” had sufficient
rights and ability as an agent to advance its principal’s stay relief request, there
13 The Motion uses several terms (Movant, Claimant, Petitioner) without definition or
evident consistency. The Motion commenced as follows:
“COMES NOW Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee
HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Indenture Trustee of the Fieldstone
Mortgage Investment Trust Series 2006-3, a secured creditor and Claimant
herein, and moves the Court for its Order granting relief from the automatic
stay[.]”
Thus, the “Claimant” and evidently the “Movant” (i.e., the party who “COMES NOW . . . and
moves”) are one and the same, and this entity also purports to be a “secured creditor.” Since
MERS is acting as nominee, the Claimant/Movant and secured creditor appears by these
allegations to be HSBC Bank USA (in its role as indenture trustee for others). The Motion
continues by asserting that “Debtor was on the date of filing the petition herein, indebted to
Claimant arising out of [the Note] and a Deed of Trust dated September 20, 2006, naming
Movant as beneficiary.” Contrary to these assertions, the Deed of Trust does not name HSBC
Bank USA or the Fieldstone Mortgage Investment Trust as its beneficiary. Nor is there
explanation of how Debtors came to owe HSBC Bank USA.
14 This language appears in the Deed of Trust only. There is no mention of MERS in the
Note.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 11
remains an insuperable problem. The Motion provides no explanation, much less
documentation or other evidence, to show that the Fieldstone Mortgage
Investment Trust Series 2006-3 (as an entity) or HSBC Bank USA (as that entity’s
“indenture trustee”) has any interest in the subject Note or the subject Deed of
Trust.13
In light of Trustee’s objection on this score, Movant argues that MERS’
role as “nominee for Lender [i.e., Fieldstone Mortgage Company] and Lender’s
successors and assigns” gives it ample authority to assert the stay relief request
under the Deed of Trust for whatever successor in interest or assignee might have
the beneficial interest.14 Even if the proposition is accepted that the Deed of Trust
15 Some courts have indicated that the stay relief request should explain the serial
assignments resulting in the movant becoming the holder of the note. See, e.g., In re Hayes, 393
B.R. 259, 269 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008) (“The Court and the Debtor are entitled to insist that the
moving party establish its standing in a motion for relief from stay through the submission of an
accurate history of the chain of ownership of the mortgage.”); In re Maisel, 378 B.R. 19, 22
(Bankr. D. Mass. 2007) (“‘If the claimant acquired the note and mortgage from the original lender
or from another party who acquired it from the original lender, the claimant can meet its burden
through evidence that traces the loan from the original lender to the claimant.’”) (quoting In re
(continued…)
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 12
provisions give MERS the ability to act as an agent (“nominee”) for another, it
acts not on its own account. Its capacity is representative.
2. Documentation
This District’s Local Bankruptcy Rule 4001.2 requires copies of “all
documents evidencing the obligation and the basis of perfection of any lien or
security interest.” The sole documentation provided with the Motion here
evidences the interests in the Note and Deed of Trust held by Fieldstone Mortgage
Company, a Maryland corporation. This submission does not answer the key
question — Who was the holder of the Note at the time of the Motion?
Several movants for stay relief have argued that the holder of a note secured
by a deed of trust obtains the benefit of the deed of trust even in the absence of an
assignment of the deed of trust, on the theory that the security for the debt follows
the debt. Under this theory, it would appear that when bankruptcy intervenes, and
somewhat like a game of Musical Chairs, the then-current holder of the note is the
only creditor with a pecuniary interest and standing sufficient to pursue payment
and relief from stay.15
15 (…continued)
Parrish, 326 B.R. 708, 720 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005)). The court in Jacobson decided that it
“need not here go so far” as to require such tracing, because of the paucity of proof presented in
that case. 2009 WL 567188 at *6. The same is true here. Movant’s proof does not even show
who presently holds the Note. That alone provides sufficient basis to deny the Motion.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 13
The Motion here certainly suggests that the Fieldstone Mortgage
Investment Trust Series 2006-3 (or perhaps HSBC Bank USA in its capacity as
indenture trustee for that trust) was the holder of the note on the June 24, 2008,
petition date. But at the time of the final § 362(e) evidentiary hearing herein, the
parties discussed and Movant ultimately conceded that (I) the Note contained
nothing indicating its transfer by Fieldstone Mortgage Company, (ii) the Motion
was devoid of allegations regarding the details of any such transfer, and (iii) the
record lacked any other documents related to the issue.
3. The supplemental affidavit
Subsequent to the closing of the hearing and after the Court took the
dispute under advisement, Movant filed a “supplemental affidavit” of its counsel.
See Doc. No. 28 (filed January 2, 2009). This affidavit alleges that Movant’s
counsel obtained on such date the “original” Note and that the same contains an
indorsement. Counsel states that his “affidavit is presented to supplement the
record herein and for the Court’s consideration in the pending motion[.]” Id. at 2.
The filing and consideration of this supplemental affidavit are improper for
several reasons.
16 Accord Jacobson, 2009 WL 567188 at *6-8 (discussing inadequacies of evidentiary
submissions).
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 14
First, the record was closed, and the Court did not authorize the reopening
of that record, nor did it indicate any post-hearing submissions would be accepted.
Second, Trustee did not have the opportunity to address this “newly
obtained” document at hearing, and nothing shows his consent to the post hoc
supplementation of the evidentiary record.
Third, disputed factual issues in contested matters may not be resolved
through testimony in “affidavits” but rather require testimony in open court. See
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(d). Under the circumstances, the identity of the holder of
the Note certainly appears to be a fact in dispute falling within the ambit of this
rule.
Fourth, the affidavit is insufficient to establish that counsel, as affiant, has
the ability to testify regarding or lay the foundation required to admit the
document. See Esposito v. Noyes (In re Lake Country Invs., LLC), 255 B.R. 588,
594-95 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2000).16 The assertion that the newly possessed note is
the “original” appears to be based not on the affiant’s (counsel’s) personal
knowledge but on the assertions of someone else.
Fifth, the proffer of this “new” note as the “original” note directly
contradicts Movant’s prior representations that the Note attached to the Motion
17 See generally Idaho Code § 28-3-205(2) (“When indorsed in blank, an instrument is
payable to the bearer and may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone until specially
indorsed.”); § 28-3-301 (providing that the holder of the instrument may enforce it). These
provisions make identification of the current holder significant.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 15
was “true and correct” and the operative document in this matter. See Doc. No. 21
at 1.
Sixth, even were it considered, the “new” Note’s asserted indorsement
states: “Pay To The Order Of [blank] Without Recourse” and then purports to be
signed by Fieldstone Mortgage Company through a named assistant vice
president. There is no date nor indication of who was or is the transferee.
Fieldstone Mortgage Company may have indorsed the Note in blank, but this
document does not alone establish that either HSBC Bank USA or Fieldstone
Mortgage Investment Trust is the Note’s holder.17
Thus, even if a “nominee” such as MERS could properly bring a motion for
stay relief in the name of and on behalf of the real party in interest – the entity that
has rights in and pecuniary interest under the Note secured by the Deed of Trust –
nothing of record adequately establishes who that entity actually is. Under the
evidence submitted at the § 362(e) final hearing, which consists solely of Exhibit
1, the only entity that MERS could conceivably represent as an agent/nominee
would be Fieldstone Mortgage Company. But MERS does not represent that party
according to the Motion and, in fact, its contentions are to the effect that
18 For this reason, Movant’s reliance on In re Huggins, 357 B.R. 180 (Bankr. D. Mass.
2006) is misplaced. Huggins held that MERS, which was named in a mortgage as the lender’s
nominee, had standing to seek stay relief. Id. at 184-85. But in Huggins, the original lender
continued to hold the note, and the mortgage had not been transferred. Id. at 182, 184.
19 See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b) (providing inter alia that a motion’s filing or other
presentation constitutes a certification that there has been an “inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances” and that factual allegations made “have evidentiary support or, if specifically so
identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
investigation or discovery”). Trustee here was clear, though, that he asserted no Rule 9011
claims against Movant or its counsel.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 16
Fieldstone Mortgage Company is no longer a party in interest.18
At the time of that final hearing, counsel for Movant conceded that he had
no documentation provided to him by his “client” which indicated the interests
under the Note or Deed of Trust were held by either HSBC Bank USA or the
Fieldstone Mortgage Investment Trust. Counsel filed the Motion and
characterized the Movant’s identity therein based solely on undocumented
representations made to him. This would appear to be a problematic approach
generally.19 And, in this particular case, Trustee’s objection to the Motion put the
matter at issue and Movant to its proof.
CONCLUSION
When Trustee challenged the Motion’s bare assertions, Movant failed to
provide an adequate record showing it was a party in interest with standing
entitled to seek such relief. On the record presented, the Court finds and
concludes Trustee’s objection is well taken. That objection will be sustained. The
Motion will be denied. The Trustee will provide a form of order for the Court’s
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION – 17
review and entry.
DATED: March 12, 2009
TERRY L. MYERS
CHIEF U. S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

California Court Rules: MERS Can’t Foreclose, Citibank Can’t Collect

“Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is VOID under California Law.”

If you read that sentence and thought… “MERS,” then you’re already in the club. If you’ve never heard of MERS, and have no idea what is meant by being “in the club,” don’t worry, this is a club that just about every homeowner is invited to join. In fact, you may already be a member and not even know it.
MERS is the acronym used to describe Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Best I can tell, our friends in the mortgage banking industry created MERS to make it easier for banks and servicers to sell and transfer our mortgages at the speed of light during the real estate bubble. According to the company’s Website:
MERS was created by the mortgage banking industry to streamline the mortgage process by using electronic commerce to eliminate paper. Our mission is to register every mortgage loan in the United States on the MERS®System.
MERS acts as nominee in the county land records for the lender and servicer. Any loan registered on the MERS®System is inoculated against future assignments because MERS remains the nominal mortgagee no matter how many times servicing is traded.

I have to tell you… I hate these guys already. Their attitude alone bothers me. I looked at pictures of their three top executives on their Website and thought to myself… “No way I’d be friends with these guys.” Probably not very fair of me, but as far as I’m concerned, when it comes to anything that talks like that and was created by the mortgage banking industry… “fair,” is where you go on Sunday to have popcorn and cotton candy. Just so we’re clear.
MERS, which is a company that I hear doesn’t even have employees, has been about as controversial as you get ever since houses started dropping like flies into foreclosure back in 2007-08. God forbid you find yourself losing your home to foreclosure, you’ll very likely find a representative from MERS looking smug and acting like the owner of your mortgage. But, MERS is not the owner of your mortgage, of course, and now a bankruptcy court judge in the Eastern District of California has officially said that he agrees.
MERS is a relatively new development in the mortgage world, and as the foreclosure crisis began the courts pretty much let them do whatever they wanted to do, as the party in interest in a foreclosure action.
But, that was before the foreclosures became a full fledged tsunami, and homeowners watched the bankers first get bailed out, and then pay out billions in bonuses before treating every single American homeowner/taxpayer who applied for a loan modification like insignificant garbage.
In response, homeowners, having been trained for over 200 years in the fine art of pushing back when shoved, went to their lawyers, and those lawyers started asking questions, as they are prone to do. Many started with questions like: “Who the heck is this MERS guy and why does he think he has any right to be foreclosing on my client’s home?”
For almost two full years, it seemed to me that judges, who frankly weren’t used to foreclosures being challenged, basically yawned and gave the house back to the bank. Then, starting about a year ago, give or take, things started to change. Judges started to listen to the points being raised as related to MERS showing up as the party in interest ready to foreclose, and the more the judges learned, the more they saw problems with what MERS was doing. As time went on the tide seemed to shift a bit and several decisions weren’t falling as MERS would have liked for one reason or another.
According to the company’s Website, MERS “is a proper party that can lawfully foreclose as the mortgagee and note-holder of a mortgage loan.” Here’s what it says on the MERS Website:
FORECLOSURES
(“MERS”) is In mortgage foreclosure cases, the plaintiff has standing as the holder of the note and the mortgage. When MERS forecloses, MERS is the mortgagee and it is the holder of the note because a MERS officer will be in possession of the original note endorsed in blank, which makes MERS a holder of the bearer paper.

But, in this latest decision, the bankruptcy judge in California didn’t agree, writing in his opinion:
“Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.”

Did you get that? Since MERS didn’t own the underlying note, it couldn’t transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to Citibank.

According to several attorneys, this opinion should serve as legal basis to challenge a foreclosure in California that has been based on a MERS assignment. It could also be used when seeking to void any MERS assignment of the Deed of Trust, or the note, to a third party for purposes of foreclosure; and should be sufficient for a borrower to obtain a TRO against a Trustee’s Sale, and a Preliminary Injunction preventing any sale, pending litigation filed by the borrower that challenges a foreclosure based on a MERS assignment.
In this decision the court found that MERS was acting “only as a nominee,” under the Deed of Trust, and that there was no evidence of the note being transferred. The judge’s opinion in this case also said that “several courts have acknowledged that MERS is not the owner of the underlying note and therefore could not transfer the note, the beneficial interest in the deed of trust, or foreclose on the property secured by the deed”, citing cases of: In Re Vargas, California Bankruptcy Court; Landmark v. Kesler, Kansas decision as to lack of authority of MERS; LaSalle Bank v. Lamy, a New York case; and In Re Foreclosure Cases, the “Boyko” decision from Ohio Federal Court.
And the court concluded by stating:
“Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this case.”

Oh my… well, that really is something. MERS can’t foreclose and Citibank can’t collect? I believe you would have to say that MERS and Citibank were already in a hard place when the judge inserted a rock. MERS can’t foreclose and Citi can’t collect… I am absolutely loving this, I have to say, but I suppose giddy would be an inappropriate response, so I’ll just say, “how interesting”.
This decision means that if a foreclosing party in California, that is not the original lender, claims that payment is due under the note, and that they have the right to foreclose on the basis of a MERS assignment, they’re wrong… based on this opinion. The bottom line is that MERS has no authority to transfer the note because it never owned it, and that’s a view that even seems to be supported by MERS’ own contract, which says that “MERS agrees not to assert any rights to mortgage loans or properties mortgaged thereby”.
What this may mean to California’s homeowners in bankruptcy court…
· It should serve as a legal basis to challenge any foreclosure in California based on a MERS assignment.
· It should serve as the legal basis for voiding a MERS assignment of the Deed of Trust, or the note, to a third party for purposes of foreclosure.
· It should be an adequate basis for obtaining a TRO against a Trustee’s Sale
· It should be the basis for a Preliminary Injunction barring any sale pending litigation filed by the borrower that challenges a foreclosure based on a MERS assignment.
In addition, some lawyers believe that this ruling is relevant to borrowers across the country as well, because the court cited non-bankruptcy cases related to the lack of authority of MERS, and because this opinion is consistent with prior rulings in Idaho and Nevada Bankruptcy courts on the same issue.
I don’t know about you, but I feel like watching a marching band. 76 trombones, baby, 76 trombones.
“Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is VOID under California Law.”

The Proof of Claim at issue, listed as claim number 5 on the court’s official
claims registry, asserts a $1,320,650.52 secured claim. The Debtor objects to
the Claim on the basis that the claimant, Citibank, N.A., did not provided any
evidence that Citibank has the authority to bring the claim, as required by
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c), rendering the claim facially
defective.
The court’s review of the claim shows that the Deed of Trust purports to have
been assigned to Citibank, N.A. by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc. as nominee for Bayrock Mortgage Corporation on March 5, 2010. (Proof of
Claim No. 5 p.36-37, Mar. 19, 2010.) Debtor contends that this does not
establish that Citibank is the owner of the underling promissory note since the
assignor, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), had no
interest in the note to transfer. Debtors loan was originated by Bayrock
Mortgage Corporation and no evidence of the current owner of the promissory
note is attached to the proof of claim. It is well established law in the
Ninth Circuit that the assignment of a trust deed does not assign the
underlying promissory note and right to be paid, and that the security interest
is incident of the debt. 4 WITKIN SUMMARY OF CALIFORNIA LAW, SECURED TRANSACTIONS IN REAL
PROPERTY §105 (10th ed).

MERS AND CITIBANK ARE NOT THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
Under California law, to perfect the transfer of mortgage paper as collateral
the owner should physically deliver the note to the transferee. Bear v. Golden
Plan of California, Inc., 829 F.2d 705, 709 (9th Cir. 1986). Without physical
transfer, the sale of the note could be invalid as a fraudulent conveyance,
Cal. Civ. Code §3440, or as unperfected, Cal. Com. Code §§9313-9314. See ROGER
BERNHARDT, CALIFORNIA MORTGAGES AND DEEDS OF TRUSTS, AND FORECLOSURE LITIGATION §1.26 (4th
ed. 2009). The note here specifically identified the party to whom it was
payable, Bayrock Mortgage Corporation, and the note therefore cannot be
transferred unless the note is endorsed. See Cal. Com. Code §§3109, 3201, 3203,
3204. The attachments to the claim do not establish that Bayrock Mortgage
Corporation endorsed and sold the note to any other party.
TRANSFER OF AN INTEREST IN THE DEED OF TRUST ALONE IS VOID
MERS acted only as a “nominee” for Bayrock Mortgage under the Deed of Trust.
Since no evidence has been offered that the promissory note has been
transferred, MERS could only transfer what ever interest it had in the Deed of
Trust. However, the promissory note and the Deed of Trust are inseparable.
“The note and the mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the later
as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while
an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.” Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S.
271, 274 (1872); accord Henley v. Hotaling, 41 Cal. 22, 28 (1871); Seidell v.
Tuxedo Land Co., 216 Cal. 165, 170 (1932); Cal. Civ. Code §2936. Therefore,
if on party receives the note an another receives the deed of trust, the holder
of the note prevails regardless of the order in which the interests were
transferred. Adler v. Sargent, 109 Cal. 42, 49-50 (1895).

Further, several courts have acknowledged that MERS is not the owner of the
underlying note and therefore could not transfer the note, the beneficial
interest in the deed of trust, or foreclose upon the property secured by the
deed. See In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F. Supp. 2d 650, 653 (S.D. Oh. 2007);
In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511, 520 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008); Landmark Nat’l Bank
v. Kesler, 216 P.3d 158 (Kan. 2009); LaSalle Bank v. Lamy, 824 N.Y.S.2d 769
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006). Since no evidence of MERS’ ownership of the underlying
note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own
the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it
could transfer to Citibank.
Since MERS did not own the underling note, it could not transfer the beneficial
interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the
beneficial interest of a trust deed with out ownership of the underlying note
is void under California law. Therefore Citibank has not established that it
is entitled to assert a claim in this case.
MULTIPLE CLAIMS TO THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE DEED OF TRUST AND OWNERSHIP
OF PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED THEREBY
Debtor also points out that four separate entities have claimed beneficial
ownership of the deed of trust. (Obj. to Claim 3-5, Apr. 6, 2010.) The true
owner of the underling promissory note needs to step forward to settle the
cloud that has been created surrounding the relevant parties rights and
interests under the trust deed.
DECISION
11 U.S.C. §502(a) provides that a claim supported by a Proof of Claim is
allowed unless a party in interest objects. Once an objection has been filed,
the court may determine the amount of the claim after a noticed hearing. 11
U.S.C. §502(b). Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is
the owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable
to assert a claim for payment in this case. The objection is sustained and
Claim Number 5 on the court’s official register is disallowed in its entirety,
with leave for the owner of the promissory note to file a claim in this case
by June 18, 2010.
The court disallowing the proof of claim does not alter or modify the trust
deed or the fact that someone has an interest in the property which can be
subject thereto. The order disallowing the proof of claim shall expressly so
provide.
The court shall issue a minute order consistent with this ruling.

Bombshell – Judge Orders Injunction Stopping ALL Foreclosure Proceedings by Bank of America; Recontrust; Home Loan Servicing; MERS et al

June 7, 2010 by TheWryEye
Filed under New World order

Does MERS Registration and Mortgage Fractionalization Extinguish Mortgage Rights?

By: Cynthia Kouril Wednesday September 30, 2009 5:00 pm

Mortgage – Rev Dan Catt

The Kansas Court of Appeals has issued a decision that is both stunning in its own right, but also demonstrates the trend in courts all over this nation which spells HUGE changes in the real estate and mortgage landscape. Realtors and banksters take note:

In a long and thoughtful decision in the case of Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kessler the Kansas Court of Appeals has held that MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.) does not have standing to bring foreclosure actions on behalf of the owners of mortgage notes archived in its system.

Some background:

In the good old days, the legislatures of the various states set up a system for recording mortgages, usually in the County Clerk’s Office. Anyone wishing to know what obligations were imposed upon the real estate, like for instance a title search company, could go to the County Clerk’s Office and look up the block and lot number of the property and know who owned what, who owed what and to whom and whether there were any liens or mortgages on the property and who had what priority.

If you took out a mortgage from bank A, and A later resold your mortgage to refinance company B, well B would go to the County Clerk’s Office and record the transfer of the mortgage. Are you following me so far? B would also receive the original signature copy-the one where you wrote your name in blue ink-of the mortgage paperwork. In order to foreclose, the mortgagee/creditor is supposed to present the original documents in court as one way of proving that it is the true party to whom the debt is own and for whom the mortgage trust (the interest in the real estate) exists.

There are filing fees and costs to have a person go down to the County Clerk’s Office to record the mortgage transfer.

Some “genius” got the bright idea of forming a private entity to circumvent the government filing system; and “poof” MERS was born.

Banks pay a fee to “join” MERS. They then send all their mortgage records or at least their mortgage record information (MERS is very secretive about just how they do what they do) to MERS. MERS is supposed to keep track of the information about each mortgage. Then the mortgage gets split. The Promissory Note, that is the right to receive payments from the borrower, gets either sold or farmed out to a servicer who is paid “fees” to collect the payments and do other administrative tasks like manage any payments for taxes and the like out of escrow funds.

The mortgage deed or mortgage trust, that is the legal interest in the real estate that would normally give a lender the right to foreclose in the event of non-payment-may be sold to someone else. The payments themselves are “securitized” that is bundled with other mortgages and sold as Credit Backed Securities, which we now know as Wall Street Toxic Assets.

Up until recently when a homeowner fell behind in the mortgage payments and the it came time to foreclose, the servicer – who owned no interest whatsoever in the real estate – would appear as plaintiff and the lawyer would fill out an affidavit saying that the actual, blue ink signature, original copy of the mortgage documents were lost, or destroyed, but that the court should waive that requirement because MERS can appear on behalf of the owner of the right to foreclose and certify that the owner is somewhere in the MERS system. The transfers are not recorded in the County Clerk’s Office and all you will see is the transfer to MERS, if that, but not any subsequent transfers within MERS.

In the beginning, homeowners did not realize and often stipulated to waive presentation of the original documents. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. Then a few wised up and found that their cases got postponed indefinitely. Not a “win” but at least they still had a roof over their heads for the time being.

Then banks got the bright idea of saying that MERS was the agent for the true owner. The Kansas decision says that won’t fly either.

BUT, now for the good part:

The court opined that

Indeed, an assignment of a mortgage without the debt transfers nothing. 55 Am. Jur. 2d, Mortgages § 1002. Thus, the mortgagee, who must have an interest in the debt, is the lender in a typical home mortgage.

Understand the possible implications of this. If other states take the same approach as Kansas, that means the splitting of the debt from the mortgage note effectively cancels the “mortgage interest” that is the power over the real property and converts the debt to a simple unsecured personal debt just on a promissory note. Which means they couldn’t take your house in foreclosure, though they can sue you personally on the debt, just like any other unsecured creditor can. I am assuming, without going to deep into it today, that as a personal debt, it may be dischargeable in bankruptcy. But we will have to wait for a few test cases to prove this.

What this also means is, that in the meantime, if you are trying to buy a house, you have to find out if your seller has a mortgage that may have been repackaged and lodged in MERS because you will have no way of knowing – since your title company cannot tell who actually might own the mortgage interest in your real estate if all the County Clerk’s records say is “MERS”.

This makes for a scary time for title insurers, I’m guessing.

There will be more on this case, I’m sure, it will just take some time to suss out all the ramifications.

Update: The NYTimes take on it.

Possession of the note “NO” recorded assignment “YES” civil code 2932.5 CARTER v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (N.D.Cal. 1-27-2010)

Some courts appear to have reasoned that plaintiff’s position
Page 29
would create an explicit conflict with the statute’s provisions.
The statute authorizes the “trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary,
or any of their authorized agents” to initiate foreclosure. Cal.
Civ. Code § 2924(a)(1). Under California Civil Code
section 2924(b)(4), a “person authorized to record the notice of default
or the notice of sale” includes “an agent for the mortgagee or
beneficiary, an agent of the named trustee, any person designated
in an executed substitution of trustee, or an agent of that
substituted trustee.” Several courts have held that this language
demonstrates that possession of the note is not required,
apparently concluding that the statute authorizes initiation of
foreclosure by parties who would not be expected to possess the
note. See, e.g., Spencer v. DHI Mortg. Co., No. 090925,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55191, *23*
24 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2009)
(O’Neill, J.). However, the precise reasoning of these cases is
unclear.[fn14]
A second argument adopted by sister district courts is that
even if requiring possession of the promissory note does not
contradict the statute’s provisions, it nonetheless extends them,
and such extensions are impermissible. See, e.g., Bouyer v.
Countrywide Bank, FSB, No. C 085583,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53940, *23*
24 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2009). California courts have
described the statute as establishing a “comprehensive scheme”
for nonjudicial
foreclosures. Homestead Sav. v. Darmiento,
Page 30
230 Cal. App. 3d 424, 433 (1991)). Because this scheme “is intended to be
exhaustive,” California courts have refused to incorporate
additional obligations, such as allowing a debtor to invoke a
separate statutory right to cure a default. Moeller,
25 Cal. App. 4th at 834 (refusing to apply Cal. Civ. Code § 3275). The
California Supreme Court has similarly held that “[t]he rights
and powers of trustees in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings
have long been regarded as strictly limited and defined by the
contract of the parties and the statutes.” I.E. Associates v.
Safeco Title Ins. Co., 39 Cal. 3d 281, 288 (1985). I.E.
Associates held that while a trustee has a statutory duty to
contact a trustor at the trustor’s last known address prior to
nonjudicial
foreclosure, the Court could not impose a further
duty to search for the trustor’s actual current address. Id.
District courts have applied I.E. Associates and Moeller to hold
that the trustee’s duties are “strictly limited” to those
contained specifically in the nonjudicial
foreclosure statute,
section 2924 et seq. See, e.g., Bouyer v. Countrywide Bank, FSB,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53940, *23*
24 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2009).
These courts have held that because section 2924 does not specify
that any party must possess the note, such possession is not
required. Id. Courts have similarly refused to require a trustee
“to identify the party in physical possession of the original
promissory note prior to commencing a nonjudicial foreclosure.”
Ritchie v. Cmty. Lending Corp.,
Page 31
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73216, *20 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2009).[fn15]
contained specifically in the nonjudicial
foreclosure statute,
section 2924 et seq. See, e.g., Bouyer v. Countrywide Bank, FSB,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53940, *23*
24 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2009).
These courts have held that because section 2924 does not specify
that any party must possess the note, such possession is not
required. Id. Courts have similarly refused to require a trustee
“to identify the party in physical possession of the original
promissory note prior to commencing a nonjudicial foreclosure.”
Ritchie v. Cmty. Lending Corp.,
Page 31
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73216, *20 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2009).[fn15]
Finally, while the above arguments have focused on and rejected
a requirement of production of the note, a series of opinions by
Judge Ishii have held that under California law, possession of
the note is not required either. Garcia v. HomEq Servicing Corp.,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77697 *11 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009), Topete
v. ETS Servs., LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77761 *10*
11(E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009), Wood v. Aegis Wholesale Corp.,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57151, *14 (E.D. Cal. July 2, 2009). These opinions
reason as follows. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 2932.5, when the
beneficial interest under the promissory note is assigned, the
assignee may exercise a security interest in real property
provided that the assignment is “duly acknowledged and recorded.”
See, e.g., Wood, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57151 at *14. The Ninth
Circuit has applied California law to hold that promissory notes
arising out of real estate loans could be sold without transfer
of possession of the documents themselves. Id. (citing In re
Golden Plan of Cal., Inc., 829 F.2d 705, 707, 708 n. 2, 710 (9th
Cir. 1986)). Judge Ishii concluded that because a party may come
to validly own a beneficial interest in a promissory note without
possession of the promissory note itself, and because this
Page 32
interest, if recorded on the deed of trust, carries with it the
right to foreclose, possession of the promissory note is not a
prerequisite to nonjudicial
foreclosure. Id.
Having reviewed the arguments adopted by the district courts,
the court is left with the sense that reasonable minds could
disagree. Notably, I.E. Associates held that trustee’s duties are
“strictly limited” to those arising under the “statutes,” and a
reasonable jurist could conclude that the plural “statutes”
incorporates the Commercial Code. Although the Civil Code
authorizes a number of parties to initiate nonjudicial
foreclosure, it could be that whichever of those parties
possesses the note may foreclose.
At some point, however, the opinion of a large number of
decisions, while not in a sense binding, are by virtue of the
sheer number, determinative. I cannot conclude that the result
reached by the district courts is unreasonable or does not accord
with the law. I further note that this conclusion is not
obviously at odds with the policies underlying the California
statutes. The apparent purpose of requiring possession of a
negotiable instrument is to avoid fraud. In the context of
nonjudicial
foreclosures, however, the danger of fraud is
minimized by the requirement that the deed of trust be recorded,
as must be any assignment or substitution of the parties thereto.
While it may be that requiring production of the note would have
done something to limit the mischief that led to the economic
pain the nation has suffered, the great weight of authority has
reasonably concluded that California law does not
CARTER v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (N.D.Cal. 1-27-2010)

Page 33
impose this requirement.
While the court concludes that neither production nor
possession is required, the court need not decide whether this is
because promissory notes are not “negotiable instruments,” or
instead because Cal. Civ. Code § 2924 et seq. render the
Commercial Code inapplicable. The court leaves that question for
the California courts. The court solely concludes that neither
possession of the promissory note nor identification of the party
in possession is a prerequisite to nonjudicial
foreclosure.

MERS’s Authority to Operate in California CARTER v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (N.D.Cal. 1-27-2010)

2. MERS’s Authority to Operate in California
The FAC fleetingly alleges that “MERS [is] not registered to do
business in California.” FAC ¶ 9. While MERS’s registration
status receives no other mention in the complaint, plaintiff’s
opposition memorandum purports to support several of plaintiff’s
claims with this allegation, and defendant’s reply discusses it
on the merits. The court therefore discusses this issue here.
The California Corporations Code requires entities that
“transact[] intrastate business” in California to acquire a
“certificate of qualification” from the California Secretary of
State. Cal. Corp. Code § 2105(a). MERS argues that its activities
fall within exceptions to the statutory definition of transacting
intrastate business, such that these requirement does not apply.
See Cal. Corp. Code § 191. It is not clear to the court that
MERS’s activity is exempt.
Page 23
MERS primarily relies on Cal. Corp. Code § 191(d)(3). Cal.
Corp. Code § 191(d) enumerates various actions that do not
trigger the registration requirement when performed by “any
foreign lending institution.” Because neither the FAC nor the
exhibits indicate that MERS is such an institution, MERS cannot
protect itself under this exemption at this stage. The statute
defines “foreign lending institution” as “including, but not
limited to: [i] any foreign banking corporation, [ii] any foreign
corporation all of the capital stock of which is owned by one or
more foreign banking corporations, [iii] any foreign savings and
loan association, [iv] any foreign insurance company or [v] any
foreign corporation or association authorized by its charter to
invest in loans secured by real and personal property[.]” Cal.
Corp. Code § 191(d). Neither any published California decision
nor any federal decision has interpreted these terms. Because
plaintiff alleges that MERS does not itself invest in loans or
lend money, it appears that [i], [iii], and [v] do not apply.
MERS does not claim to be an insurance company under [ii].
Finally, it is certainly plausible that not all of MERS’s owners
are foreign corporations. At this stage of litigation, the court
cannot conclude that MERS falls within any of the five enumerated
examples of “foreign lending institutions,” and the court
declines to address sua sponte whether MERS otherwise satisfies
subsection (d).
Corp. Code § 191(d). Neither any published California decision
nor any federal decision has interpreted these terms. Because
plaintiff alleges that MERS does not itself invest in loans or
lend money, it appears that [i], [iii], and [v] do not apply.
MERS does not claim to be an insurance company under [ii].
Finally, it is certainly plausible that not all of MERS’s owners
are foreign corporations. At this stage of litigation, the court
cannot conclude that MERS falls within any of the five enumerated
examples of “foreign lending institutions,” and the court
declines to address sua sponte whether MERS otherwise satisfies
subsection (d).
Defendants also invoke a second exemption, Cal. Corp. Code
§ 191(c)(7). While section 191(c) is not restricted to “lending
institutions,” MERS’s acts do not fall into the categories
Page 24
enumerated under the section, including subsection (c)(7).
Plaintiff alleges that MERS directed the trustee to initiate
nonjudicial
foreclosure on the property. Section 191(c)(7)
provides that “[c]reating evidences of debt or mortgages, liens
or security interests on real or personal property” is not
intrastate business activity. Although this language is
unexplained, directing the trustee to initiate foreclosure
proceedings appears to be more than merely creating evidence of a
mortgage. This is supported by the fact that a separate statutory
section, § 191(d)(3) (which MERS cannot invoke at this time, see
supra), exempts “the enforcement of any loans by trustee’s sale,
judicial process or deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise.”
Interpreting section (c)(7) to include these activities would
render (d)(3) surplusage, and such interpretations of California
statutes are disfavored under California law. People v. Arias,
45 Cal. 4th 169, 180 (2008), Hughes v. Bd. of Architectural
Examiners, 17 Cal. 4th 763, 775 (1998). Accordingly,
section 191(c)(7) does not exempt MERS’s activity.[fn12]
For these reasons, plaintiff’s argument that MERS has acted
Page 25
in violation of Cal. Corp. Code § 2105(a) is plausible, and
cannot be rejected at this stage in the litigation.
3. Whether MERS Has Acted UltraVires
Plaintiff separately argues that MERS has acted in violation of
its own “terms and conditions.” These “terms” allegedly provide
that
MERS shall serve as mortgagee of record with respect to
all such mortgage loans solely as a nominee, in an
administrative capacity, for the beneficial owner or
owners thereof from time to time. MERS shall have no
rights whatsoever to any payments made on account of
such mortgage loans, to any servicing rights related to
such mortgage loans, or to any mortgaged properties
securing such mortgage loans. MERS agrees not to assert
any rights (other than rights specified in the
Governing Documents) with respect to such mortgage
loans or mortgaged properties. References herein to
“mortgage(s)” and “mortgagee of record” shall include
deed(s) of trust and beneficiary under a deed of trust
and any other form of security instrument under
applicable state law.”
FAC ¶ 10. The FAC does not specify the source of these “terms and
conditions.” Plaintiff’s opposition memorandum states that they
are taken from MERS’s corporate charter, implying that an action
in violation thereof would be ultra vires. Opp’n at 4. Plaintiff
then alleges that these terms do not permit MERS to “act as a
nominee or beneficiary of any of the Defendants.” FAC ¶ 32.
However, the terms explicitly permit MERS to act as nominee.
Plaintiff has not alleged a violation of these terms.
4. Defendants’ Authority to Foreclose
Another theme underlying many of plaintiff’s claims is that
defendants have attempted to foreclose or are foreclosing on the
Page 26
property without satisfying the requirements for doing so.
Plaintiff argues that foreclosure is barred because no defendant
is a person entitled to enforce the deed of trust under the
California Commercial Code and because defendants failed to issue
a renewed notice of default after the initial trustee’s sale was
4. Defendants’ Authority to Foreclose
Another theme underlying many of plaintiff’s claims is that
defendants have attempted to foreclose or are foreclosing on the
Page 26
property without satisfying the requirements for doing so.
Plaintiff argues that foreclosure is barred because no defendant
is a person entitled to enforce the deed of trust under the
California Commercial Code and because defendants failed to issue
a renewed notice of default after the initial trustee’s sale was
rescinded.

A Home Owners Nightmare Sweeping The US And Beyond

Foreclosures

“Foreclosure” A home owners nightmare currently sweeping the US and beyond as result of, principally, the “Sub-Prime Mortgage” market collapse. A market designed by skilled “Gamblers” who, unlike their lesser counter parts playing a straight “Game of Chance” in the Nevada casinos – Set out to established a game, to be backed by vast sums of international money, and, where the principal players could only win irrespective of any monies lost by their organizations at the end of the day.

Recent news articles report that “The FBI’s investigation of sub-prime lending practices could take a long time, officials say” – The SEC has opened about three dozen civil investigations into the sub-prime market collapse” A FBI spokesman has indicated they now have “34 mortgage fraud task forces and working groups that included other federal agencies and state and local law enforcement officials” and that “We consider it a significant and growing crime problem”

So What! at the end of the day, apart from a few “Fall Guys” to feed the media and public needs, the real parties responsible, financially able to buy the best in legal representation, will remain free to sit back to enjoy their gains. Or, perhaps not so this time.

As the full realizations of the effects of the massive negative financial impact on the US economy sweeps the population and its ongoing effects world wide most will appreciate that we are entering into very new era with new economic giants entering the world arena. Some of these financial giants have already provided “bail Out” monies to US financial institutions and no doubt will provide more throughout the coming years(s).

They are not doing it for love. Self interest and investment? yes. As new masters with major interests they may not be conducive to a future repeat performance of such financial set back and are expecting some sign of serious action by the US. One must wonder at how might the Peoples Republic of China or some of the Arab states deal with persons who were responsible for wrecking their economy. It was not to far past in history when the description for such action was called “Treason”

Many, Mr & Mrs decent Americans may lose not only their homes but also possibly their saving and investments to institutions who were once pillars of good ethics, responsibility and ethical standing.

While untold number will effectively be “losers” to this fiasco there will, by the law of nature, also be some “Winners” As in the great depression of 1929 there were those who emerged with greater strength and wealth and, so to will it be again.

The Trouble with MERS

As a homeowner begins research into the lending and foreclosure crisis, there will be many unfamiliar terms, names and companies that come to their attention. Chief among these will be MERS.

MERS is the acronym for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. It is a national electronic registration and tracking system that tracks the beneficial ownership interests and servicing rights in mortgage loans. The MERS website says:

“MERS is an innovative process that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated, sold and tracked. Created by the real estate finance industry, MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans. “

In simple language, MERS is an on-line computer software program for tracking ownership.

MERS was conceived in the early 1990’s by numerous lenders and other entities. Chief among the entities were Bank of America, , Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and a host of other such entities. The stated purpose was that the creation of MERS would lead to “consumers paying less” for mortgage loans. Obviously, that did not happen.

This article will attempt to explain MERS in very general detail. It will cover a few issues related to MERS and foreclosure, in order to introduce the reader to the issue of MERS. It is not meant to be a complete discussion of MERS, nor of the legal complexities regarding the arguments for and against MERS. For a more in depth reading of MERS and findings coming out of courts, it is recommended that the reader look at Hawkins, Case No. BK-S-07-13593-LBR (Bankr. Nev. 3/31/2009) (Bankr. Nev., 2009) . It gives a good reading of the issues related to MERS, at least for that particular case. Though in Nevada, it is relevant for California.

(Please note. I am not an attorney and am not giving legal advice. I am just reporting arguments being made against MERS, and also certain case law and applicable statutes in California.

The MERS Process

Traditionally, when a loan was executed, the beneficiary of the loan on the Deed of Trust was the lender. Once the loan was funded, the Deed of Trust and the Note would be recorded with the local County Recorder’s office. The recording of the Deed and the Note created a Public Record of the transaction. All future Assignments of the Note and Deed of Trust were expected to be recorded as ownership changes occurred. The recording of the Assignments created a “Perfected Chain of Title” of ownership of the Note and the Deed of Trust. This allowed interested or affected parties to be able to view the lien holders and if necessary, be able to contact the parties. The recording of the document also set the “priority” of the lien. The priority of the lien would be dependent upon the date that the recording took place. For example, a lien recorded on Jan 1, 2007 for $20,000 would be the first mortgage, and a lien recorded on Jan 2, 2007, for $1,500,000 would be a second mortgage, even though it was a higher amount.

Recordings of the document also determined who had the “beneficial interest” in the Note. An interested party simple looked at the Assignments, and knew who held the Note and who was the legal party of beneficial interest.

(For traditional lending prior to Securitization, the original Deed recording was usually the only recorded document in the Chain of Title. That is because banks kept the loans, and did not sell the loan, hence, only the original recording being present in the banks name.

The advent of Securitization, especially through “Private Investors” and not Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, involved an entirely new process in mortgage lending. With Securitization, the Notes and Deeds were sold once, twice, three times or more. Using the traditional model would involve recording new Assignments of the Deed and Note as each transfer of the Note or Deed of Trust occurred. Obviously, this required time and money for each recording.

(The selling or transferring of the Note is not to be confused with the selling of Servicing Rights, which is simply the right to collect payments on the Note, and keep a small portion of the payment for Servicing Fees. Usually, when a homeowner states that their loan was sold, they are referring to Servicing Rights.)

The creation of MERS changed the process. Instead of the lender being the Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust, MERS was now named as either the “Beneficiary” or the “Nominee for the Beneficiary” on the Deed of Trust. This meant that MERS was simply acting as an Agent for the true beneficiary. The concept was that with MERS assuming this role, there would be no need for Assignments of the Deed of Trust, since MERS would be given the “power of sale” through the Deed of Trust.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines a nominee as “[a] person designated to act in place of another, usually in a very limited way” and as “[a] party who holds bare legal title for the benefit of others or who receives and distributes funds for the benefit of others.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1076 (8th ed. 2004). This definition suggests that a nominee possesses few or no legally enforceable rights beyond those of a principal whom the nominee serves……..The legal status of a nominee, then, depends on the context of the relationship of the nominee to its principal. Various courts have interpreted the relationship of MERS and the lender as an agency relationship.

The naming of MERS as the Beneficiary meant that certain other procedures had to change. This was a result of the Note actually being made out to the lender, and not to MERS. Before explaining this change, it would be wise to explain the Securitization process.

Securitizing a Loan

Securitizing a loan is the process of selling a loan to Wall Street and private investors. It is a method with many issues to be considered, especially tax issues, which is beyond the purview of this article. The methodology of securitizing a loan generally followed these steps:

· A Wall Street firm would approach other entities about issuing a “Series of Bonds” for sell to investors and would come to an agreement. In other words, the Wall Street firm “pre-sold” the bonds.

· The Wall Street firm would approach a lender and usually offer them a Warehouse Line of Credit. The Warehouse Credit Line would be used to fund the loans. The Warehouse Line would be covered by restrictions resulting from the initial Pooling & Servicing Agreement Guidelines and the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement. These documents outlined the procedures for creation of the loans and the administering of the loans prior to, and after, the sale of the loans to Wall Street.

· The Lender, with the guidelines, essentially went out and found “buyers” for the loans, people who fit the general characteristics of the Purchase Agreement,. (Guidelines were very general and most people could qualify.” The Lender would execute the loan and fund it, collecting payments until there were enough loans funded to sell to the Wall Street firm who could then issue the bonds.

· Once the necessary loans were funded, the lender would then sell the loans to the “Sponsor”, usually either a subsidiary of the Wall Street firm, of a specially created Corporation of the lender. At this point, the loans are separated into “tranches” of loans, where they will be eventually turned into bonds.

Next, the loans were “sold” to the “Depositor”. This was a “Special Purpose Vehicle” designed with one purpose in mind. That was to create a “bankruptcy remote vehicle” where the lender or other entities are protected from what might happen to the loans, and/or the loans are “protected” from the lender. The “Depositor” would have once again been created by the Wall Street firm or the Lender.

Then, the “Depositor” places the loans into the Issuing Entity, which is another created entity solely used for the purpose of selling the bonds.

Finally, the bonds would be sold, with a Trustee appointed to ensure that the bondholders received their monthly payments.

As can be seen, each Securitized Loan has had the ownership of the Note transferred two to three times at a minimum, but, no Assignments of Beneficiary are executed under most circumstances. If such an Assignment occurs, it will usually occur after a Notice of Default was filed.

(Note: This is a VERY simplified version of the process, but it gives the general idea. Depending upon the lender, it could change to some degree, especially if Fannie Mae bought the loans. The purpose of such a convoluted process was so that the entities selling the bonds could become a “bankruptcy remote” vehicle, protecting lenders and Wall Street from harm, and also creating a “Tax Favorable” investment entity known as an REIMC. An explanation of this process would be cumbersome at this time.)

New Procedures

As mentioned previously, Securitization and MERS required many changes in established practices. These practices were not and have not been codified, so they are major points of contention today. I will only cover a few important issues which are now being fought out in the courts.

One of the first issues to be addressed was how MERS might foreclose on a property. This was “solved” through an “unusual” practice.

· MERS has only 44 employees. They are all “overhead”, administrative or legal personnel. How could they handle the load of foreclosures, Assignments, etc to be expected of a company with their duties and obligations?

When a lender, title company, foreclosure company or other firm signed up to become a member of MERS, one or more of their people were designated as “Corporate Officers” of MERS and given the title of either Assistant Secretary or Vice President. These personnel were not employed by MERS, nor received income from MERS. They were named “Certify Officers” solely for the purpose of signing foreclosure and other legal documents in the name of MERS. (Apparently, there are some agreements which “authorize” these people to act in an Agency manner for MERS.)

This “solved” the issue of not having enough personnel to conduct necessary actions. It would be the Servicers, Trustees and Title Companies conducting the day-to-day operations needed for MERS to function.

As well, it was thought that this would provide MERS and their “Corporate Officers” with the “legal standing” to foreclose.

However, this brought up another issue that now needed addressing:

* When a Note is transferred, it must be endorsed and signed, in the manner of a person signing his paycheck over to another party. Customary procedure was to endorse it as “Pay to the Order of” and the name of the party taking the Note and then signed by the endorsing party. With a new party holding the Note, there would now need to be an Assignment of the Deed. This could not work if MERS was to be the foreclosing party.

Once a name is placed into the endorsement of the Note, then that person has the beneficial interest in the Note. Any attempt by MERS to foreclose in the MERS name would result in a challenge to the foreclosure since the Note was owned by “ABC” and MERS was the “Beneficiary”. MERS would not have the legal standing to foreclose, since only the “person of interest” would have such authority. So, it was decided that the Note would be endorsed “in blank”, which effectively made the Note a “Bearer Bond”, and anyone holding the Note would have the “legal standing” to enforce the Note under Uniform Commercial Code. This would also suggest to the lenders that Assignments would not be necessary.

MERS has recognized the Note Endorsement problem and on their website, stated that they could be the foreclosing party only if the Note was endorsed in blank. If it was endorsed to another party, then that party would be the foreclosing party.

As a result, most Notes are endorsed in blank, which purportedly allows MERS to be the foreclosing party. However, CA Civil Code 2932.5 has a completely different say in the matter. It requires that the Assignment of the Deed to the Beneficial Interest Holder of the Note.

CA Civil Code 2932.5 – Assignment

Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of money, the power is part of the security and vests in any person who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded.

As is readily apparent, the above statute would suggest that Assignment of the Deed to the Note Holder is a requirement for enforcing foreclosure.

The question now becomes as to whether a Note Endorsed in Blank and transferred to different entities as indicated previously does allow for foreclosure. If MERS is the foreclosing authority but has no entitlement to payment of the money, how could they foreclose? This is especially important if the true beneficiary is not known. Why do I raise the question of who the true beneficiary is? Again, from the MERS website……..

* “On MERS loans, MERS will show as the beneficiary of record. Foreclosures should be commenced in the name of MERS. To effectuate this process, MERS has allowed each servicer to choose a select number of its own employees to act as officers for MERS. Through this process, appropriate documents may be executed at the servicer’s site on behalf of MERS by the same servicing employee that signs foreclosure documents for non-MERS loans.

Until the time of sale, the foreclosure is handled in same manner as non-MERS foreclosures. At the time of sale, if the property reverts, the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale will follow a different procedure. Since MERS acts as nominee for the true beneficiary, it is important that the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale be made in the name of the true beneficiary and not MERS. Your title company or MERS officer can easily determine the true beneficiary. Title companies have indicated that they will insure subsequent title when these procedures are followed.”

There, you have it. Direct from the MERS website. They admit that they name people to sign documents in the name of MERS. Often, these are Title Company employees or others that have no knowledge of the actual loan and whether it is in default or not.

Even worse, MERS admits that they are not the true beneficiary of the loan. In fact, it is likely that MERS has no knowledge of the true beneficiary of the loan for whom they are representing in an “Agency” relationship. They admit to this when they say “Your title company or MERS officer can easily determine the true beneficiary.

To further reinforce that MERS is not the true beneficiary of the loan, one need only look at the following Nevada Bankruptcy case, Hawkins, Case No. BK-S-07-13593-LBR (Bankr.Nev. 3/31/2009) (Bankr.Nev., 2009) – ”A “beneficiary” is defined as “one designated to benefit from an appointment, disposition, or assignment . . . or to receive something as a result of a legal arrangement or instrument.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 165 (8th ed. 2004). But it is obvious from the MERS’ “Terms and Conditions” that MERS is not a beneficiary as it has no rights whatsoever to any payments, to any servicing rights, or to any of the properties secured by the loans. To reverse an old adage, if it doesn’t walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and quack like a duck, then it’s not a duck.”

If one accepts the above ruling, which MERS does not agree with, MERS would not have the ability to foreclose on a property for lack of being a true Beneficiary. This leads us back to the MERS as “Nominee for the Beneficiary” and foreclosing as Agent for the Beneficiary. There may be pitfalls with this argument.

When the initial Deed of Trust is made out in the name of MERS as Nominee for the Beneficiary and the Note is made to ABC Lender, there should be no issues with MERS acting as an Agent for ABC Lender. Hawkins even recognizes this as fact.

The issue does arise when the Note transfers possession. Though the Deed of Trust states “beneficiary and/or successors”, the question can arise as to who the successor is, and whether Agency is any longer in effect. MERS makes the argument that the successor Beneficiary is a MERS member and therefore Agency is still effective. But does this argument hold up under scrutiny?

The original Note Holder, AB Lender, no longer holds the note, nor is entitled to payment.

Furthermore, the Note is endorsed in blank, and no Assignment of the Deed has been made to any other entity, so who is the true beneficiary and Note Holder?

It is now the contention of many that the Agency/Nominee relationship has been completely terminated between MERS and the original lender, so MERS has no authority to foreclose, or even to Assign the Deed.

In Vargas, 396 B.R. 511, 517 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008) (”[I]f FHM has transferred the note, MERS is no longer an authorized agent of the holder unless it has a separate agency contract with the new undisclosed principal. MERS presents no evidence as to who owns the note, or of any authorization to act on behalf of the present owner.”);

Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Hillery, 2008 WL 5170180 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (unpublished opinion) (”[F]or there to be a valid assignment, there must be more than just assignment of the deed alone; the note must also be assigned. . . . MERS purportedly assigned both the deed of trust and the promissory note. . . . However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that MERS either held the promissory note or was given the authority . . . to assign the note.”).

Separation of the Note and the Deed

In the case of MERS, the Note and the Deed of Trust are held by separate entities. This can pose a unique problem dependent upon the court. There are many court rulings based upon the following:

“The Deed of Trust is a mere incident of the debt it secures and an assignment of the debt carries with it the security instrument. Therefore, a Deed Of Trust is inseparable from the debt and always abides with the debt. It has no market or ascertainable value apart from the obligation it secures.

A Deed of Trust has no assignable quality independent of the debt, it may not be assigned or transferred apart from the debt, and an attempt to assign the Deed Of Trust without a transfer of the debt is without effect. “

This very “simple” statement poses major issues. To easily understand, if the Deed of Trust and the Note are not together with the same entity, then there can be no enforcement of the Note. The Deed of Trust enforces the Note. It provides the capability for the lender to foreclose on a property. If the Deed is separate from the Note, then enforcement, i.e. foreclosure cannot occur.

MERS, actually the servicer, will Assign the Deed to the Note Holder, almost always after the Notice of Default has been filed. This will be an attempt to reunite the Deed and Note. But, as noted previously, MERS would likely no longer have the ability to Assign the Deed, since the Agency/Nominee status has been terminated. This could pose major issues, especially if the original lender is no longer in business.

When viewing a MERS loan, the examiner or attorney must pay careful attention to the following issues.

* The recorded history of the Deed to determine not just the current Deed Holder, but also who the Note Holder is. Are they one and the same, or are they separated, leading to an inability to foreclose unless reunited.

* When the Notice of Default was filed, were the Note and Deed separated, which would suggest that the Notice of Default was potentially unlawful.

* Did MERS have the authority to Foreclose, or even to make Assignments? There are a number of court cases suggesting otherwise.

* Who is signing for MERS? Is it a person with the Title Company, Trustee, or Servicer?

* Does the signer have legitimate authority to sign? Is the person holding factual knowledge of the homeowner being in default?

The entire subject of MERS is fraught with controversy and questions. Certainly, at the very least, MERS actions pose legal issues that are still being addressed each and every day. As to where these actions will ultimate lead, it is anybody’s guess. With some courts, the court sides with the lender, and others side with the homeowner. However, there does appear to be a trend developing that suggests, at least in Bankruptcy Courts, MERS is losing support.

Update:

I would like to point out that there is significant case law developing in other states regarding MERS. However, these are actions in other jurisdictions that do not necessarily apply in California. As a matter of fact, these arguments are generally not being accepted by most judges.
Currently, the state of California litigation is confused to say the least. Most judges are accepting the the California Foreclosure Statutes, Civil Code 2924, is all encompassing with regards to foreclosures. But 2924 only covers the procedural process. It does not take into account other relevant statutes related to Assignments of Beneficiary and Substitution of Trustee. Until such concerns are addressed and there is effective case law to cite, there will continue to be issues.

New Jersy on MERS standing and lost note

This case wrestles with all issues of MERS and standing read it it is insightful its long but focused upon the MERS and lost note argument. And by the way in this case they did find the note.
nycasewin

Another win against Downey Savings

645068 – US BANK VS. MARTIN, A – Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment – DENIED. The Plaintiff as moving party has established a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment for possession against Defendant as a matter of law. However, Defendant’s objections Nos. 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 11 to the Johnson Declaration are overruled; and objections Nos. 2, 7 and 10 are sustained, based on a lack personal knowledge and/or hearsay, regarding the alleged transfer of the beneficial interest to Plaintiff and as to the reasonable rental value.

Further, the Court finds the Defendant has met his burden of establishing triable issues of fact to rebut the presumption of validity of the sale and the issue of whether Plaintiff had the right to proceed with foreclosure. Namely the evidence of a gap in title and security interest from Downey Savings & Loan through the FDIC to Plaintiff during the time of the foreclosure proceeding, as well as missing evidence to show whether the Trustee, DSL Service Company, was authorized to act as Plaintiff’s agent in continuing to pursue the sale once Downey Savings & Loan had lost its security interest. (See Plaintiff’s undisputed fact # 7 and Defendant’s objection thereto; and Declaration of Defense counsel, McCandless, paragraphs 2, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13). As such, triable issues of material fact remain and the motion for summary judgment is denied.

Where and when does the fraud begin

This document is meant to take the reader down a road they have
likely never traveled. This is a layman’s explanation of what has
been happening in this country that most have no idea or inkling
of. It is intended to give the reader an overview of a systemic
Fraud in this country that has reached epic proportions and
provoke action to eradicate this scourge that has descended upon
the people of America. This is intended as an overview of the process. Is
is one thing to have a grasp on what actually happened in our capitalistic
society it is quit another to convince a judge on these facts. The Judge
has his or her hands tied by the very system that allowed the
fraud in the first place.
Depending on what your situation is, you
may react with disbelief, fear, anger or outright disgust at what you
are about to learn. The following information is supported with
facts, exhibits, law and is not mere opinion.

Let’s start our journey of discovery with the purchase of a home
and subsequent steps in the financial process through the life of
the “mortgage loan”. It all starts at the “closing” where we gather
with other people that are “involved” in the process to sign the
documents to purchase our new home. Do we really know what
goes on at the closing? Are we ever told who all the participants
are in that entire process? Are we truly given “full disclosure” of all
the various aspects of that entire transaction regarding what, for
most people, is the single largest purchase they will make in their
entire life?

Let’s start with the very first part of the transaction. We have a
virtual stack of papers placed in front of us and we are instructed
where we are supposed to start signing or initialing on those
“closing documents”. There seems to be so many different
documents with enough legal language that we could read for
hours just to get through them the first time, much less begin to
fully understand them. Are we given a copy of all these documents
at least 7 days prior to the closing so we can read and study these
documents so we fully understand what it is that we are signing
and agreeing to? That has never happened for the average
consumer and purchaser of a property in the last 30 years or more
if it ever has at all. WHY? We have a stack of documents placed
before us at the “closing” that we haven’t ever seen before and are
instructed where to sign or initial to complete the transaction and
“get our new home”. We depend on the real estate agent, in most
cases, to bring the parties together at the closing after we have
supplied enough financial data and other requested information so
that the “lender” can determine whether we can qualify for our
“loan”. Obviously we have the “three day right of rescission” but do
we really stop to read all the documents after we have just
purchased our home and want to move in? Is the thought that
there might be something wrong with what we have just signed a
primary thought in our mind at that time? Did we trust the people
involved in the transaction? Are we naturally focusing on getting
moved into our new home and getting settled with our family?

Who are the players involved in the transaction from the
perspective of the consumer purchasing a property and signing a
“Mortgage Note” and “Deed” or similar “Security Instrument” at the
closing? There is, of course, the seller, the real estate agent(s), title
insurance company, property appraiser who is supposed to
properly determine the value of the property, and the most
obvious one being who we believe to be “the lender” in the
transaction. We are led, by all involved, to believe that we are, in
fact, borrowing money from the “lender” which is then paid to the
current owner of the property as compensation for them
relinquishing any “claim of ownership” to the property and
transferring that “claim of ownership” to us as the purchaser. It all
seems so simple and clear on its face and then the transaction is
completed. After the “closing” everyone is all smiles and you
believe you have a new home and have to repay the “lender”, over a
period of years, the money which you believe you have “borrowed”.

IS THERE SOMETHING WE DON’T KNOW?

Everything appears to be relatively simple and straightforward
but is that really the case? Could it be that there are other players
involved in this whole transaction that we know nothing about that
have a very substantial financial interest in what has just
occurred? Could it be that those players that we are totally
unaware of have somehow used us without our knowledge or

consent to secure a spectacular financial gain for themselves with
absolutely no investment or risk to themselves whatsoever? Could
it be that there is a hidden aspect of this whole transaction that is
“standard operating procedure” in an industry where this hidden
“aspect of a transaction” occurs every single banking day across
this country and beyond? Could it be that this hidden “aspect of a
transaction” is a deliberate process to unjustly enrich certain
individuals and entities at the expense of the public as a whole?
Could it be that there was not full disclosure of the “true nature” of
the transaction as it actually occurred which is required for a
contract to be valid and enforceable?

THE DOCUMENTS INVOLVED

The two most important and valuable documents that are signed
at a closing are the “Note” and the “Deed” in various forms. When
looking at the definition of a “Mortgage Note” it is obvious that it is
a “Security Instrument”. It is a promise to pay made by the maker
of that “Note”. When looking at a copy of a “Deed of Trust” such as
the attached Exhibit “A”, which is a template of a Tennessee “Deed
of Trust” form that is directly from the freddiemac.com website, it
is very obvious that this document is also a “Security Instrument”.
This is a template that is used for MOST government purchased
loans. You will note that the words “Security Instrument” are
mentioned no less than 90 times in that document. Is there ANY
doubt it is a “Security”? When at the closing, the “borrower” is led

to believe that the “Mortgage Note” that he signs is a document that
binds him to make repayment of “money” that the “lender” is
loaning him to purchase the property he is acquiring. Is there
disclosure to the “borrower” to the effect that the “lender” is not
really loaning any of their money to the “borrower” and therefore
is taking no risk whatsoever in the transaction? Is it disclosed to
the “borrower” that according to FEDERAL LAW, banks are not
allowed to loan credit and are also not allowed to loan their own or
their depositor’s money? If that is the case, then how could this
transaction possibly take place? Where does the money come
from? Is there really any money to be loaned? The answer to this
last question is a resounding NO! Most people are not aware that
there has been no lawful money since the bankruptcy of the United
States in 1933.

Since House Joint Resolution 192 (HJR 192) (Public law 7310)
was passed in 1933 we have only had debt, because all property
and gold was seized by the government as collateral in the
bankruptcy of the United States. Most people today would think
they have money in their hand when they pull something out of
their pocket and look at the paper that is circulated by the banks
that they have been told is “money”. In reality they are looking at a
“Federal Reserve Note” which is stated right on the face of the piece
of paper we have come to know as “money”. It is NOT really
“money”, it is debt, a promise to pay made by the United States! If
you take a “Federal Reserve Note” showing a value of ten dollars

and buy something, you are then making a purchase with a “Note”
(a promise to pay). There is absolutely no gold or silver backing
the Federal Reserve Notes that we refer to as “money” today.

When you sit down at the closing table to complete the
transaction to purchase your home aren’t you tendering a “Note”
with your signature which would be considered money? That is
exactly what you are doing. A “Note” is money in our monetary
system today! You can deposit the “Federal Reserve Note” (a
promise to pay) with a denomination of $10 at the bank and they
will credit your account in that same amount. Why is it that when
you tender your “Note” at the closing that they don’t tell you that
your home is paid for right on the spot? The fact is that it IS PAID
FOR ON THE SPOT. Your signature on a “Note” makes that “Note”
money in the amount that is stated on the “Note”! Was this
disclosed to you at the “closing” in either verbal or written form?
Could this be the place where the other players come into the
transaction at or near the time of closing? What happens to the
“Note” (promise to pay) that you sign at the closing table? Do they
put it in their vault for safe keeping as evidence of a debt that you
owe them as you are led to believe? Do they return that note to you
if you pay off your mortgage in 5, 10 or 20 years? Do they disclose
to you that they do anything other than put it away for safe keeping
once it is in their possession?

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS TO THE “NOTE”?

Unknown to almost everyone, there is something VERY different
that happens with your “Mortgage Note” immediately after closing.

Your “Mortgage Note” is endorsed and deposited in the bank as a
check and becomes “MONEY”! See attached (Exhibit “B” para 13)
The document that you just gave the bank with your signature on
it, that you believe is a promise to pay them for money loaned to
you, has just been converted to money in THEIR ACCOUNT. You
just gave the “lender” the exact dollar value of what they said they
just loaned you! Who is the REAL creditor in this “Closing
Transaction”? Who really loaned who anything of value or any
money? You actually just paid for your own home with your
promissory “Mortgage Note” that you gave the bank and the bank
gave you what in return? NOTHING!!! For any contract to be valid
there must be consideration given by both parties. But don’t they
tell you that you must now pay back the “Loan” that they have
made to you?

How can it be that you could just write a “Note” and pay for your
home? This leads us back to the bankruptcy of the United States in
1933. When FDR and Congress took all the property and gold from
the people in 1933 they had to give something in return for that
confiscation of property. See attached (Exhibit “B” para 6) What
the people got in return was the promise that all of their needs
would be met by the government because the assets and the labor
of the people were collateral for the debt of the United States in the

bankruptcy. All of their debts would be “discharged”. This was
done without the consent of the people of America and was an act
of Treason by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The problem
comes in where they never told us how we could accomplish that
discharge and have what we were entitled to after the bankruptcy.
Why has this never been taught in the schools in this country?
Could it be that it would expose the biggest fraud in the history of
this entire country and in the world? If the public is purposely not
educated about certain things then certain individuals and entities
can take full financial advantage of virtually the entire population.
Isn’t this “selective education” more like “indoctrination”? Could
this be what has happened? In Fina Supply, Inc. v. Abilene Nat.
Bank, 726 S.W.2d 537, 1987 it says “Party having superior
knowledge who takes advantage of another’s ignorance of the law
to deceive him by studied concealment or misrepresentation can
be held responsible for that conduct.” Does this mean that if there
are people with superior knowledge as a party in this “Loan
Transaction” that take advantage of the “ignorance of the law”,
(through indoctrination) of the public to unjustly enrich
themselves, that they can be held responsible? Can they be held
responsible in only a civil manner or is there a more serious
accountability that falls into the category of criminal conduct?

It is well established law that Fraud vitiates (makes void) any
contract that arises from it. Does this mean that this intentional
“lack of disclosure” of the true nature of the contract we have

entered into is Fraud and would make the mortgage contract void
on its face? Could it be that the Fraud could actually be “studied
concealment or misrepresentation” that makes those involved in
the act responsible and accountable? What happens to the “Note”
once it is deposited in the bank and is converted to “money”? Are
there different kinds of money? There is money of exchange and
money of account. They are two very different things. See attached
(Exhibit “B” para 11), Affidavit of Expert Witness Walker Todd.
Walker Todd explains in his expert witness affidavit that the banks
actually do convert signatures into money. The definition of
“money” according to the Uniform Commercial Code: “Money” means a
medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign
government and includes a monetary unit of account established by an
intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more nations. Money can actually be in different forms other than what we are
accustomed to thinking. When you sign your name on a
promissory note it becomes money whether you are talking a
mortgage note or a credit card application! Did the bankers ever
“disclose” this to us? Were we ever taught anything about this in
the school system in this country? Could it be that this whole idea
of being able to convert our signature to money is a “studied
concealment” or “misrepresentation” where those involved
become responsible if we are harmed by their actions? What
happens if you have signed a “Mortgage Note” and already paid for
your home and they come at a later date and foreclose and take it
from you? Would you consider yourself to be harmed in any way?
We will bring this up again very shortly but we need to look at the

other document that is signed at the “closing” that is of great
significance.

THE DEED OF TRUST

Why do we need a Deed of Trust? What exactly IS a Deed of
Trust or other similar “Security Instrument”? It spells out all the
details of the contract that you are signing at the “closing”,
including such things as insurance requirements, preservation and
maintenance and all of the financial details of how, when, where
and why you are going to make payments to the “lender” for years
and years. Wait a minute!!!!! Make payments to the “lender”????
Why do you have to make payments to the “lender”??? Didn’t we
just establish the fact that your house was paid for by YOU, with
your “Mortgage Note” that is converted to money by THE BANK
DEPOSITING IT? Is there something wrong with this picture? We
have just paid for our “home” but now we are told we have to sign a
Deed of Trust or similar “Security Instrument” that binds us to pay
the “lender” back? Pay the “lender” back for what? Did they loan
us any money? Remember the part about banks not being able to
loan “their or their depositors money” under FEDERAL LAW? What
about: “In the federal courts, it is well established that a national bank
has no power to lend its credit to another by becoming surety, indorser,
or guarantor for him.” Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat ‘l
Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669; “A national bank has no power to lend
its credit to any person or corporation.” Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94

F 925, 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44
LED 637?

What is happening here with this “Deed of Trust” or similar
“Security Instrument” that says we have to pay all this money back
and if we don’t, they can foreclose and take our home? Why do we
have to have this kind of agreement when we have already paid for
our home through our “Mortgage Note” which was converted to
money BY THE BANK? Could this possibly be another example of
“studied concealment or misrepresentation” where those involved
could be held accountable for their conduct? What happens to this
Deed of Trust or similar “Security Instrument” after we sign it?
Where does it go? Does it go into the vault for safekeeping like we
might think? See attached Exhibit “C” for substantially more
information.

WHO ARE THE OTHER PLAYERS?

We have already found out that the “Note” doesn’t go into the vault
for safe keeping but instead is deposited into an account at the
bank and becomes money. Where does the Note go then? This is
where things get VERY interesting because your “Mortgage Note” is
then used to access your Treasury Account (that you know nothing
about) and get credit in the amount of your “Mortgage Note” from
your “Prepaid Treasury Account”. If they process the “Note” and
get paid for it then they have received the funds from YOUR

account at Treasury to pay for YOUR home correct? They then turn
around and bundle the “Note” and sell it to investors on Wall Street
and get paid again! Now let’s see what happens to the “Deed of
Trust” or similar “Security Instrument” after you have signed it.
You may be quite surprised to know that not only does it not go
into “safekeeping” it is immediately SOLD as an INVESTMENT
SECURITY to one of any number of investors tied to Wall Street.
There is a ready, and waiting, market for all of the “mortgage
paper” that is produced by the banks. What happens is the “Deed
of Trust” or other similar “Security Instrument” is bundled and
SOLD to a buyer and the BANK GETS PAID FOR THE VALUE OF THE
MORTGAGE AGAIN!! Haven’t the bankers just transferred any risk
on that mortgage to someone else and they have their money?
That is a pretty slick way of doing things! They ALWAYS get their
money right away and everyone else connected to the transaction
has the liabilities! Is there something wrong with THIS picture?
How can it possibly be that the bank has now been paid three times
in the amount of your “purported” mortgage? How is it that you
still have to pay years and years on this “purported” loan? Was any
of this disclosed to you before you signed the “Deed of Trust” or
other similar “Security Instrument”? Would you have signed ANY
of those documents including the “Mortgage Note” if you knew that
this is what was actually happening? Do you think there were any
“copies” of the “Mortgage Note” and “Deed of Trust” or other
similar “Security Instrument” made during this process? Are those

“copies” just for the records to be put in a file somewhere or is
there another purpose for them?

CAN REPRODUCING A NOTE OR DEED OF TRUST BE
ILLEGAL?

We have already established that the “Mortgage Note” and the
“Deed of Trust” or other similar “Security Instrument” are
“Securities” by definition under the law. Securities are regulated
by the Securities and Exchange Commission which is an agency of
the Federal Government. There are very strict regulations about
what can and cannot be done with “Securities”. There are very
strict regulations that apply to the reproduction or “copying” of
“Securities”:

The Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, permits color illustr

ations of U.S. currency provided: . The illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-ch part of the item illustrated

half, in linear dimension, of ea

. The illustration is one-sided All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use

Other

Obligations and Securities
. Photographic or other likenesses of other United States obligations and securities and foreign currencies are permissible for any non-fraudulent purpose, provided the items are reproduced in black and white and are less

than three-quarters or greater than one-and-one-half times the size, in linear dimension, of any part of the original item being reproduced. Negatives and plates used in making the likenesses must be destroyed after their use for the purpose for which they were made.

Title 18 USC § 472 Uttering counterfeit obligations or securities
Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with like intent brings into the United States or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Title 18 USC § 473 Dealing in counterfeit obligations or securities Whoever buys, sells, exchanges, transfers, receives, or delivers any false, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, with the intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true and genuine, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Title 18 USC § 474 Plates, stones, or analog, digital, or electronic

images for counterfeiting obligations or securities Whoever, with intent to defraud, makes, executes, acquires, scans, captures, records, receives, transmits, reproduces, sells, or has in such person’s control, custody, or ossession, an analog, digital, or electronic image of any obligation or other security f the United States is guilty of a class B felony.

Are these regulations always adhered to by the “lender” when
they have possession of these “original” SECURITIES and make
reproductions of them before they are “sold to investors? How
much has been in the media in the past 2 years about people
demanding to see the “wet ink signature Note” when there is a
foreclosure action initiated against them? You hear it all the time.
Why is that such a big issue? Shouldn’t the “lender” be able to just
bring the “Note” and the “Deed of Trust” or similar “Security
Instrument” to the Court and show that they have the original

documents and are the “holder in due course” and therefore have a
legal right to foreclose? To foreclose they must have BOTH the
“Mortgage Note” and “Deed of Trust” or other similar “Security
Instrument” ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS in their possession at the time
the foreclosure action is initiated. Furthermore, IS there a real
honest to goodness obligation to be collected on?

Why is it that there is such a problem with “lost Mortgage Notes”
as is claimed by numerous lenders that are trying to foreclose
today? How could it be that there could be so many “lost”
documents all of a sudden? Could it be that the documents weren’t
really lost at all, but were actually turned into a source of revenue
that was never disclosed as being a part of the transaction? To
believe that so many “original” documents could be legitimately
“lost” in such a short period of time stretches the credibility of such
claims beyond belief. Could this be the reason that MERS (Mortage
Electronic Registration Systems) was formed in the 1990’s as a way
to supposedly “transfer ownership of a mortgage” without having
to have the “original documents” that would be required to be
presented to the various county recorders? Could it be they KNEW
THEY WOULDN’T HAVE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOR
RECORDING and had to devise a system to get around that
requirement? When the foreclosure action is filed in the court the
attorney for the purported “party of interest”, usually the “lender”
who is foreclosing, files a “COPY” of the “Deed of Trust” or similar
“Investment Security” with the Complaint to begin foreclosure

proceedings. Is that “COPY” of the “Security Instrument” within the
“regulations” of Federal Law under 18 U.S.C. § 474? Is it usually the
same size or very nearly the same size as the original document?
Yes it is and without question it is a COUNTERFEIT SECURITY! Who
was it that produced that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY? Who was
involved in taking that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY to the Court to file
the foreclosure action? Who is it that is now legally in possession
of that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY? Has everyone from the original
“lender” down to the Clerk of the Court where the foreclosure is
now being litigated been in possession or is currently in possession
of that COUNTERFEIT SECURITY? What about the Trustees who are
involved in the process of selling foreclosed properties in nonjudicial
states? What about the fact that there is no judicial
proceeding in those states where the documentation purported to
be legal and proper to bring a foreclosure action can be verified
without expensive litigation by the alleged “borrower”? All the
trustee has to do is send a letter to the alleged “borrower” stating
they are in default and can sell their property at public auction. It
is just ASSUMED that they have the “ORIGINAL” documents in their
possession as required by law. In reality, in almost every situation,
they do NOT!!! They are using a COUNTERFEIT SECURITY as the
basis to foreclose on a property that was paid for by the person
who signed the “Mortgage Note” at the closing table that was
converted to money by the bank. When it is demanded they
produce the actual “original signed documents” they almost always
refuse to do so and ask the Court to “take their word for it” that

they have
. They have,
instead, submitted a COUNTERFEIT SECURITY to the Court as their
“proof of claim” to attempt to unjustly enrich themselves through a
blatantly fraudulent foreclosure action. One often cited example of
this was the decision handed down by U. S. Federal District Court
Judge Christopher A. Boyko of Ohio, who on October 31, 2007
dismissed 14 foreclosure actions at one time with scathing
footnote comments about the actions of the Plaintiffs and their
attorneys. See (Exhibit “E”). Not long after that came the dismissal
of 26 foreclosure cases in Ohio by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas
M. Rose who referenced the Boyko ruling in his decision. See
(Exhibit “F”). How many other judges have not been so brave as to
stand on the principles of law as Judges Boyko and Rose did, but
need to start doing so TODAY?
BOTH of the original documents which are absolutely
required to be in their possession to begin foreclosure actions.
Almost every time the people that are being foreclosed on are able
to convince the Court (in judicial foreclosures) to demand that
those “original documents” be produced in Court by the Plaintiff,
the foreclosure action stops and it is obvious why that happens!
THEY DON’T HAVE THE “ORIGINAL” DOCUMENTS

Has any of this foreclosure activity crossed state lines in
communications or other activities? Have there been at least two
predicate acts of Fraud by the parties involved? Have the people
involved used any type of electronic communication in this Fraud
such as telephone, faxing or email? It is obvious that those

questions have to be answered with a resounding YES! If that is the
case, then the Fraud that has been discussed here falls under the
RICO statutes of Federal Law. Didn’t they eventually take down the
mob for Racketeering under RICO statutes years ago? Is it time to
take down the “NEW MOB” with RICO once again?

HOW RAMPANT IS THIS FRAUD?

How could this kind of situation ever occur in this country?
Could it be that this whole entire process could be “studied
concealment or misrepresentation” where the parties involved are
responsible under the law for their conduct? Could it be that it is
no “accident” that so many “wet ink signature” Notes cannot be
produced to back up the foreclosure actions that are devastating
this country? Could it be that the overwhelming use of
COUNTERFEIT SECURITIES, as purported evidence of a debt in
foreclosure cases, is BY DESIGN and “studied concealment or
misrepresentation” so as to strip the people of this country of their
property and assets? Could it be that a VERY substantial number of
Banks, Mortgage Companies, Law Firms and Attorneys are guilty of
outright massive Fraud, not only against the people of this country,
but of massive Fraud on the Court as well because of this
COUNTERFEITING? How could one possibly come to any other
conclusion after learning the facts and understanding the law?
How many other people are implicated in this MASSIVE FRAUD
such as Trustees and Sheriffs that have sold literally millions of

homes after foreclosure proceedings based on these COUNTERFEIT
SECURITIES submitted as evidence of a purported obligation? How
many judges know about this Fraud happening right in their own
courtrooms and never did anything? How many of them have
actually been PAID for making judgments on foreclosures?
Wouldn’t that be a felony or at the very least, misprision of felony,
to know what is going on and not act to stop it or make it known to
authorities in a position to investigate and stop it?

How is it that so many banks could recover financially, so
rapidly, from the financial debacle of 200809,
with foreclosures
still running at record levels, and yet pay back taxpayer money that
was showered on them and do it so quickly? Could it be that when
they take back a property in foreclosure where they never risked
any money and actually were unjustly enriched in the previous
transaction, that it is easy to make huge sums by reselling that
property and then beginning the whole “Unconscionable” process
all over again with a new “borrower”? How is it that just three
years ago a loan was available to virtually almost anyone who
could “fog a mirror” with no documentation of income or ability to
repay a loan? Common sense makes you ask how “lenders” could
possibly take those kinds of risks. Could it be that the ability to
“repay a loan” was not an issue at all for the lenders because they
were going to get their profits immediately and risk absolutely
nothing at all? Could it be that, if anything, they stood to make
even more money if a person defaulted on the “alleged loan” in a

short period of time? They could literally obtain the property for
nothing other than some legal fees and court filing costs through
foreclosure. They could then resell the property and reap
additional unjust profits once again! One does not need to have
been a finance major in college to figure out what has been
happening once you are enlightened to the FACTS.

WHAT ACTIONS HAVE PEOPLE TAKEN TO AVOID LOSING
THEIR HOMES IN FORECLOSURE?

There have been a number of different actions taken by people
to keep from losing their homes in foreclosure. The first and most
widely used tactic is to demand that the party bringing the
foreclosure action does, in fact, have the standing to bring the
action. The most important issue of standing is whether that party
has actual possession of the “original wet ink signature”
documents from the closing showing they are the “holder in due
course”. As previously mentioned, in almost ALL cases the Plaintiff
bringing the action refuses to make these documents available for
inspection by the Defendant in the foreclosure action so they can,
in fact, determine the authenticity of those documents that are
claimed to be “original” and purportedly giving the legal right to
foreclose. The fact that the Courts allow this to happen repeatedly
without demanding the Plaintiff bring the ”wet ink signature
documents” into the court for inspection by the Defendant, begs
the question of whether some of the judiciary are involved in this

Fraud. Where is due process under the law for the Defendant when
the Plaintiff is NOT REQUIRED by the Court to meet that burden of
proof of standing, when demanded, to bring their action of
foreclosure?

One other option that has been used more and more frequently
in recent months to deal with foreclosure actions is the issuing of a
“Bonded Promissory Note” or “Bill of Exchange” as payment to the
alleged “lender” as satisfaction of any amounts allegedly owed by
the Defendant. As was earlier described, a “Note” is money and as
the banks demonstrated after the closing, it can be deposited in the
bank and converted to money. SOME of the “Bonded Promissory
Notes” and “Bills of Exchange” are, in fact, negotiated and credit is
given to the accounts specified and all turns out well. See (Exhibit
“B” para 12) The problem that has occurred is that MANY of the
“lenders” say that the “Bonded Promissory Notes” and “Bills of
Exchange” are bogus documents and are worthless and fraudulent
and they refuse to give credit for the amount of the “Note” they
receive as payment of an alleged debt even though they are given
specific instructions on how to negotiate the “Note”. Isn’t it
interesting that THEY can take a “Note” that THEY print and put
before you to sign at the closing table and deposit it in the bank
and it is converted to money immediately, but the “Note” that YOU
issue is worthless and fraudulent? The only difference is WHO
PRINTS THE NOTE!!!! They are both signed by the same
“borrower” and it is that person’s credit that backs that “Note”.

The “lenders” don’t want the people to know they can use your
“Prepaid Treasury Account”, just as the banks do without your
knowledge and consent. See (Exhibit “D”) for more information on
“Bills of Exchange”. The fact that SOME of the “Bonded Promissory
Notes” are negotiated and accounts are settled, proves beyond a
shadow of a doubt that they are legal SECURITIES just like the one
that the bank got from the “borrower” at the closing. Why then
aren’t ALL of the “Notes” processed and credit given to the accounts
and the foreclosure dismissed? Because by doing so you would be
lowering the National Debt and the bankers would make less
money!!!!

One very interesting thing that happens with these “Bonded
Promissory Notes” or “Bills of Exchange” that are submitted as
payment, is that they are VERY RARELY RETURNED TO THE ISSUER
yet credit is not given to the intended account. They are not
returned, and the issuer is told they are “bogus, fraudulent and
worthless” but they are NOT RETURNED! Why would someone
keep something that is allegedly “bogus, fraudulent and
worthless”? Could it be that they are NOT REALLY “BOGUS,
FRAUDULENT AND WORTHLESS” and the “lender” has, in fact,
actually negotiated them for YET EVEN MORE UNJUST
ENRICHMENT? That is exactly what happens in many instances.
There could be no other explanation for the failure to return the
allegedly “worthless” documents WHICH ARE ACTUALLY
SECURITIES!!! Does the fact that they keep the “Note” that was

submitted and refuse to credit the account that it was written to
satisfy, rise to the level of THEFT OF SECURITIES? This is just one
more example of the Fraud that is so obvious. This is but one more
example of the ruthless nature of those who would defraud the
people of this country.

CONCLUSIONS

One of the incredible aspects of this whole debacle is the fact
that the very people who are participants in this Fraud are victims
as well. How many bank employees, judges, court clerks, lawyers,
process servers, Sheriffs and others have mortgages? How many of
the people who work in law offices, Courthouses, Sheriffs
Departments and other entities that are directly involved in this
Fraud have been fraudulently foreclosed on themselves? How
many people in our military, law enforcement, firefighting and
medical fields have lost their homes to this Fraud? How many of
your friends or neighbors have lost their homes to these
fraudulent foreclosures? Everyone who has a mortgage is a VICTIM
of this fraud but some of the most honest, trusting, hardest
working and most dedicated people in this country have been the
biggest victims. Who are those who have been the major
beneficiaries of this massive Fraud? Those with the “superior
knowledge” that enables them to take advantage of another’s
ignorance of the law to deceive them by “studied concealment or
misrepresentation”. This group of beneficiaries includes many on
Wall Street, large investors, and most notoriously, the bankers at
the top and the lawyers who work so hard to enhance their profits

and protect the Fraud by them from being exposed. The time has
now come to make those having superior knowledge who HAVE
taken advantage of another’s ignorance of the law to deceive them
by studied concealment or misrepresentation to be held
responsible for that conduct. This isn’t just an idea. It is THE LAW
and it is time to enforce it starting with the criminal aspect of the
fraud! Under the doctrine of “Respondeat Superior” the people at
the top of these organizations are responsible for the actions of
those in their employ. That is where the investigations and arrests
need to start.

What is it going to take to put a stop to the destruction of this
country and the lives of the people who live here? It is going to
take an uprising of the people of this country, as a whole, to finally
say that they have had enough. The information presented here is
but one part of the beginning of that uprising and the beginning of
the end of the Fraud upon the people of America. It is obvious, as
has been pointed out here, with supporting evidence, that Fraud is
rampant. You now know the story and can no longer say you are
totally uninformed about this subject. This is only an outline of
what needs to, and will, become common knowledge to the people
and law enforcement agencies in this country. If you are in law
enforcement it is YOUR DUTY to take what you have been given
here and move forward with your own intense investigation and
root out the Fraud and stop the theft of people’s homes. Your

failure to do so would make you an accessory to the fraud through
your inaction now that you have been noticed of what is occurring.

If you are an attorney and receive this information it would do
you well to take it to heart, and understand there is no place for
your participation in this Fraud and if you participate you will
likely become liable for substantial damages, if not more severe
consequences such as prison. If you are in the judiciary you would
do well to start following the letter of the law if you haven’t been,
and start making ALL of those in your Court do likewise, lest you
find yourself looking for employment as so many others are, if you
are not incarcerated as a result of your participation in the fraud.
If you are part of the law enforcement community that enforces
legal matters regarding foreclosure you would do well to make
sure that ALL things have been done legally and properly rather
than just taking the position “I am just doing my job” and turn a
blind eye to what you now know. If you are a banker, you must
know that you are now going to start being held accountable for
the destruction you have wreaked on this country. You have every
right to be, and should be, afraid…….very afraid. If you are one of
the ruthless foreclosure lawyers that has prayed on the numerous
people who have lost their homes, you need to be afraid also. Very
VERY afraid. When people learn the truth about what you have
done to them you can expect to see retaliation for what you have
done. People are going to want to see those who defrauded them
brought to justice. These are not threats by any stretch of the

imagination. These are very simple observations and the study of
human behavior shows us that when people find out they have
been defrauded in such a grand manner as this, they tend to
become rather angry and search for those who perpetrated the
fraud upon them. The foreclosure lawyers and the bankers will be
standing clearly in their sights.

The question of WHERE DOES THE FRAUD BEGIN has been
answered. It began right at the closing table and was perpetuated
all the way to the loss of property through foreclosure or the
incredible payment of 20 or 30 years of payments and interest by
the alleged “borrower” to those who would conspire to commit
Fraud, collusion and counterfeiting and practice “studied
concealment or misrepresentation” for their own unjust
enrichment.

The simplest of analogies: What would happen if you were to
make a copy of a $100 Federal Reserve Note and go to Walmart and
attempt to use it to fraudulently acquire items that you wanted?
You more than likely would be arrested and charged with
counterfeiting under Title 18 USC § 474 and go to prison. What is
the difference, other than the magnitude of the fraud, between that
scenario and someone who makes a copy of a mortgage security,
and using it through foreclosure, attempts to fraudulently acquire
a property? Shouldn’t they be treated exactly the same under the
law? The answer is obvious and now it is starting to happen.

Title 18 USC § 474

Whoever, with intent to defraud, makes, executes,
acquires, scans, captures, records, receives, transmits,
reproduces, sells, or has in such person’s control, custody,
or possession, an analog, digital, or electronic image of any
obligation or other security of the United States is guilty of
a class B felony.

“Fraud vitiates the most solemn Contracts, documents and
even judgments” [U.S. vs. Throckmorton, 98 US 61, at pg.
65].

“It is not necessary for rescission of a contract that the
party making the misrepresentation should have known
that it was false, but recovery is allowed even though
misrepresentation is innocently made, because it would be
unjust to allow one who made false representations, even
innocently, to retain the fruits of a bargain induced by
such representations.” [Whipp v. Iverson, 43 Wis 2d 166].

“Any false representation of material facts made with
knowledge of falsity and with intent that it shall be acted
on by another in entering into contract, and which is so
acted upon, constitutes ‘fraud,’ and entitles party deceived
to avoid contract or recover damages.” Barnsdall Refining
Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co. 92 F 26 817.

Exhibit B Walker Todd_Note Expert Witness

Exhibit D Mem of Law Bills of Exch

Exhibit A Deed Trust Tenn

Exhibit C Mem of Law Bank Fraud_Foreclosures

Exhibit E Boyko_Foreclosure Case

Challenges to Foreclosure Docs Reach a Fever Pitch

American Banker | Wednesday, June 16, 2010

By Kate Berry

Correction: An earlier version of this story misidentified the court
where Judge J. Michael Traynor presides. It is a Florida state court,
not a federal one. An editing error was to blame.

The backlash is intensifying against banks and mortgage servicers that
try to foreclose on homes without all their ducks in a row.

Because the notes were often sold and resold during the boom years, many
financial companies lost track of the documents. Now, legal officials
are accusing companies of forging the documents needed to reclaim the
properties.

On Monday, the Florida Attorney General’s Office said it was
investigating the use of “bogus assignment” documents by Lender
Processing Services Inc. and its former parent, Fidelity National
Financial Inc. And last week a state judge in Florida ordered a hearing
to determine whether M&T Bank Corp. should be charged with fraud after
it changed the assignment of a mortgage note for one borrower three
separate times.

“Mortgage assignments are being created out of whole cloth just for the
purposes of showing a transfer from one entity to another,” said James
Kowalski Jr., an attorney in Jacksonville, Fla., who represents the
borrower in the M&T case.

“Banks got away from very basic banking rules because they securitized
millions of loans and moved them so quickly,” Kowalski said.

In many cases, Kowalski said, it has become impossible to establish when
a mortgage was sold, and to whom, so the servicers are trying to
recreate the paperwork, right down to the stamps that financial
companies use to verify when a note has changed hands.

Some mortgage processors are “simply ordering stamps from stamp makers,”
he said, and are “using those as proof of mortgage assignments after the
fact.”

Such alleged practices are now generating ire from the bench.

In the foreclosure case filed by M&T in February 2009, the bank
initially claimed it lost the underlying mortgage note, and then later
claimed the mortgage was owned by First National Bank of Nevada, which
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. shut down in 2008, before the
foreclosure had been started.

M&T then claimed Wells Fargo & Co. owned the note, “contradicting all of
its previous claims,” according to Circuit Court Judge J. Michael
Traynor, who ordered the evidentiary hearing last week into whether M&T
perpetrated a fraud on the court.

“The court has been misled by the plaintiff from the beginning,” Judge
Traynor said in his order, which also dismissed M&T’s foreclosure action
with prejudice.

The Marshall Watson law firm in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., which represents
M&T in the case, declined to comment and the bank said it could not
comment.

In a notice on its website, the Florida attorney general said it is
examining whether Docx, an Alpharetta, Ga., unit of Lender Processing
Services, forged documents so foreclosures could be processed more
quickly.

“These documents are used in court cases as ‘real’ documents of
assignment and presented to the court as so, when it actually appears
that they are fabricated in order to meet the demands of the institution
that does not, in fact, have the necessary documentation to foreclose
according to law,” the notice said.

Docx is the largest lien release processor in the United States working
on behalf of banks and mortgage lenders.

Peter T. Sadowski, an executive vice president and general counsel at
Fidelity National in Fort Lauderdale, said that more than a year ago his
company began requiring that its clients provide all paperwork before
the company would process title claims.

Michelle Kersch, a spokeswoman for Lender Processing Services, said the
reference on the Florida attorney general’s website to “bogus
assignments” referred to documents in which Docx used phrases like
“bogus assignee” as placeholders when attorneys did not provide specific
pieces of information.

“Unfortunately, on occasion, incomplete documents were inadvertently
recorded before the missing information was obtained,” Kersch said. “LPS
regrets these errors and the use of this particular placeholder
phrasing.”

The company, which was spun off from Fidelity National two years ago, is
cooperating with the attorney general and conducting its own internal
investigation.

Lender Processing Services disclosed in its annual report in February
that federal prosecutors were reviewing the business processes of Docx.
The company said it was cooperating with that investigation.

“This is systemic,” said April Charney, a senior staff attorney at
Jacksonville Area Legal Aid and a member of the Florida Supreme Court’s
foreclosure task force.

“Banks can’t show ownership for many of these securitized loans,”
Charney continued. “I call them empty-sack trusts, because in the rush
to securitize, the originating lender failed to check the paper trial
and now they can’t collect.”

In Florida, Georgia, Maryland and other states where the foreclosure
process must be handled through the courts, hundreds of borrowers have
challenged lenders’ rights to take their homes. Some judges have
invalidated mortgages, giving properties back to borrowers while lenders
appeal.

In February, the Florida state Supreme Court set a new standard
stipulating that before foreclosing, a lender had to verify it had all
the proper documents. Lenders that cannot produce such papers can be
fined for perjury, the court said.

Kowalski said the bigger problem is that mortgage servicers are working
“in a vacuum,” handing out foreclosure assignments to third-party firms
such as LPS and Fidelity.

“There’s no meeting to get everybody together and make sure they have
their ducks in a row to comply with these very basic rules that banks
set up many years ago,” Kowalski said. “The disconnect occurs not just
between units within the banks, but among the servicers, their bank
clients and the lawyers.”

He said the banking industry is “being misserved,” because mortgage
servicers and the lawyers they hire to represent them in foreclosure
proceedings are not prepared.

“We’re tarring banks that might obviously do a decent job, and the banks
are complicit because they hired the servicers,” Kowalski said.

MABRY tip no injunction needed to stop foreclosure TERRY MABRY et al., opinion 2923.5 Cilvil code

The court in Mabry

JP Morgan 18,000 affidavids per month

Posted 3 days ago by Neil Garfield on Livinglies’s Weblog

The bottom line is that none of these signors of affidavits have ANY personal knowledge regarding any document, event, or transaction relating to any of the loans they are “processing.” It’s all a lie.

In a 35 hour workweek, 18,000 affidavits per month computes as 74.23 affidavits per JPM signor per hour and 1.23 per minute. Try that. See if you can review a file, verify the accounting, execute the affidavit and get it notarized in one minute. It isn’t possible. It can only be done with a system that incorporates automation, fabrication and forgery.
Editor’s Note: Besides the entertaining writing, there is a message here. And then a hidden message. The deponent is quoted as saying she has personal knowledge of what her fellow workers have as personal knowledge. That means the witness is NOT competent in ANY court of law to give testimony that is allowed to be received as evidence. Here is the kicker: None of these loans were originated by JPM. Most of them were the subject of complex transactions. The bottom line is that none of these signors of affidavits have ANY personal knowledge regarding any document, event, or transaction relating to any of the loans they are “processing.” It’s all a lie.
In these transactions, even though the investors were the owners of the loan, the servicing and other rights were rights were transferred acquired from WAMU et al and then redistributed to still other entities. This was an exercise in obfuscation. By doing this, JPM was able to control the distribution of profits from third party payments on loan pools like insurance contracts, credit defaults swaps and other credit enhancements.
Having that control enabled JPM to avoid allocating such payments to the investors who put up the bad money and thus keep the good money for itself. You see, the Countrywide settlement with the FTC focuses on the pennies while billions of dollars are flying over head.

The simple refusal to allocate third party payments achieves the following:

* Denial of any hope of repayment to the investors
* Denial of any proper accounting for all receipts and disbursements that are allocable to each loan account
* 97% success rate in sustaining Claims of default that are fatally defective being both wrong and undocumented.
* 97% success rate on Claims for balances that don’t exist
* 97% success rate in getting a home in which JPM has no investment

(THE DEPONENT’S NAME IS COTRELL NOT CANTREL)

JPM: Cantrel deposiition reveals 18,000 affidavits signed per month
HEY, CHASE! YEAH, YOU… JPMORGAN CHASE! One of Your Customers Asked Me to Give You a Message…

Hi JPMorgan Chase People!

Thanks for taking a moment to read this… I promise to be brief, which is so unlike me… ask anyone.

My friend, Max Gardner, the famous bankruptcy attorney from North Carolina, sent me the excerpt from the deposition of one Beth Ann Cottrell, shown below. Don’t you just love the way he keeps up on stuff… always thinking of people like me who live to expose people like you? Apparently, she’s your team’s Operations Manager at Chase Home Finance, and she’s, obviously, quite a gal.

Just to make it interesting… and fun… I’m going to do my best to really paint a picture of the situation, so the reader can feel like he or she is there… in the picture at the time of the actual deposition of Ms. Cottrell… like it’s a John Grisham novel…

FADE IN:

SFX: Sound of creaking door opening, not to slowly… There’s a ceiling fan turning slowly…

It’s Monday morning, May 17th in this year of our Lord, two thousand and ten, and as we enter the courtroom, the plaintiff’s attorney, representing a Florida homeowner, is asking Beth Ann a few questions… We’re in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida.

Deposition of Beth Ann Cottrell – Operations Manager of Chase Home Finance LLC

Q. So if you did not review any books or records or electronic records before signing this affidavit of payments default, how is it that you had personal knowledge of all of the matters stated in this sworn document?

A. Well, it is pretty simple, I have personal knowledge that my staff has personal knowledge of what is in the affidavit on personal knowledge. That is how our process works.

Q. So, when signing an affidavit, you stated you have personal knowledge of the matters contained therein of Chase’s business records yet you never looked at the data bases or anything else that would contain those records; is that correct?

A. That is correct. I rely on my staff to do that part.

Q. And can you tell me in a given week how many of these affidavits you might sing?

A. Amongst all the management on my team we sign about 18,000 a month.

Q. And how many folks are on what you call the management?

A. Let’s see, eight.

And… SCENE.

Isn’t that just irresistibly cute? The way she sees absolutely nothing wrong with the way she’s answering the questions? It’s really quite marvelous. Truth be told, although I hadn’t realized it prior to reading Beth Ann’s deposition transcript, I had never actually seen obtuse before.

In fact, if Beth’s response that follows with in a movie… well, this is the kind of stuff that wins Oscars for screenwriting. I may never forget it. She actually said:

“Well, it is pretty simple, I have personal knowledge that my staff has personal knowledge of what is in the affidavit on personal knowledge. That is how our process works.”

No you didn’t.

Isn’t she just fabulous? Does she live in a situation comedy on ABC or something?

ANYWAY… BACK TO WHY I ASKED YOU JPMORGAN CHASE PEOPLE OVER…

Well, I know a homeowner who lives in Scottsdale, Arizona… lovely couple… wouldn’t want to embarrass them by using their real names, so I’ll just refer to them as the Campbell’s.

So, just the other evening Mr. Campbell calls me to say hello, and to tell me that he and his wife decided to strategically default on their mortgage. Have you heard about this… this strategic default thing that’s become so hip this past year?

It’s when a homeowner who could probably pay the mortgage payment, decides that watching any further incompetence on the part of the government and the banks, along with more home equity, is just more than he or she can bear. They called you guys at Chase about a hundred times to talk to you about modifying their loan, but you know how you guys are, so nothing went anywhere.

Then one day someone sent Mr. Campbell a link to an article on my blog, and I happened to be going on about the topic of strategic default. So… funny story… they had been thinking about strategically defaulting anyway and wouldn’t you know it… after reading my column, they decided to go ahead and commence defaulting strategically.

So, after about 30 years as a homeowner, and making plenty of money to handle the mortgage payment, he and his wife stop making their mortgage payment… they toast the decision with champagne.

You see, they owe $865,000 on their home, which was just appraised at $310,000, and interestingly enough, also from reading my column, they came to understand the fact that they hadn’t done anything to cause this situation, nothing at all. It was the banks that caused this mess, and now they were expecting homeowners like he and his wife, to pick up the tab. So, they finally said… no, no thank you.

Luckily, she’s not on the loan, so she already went out and bought their new place, right across the street from the old one, as it turns out, and they figure they’ve got at least a year to move, since they plan to do everything possible to delay you guys from foreclosing. They’re my heroes…

Okay, so here’s the message I promised I’d pass on to as many JPMorgan Chase people as possible… so, Mr. Campbell calls me one evening, and tells me he’s sorry to bother… knows I’m busy… I tell him it’s no problem and ask how he’s been holding up…

He says just fine, and he sounds truly happy… strategic defaulters are always happy, in fact they’re the only happy people that ever call me… everyone else is about to pop cyanide pills, or pop a cap in Jamie Dimon’s ass… one or the other… okay, sorry… I’m getting to my message…

He tells me, “Martin, we just wanted to tell you that we stopped making our payments, and couldn’t be happier. Like a giant burden has been lifted.”

I said, “Glad to hear it, you sound great!”

And he said, “I just wanted to call you because Chase called me this evening, and I wanted to know if you could pass a message along to them on your blog.”

I said, “Sure thing, what would you like me to tell them?”

He said, “Well, like I was saying, we stopped making our payments as of April…”

“Right…” I said.

“So, Chase called me this evening after dinner.”

“Yes…” I replied.

He went on… “The woman said: Mr. Campbell, we haven’t received your last payment. So, I said… OH YES YOU HAVE!”

Hey, JPMorgan Chase People… LMAO. Keep up the great work over there.

MERS Brief

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………………………………. i
INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE…………………………………………………………………..1
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT …………………………………………………………………….2
ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………………………….4
I. The MERS System Was Designed Without Regard to Consumers’ Rights4
II. MERS’ Claims That the MERS System Is Beneficial to
Consumers Are Unsupported. …………………………………………………………….6
III. Homeowners Have a Right to Know Who Owns Their Loans………………..8
IV. The MERS System Causes Significant Confusion Among Borrowers,
and Has a Particularly Detrimental Impact on the Elderly and
Other Vulnerable Borrowers Frequently Victimized by
Predatory Lenders. ………………………………………………………………………… 14
V. The Public Has a Significant and Enduring Interest in Preserving and
Protecting the Free Public Databases Created by the Land and Court
Records of This Nation. …………………………………………………………………. 18
A. Public land and court data records facilitate research investigating
the root causes of a variety of mortgage and other land related
problems………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
B. The public databases have played an important role in facilitating
understanding and government response to the recent “foreclosure
boom.”…………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
C. Through its penetration of the public databases MERS has caused
a dramatic deterioration in the quality and quantity of publicly
available information. ……………………………………………………………….. 28
D. The MERS Shield Creates an Irretrievable Void in the Property
Records that Harms Many Constituencies……………………………………. 32
ii
E. Restoration and enhancement of the public database is critical to enable
government to function effectively……………………………………………… 33
F. More, not less public data is needed to enable a carefully targeted and
rapid governmental response to problems in the housing market. …… 35
VI. MERS’ Subversion of the Public Policy Behind Public Recordings Costs
County and City Clerks Over a Billion Dollars. ………………………………… 38
VII. MERS Lacks Standing to Bring Foreclosure Actions in Its Name……….. 39
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………. 46
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Altegra Credit Co. v. Tin Chu et al.,
No. 04326-2004 (Kings County Supreme Ct. March 25, 2004) ………………. 24, 36
Associates Home Equity v. Troup,
343 N.J. Super. 254 (App. Div. 2001)……………………………………………………….. 21
Countrywide Home Loans v. Hannaford,
2004 WL 1836744 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2004). ……………………………………. 17
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee v. Primrose,
No. 05-25796 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., July 13, 2006);…………………………. 46
Everhome Mortgage Company v. Hendriks,
No. 05-024042 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., June 27, 2006);………………………. 46
Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Burnham Mortg., Inc.,
2006 WL 695467 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 13, 2006) ………………………………………………. 17
In re BNT Terminals, Inc.,
125 B.R. 963, 970 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1990)…………………………………………………. 45
Kluge v. Fugazy,
145 A.D.2d 537, 536 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d Dept. 1988)…………………………………….. 44
LaSalle Bank v. Holguin, No. 06-9286, slip opinion (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cty.,
Aug. 9, 2006);…………………………………………………………………………………… 43, 45
LaSalle Bank v. Lamy,
2006 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 2127 (NY. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Aug. 17, 2006)……. 46
MERS v. Bomba,
No. 1645/03 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings County). ……………………………………………… 48
MERS v. DeMarco,
No. 05-1372, slip op. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., April 11, 2005) ……………… 46
MERS v. Griffin,
No.16-2004-CA-002155, slip op. (Fla. Cir. Ct. May 27, 2004)…………………….. 49
MERS v. Ramdoolar,
No. 05-019863 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Mar. 7, 2006);………………………… 46
MERS v. Shuster,
No. 05-26354/06 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., July 13, 2006)………………… 44, 46
MERS v. Trapani,
No. 04-19057, slip op. at 1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Mar. 7, 2005):……….. 48
MERS v. Wells,
No. 06-5242, slip op. at 2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Sept. 25, 2006)………… 45
MERS v.Delzatto,
No. 05-020490 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Dec. 9, 2005)…………………………. 46
ii
MERS, Inc. v. Parker,
No. 017622/2004, slip op. at 2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty. Oct. 19, 2004) …… 46
MERS, Inc. v. Schoenster,
No. 16969-2004, (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Sept. 15, 2004); …………………… 47
MERS. v. Burek,
798 N.Y.S.2d 346 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004)…………………………………………………….. 44
MERS. v. Burek,
798 N.Y.S.2d 346, 347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Richmond Cty. 2004)……………………… 46
Merscorp, Inc. v. Romaine,
No. 9688/01, slip op. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Co. May 12, 2004)…………………….8
Miguel v. Country Funding Corp.,
309 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2002). …………………………………………………………………. 16
Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys. v. Estrella,
390 F.3d 522 (7th Cir. 2004) ……………………………………………………………………. 16
Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys. v. Neb. Dep’t of Banking & Fin.,
704 N.W.2d 784 (Neb. 2005) ……………………………………………………………… 16, 17
Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Griffin,
No.16-2004-CA-002155, slip op. (Fla. Cir. Ct. May 27, 2004)…………………….. 47
Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Azize,
No. 05-001295-CI-11 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Pinellas Cty. Apr. 18, 2005)………………….. 47
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Rees,
2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2437 (Conn. Superior Ct. September 4, 2003). ……. 44
People v. Albertina,
09141-2005 (Kings County Supreme Ct. Sept. 28, 2006) ………………………. 24, 36
People v. Constant,
No. 01843A-2006 (Suffolk Supreme Ct. Oct. 12, 2006)( ……………………….. 24, 36
People v. Larman,
No. 06253-2005 (Kings County Supreme Ct. Sept. 20, 2006) ………………… 24, 36
People v. Sandella,
No. 02899-2006 (Kings County Supreme. Ct. Sept. 27, 2006) ……………….. 24, 36
Roberts v. WMC Mortg. Corp.,
173 Fed. Appx. 575 (9th Cir. 2006). …………………………………………………………. 16
Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, Mortg. Corp. v. Brown,
583 S.E.2d 844 (Ga. 2003) ………………………………………………………………………. 47
Statutes
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 12 USC § 2801 et. seq ………………………………… 28
N.Y. Banking Law § 6-1…………………………………………………………………………….. 31
N.Y. General Business Law § 349……………………………………………………………….. 18
iii
N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 771-a……………………………………………………………………….. 31
N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 1302 ………………………………………………………………. 31
Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq………………………………………… 15, 16
Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z § 226.23 ……………………………………………….. 15
U.C.C. §§ 9-203(g), 9-308(e); …………………………………………………………………….. 44
Regulations
69 Fed. Reg. 16,769 (Mar. 31, 2004),…………………………………………………………… 16
Secondary Sources
40 Millionth Loan Registered on MERS (Inside MERS, May/ June 2006),
available at http://www. mersinc.com/newsroom/currentnews.aspx …………….. 42
Alan M. White and Cathy Lesser Mansfield,
Literacy and Contract, 13 STAN. L & POL’Y REV 233 …………………………………. 19
Andrew Harris,
Suffolk Judge Denies Requests by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
N.Y. LAW J. (Aug. 31, 2004) ……………………………………………………………………. 47
Bunce, Harold, Gruenstein, Debbie et al.,
Subprime Lending: The Smoking Gun of Predatory Lending? (HUD 2001),
http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/brd/12Bunce.pdf ………………. 24, 27, 32
D. Rose, Chicago Foreclosure Update 2005, http://www.nticus.
org/currentevents/press/pdf/chicagoforeclosure_update.pdf…………………….. 25
D. Rose, Chicago Foreclosure Update 2006 (July), http://www.nticus.
org/documents/ChicagoForeclosureUpdate2006.pdf ………………………………. 25
Daniel Immergluck & Geoff Smith,
The External Costs of Foreclosure: The Impact of Single-Family Mortgage
Foreclosures on Property Values,
17 Housing Pol’y Debate, Issue 1 (2006)……………………………………………… 28, 39
David Rice, Predatory Lending Bill Caught in Debate, Winston-Salem Journal,
April 27, 1999………………………………………………………………………………………… 30
Debbie Gruenstein & Christopher Herbert,
Analyzing Trends in Subprime Originations and Foreclosures: A Case Study of
the Boston Metro Area, 1995-1999 (2000), http://www.abtassociates.com
/reports/20006470781991.pdf ………………………………………………………………….. 27
Duda & Apgar, Mortgage Foreclosures in Atlanta: Patterns and Policy Issues,
2000-2005 (2005) …………………………………………………………………… 30, 35, 38, 39
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council,
A Guide to HMDA: Getting it Right! (Dec. 2003). ……………………………………… 41
iv
Jill D. Rein,
Significant Changes to Commencing Foreclosure Actions in the Name of MERS,
available at http://www.usfn.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=
Article_Library&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=3899……….. 49
Kathe Newman & Elvin K. Wyly,
Geographies of Mortgage Market Segmentation: The Case of Essex County,
New Jersey, 19 Housing Stud. 53, 54 (Jan. 2004) ………………………………………. 38
Kathleen C. Engel, Do Cities Have Standing? Redressing the Externalities of
Predatory Lending, 38 Conn. L. Rev. 355 (2006). ……………………………………… 25
Kimberly Burnett, Bulbul Kaul, & Chris Herbert,
Analysis of Property Turnover Patterns in Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland and
Philadelphia (2004), http://
http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/analysis_property_turnover_patterns.pdf 27, 31
Kimberly Burnett, Chris Herbert et al.,
Subprime Originations and Foreclosures in New York State: A Case Study of
Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties (2002)……………………… 21, 24, 30, 31
Les Christie, “Foreclosures Spiked in August,” (Sept. 13, 2006), available at:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/13/real_estate/foreclosures_spiking/index.htm?po
stversion=2006091305 ……………………………………………………………………………. 39
Lindley Higgins, Effective Community-Based Strategies for Preventing
Foreclosures,1993-2004 (2005) ………………………………………………………….. 26, 27
Lorain County Reinvestment Fund,
The Expanding Role of Subprime Lending in Ohio’s Burgeoning Foreclosure
Problem: A Three County Study of a Statewide Problem, (2002),
http://cohhio.org/projects/ocrp/SubprimeLendingReport.pdf……………………….. 23
Lynne Dearborn, Mortgage Foreclosures and Predatory Lending in St. Clair
County, Illinois 1996-2000 (2003) ……………………………………………………………. 23
Margot Saunders and Alys Cohen,
Federal Regulation of Consumer Credit: The Cause or the Cure for Predatory
Lending? (Joint Center for Housing Studies 2004)……………………………………… 28
Neal Walters & Sharon Hermanson,
Subprime Mortgage Lending and Older Borrowers (AARP Public Policy
Institute), Data Digest Number 74 (2001)………………………………………………….. 28
Neighborhood Housing Services (NHS) of Chicago,
Preserving Homeownership: Community-Development Implications of the New
Mortgage Market (2004) …………………………………………………………………………. 26
Paul Bellamy, The Expanding Role of Subprime Lending in Ohio’s Burgeoning
Foreclosure Problem: A Three County Study of a Statewide Problem, 1994-2001
(2002)……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 29
v
Phyllis K. Slesinger and Daniel McLaughlin,
Mortgage Electronic Registration System, 31 IDAHO L. REV. 805, 811, 814-15
(1995)……………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
Ramon Garcia, Residential Foreclosures in the City of Buffalo,
1990-2000 (2003) ……………………………………………………………………………… 24, 27
Richard Lord, AMERICAN NIGHTMARE: PREDATORY LENDING AND THE
FORECLOSURE OF THE AMERICAN DREAM 157 (Common Courage Press 2005). 22
Richard Stock, Center for Business and Economic Research,
Predation in the Sub-Prime Lending Market: Montgomery County Vol. I., 1994-
2001 (2001), http://www.mvfairhousing.com/cber/pdf/
Executive%20summary.PDF………………………………………………………………. 26, 29
Robert Avery, Kenneth Brevoort, Glenn Canner,
Higher-Priced Home Lending and the 2005 HMDA Data (Sept. 8, 2006) …….. 28
Steve C. Bourassa, Predatory Lending In Jefferson County: A Report to the
Louisville Urban League (Urban Studies Institute, University of Louisville)
(December 2003) ……………………………………………………………………………………. 35
T. Nagazumi & D. Rose,
Preying on Neighborhoods: Subprime mortgage lending and Chicagoland
foreclosures, 1993-1998 (Sept. 21, 1999 …………………………………… 25, 26, 31, 34
The Reinvestment Fund, Mortgage Foreclosure Filings in Delaware (2006) …… 23
The Reinvestment Fund, A Study of Mortgage Foreclosures in Monroe County and
The Commonwealth’s Response (2004) …………………………………………………….. 23
The Reinvestment Fund, Mortgage Foreclosure Filings in Pennsylvania (2005). 23
William C. Apgar & Mark Duda, Collateral Damage: The Municipal Impact of
Today’s Mortgage Foreclosure Boom 1996-2000 (May 11, 2005),
http://www.nw.org/Network/neighborworksprogs/
foreclosuresolutions/documents/Apgar-DudaStudyFinal.pdf…………………. passim
William Apgar, The Municipal Cost of Foreclosures: A Chicago Case Study
(Feb. 27, 2005) http://www.hpfonline.org/PDF/Apgar-
Duda_Study_Full_Version.pdf………………………………………………………. 25, 26, 38
Zach Schiller, Foreclosure Growth in Ohio (2006) ………………………………………… 23
Zach Schiller and Jeremy Iskin, Foreclosure Growth in Ohio: A Brief Update
(2005), http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf/
Foreclosure_Growth_Ohio_2005.pdf………………………………………………………… 23
Zach Schiller, Whitney Meredith, & Pam Rosado, Home Insecurity 2004:
Foreclosure Growth in Ohio, available at
http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf/Home_Insecurity_2004.pdf………………. 23
Treatises
Restatement (3d), Property (Mortgages) § 5.4(a) (1997) ………………………………… 44
vi
Other Authorities
American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau (2005). …………………………… 21
Black’s Law Dictionary 727 (6th ed. abr.) ……………………………………………………. 17
Consumer Protection: Federal and State Agencies in Combating Predatory
Lending, United States General Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member, Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate (January
2004), pp. 99-102……………………………………………………………………………………. 20
Curbing Predatory Home Mortgage Lending, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development and U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, 47 (2000), available at
http://www.huduser.org/publications/hsgfin/curbing.html ………………… 19, 32, 41
Housing Characteristics: 2000 (US Census Bureau 10/01)……………………………… 19
Informal Op. New York State Att’y Gen 2001-2 (April 5, 2001);………………… 8, 13
Inside B&C Lending at 2 (February 3, 2006)………………………………………………… 13
Pennsylvania Department of Banking, Losing the American Dream: A Report on
Residential Mortgage Foreclosures and Abusive Lending Practices in
Pennsylvania (2005). ………………………………………………………………………………. 23
Press Release, Office of Attorney General, N.J. Div. of Criminal Justice Targets
financial crime (Nov. 14, 2004),
http://nj.gov/lps/newsreleases04/pr20041117b.html……………………………………. 25
Press Release, Sen. Mikulski Formed Task Force and Secured Federal Assistance
to Address Flipping Problem (Oct. 9, 2003) ………………………………………………. 25
U.S. Census 2000………………………………………………………………………………………. 21
1
INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE
Amici are non-profit legal services and public interest organizations who
have special expertise in defending foreclosures and in documenting how the
mortgage market works. Amici South Brooklyn Legal Services, Jacksonville Area
Legal Aid, Inc., Empire Justice Center, Legal Services for the Elderly, Queens
Legal Aid, Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Legal Services of New York City–Staten
Island, Fair Housing Justice Center of HELP USA, and AARP’s Foundation
Litigation and Legal Counsel for the Elderly provide free legal representation to
low-income individuals and families who are victims of abusive mortgage lending
and servicing practices, and who are at risk of foreclosure. Amici Center for
Responsible Lending, National Consumer Law Center, National Association of
Consumer Advocates, and Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy
Project are non-profit research and policy organizations dedicated to exposing and
eliminating abusive practices in the mortgage market. AARP advocates on behalf
of consumers in the mortgage marketplace and through its Public Policy Institute
conducts research on a wide variety of issues affecting older persons, including
subprime mortgage lending and mortgage broker practices.
Collectively, amici represent or counsel thousands of low to moderate
income homeowners each year. Amici prevent foreclosures through defense of
foreclosure actions in court; negotiating with foreclosing lenders to address
2
servicing abuses that inflate mortgage balances and to modify mortgages to give
homeowners a fresh start; filing administrative claims with city, state, and federal
agencies; conducting community outreach and education to address predatory
lending and abusive servicing; and working on various policy issues to protect
consumers and prevent abusive mortgage lending and servicing practices.
The Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) has a
substantial and detrimental impact on amici as it curtails their ability to conduct
research and advocacy and impairs the rights of their homeowner clients. In
particular, MERS’ failure to conform to New York law significantly undermines
the public interest in preserving the free public database created by land and court
records and imposes substantial harms on amici’s homeowner clients. Therefore
amici urge this court to reverse the decision below and to find in favor of
Respondents-Appellants.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Through their extensive experience representing individual homeowners and
closely studying both the national and local mortgage markets, amici have learned
first-hand the detrimental effect of MERS’ electronic registration system on
homeowners, and its destructive impact on the public land records that serve the
public interest in a variety of critical ways. Although this case turns on a question
of New York law, amici and the homeowners they represent nationwide have
3
experienced the same obstacles, confusion, and frustration that are created by the
MERS system in New York State.
The MERS system harms homeowners and undermines the public interest
by concealing information that is essential both to the maintenance of accurate
public land and court records, and to individual homeowners, particularly those
who seek redress for predatory mortgages or face foreclosure. Three issues
highlight the importance of these concerns to homeowners and to the public
interest. First, because MERS obfuscates the true owner of the note, MERS
creates significant and detrimental confusion among borrowers and homeowners,
their advocates, and the courts. Second, MERS frustrates established public
policy, which dictates that title information must be publicly available, thus
causing harm to state and local governments, advocacy groups, and academic
researchers who routinely rely on public database information to inform legislative
decision-making, to support law enforcement, and to advance policy solutions to a
wide variety of housing and mortgage issues. Third, MERS’ routine practice of
improperly commencing foreclosure actions solely in its name, even though it is
not the true owner of the note, flaunts courts rules and raises significant standing
concerns. Accordingly, amici urge this Court to reverse the decision of the court
below and find in favor of Respondents-Appellants Edward P. Romaine and the
County of Suffolk, and against Petitioners-Respondents MERS.
4
ARGUMENT
I. The MERS System Was Designed Without Regard to Consumers’
Rights
MERS is the brainchild of the mortgage industry, designed to facilitate the
transfer of mortgages on the secondary mortgage market and save lenders the cost
of filing assignments. See, e.g., Br. for Petitioners-Respondents MERS
(hereinafter “MERS Br.”) at 6-7 (listing the founding members of MERS as, inter
alia, Mortgage Bankers Association of America, the Federal National Mortgage
Association…and others within the real estate finance industry); Record on Appeal
(hereinafter “R.__”) at 604-6. (MERS is in an “administrative capacity to serve the
sole purpose of appearing in the county land records”). MERS is not a mortgage
lender; nor does it ever own or have any beneficial interest in the note or mortgage.
See, e.g., Merscorp, Inc. v. Romaine, No. 9688/01, slip op. at 2 n.3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Suffolk Co. May 12, 2004); Informal Op. New York State Att’y Gen 2001-2 (April
5, 2001), 2001 N.Y. AG LEXIS 2; R. at 727-28. Nevertheless, MERS substitutes
its name on the public records for the name of the actual owners of mortgage loans.
In so doing, MERS is rapidly undermining the accuracy of the public land and
court records databases, establishing in their place a proprietary national electronic
registry system that “tracks” beneficial ownership and servicing rights and whose
information is inaccessible to the public. Yet the design of MERS’ registration
system and foreclosure procedures considered neither the public’s interest, nor the
5
rights and interests of consumers. See, e.g., Phyllis K. Slesinger and Daniel
McLaughlin, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, 31 IDAHO L. REV. 805,
811, 814-15 (1995) (MERS initially sought input from industry representatives; no
input sought from consumers).
Not surprisingly, MERS operates in derogation of the rights and interests of
consumers and the public interest. MERS claims that the MERS system is
beneficial to consumers because the “cost savings are substantial,” the flow of
funds are sped up, and the consumer can determine which company services her
mortgage by calling a toll-free number. MERS Br. at 9-11, 37-38. However, these
arguments are unsupported and disregard the significant obstacles and confusion
that MERS creates. As described below, the detrimental effects of MERS—the
hiding of the true note and mortgage holder and the insulation of the holder from
potential liability in situations involving predatory loans— substantially outweigh
any purported benefit to consumers of the MERS system. Indeed, MERS is
fundamentally unfair to homeowners who are trapped in the system because it
transmutes public mortgage loan ownership information, required to be recorded in
the public databases, into secret and proprietary information, inaccessible to both
the borrower and the public.
6
II. MERS’ Claims That the MERS System Is Beneficial to Consumers Are
Unsupported.
MERS has not ushered in a beneficent new regime in the mortgage lending
industry, nor does it impart cost savings or greater access to information to
homeowners. See MERS Br. at 11, 37, 39. In fact, the opposite is true. The only
beneficiaries of the MERS system are MERS and its member lenders and servicers.
The losers are millions of homeowners who are unwittingly drawn into MERS’
virtual black hole of information, and the public at large. Far from filling an
information void, the MERS system creates an information drain, removing the
true note holder’s identity from the public records and substituting MERS in its
stead. Significantly, while systematically eliminating any public record of
mortgage loan ownership and assignments, MERS has not even bothered to
maintain a private database of intermediate assignments—tracking only the
identity of the loan servicer. R. at 635-637. As a result, the judges and court staff
who are forced to deal with the confusion spawned by the increasing number of
land records and foreclosures filed in the name of MERS can also be counted
among the casualties of the MERS system.
Any cost savings resulting from the MERS system benefit its member
lenders, who are freed from the costs of filing mortgage assignments, not
homeowners or the public. These cost savings are touted as MERS’ core purpose:
“This [MERS process] eliminates the need to record an assignment to your
7
MERS® Ready buyer, saving on average $22 per loan.” (“What is MERS?”
promotional materials) and “Save at least $22 on each loan by eliminating
assignments.” (MERS benefit materials). See also
http://www.mersinc.com/why_mers (last visited September 20, 2006).
Moreover, MERS’ assertion that homeowners are the beneficiaries of the
MERS system simply cannot be reconciled with the practices espoused by MERS
or those of its members. MERS Br. at 11, 38. While MERS claims that its
member lenders pass on savings to their borrowers, MERS Br. at 11, there is no
indication this is actually happening; nor is it any part of the MERS sales pitch to
lenders. To the contrary, thanks to MERS, an additional fee frequently appears on
the HUD-1 Settlement Statement: a MERS fee of $3.95. See R. at 48. MERS
encourages its members to charge this additional fee:
Q. Can I pass the MERS registration fee on to the borrower?
A. YES. On conventional loans you may be able to pass this fee
on to the borrower, but you should check with your legal
advisors to ensure that you are in compliance with federal and
state laws. On government loans, please check with your local
field office for availability and approval.
(MERS promotional FAQ).
There is no record evidence that any costs savings are passed on to
borrowers. The opposite is true. The $3.95 MERS assignment fee is built into the
standard fees charged by lenders at closing and variously denominated as
8
“origination fee,” “underwriting fee,” “processing fee,” “administration fee,”
“funding fee,” etc. on the HUD-1 settlement sheet. Under the MERS system, it is
MERS and its members who are gaining financially, clerk’s offices which are
deprived of valuable operating funds, and consumers who are losing ground.
MERS erroneously touts its system as providing greater access to
information through the availability of a toll-free number to identify the
homeowner’s loan servicer. See R. at 48; MERS Br. at 37, 39. MERS’ repeated
emphasis, MERS Br. at 9-10, 39, on this issue is a red herring. The identity of the
servicer is well known to the homeowner, who receives the servicer’s monthly bills
and makes mortgage payments to the servicer. In fact, the identity of the servicer
is perhaps the only information homeowners know about their loan once MERS is
involved. MERS does not offer homeowners a toll-free number to learn who
actually owns their note and mortgage; indeed MERS does not track that
information itself. Yet this is the key piece of information that homeowners no
longer possess and are unable to access because MERS has eliminated it from the
public records.
III. Homeowners Have a Right to Know Who Owns Their Loans.
MERS’ existence is justified by a slender reed of an opinion letter of its
counsel, a letter which cavalierly asserts that “there is no reason why, under a
mortgage, the entity holding or owning the note may not keep the fact of its
9
ownership confidential. . . The public has no significant interest in learning the true
identity of the holder of the note.” R. at 731. This self-serving opinion is utterly
incorrect, and dangerously ignores consumer rights and the strong public interest in
maintaining an accurate and complete public recordation system.
The 2001 Opinion of the Attorney General of the State of New York is a
clear refutation of MERS’ foundational principle that MERS’ elimination of public
records does not violate public policy:
Designating MERS as the mortgagee in the mortgagor-mortgagee
indices would not satisfy the intent of Real Property Law’s recording
provisions to inform the public about the existence of encumbrances,
and to establish a public record containing identifying information as
to those encumbrances. If MERS ever went out of business, for
example, it would be virtually impossible for someone relying on the
public record to ascertain the identity of the actual mortgagee if only
MERS had been designated as the mortgagee of record.
2001 N.Y. Op. Attorney General 1010; 2001 N.Y. AG LEXIS 2.
Moreover, the importance of maintaining public records that accurately
identify the mortgage holder has assumed greater importance in recent years, as
mortgages are increasingly transferred into the secondary market and are only
rarely retained by the originating mortgage lender. A booming secondary
mortgage market has emerged with the issuance of mortgage-backed securities
which are sold to Wall Street firms in pools and securitized. These securitized
mortgages have skyrocketed from $11 billion in 1994 to more than $500 billion in
2005. Inside B&C Lending at 2 (February 3, 2006).
10
What this securitization boom means for consumers is that the entity that
owns the note and mortgage is likely to change several times over the life of the
loan. Before MERS, the easiest way to determine the current owner was to check
the public records for the last assignment of the mortgage.1 In the MERS system,
however, assignments are never filed except when the mortgage is initially
assigned to MERS or assigned to a non-MERS member mortgagee. As a result,
when MERS is the nominee for a mortgage, the homeowner cannot determine who
owns her note by checking the public records, nor can she obtain this information
from MERS. The MERS system thus actively subverts the public policy of
maintaining a transparent, public title history of real property.
It is essential for consumers to be able to identify the owner of their loan,
since the owner alone retains the power to make certain decisions about the loan,
particularly when borrowers fall behind. Knowing the identity of the servicer is
rarely sufficient for consumers who are having problems with their loans, as
servicers often lack the necessary authority to enter into loan modifications with
borrowers or restructure overdue payments. Borrowers may also benefit from
direct contact with owners when servicers’ interests in collecting late fees and
collection fees run counter to borrowers’ interests in bringing their loans current.
1 The recording of an assignment is beneficial to the borrower, and the public, by openly stating
the current owner of the mortgage.
11
Thus, the homeowner’s ability to locate the owner of the note and mortgage is
important both to informal resolution of payment delinquencies and when more
serious problems arise.
The homeowner’s inability to determine quickly who owns the note and
mortgage also prevents the exercise of important rights under federal and state law
and makes it difficult to adequately defend foreclosure proceedings. Federal law
creates a right of rescission whenever a homeowner refinances a home, or
otherwise enters into a nonpurchase money mortgage. If the lender fails to comply
fully with the dictates of the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., the
borrower is entitled to exercise the right of rescission for an extended three year
period. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f). When exercised, this right is extremely powerful: it
cancels the lender’s security interest or mortgage, credits all payments entirely to
principal, relieves the homeowner of the obligation to repay any closing costs or
fees financed, and provides the possibility of recovering statutory and
compensatory damages. 12 C.F.R. § 226.23. Of critical importance in the context
of this proceeding, the right to rescind may be asserted against assignees of the
obligation, i.e. the note holder itself; in fact, rescission is one of the few tools
available to homeowners to stop a foreclosure. 15 U.S.C. § 1641(c).
Unlike note holders, servicers are not liable for rescission, 15 U.S.C.
§1641(f)(1), and some courts have refused to honor a homeowner’s rescission even
12
where the servicer’s identity is the only information available to the homeowner.
See Miguel v. Country Funding Corp., 309 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2002). While the
Federal Reserve Board subsequently amended its Official Staff Commentary to
clarify that service upon an agent of the holder, as defined by state law, is
sufficient, where the creditor does not designate a person to receive the notice of
rescission, 69 Fed. Reg. 16,769 (Mar. 31, 2004), many ambiguities remain and
courts have continued to question the adequacy of notice unless given to the holder
of the loan. See, e.g., Roberts v. WMC Mortg. Corp., 173 Fed. Appx. 575 (9th Cir.
2006). Prudent practice makes it essential for a rescinding homeowner to identify
and notify the holder.
Identifying the holder of the note is dependent upon accurate land records, as
servicers incur no liability for withholding this information. While the Truth-in-
Lending Act requires servicers to tell borrowers, upon request, who the holder is,
15 U.S.C. §1641(f)(2), there is no requirement that the response be timely and
there is no remedy for its violation. The experience of amici is that servicers rarely,
if ever, provide this information.
Service upon MERS is likewise ineffective, as MERS is neither the holder
nor the servicer. See Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys. v. Estrella, 390 F.3d 522 (7th
Cir. 2004) (MERS is a nominee on the mortgage only); Mortg. Elec. Registration
Sys. v. Neb. Dep’t of Banking & Fin., 704 N.W.2d 784 (Neb. 2005) (MERS argues
13
that it is only nominee of mortgages). As “nominee,” MERS is not an agent of the
holder for purposes of receipt of rescission notices. Cf., e.g., Black’s Law
Dictionary 727 (6th ed. abr.) (defining nominee as “one designated to act for
another as his representative in a rather limited sense”); Mortg. Elec. Registration
Sys. v. Neb. Dep’t of Banking & Fin., 704 N.W.2d 784 (Neb. 2005) (MERS argues
that it is only nominee of mortgages and is contractually prohibited from
exercising any rights to the mortgages). Moreover, the history of litigation
involving MERS confirms that it would be foolish to rely on notice to MERS as
notice to the holder of the mortgage. See, e.g., Freedom Mortg. Corp. v. Burnham
Mortg., Inc., 2006 WL 695467 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 13, 2006) (lender arguing that it is
not bound by foreclosure bids of MERS as its nominee); Countrywide Home Loans
v. Hannaford, 2004 WL 1836744 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2004).
This leaves a homeowner in a trick box. In order to exercise an important
right, the homeowner must provide notice to the holder of the note or its agent.
MERS does not serve as the holder, nor does it serve as the holder’s agent for this
purpose; it does not believe it is required to comply with the Truth-in-Lending Act
at all, according to a memo prepared by MERS’ counsel (R. at 745-6); and it
refuses or is incapable of providing the homeowner with the name or address of the
holder of the note. Surely this is not an unexpected consequence of the MERS
system. As architect of a system that, by design, withholds information from
14
homeowners that is key to their exercising a critical federal right, MERS has and
continues to infringe on homeowners’ rights of rescission.
MERS’ obfuscation of the true holder of the note further infringes on
homeowners’ rights to rescind abusive, high-cost home loans pursuant to New
York State’s Banking Law 6-l, which was enacted in October 2002 to counter
predatory lending abuses in the mortgage market. Many other state and common
law rights of borrowers are also imperiled by the MERS system. In foreclosure
proceedings, assignee note holders often claim that they are a holder in due course
when a consumer raises certain defenses such as common law fraud or deceptive
acts and practices (codified in New York State as General Business Law § 349).
Before MERS, consumers could easily access the complete chain of title through
the public records by identifying each assignment of the loan. Under the MERS
system, all of this information is lost to the homeowner, putting homeowners at a
significant and unwarranted disadvantage in defending foreclosures.
IV. The MERS System Causes Significant Confusion Among Borrowers,
and Has a Particularly Detrimental Impact on the Elderly and Other
Vulnerable Borrowers Frequently Victimized by Predatory Lenders.
In the last decade scholars and government regulatory agencies examining
mortgage lending practices, including predatory lending, have spotlighted the
importance of creating transparency in the mortgage marketplace through
improved disclosures to borrowers and enhanced consumer literacy. See Curbing
15
Predatory Home Mortgage Lending, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development and U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, 47 (2000), available at
http://www.huduser.org/publications/hsgfin/curbing.html (“HUD-Treasury
Report”). The MERS system flies in the face of this goal—obfuscating the
mortgage process and violating consumers’ right to know. The confusion
engendered by MERS has a particularly detrimental impact on the most vulnerable
homeowners.
According to the 2000 Census, 12.9 percent of New York State’s population
is comprised of people who are 65 years and older. Of these elderly state residents,
over 66% are homeowners, while 42.8% of seniors residing in New York City own
their homes.2 These numbers suggest that a large number of the consumers
affected by the MERS system are older New Yorkers.
Declining vision, hearing, mobility and cognitive skills make it more
difficult for older borrowers to extract the critical information they need from
federally mandated disclosure documents. See Alan M. White and Cathy Lesser
Mansfield, Literacy and Contract, 13 STAN. L & POL’Y REV 233. Like many
consumers, older adults often can not understand mortgage documents, as they are
written in extremely complex and technical language. MERS amplifies this
2 See Housing Characteristics: 2000 (US Census Bureau 10/01).
16
problem by intentionally layering new legal terms, and inserting a new and foreign
legal entity, into already complicated consumer contracts and transactions.
As a result, many of amici’s clients are unaware of MERS’ involvement and
are thoroughly confused when MERS begins to act on behalf of their servicer or
mortgagee. The confusion and obstacles that are created by this MERS system are
significant, particularly for homeowners whose predatory loans put them at an
increased risk of default and foreclosure. For example, one of SBLS’ elderly
clients, in default on her mortgage, was receiving a tremendous number of
solicitations from “foreclosure rescue” companies and mortgage brokers and
lenders which promised to save her from foreclosure. When she received the
foreclosure summons and complaint naming MERS as the plaintiff, she
disregarded it because she thought that MERS was simply another company trying
to scare her. As a result of her confusion over MERS, the client nearly lost her
home.
Government agencies and consumer organizations consistently report that
older citizens are disproportionately victimized by predatory mortgage brokers and
lenders. See Consumer Protection: Federal and State Agencies in Combating
Predatory Lending, United States General Accounting Office, Report to the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Special Committee on Aging, U.S.
Senate (January 2004), pp. 99-102. Older homeowners are more likely to have
17
substantial equity in their homes, making them attractive targets. Their fixed
incomes (over 20% of elderly city residents live below the poverty level) and agerelated
mental and physical impairments, affecting nearly half of city residents,
make them more vulnerable to mortgage abuse. 3 In addition, many older New
Yorkers living in inner-city homes lack access to traditional lending institutions,
placing them at greater risk of becoming victims of high cost, predatory, subprime
lenders. See Associates Home Equity v. Troup, 343 N.J. Super. 254 (App. Div.
2001).4
Subprime lending has proven to offer opportunities for unscrupulous – or
predatory-lenders to take advantage of borrowers by charging excessive
interest rates and fees and using mortgage proceeds to pay inflated costs for
home repairs or insurance products. The most common victims of these
predatory lending practices have been found to include the elderly,
minorities, and low income households.
Kimberly Burnett, Chris Herbert, et al., Subprime Originations and Foreclosures
in New York State: A Case Study of Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester Counties
(2002) at ii.
By creating an additional, confusing overlay to the predatory loan
transaction, MERS’ involvement serves to compound the very significant problems
3 See U.S. Census 2000; see also American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau (2005).
4 After finding that the lender had targeted a 74 year old African American home owner in
Newark, the Court in Troup held that the lender “participated in the targeting of inner-city
borrowers who lack access to traditional lending institutions, charged them a discriminatory
interest rate, and imposed unreasonable terms.” Associates Home Equity, 343 N.J. Super.254
(App. Div. 2001).
18
that already exist for homeowners with predatory loans. MERS shields these
unscrupulous lenders, hiding the identities of assignees and muddying records
which are vital to victims seeking immediate redress.
V. The Public Has a Significant and Enduring Interest in Preserving and
Protecting the Free Public Databases Created by the Land and Court
Records of This Nation.
MERS . . . represents the future of foreclosure: a brave new world of
anonymity and unaccountability . . . The ostensible purpose is to save
companies the county filing fees they often must pay when they buy
mortgages or transfer servicing. An added benefit: if a foreclosure
filing becomes necessary that filing, too, can be in MERS’ name.
That makes it harder for journalists, community groups and
researchers to determine whose mortgages are actually ending in
foreclosure. If MERS has its way, it will become increasingly
difficult to tell whose mortgages are failing.
Richard Lord, AMERICAN NIGHTMARE: PREDATORY LENDING AND THE
FORECLOSURE OF THE AMERICAN DREAM 157 (Common Courage Press 2005).
A. Public land and court data records facilitate research
investigating the root causes of a variety of mortgage and other
land related problems.
The public land and court records have served as a vitally important, free
and accessible source of data that have been relied upon by broad constituencies,
including government, academics, non-profit advocacy organizations, businesses
and private individuals throughout the past century. These records have assisted
the legislative branches of government in formulating policy and providing a
legislative response to crises, including redressing abusive mortgage lending
19
practices. 5 See Zach Schiller, Foreclosure Growth in Ohio (2006), available at
available at: http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf/foreclosure_growth_
ohio_2006 (supporting recently enacted Amended Substitute Senate Bill No. 185,
126th Cong., which expanded the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act to cover
mortgage lending; 6 TRF, Mortgage Foreclosure Filings in Pennsylvania (2005),
available at http://www.trfund.com/resource/downloads/policypubs/Mortgage-
Foreclosure-Filings.pdf (Study resulting from Pennsylvania state legislative
request to gather information and analyze foreclosures); 7 Burnett et.al, Subprime
5 The studies listed represent only a small sampling of the numerous studies and reports reliant
on public land and court records data that have influenced legislative decision-making. See e.g.,
The Reinvestment Fund (“TRF”), Mortgage Foreclosure Filings in Delaware (2006),
http://www.trfund.com/resource/downloads/policypubs/Delaware_Foreclosure.pdf (Study
commissioned by the Office of the State Bank Commissioner to analyze foreclosure activity in
Delaware); TRF, A Study of Mortgage Foreclosures in Monroe County and The
Commonwealth’s Response (2004), http://www.banking.state.pa.us/banking/cwp/
view.asp?a=1354&q=547305 (Study commissioned by the Pennsylvania Department of Banking
and the Housing Finance Agency to investigate foreclosure trends in Monroe County); Lynne
Dearborn, Mortgage Foreclosures and Predatory Lending in St. Clair County, Illinois 1996-
2000 (2003) (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) funded study of
loan terms and foreclosure trends commissioned by St. Clair County); Lorain County
Reinvestment Fund, The Expanding Role of Subprime Lending in Ohio’s Burgeoning
Foreclosure Problem: A Three County Study of a Statewide Problem, (2002), http://cohhio.org/
projects/ocrp/SubprimeLendingReport.pdf (Study of foreclosure trends in three Ohio counties).
6 See also Zach Schiller and Jeremy Iskin, Foreclosure Growth in Ohio: A Brief Update (2005),
http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf/Foreclosure_Growth_Ohio_2005.pdf; Zach Schiller,
Whitney Meredith, & Pam Rosado, Home Insecurity 2004: Foreclosure Growth in Ohio,
available at http://www.policymattersohio.org/pdf/Home_Insecurity_2004.pdf.
7See also Pennsylvania Department of Banking, Losing the American Dream: A Report on
Residential Mortgage Foreclosures and Abusive Lending Practices in Pennsylvania (2005),
available at http://www.banking.state.pa.us/banking/lib/banking/about_dob/special%20
initiatives/mortgage%20forecloser/statewide%20foreclosure%20report.pdf. This report was
presented to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives by the Secretary of the Pennsylvania
20
Originations and Foreclosures in New York State (Study supported passage of
New York predatory lending law, N.Y. Banking Law § 6-1).8
The land and court records data have been utilized by the executive branches
of government to inform their regulatory activities related to land ownership, see
e.g. Ramon Garcia, Residential Foreclosures in the City of Buffalo, 1990-2000
(2003)9 (New York Federal Reserve Bank investigation),10 and are a source of
information for law enforcement agencies seeking to prosecute offenders for
mortgage fraud, property flipping and other criminal mortgage-related offenses.11
See e.g. People v. Larman, No. 06253-2005 (Kings County Supreme Ct. Sept. 20,
2006) (Indictment for fraudulent mortgage transactions); People v. Sandella, No.
02899-2006 (Kings County Supreme. Ct. Sept. 27, 2006) (indictments for multi-
Department of Banking and includes information from several sources, including TRF, Mortgage
Foreclosures in Pennsylvania.
8 Executive Summary available at: http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/ESSuburban_
NY_Foreclosures_study_final.pdf (Public records and HMDA data demonstrated that
subprime foreclosures impacted both urban and suburban communities)
9 This report is available at: http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/
buffalo/foreclosure_study.pdf (10 year study of foreclosure trends in Buffalo)
10 The following are a small sampling of executive branch studies relying on data in the public
domain. See e.g., Bunce, Harold, Gruenstein, Debbie et al., Subprime Lending: The Smoking Gun
of Predatory Lending? (HUD 2001), http://www.huduser.org/Publications/ pdf/brd/12Bunce.pdf;
Dearborn, Mortgage Foreclosures in St. Clair.
11 For a sampling of New York criminal indictments relying on land records data, see People v.
Albertina, 09141-2005 (Kings County Supreme Ct. Sept. 28, 2006) (Attorney General indictment
for a multi-million dollar scheme to sell houses with fake deeds); People v. Constant, No.
01843A-2006 (Suffolk Supreme Ct. Oct. 12, 2006)(Suffolk County grand jury indictment of six
for roles in real estate scam); Altegra Credit Co. v. Tin Chu, et al., No. 04326-2004 (Kings
County Supreme Ct. March 25, 2004)
21
million dollar residential property flipping scheme).12 These data also inform local
governments about the cost and impact of abusive lending practices on both their
constituents and the public purse. See T. Nagazumi & D. Rose, Preying on
Neighborhoods: Subprime mortgage lending and Chicagoland foreclosures, 1993-
1998 (Sept. 21, 1999) 13 (NTIC study investigated the effects of subprime mortgage
lending on foreclosures in Chicago); Kathleen C. Engel, Do Cities Have Standing?
Redressing the Externalities of Predatory Lending, 38 Conn. L. Rev. 355 (2006).
12 Criminal property flipping is rampant throughout the country. For a sampling of this problem
see e.g. Press Release, Office of Attorney General, N.J. Div. of Criminal Justice Targets
financial crime (Nov. 14, 2004), http://nj.gov/lps/newsreleases04/pr20041117b.html (Indictment
of North Jersey businessman for mortgage fraud scheme that netted more than $677,000 in
fraudulent loans); Lessons learned from the laboratory (Community Law Center (CLC) 2002)(A
report by the CLC – Baltimore City flipping and Predatory Lending Task Force (47 individuals
were indicted, pled guilty, or were convicted in federal court for property flipping and mortgage
fraud)), http://www.communitylaw.org/Executive%20 Summary.htm; see also Press Release,
Sen. Mikulski Formed Task Force and Secured Federal Assistance to Address Flipping Problem
(Oct. 9, 2003), http://mikulski.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=213248 (70 people convicted of
property flipping in Baltimore); Press Release, FBI, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Ohio, (May 9,
2006); Press Release, U.S. Attorney’s Office, S.D. Mississippi (Feb.16, 2006); Press Release,
Office of the Attorney General, Florida (June 25, 2004)
13 This report is available at: http://www.ntic-us.org/preying/preying.pdf ; For a sampling of
other relevant studies, see D. Rose, Chicago Foreclosure Update 2006 (July), http:// http://www.nticus.
org/documents/ChicagoForeclosureUpdate2006.pdf (NTIC study analyzes foreclosure trends
in Chicago); D. Rose, Chicago Foreclosure Update 2005, http://www.nticus.
org/currentevents/press/pdf/chicagoforeclosure_update.pdf; William C. Apgar & Mark Duda.
Collateral Damage: The Municipal Impact of Today’s Mortgage Foreclosure Boom 1996-2000
(May 11, 2005), http://
http://www.nw.org/Network/neighborworksprogs/foreclosuresolutions/documents/Apgar-
DudaStudyFinal.pdf (Documents the financial costs of foreclosure to municipalities); Apgar, The
Municipal Cost of Foreclosures: A Chicago Case Study (Feb. 27, 2005), http://
http://www.hpfonline.org/PDF/Apgar-Duda_Study_Full_Version.pdf (Also documents indirect costs
that result from the domino effect that foreclosures have on communities).
22
Non-profit groups and academics rely upon data in the public domain to
illustrate trends, spotlight the impact of various mortgage practices on minority and
low income communities and uncover abusive practices that injure their
constituencies. They use this information to advocate for policy initiatives that
benefit the public interest. See e.g. Nagazumi, Chicago Update 2006; Apgar and
Duda, Collateral Damage; Apgar, Municipal Cost of Foreclosures; Lindley
Higgins, Effective Community-Based Strategies for Preventing Foreclosures,1993-
2004 (2005), 14 (A 2005 analysis of the factors that led to foreclosure generated
proposals for foreclosure prevention programs)15; Neighborhood Housing Services
(NHS) of Chicago, Preserving Homeownership: Community-Development
Implications of the New Mortgage Market (2004) (Study of foreclosures from
1998-2003 proposes foreclosure prevention initiatives for community based
organizations working cooperatively with private industry and federal, state, and
local governments).16
14 This report is available at: http://www.nw.org/network/pubs/studies/documents
/foreclosureReport092905.pdf.
15 See also Nagazumi, Preying on Neighborhoods; Richard Stock, Center for Business and
Economic Research (CBER), Predation in the Sub-Prime Lending Market: Montgomery County
Vol. I., 1994-2001 (2001), http://www.mvfairhousing.com/cber/pdf/Executive%20summary.PDF
(Study examines predatory lending in Montgomery County, Ohio).
16 This report is available at: http://www.nw.org/network/pubs/studies/documents/
preservingHomeownershipRpt2004_000.pdf. See also Nagazumi, Preying on Neighborhoods at
36-37 (urging legislature to pass Illinois legislation to end predatory subprime lending and to
disclose predatory pricing and practices to Illinois regulators and the public); Higgins,
Community-Based Strategies at i. (Objective is to increase capacity of local community based
23
Businesses utilize the public land and court records data as the providers of
research services that convert public information into customized databases. See
e.g. NYForeclosures.com; Atlanta Foreclosure Report;17 Boston Foreclosure
Report and Foreclosure Report of Chicago 18). These data collection businesses
serve a wide variety of business customers, including mortgage brokers seeking
leads, bankruptcy attorneys, and real estate agents, as well as government and nonprofit
research entities. See id.19
B. The public databases have played an important role in facilitating
understanding and government response to the recent
“foreclosure boom.”
Land and court records data have become a particularly important public
resource over the past decade, as the nation has experienced what some have
characterized as a “foreclosure boom.” See generally Apgar and Duda, Collateral
organizations to revitalize communities); Apgar & Duda, Collateral Damage at 16 (Report
identifies foreclosure avoidance strategies for municipalities).
17 See http://www.equitydepot.net.
18 See http://www.chicagoforeclosurereport.com.
19 Non-profit and government researchers that have relied on these data collection businesses to
do the primary research legwork that provides them with land and court records data to support
their analyses include, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Buffalo Branch, see Ramon
Garcia, Residential Foreclosures in the City of Buffalo, 1990-2000 (2003); see Bunce, Subprime
Lending; Kimberly Burnett, Bulbul Kaul, & Chris Herbert, Analysis of Property Turnover
Patterns in Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland and Philadelphia (2004),
http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/analysis_property_turnover_patterns.pdf; Debbie
Gruenstein & Christopher Herbert, Analyzing Trends in Subprime Originations and
Foreclosures: A Case Study of the Boston Metro Area, 1995-1999 (2000),
http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/20006470781991.pdf; Nagazumi, Preying on
Neighborhoods; Rose, Chicago Foreclosure Update 2006.
24
Damage; see also Daniel Immergluck & Geoff Smith, The External Costs of
Foreclosure: The Impact of Single-Family Mortgage Foreclosures on Property
Values, 17 Housing Pol’y Debate, Issue 1 (2006).20 As subprime mortgage lending
escalated from $35 billion in 1994 to $140 billion in 200021 to more than $600
billion in 2005, foreclosure rates jumped by an alarming 335.6%. See Robert
Avery, Kenneth Brevoort, Glenn Canner, Higher-Priced Home Lending and the
2005 HMDA Data at A125 (Sept. 8, 2006).22 These skyrocketing subprime
foreclosures disproportionately impacted low-income and minority communities.
Id. at 63.
Struggling to understand the origins of this foreclosure crisis, government
and researchers have turned to the public data. See supra Schiller; TRF, Delaware;
TRF, Pennsylvania; Dearborn, Mortgage Foreclosures in St. Clair; Paul Bellamy,
The Expanding Role of Subprime Lending in Ohio’s Burgeoning Foreclosure
20 This report is available at: http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hpd/pdf/
hpd_1701_immergluck.pdf#search=%22%22Immergluck%22%20and%20%22Geoff%22%22
21 See Neal Walters & Sharon Hermanson, Subprime Mortgage Lending and Older Borrowers
(AARP Public Policy Institute), Data Digest Number 74 (2001). Data Digest available at:

Click to access dd74_finance.pdf

22 This report is available at:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/hmda/bull06hmda.pdf; “HMDA” refers to the
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, 12 USC § 2801 et. seq.; see also Margot Saunders and Alys
Cohen, Federal Regulation of Consumer Credit: The Cause or the Cure for Predatory Lending?
at 11 (Joint Center for Housing Studies 2004),

Click to access babc_04-21.pdf

25
Problem: A Three County Study of a Statewide Problem, 1994-2001 (2002).23 This
effort to learn the root causes of the “foreclosure boom,” to understand whether
particular regions or demographic groups are most affected by rising foreclosures,
to evaluate the impact of these foreclosures on the surrounding community, and to
address and seek to remedy any abuses that enabled this crisis to develop, has
spawned a virtual explosion of research studies. See e.g. TRF, Delaware; Rose,
Chicago (2006); Engel, Do Cities Have Standing?; Rose, Chicago Foreclosure
Update 2006; Rose, Chicago Foreclosure Update 2005 (Updating foreclosure
activity in Chicago); Apgar & Duda, Collateral Damage; Apgar, Municipal Cost of
Foreclosures; TRF, Pennsylvania; TRF, Monroe County; Nagazumi, Preying on
Neighborhoods; NHS of Chicago, Preserving Homeownership; Dearborn,
Mortgage Foreclosures in St. Clair; Paul Bellamy, The Expanding Role; Burnett,
Subprime Originations; Garcia, Buffalo supra note 10; Bunce, Subprime Lending;
Nagazumi, Preying on Neighborhoods.
Standing alone, land and court records data serve as a valuable resource to
confirm the existence of the foreclosure boom, identify any key participants in the
foreclosure process, and identify those geographic areas hardest hit. See supra,
Dearborn, Mortgage Foreclosures in St. Clair; Stock, Predation at 8; Apgar,
23 This report is available at: http://www.cohhio.org/projects/ocrp/ SubprimeLendingReport.pdf
26
Chicago at 5.24 In fact, research derived from courthouse and public land records
motivated the North Carolina legislature to become one of the first states to crack
down on predatory mortgage lending. See Habitat for Humanity Refinances,
Coalition for Responsible Lending (updated July 25, 2000) (This ground breaking
study examined refinances of affordable Habitat for Humanity mortgages into
unaffordable predatory loans); David Rice, Predatory Lending Bill Caught in
Debate, Winston-Salem Journal, April 27, 1999.
Land and court records data are even more valuable and informative when
analyzed in conjunction with several other “puzzle pieces” of publicly available
data. See e.g. Duda & Apgar, Mortgage Foreclosures in Atlanta: Patterns and
Policy Issues, 2000-2005 (2005)25; see Apgar, Collateral Damage; Rose, Chicago
Foreclosure Update 2006; Burnett, Subprime Originations. When combined with
other sources of data, such as census tract and HMDA data, land and court records
data enable researchers to layer information to develop a comprehensive picture
that identifies the leading foreclosure filers, the geographic location and racial
composition of foreclosure hotspots and the loan characteristics associated with
concentrated and quick foreclosures. See e.g. Duda, Atlanta at 15; see also
24Similarly, Mountain State Justice, a West Virginia legal services organization that represents
victims of predatory lending, has conducted an annual review of foreclosure filings in the state
since July 2001. See Report of West Virginia Foreclosures, available from Mount State Justice.
25This report is available at: http://www.nw.org/network/neighborworksprogs/
foreclosuresolutions/documents/foreclosure1205.pdf
27
Burnett, Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland and Philadelphia at iii; Nagazumi, Preying
on Neighborhoods at 9; Stock, Predation at 1.
In the past, the availability of detailed public information has enabled
researchers to pinpoint some of the root causes of increased foreclosures and, for
example, informed the New York State legislature in crafting a legislative response
to abusive practices associated with high cost loans. There, a New York study
which combined public records data with HMDA data to identify subprime lenders
and the distribution of subprime foreclosures demonstrated that subprime
foreclosures were prevalent in suburban as well as urban areas.26 See Burnett,
Subprime Originations. Comprehensive research similarly enabled the State of
Illinois and the City of Chicago to redress abusive lending practices and thereby
put the brakes on the foreclosure boom in Chicago. See e.g. Nagazumi, Preying on
Neighborhoods (study demonstrated that subprime foreclosures were both an urban
and suburban problem; that most non-performing loans were subprime, and
identified the top foreclosers of high interest loans); see also, subsequently enacted
Illinois predatory lending law, 815 ILCS § 137. Data from land and court records
26 The New York predatory lending law enacted April 1, 2003 can be found at N.Y.
Banking Law § 6-1, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 771-a, and N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 1302.
28
has played an important role in analyzing other trends in the mortgage market,
such as identifying unfair or discriminatory lending patterns and practices.27
Unfortunately, in recent years MERS’ increasing emergence as a
placeholder for the true note and mortgage holders in land and court records
databases has corrupted these sources of data and undermined their utility as a
research source.
C. Through its penetration of the public databases MERS has caused
a dramatic deterioration in the quality and quantity of publicly
available information.
In New York city alone, MERS has rapidly replaced true owners in the city
maintained public database—ACRIS—increasing its filings from a nominal fewer
than 100 in 2000, to approximately 90,000 in 2005 and an expected 120,000 filings
in 2006.28 Since the MERS label on the public records shields the identity of the
27 Bunce, Subprime Lending; In 2001, a joint HUD and U.S. Dept. of the Treasury report found
that “[i]n predominantly black neighborhoods, subprime lending accounted for 51 percent of
refinance loans in 1998 – compared with only 9 percent in predominantly white neighborhoods.”
Curbing Predatory Home Mortgage Lending, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
and U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, 47 (2000),
http://www.huduser.org/publications/hsgfin/curbing.html.
28 AARP accessed the New York City Department of Finance’s Automated City Register
Information System (ACRIS) website on September 12, 2006 to research the number of MERS,
MERS as nominee and Mortgage Electronic Registration System filings in all boroughs for each
of two months—March and August during the years 2000 through 2006. The results of this
search are included below.
March 2000 7; August 2000 8; March 2001 610; August 2001 126;
March 2002 414; August 2002 663; March 2003 1,277; August 2003 2,785;
March 2004 4,384; August 2004 4,697; March 2005 7,064; August 2005 8,009;
March 2006 10,619; August 2006 10,411.
29
actual participants in the mortgage and foreclosure processes—the true noteholders
and mortgagees, the MERS filings have created a significant hole in this
important public database.
The void in the mortgage database will directly and measurably harm the
constituents of community groups, such as the University Neighborhood Housing
Program (UNHP), who will no longer reap benefits achieved through negotiations
with the largest foreclosing entities in the Bronx, entities which have been
identified through UNHP’s tracking of information about Bronx residential
lending.29 These benefits have included negotiated loss mitigation procedures and
the creation of an Asset Control Area program to renovate and sell 300 FHA
insured foreclosed homes to qualified first time moderate-income homebuyers.
Moreover, MERS’ anticipated penetration of the Bronx multi-family market will
likely cripple UNHP’s Building Indicator Project (BIP), whose database has
enabled the identification and repair of distressed rental housing. The BIP’s
database of more than 7,000 Bronx multifamily apartment buildings, including
ownership, building size, housing code violation, city lien, and critically, mortgage
Estimated annual filings for 2000 and 2006 were based on the two months of filings for those
years.
29 UNHP’s research shows MERS was plaintiff in 305 (11%) of the 2,770 auctions scheduled in
the Bronx over the past 4 ½ years. If the use of MERS continues to grow, it will become
increasingly difficult for groups like UNHP to track who is foreclosing in their neighborhoods
and to undertake remediation efforts with the foreclosers that they have successfully engaged in
the past.
30
holder data, has enabled UNHP to engage lenders who, in turn, have pressured
building owners to make numerous repairs to Bronx rental housing stock.30
New York is not alone in facing the deterioration of its public mortgage
databases. MERS’ penetration of the City of Chicago’s database starkly presents
this problem. In 1999, NTIC undertook its comprehensive study of subprime
lending in the Chicago area over a five year period from 1993-1998. At that time,
no lender or mortgagee’s identity was hidden by the MERS label. See Nagazumi,
Preying on Neighborhoods at 25. (Figure 10 displays the top 34 lenders
responsible for high interest rate foreclosures in 1998). By 2005 MERS itself was
identified as the largest foreclosing entity in Chicagoland, with 1,100 foreclosure
filings. Hidden from public view were the identities of the actual foreclosing
lenders and possibly the perpetrators of the most egregious lending practices. See
Rose, Chicago Update 2006 at 11 (Table 8 shows the most active foreclosing
institutions in 2005). As in Chicago, MERS topped the list of the largest
foreclosure filers during the period 2000-2005 in Atlanta, named as the foreclosing
agent on 41,467 or 16.1 percent of all filings, and was the largest filer in
30 Similarly, St. Ambrose Housing Aid Center, a housing advocacy group in Baltimore,
Maryland representing homeowners victimized by predatory mortgage lending regularly
searched the land records to identify homeowner victims of suspect lenders and to identify any
assignees. St. Ambrose is no longer able to identify many of these assignees and can no longer
assess their complicity in promoting the origination of abusive mortgages.
31
foreclosure tracts with very high foreclosure rates. Duda, Atlanta at 15 -17 &
Figure 3-1.31
The erroneous identification of MERS as lender of record in Jefferson
County and throughout the state during 2000 to 2002 tainted research into
foreclosure trends in Kentucky. See Steve C. Bourassa, Predatory Lending In
Jefferson County: A Report to the Louisville Urban League, 2 (Urban Studies
Institute, University of Louisville) (December 2003).32 As one of the largest
foreclosers of predatory loans, MERS’ presence on the public record masked the
identity of its constituent lenders, the true mortgagees, and obscured the true make
up of the loan portfolio foreclosed upon.
The MERS filing spreads a cloak of invisibility over any member
mortgage/note-holder that purchases a loan following origination. The lender
whose loose underwriting guidelines or careless oversight facilitated the
origination and sale of foreclosure-prone loans is carefully hidden from public
view by the MERS system. See e.g. Duda, Atlanta at 19. In shielding the identity
of these mortgage transaction participants, the MERS label hobbles researchers,
who, because of missing data, are less able to ascertain whether escalating
31Over the past year, from July 1, 2005-June 30, 2006, MERS, has also become one of the four
top foreclosers in West Virginia. See Report of West Virginia Foreclosures, available from
Mountain State Justice.
32 This report is available at: http://www.lul.org/Predatory%20Lending%20Report.pdf
32
foreclosures are caused by a small number of rogue players—who may be dealt
with through enforcement actions—or are part of a systemic problem that requires
a targeted legislative response. Whether this cloaking of its members’ transactions
resulted from a conscious plan or was simply a felicitous byproduct of MERS’
money saving scheme, the result is the same—a dangerous and destructive attack
on the public databases.
D. The MERS Shield Creates an Irretrievable Void in the Property
Records that Harms Many Constituencies.
The void in the property records harms a broad array of entities and, unless
this process is reversed, these data will be irretrievably lost to the public. Law
enforcement agencies may be stymied in their efforts to investigate and prosecute
criminal mortgage fraud and property flipping if deprived of important data
sources on which they have relied in the past. See, e.g., People v. Albertina;
People v. Larman; People v. Sandella; People v. Constant; Altegra Credit Co. v.
Tin Chu, supra. State legislatures will face obstacles to understanding the root
causes of mortgage-related problems and will be unable to identify offending
entities if they can no longer rely on public databases that have served to inform
them about past foreclosure crises in their jurisdictions. Similarly, local
governments which have turned to the land and court records data to understand
the origins of escalating foreclosures in their communities will no longer have the
necessary data upon which to base their analyses. Instead, those lenders and
33
investors who are the primary offenders will be able to hide behind the cloak of
invisibility provided by MERS.
E. Restoration and enhancement of the public database is critical to
enable government to function effectively.
It is essential that the land and court records of this nation remain public and
contain the information required by law—namely, the true identity of the
participants in the mortgage transaction. Governments and researchers must
continue to have the ability to evaluate the full range of public data, including the
land and court records, in investigating the root causes of foreclosures and other
problems and trends in the housing markets. Without this data they will be unable
to discover whether specific entities are primarily responsible for increased
foreclosures, or whether there is an industry-wide problem. They will be unable to
assess which secondary market lenders facilitate abusive lending, or which
servicers are quick to foreclose.
State and local government have a particular interest in preserving the
integrity of the public data sources in the land and court records, as these records
have been a key component of research analyzing the costs imposed by
foreclosures on municipalities and neighboring homeowners and businesses.
Concentrations of foreclosures impose a particularly high societal cost on
surrounding neighborhoods (through reduced property values) and on government
for neighborhood services (for increased policing, social services, fire and trash)
34
and reductions in the tax base. One recent study estimated that foreclosures in high
foreclosure areas imposed costs up to $34,000 on the city and up to $220,000 on
neighboring homeowners. See Apgar, Municipal Cost of Foreclosures; Apgar,
Collateral Damage; Duda, Atlanta at 15 33 These studies have also revealed the
devastating impact of predatory lending on long overdue gains in inner city
minority homeownership, as foreclosures have decimated equity and destroyed
neighborhood vitality virtually overnight. See Kathe Newman & Elvin K. Wyly,
Geographies of Mortgage Market Segmentation: The Case of Essex County, New
Jersey, 19 Housing Stud. 53, 54 (Jan. 2004); Housing Council (2003), Residential
Foreclosures in Rochester, New York 10 (foreclosures erode sales prices of nearby
homes). Government has a right to seek to minimize these societal costs and to
transfer those costs to the mortgage participants responsible for the transactions.
However, since foreclosure avoidance strategies, targeted legislation and
regulation depend on the availability of data to inform decision-making, where
MERS has caused a critical source of heretofore public data to disappear, states,
cities and advocates no longer have sufficient information to respond in a carefully
33 See also Immergluck, External Costs of Foreclosure; Daniel Immergluck & Geoff Smith,
There Goes the Neighborhood: The Effect of Single-Family Mortgage and Foreclosures on
Property Values at 9. (2005). This report is available at:
http://www.woodstockinst.org/publications/task,doc_download/gid,52/Itemid,%2041/
(Homes in low and moderate income neighborhoods in Chicago experience between 1.44 and 1.8
percent decline in value for every home foreclosed within one-eighth of a mile).
35
targeted and not overly inclusive way. See Duda, Atlanta at viii. Thus, “in Fulton
County [GA] and other places with foreclosure problems, the fact that entities
without the legal ability to make servicing decisions [MERS] are registered with
the county has been identified as a major obstacle to municipal foreclosureavoidance
efforts. . . .” Duda, Atlanta at 15. Similarly, the University
Neighborhood Housing Program in the Bronx and many other community groups
are losing an important tool that has enabled them to improve the communities of
their constituents.
F. More, not less public data is needed to enable a carefully targeted
and rapid governmental response to problems in the housing
market.
Foreclosure remains34 a key problem in today’s housing markets.
Particularly in low-income neighborhoods, foreclosures can lead to vacant or
abandoned properties that, in turn, contribute to physical disorder in a community.
See Immergluck, External Costs of Foreclosure, supra. This disorder can create a
haven for criminal activity, discourage the formation of social capital, and lead to
disinvestment in communities.
34 Foreclosure rates continue their meteoric rise, presenting significant problems and hardships
for affected homeowners, their surrounding communities and local governments. In August
2006, 115,292 properties throughout the nation entered foreclosure, a 24 percent increase over
the foreclosure level in July and 53 percent increase over foreclosures in 2005. See Les Christie,
“Foreclosures Spiked in August,” (Sept. 13, 2006), available at:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/13/real_estate/foreclosures_spiking/index.htm?postversion=2006
091305.
36
The costs flowing from problems in the housing market impact not only
lenders and borrowers directly involved in the sale or purchase of homes. The
costs can have a significant effect on entire communities. See id. For instance,
concentrated foreclosures can affect the property values of homes in the same or
adjoining neighborhoods. If policymakers are to truly understand the context in
which foreclosures take place and subsequently create legislation to obviate the
problems created by foreclosures (and thereby alleviate related social and
economic difficulties faced by individuals and communities), more data is
necessary and its accessibility to the public is imperative.
Researchers agree and have suggested that the solution to understanding
complex mortgage related problems is to require more not less information and to
further impose more not fewer costs on mortgage participants. See NHS of
Chicago, Preserving Homeownership, supra. Contrary to the attack on the public
databases and public revenues undertaken by MERS, the authors recommend
creating loan performance and foreclosure databases that contain sufficient
information to enable the tracking and assessment of key causes of delinquency
and default.35 These databases would be used to shape more effective legislation,
mitigate public costs and abusive practices and target foreclosure hotspots “without
35 Apgar and Duda recommend tracking all loans, all parties to the loans, loan terms, and would
at a minimum require the disclosure of the note holder and servicer whenever foreclosure is
threatened.
37
stemming the flow of credit to low-income, low-wealth and credit-impaired
borrowers. Id. at 84.
States such as Illinois have already demonstrated a strong interest in
gathering more information about high cost mortgage loans. Illinois’s newly
created data collection program requires all licensed mortgage brokers and loan
originators to enter detailed information into a database for residential mortgage
loans in designated areas in Chicago. See Public Act 094-0280 (HB 4050). This
database project is designed to address predatory practices and high foreclosure
rates. The federal government has also moved to increase data collection for high
cost loans.36
Another key recommendation that has emerged from municipal studies is to
increase public awareness of the significant foreclosure costs imposed on
communities by mortgage participants and reallocate those costs that are
“rightfully the responsibility of borrowers, lenders and others that are direct parties
to the mortgage transaction” to the transactions that created them through increased
filing fees and creation of an industry fund. Duda, Atlanta at 26-27; see also
36 Reacting to a 2001 joint HUD-U.S. Department of the Treasury report that found a
disproportionately high level of high cost, subprime refinance lending in predominantly black
neighborhoods, as compared to predominantly white neighborhoods, the Federal Reserve Board
ramped up its HMDA data reporting requirements in 2004. See HUD-Treasury Report 2000,
supra. Lenders who make high cost, subprime loans must now provide pricing information for
these loans. See Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, A Guide to HMDA: Getting
it Right! (Dec. 2003).
38
Apgar, Municipal Cost of Foreclosures at 35. Such fees would reduce the
municipal expenditures and loss of neighboring equity that currently function as
effective subsidies to the most abusive transactions.
Land and court records serve as vitally important research tools for
government, community organizations and academic researchers. A private entity,
such as MERS, must not be allowed to deplete the public databases of land and
court records or to undermine the public’s significant and enduring interest in
preserving the integrity of these public databases of land and court records.
VI. MERS’ Subversion of the Public Policy Behind Public Recordings Costs
County and City Clerks Over a Billion Dollars.
MERS’ erosion of the public databases has, as its designers intended, created
a drain on the public treasuries. This transfer of significant revenues from county
and city clerks throughout the country to MERS and its members, is an
unwarranted interference with the clerks’ public recordation function.
In April 2006, MERS announced that 40 million mortgages were registered
with MERS. 40 Millionth Loan Registered on MERS (Inside MERS, May/ June
2006), available at http://www. mersinc.com/newsroom/currentnews.aspx. MERS
admits that a loan is transferred many times during its life. MERS Br. at 51. With
an average recordation cost of $22 for each mortgage assignment, multiplied by 40
million loans and then multiplied again to account for the many transfers that occur
during the life of a loan, the appropriation of public funds effected by the MERS
39
system is staggering. See http://www.mersinc.com/why_mers/index.aspx (last
visited October 4, 2006). Based on a conservative estimate that each of the 40
million loans on the MERS system is assigned three times each during the life of
the loan, the cost to county and city clerks nationwide from the inception of the
MERS system through April 2006, has been an astounding $2.64 billion. This
figure is continuing to grow as new mortgages are registered daily on the MERS
system.
Through its charge of $3.95 per loan, MERS has instead diverted gross
revenues of $158 million to itself. The MERS artifice has enabled the redirection
of far greater revenues away from the public treasuries and back to lenders through
improper avoidance of recordation costs. In so doing, MERS has subverted the
important public function of the county clerks and interfered with the rightful
collection of funds owing to the public treasuries.
VII. MERS Lacks Standing to Bring Foreclosure Actions in Its Name.
MERS’ standing to commence a foreclosure action in New York is a matter
of great dispute, and has led to much confusion in the courts. As a general matter,
standing to foreclose in New York requires ownership of the note. See, e.g.,
LaSalle Bank National Ass’n. v. Holguin, No. 06-9286, slip opinion at 1 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct. Suffolk Cty., Aug. 9, 2006); Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 A.D.2d 537, 536 N.Y.S.2d
40
92 (2d Dept. 1988). Neither MERS’ status as nominee for the beneficial owner nor
its status as mortgagee is sufficient to create standing.
As noted in a Connecticut case denying MERS summary judgment due to a
dispute as to ownership of the note, MERS, as nominee, generally has rather
limited rights and standing:
A nominee is one designated to act for another as his/her
representative in a rather limited sense…in its commonly accepted
meaning, the word ‘nominee’ connotes the delegation of authority to
the nominee in a representative capacity only, and does not connote
the transfer or assignment to the nominee of any property in or
ownership of the rights of the person nominating him/her.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Rees, 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS
2437 (Conn. Superior Ct. September 4, 2003). See also MERS v. Shuster, No. 05-
26354/06 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., July 13, 2006) (denying MERS’s motion
for default since MERS is merely nominee); MERS. v. Burek, 798 N.Y.S.2d 346
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004) (distinguishing Fairbanks Capital Corp. v. Nagel, 289
A.D.2d 99, 735 N.Y.S.2d 13 (1st Dep’t 2001), since Fairbanks was a servicer and
identified itself as such).
The splitting of the ownership of the note and the mortgage is even more
problematic. Under well-established principles, the mortgage follows the note. See
U.C.C. §§ 9-203(g), 9-308(e); Restatement (3d), Property (Mortgages) § 5.4(a)
(1997). As an Illinois court noted, “It is axiomatic that any attempt to assign the
41
mortgage without transfer of the debt will not pass the mortgagee’s interest to the
assignee.” In re BNT Terminals, Inc., 125 B.R. 963, 970 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1990).
MERS has no status as mortgagee if the note is in fact owned and held by another
entity, as is always the case with MERS. Thus, MERS’ status as mere nominee is
insufficient to give it standing to foreclose, or take any legal action against a
borrower whatsoever. The recording of MERS as mortgagee when it does not and
cannot own the note is inherently confusing and misleading.
There have now been a large number of recent New York decisions denying
foreclosures brought by MERS, on the basis that MERS does not own the note and
mortgage, and therefore does not have either standing to sue or the right to assign
ownership of the note and mortgage to a foreclosing plaintiff. See, e.g., MERS v.
Wells, No. 06-5242, slip op. at 2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Sept. 25, 2006) (“It
is axiomatic that the Court, for the security of ensuring a proper chain of title, must
be able to ascertain from the papers before it that the Plaintiff has the clear
authority to foreclose on property and bind all other entities by its actions”);
LaSalle Bank Natl Assn. v. Holguin, supra., slip op. at 2 (“Since MERS was
without ownership of the note and mortgage at the time of its assignment thereof to
the plaintiff, the assignment did not pass ownership of the note and mortgage to the
plaintiff”, and the plaintiff thus failed to establish ownership of the note and
mortgage); LaSalle Bank v. Lamy, 2006 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 2127 (NY. Sup. Ct.,
42
Suffolk Cty., Aug. 17, 2006) (the “assignment of the mortgage to the plaintiff,
upon which the plaintiff originally predicated its claims of ownership to the subject
mortgage, was made by an entity (MERS) which had no ownership interest in
either the note or the mortgage at the time the purported assignment thereof was
made”); MERS. v. Burek, 798 N.Y.S.2d 346, 347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Richmond Cty.
2004) (denying summary judgment to MERS since MERS “is merely the selfdescribed
agent of a principal”); MERS v. Shuster, No. 05-26354/06 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Suffolk Cty., July 13, 2006) (denying MERS’s motion for default since MERS
owns neither the note or mortgage); MERS v. DeMarco, No. 05-1372, slip op. at 1-
2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., April 11, 2005) (ex-parte motion for default denied
because: a) the plaintiff was not named as the lender in either the note or
mortgage, and b) there was no proof that the plaintiff was the owner of the note
and mortgage at the time the action was commenced by reason of assignment or
otherwise”); Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee v. Primrose, No.
05-25796 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., July 13, 2006); Everhome Mortgage
Company v. Hendriks, No. 05-024042 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., June 27, 2006);
MERS v. Ramdoolar, No. 05-019863 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Mar. 7, 2006);
MERS v.Delzatto, No. 05-020490 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Dec. 9, 2005);
MERS, Inc. v. Parker, No. 017622/2004, slip op. at 2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty.
Oct. 19, 2004) (denying MERS’ motion for default judgment since MERS does not
43
own the note); MERS, Inc. v. Schoenster, No. 16969-2004, (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk
Cty., Sept. 15, 2004); see also Andrew Harris, Suffolk Judge Denies Requests by
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, N.Y. LAW J. (Aug. 31, 2004)
(discussing four foreclosure cases in Suffolk County that were dismissed in one
day because the judge held that MERS cannot foreclose because it is not the owner
of the note or mortgage).
Other state courts have also questioned MERS’ standing to proceed with
foreclosures. For example, in Florida, there have been a string of decisions
dismissing foreclosures brought by MERS based on its lack of standing. See, e.g.,
Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Azize, No. 05-001295-CI-11 (Fla. Cir. Ct.
Pinellas Cty. Apr. 18, 2005) (dismissing 28 individual foreclosures brought by
MERS on the basis of MERS’ lack of ownership of the notes), appeal docketed,
No. 2D05-4544 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2005); Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys.,
Inc. v. Griffin, No.16-2004-CA-002155, slip op. at 1 (Fla. Cir. Ct. May 27, 2004)
(dismissing foreclosure initiated by MERS based on lack of standing); see also
MERS v. Rees, supra. (denying summary judgment to MERS because a genuine
issue of fact existed regarding the current ownership of the note; a discrepancy
existed between the affidavit submitted by MERS claiming that it owned the note
and the information on the note); Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, Mortg. Corp. v.
Brown, 583 S.E.2d 844 (Ga. 2003) (reserving for the trial court a determination of
44
whether “MERS as nominee for the original lender and its successors, has the
power to foreclose . . .”).
Amici have represented homeowners in many cases in which MERS has
commenced a foreclosure in its name claiming to own the note and mortgage yet
has never been able to adduce any proof of its ownership of either. For example,
in Kings County Supreme Court, MERS sued Jean Roger M. Bomba and Martin C.
Bomba in a foreclosure action. MERS v. Bomba, No. 1645/03 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Kings County). The Bomba complaint is riddled with mistruths and obfuscations,
including: (1) the true note holder is never mentioned; (2) MERS alleges that its
address is 400 Countrywide Way, Simi Valley, CA 93065 (which is actually
Countrywide Home Loans’ address, not MERS’ address); and (3) MERS alleges
on information and belief that it is the “sole, true and lawful owner of said
bond/note and mortgage.” Id. Amicus SBLS is representing Martin C. Bomba, and
has raised defenses, including the lack of MERS’ standing to bring the foreclosure,
but the merits have not yet been reached in the case. The confusion that MERS
engenders in the courts is typified by the judge’s order denying MERS’ unopposed
motion for an order appointing a referee in MERS v. Trapani, No. 04-19057, slip
op. at 1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Mar. 7, 2005):
The submissions reflect that neither the nominal plaintiff, Mortgage
Electronic Recording Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), nor Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”), for which MERS purports to be
the “nominee”, is the record owner of the mortgage sought to be
45
foreclosed herein. The note and mortgage that are the subject of this
foreclosure action identify the lender as Alliance Mortgage Banking
Corp. MERS is identified in the mortgage instrument only as ‘a
separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and
Lender’s successors and assigns.’ There is no allegation or proof in
the submissions as to any assignment of the note and mortgage to
Countrywide, to MERS, or to any other entity, and plaintiff’s counsel
has asserted no authority, statutory or otherwise, for the bare assertion
that ‘[w]here ‘MERS’ is the mortgagee of record there is no need to
prepare an assignment.’
MERS has, in revisions to its Rule 8 governing how foreclosures are
brought, attempted to address the standing problem.37 Now foreclosures can no
longer be brought in MERS’ name in Florida. They may be brought in MERS’
name elsewhere only if the note is endorsed in blank, held by the servicer, and
MERS cannot be pled as the note holder. MERS thus admits that it does not own
the note, and never owns the note. MERS also admits that it is not the entity
initiating or controlling the foreclosure. However, MERS still continues to endorse
hiding the true owner from the borrower: MERS does not require the note holder
to be identified; and MERS permits the owner of the note to designate anyone,
other than MERS, to foreclose, so long as the mortgage, but not the note, is
assigned to the third party.
In its brief, MERS attempts to characterize the various cases denying
standing to MERS to foreclose as cases that are decided based on defective
37 See Jill D. Rein, Significant Changes to Commencing Foreclosure Actions in the Name of
MERS, available at http://www.usfn.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Article_Library&
template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=3899.
46
pleading rather than on fundamental standing problems. MERS Br. at 57-66.
However, the pleading defects and the standing problems are one and the same.
MERS creates categories not recognized by the law, and intentionally and
systematically conceals from borrowers, attorneys, and judges the true owner of
the note. It is this concealment that consistently causes both the pleading defects
and the standing problems. MERS continues to flaunt rules of civil procedure for
private gain, causing massive confusion among borrowers, counsel, and the courts.
CONCLUSION
Without any legal authority, MERS is eroding the public databases of this
nation and unjustly withholding critically important information from
homeowners. MERS is designed as a profit-engine for the mortgage industry,
without regard to its infringement of essential public and individual rights.
Because MERS has no beneficial interest in mortgages and should not be permitted
to forcibly effect its intentionally obfuscating recordations, this Court should find
in favor of Respondents-Appellants, Edward P. Romaine and the County of
Suffolk and against Petitioners-Appellants-Respondents, MERS.
Dated: October 6, 2006
Brooklyn, NY
47
Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
Meghan Faux, Esq.
Josh Zinner, Esq.
Foreclosure Prevention Project
SOUTH BROOKLYN LEGAL SERVICES
105 Court Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
(718) 237-5500
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Nina F. Simon, Esq.*
AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION
601 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20049
(202) 434-2059
For Amicus Curiae AARP
Seth Rosebrock, Esq.*
CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDING
910 17th Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-349-1850
James B. Fishman, Esq., Of Counsel
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
77 Summer Street, 10th Floor
Boston, MA 02110-1006
(617) 542-8010
(Fishman & Neil, LLP
305 Broadway Suite 900
New York, NY 10007)
Brian L. Bromberg, Esq., Of Counsel
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER ADVOCATES
1730 Rhode Island Ave., NW, #805
Washington, D.C. 20038
(202) 452-1989
(Bromberg Law Office, P.C.
48
40 Exchange Place, Suite 2010
New York, NY 10005)
April Carrie Charney, Esq.*
JACKSONVILLE AREA LEGAL AID, INC.
126 West Adams Street
Jacksonville, FL 32202
(904) 356-8371
Ruhi Maker, Esq.
EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER
One West Main Street, 2nd Floor
Rochester, NY 14614
(585) 295-5808
Donna Dougherty, Esq.
Dianne Woodburn, Esq.
LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY IN QUEENS
97-77 Queens Blvd. Suite 600
Rego Park, New York 11374
Ph 718-286-1500, ext 1515
Diane Houk, Esq.
Pamela Sah, Esq.
FAIR HOUSING JUSTICE CENTER
HELP USA
5 Hanover Square, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 400-7000
Sarah Ludwig, Esq.
NEIGHBORHOOD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADVOCACY PROJECT
73 Spring Street, Suite 50
New York, NY 10012
212-680-5100, ext. 207
Oda Friedheim, Esq.
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
120-46 Queens Boulevard
49
Kew Gardens, New York 11415
Tel 718 286 2450
Margaret Becker, Esq.
Foreclosure Prevention Project
LEGAL SERVICES FOR NEW YORK CITY – STATEN ISLAND
36 Richmond Terrace
Staten Island, NY 10301
(718) 233-6480
Treneeka Cusack, Esq.
LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO
237 Main Street, Suite 1602
Buffalo, New York 14203
(716) 853-9555, ext 522
* Pro Hac Vice
50
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that the above brief was prepared on a computer using
Microsoft Word, and using Point 14 Times New Roman typeface, in double space.
The total word count, exclusive of the cover, table of contents, table of citations,
proof of service, and certificate of compliance, is 9,451.
__________________________
Meghan Faux

TERRY MABRY et al., opinion 2923.5 Cilvil code

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

TERRY MABRY et al.,

Petitioners,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY,

Respondent;

AURORA LOAN SERVICES, et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

G042911

(Super. Ct. No. 30-2009-003090696)

O P I N I O N

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, David C. Velazquez, Judge. Writ granted in part and denied in part.
Law Offices of Moses S. Hall and Moses S. Hall for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Akerman Senterfitt, Justin D. Balser and Donald M. Scotten for Real Party in Interest Aurora Loan Services.
McCarthy & Holthus, Matthew Podmenik, Charles E. Bell and Melissa Robbins Contts for Real Party in Interest Quality Loan Service Corporation.
Bryan Cave, Douglas E. Winter, Christopher L. Dueringer, Sean D. Muntz and Kamae C. Shaw for Amici Curiae Bank of America and BAC Home Loans Servicing on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.
Wright, Finlay & Zak, Thomas Robert Finlay and Jennifer A. Johnson for Amici Curiae United Trustee’s Association and California Mortgage Association.
Leland Chan for Amicus Curiae California Bankers Association.

I. SUMMARY
Civil Code section 2923.5 requires, before a notice of default may be filed, that a lender contact the borrower in person or by phone to “assess” the borrower’s financial situation and “explore” options to prevent foreclosure. Here is the exact, operative language from the statute: “(2) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall contact the borrower in person or by telephone in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure.” There is nothing in section 2923.5 that requires the lender to rewrite or modify the loan.
In this writ proceeding, we answer these questions about section 2923.5, also known as the Perata Mortgage Relief Act :
(A) May section 2923.5 be enforced by a private right of action? Yes. Otherwise the statute would be a dead letter.
(B) Must a borrower tender the full amount of the mortgage indebtedness due as a prerequisite to bringing an action under section 2923.5? No. To hold otherwise would defeat the purpose of the statute.
(C) Is section 2923.5 preempted by federal law? No — but, we must emphasize, it is not preempted because the remedy for noncompliance is a simple postponement of the foreclosure sale, nothing more.
(D) What is the extent of a private right of action under section 2923.5? To repeat: The right of action is limited to obtaining a postponement of an impending foreclosure to permit the lender to comply with section 2923.5.
(E) Must the declaration required of the lender by section 2923.5, subdivision (b) be under penalty of perjury? No. Such a requirement is not only not in the statute, but would be at odds with the way the statute is written.
(F) Does a declaration in a notice of default that tracks the language of section 2923.5, subdivision (b) comply with the statute, even though such language does not on its face delineate precisely which one of the three categories set forth in the declaration applies to the particular case at hand? Yes. There is no indication that the Legislature wanted to saddle lenders with the need to “custom draft” the statement required by the statute in notices of default.
(G) If a lender did not comply with section 2923.5 and a foreclosure sale has already been held, does that noncompliance affect the title to the foreclosed property obtained by the families or investors who may have bought the property at the foreclosure sale? No. The Legislature did nothing to affect the rule regarding foreclosure sales as final.
(H) In the present case, did the lender comply with section 2923.5? We cannot say on this record, and therefore must return the case to the trial court to determine which of the two sides is telling the truth. According to the lender, the borrowers themselves initiated a telephone conversation in which foreclosure-avoidance options were discussed, and there were many, many phone calls to the borrowers to attempt to discuss foreclosure-avoidance options. According to the borrowers, no one ever contacted them about nonforeclosure options. The trial judge, however, never reached this conflict in the facts, because he ruled strictly on legal grounds: namely (1) that section 2923.5 does not provide for a private right of action and (2) section 2923.5 is preempted by federal law. As indicated, we have concluded otherwise as to those two issues.
(I) Can section 2923.5 be enforced in a class action in this case? Not under these facts. The operation of section 2923.5 is highly fact-specific, and the details as to what might, or might not, constitute compliance can readily vary from lender to lender and borrower to borrower.
II. BACKGROUND
In December 2006, Terry and Michael Mabry refinanced the loan on their home in Corona from Paul Financial, borrowing about $700,000. In April 2008, Paul Financial assigned to Aurora Loan Services the right to service the loan. In this opinion, we will treat Aurora as synonymous with the lender and use the terms interchangeably.
According to the lender, in mid-July 2008 — before the Mabrys missed their August 2008 loan payment — the couple called Aurora on the telephone to discuss the loan with an Aurora employee. The discussion included mention of a number of options to avoid foreclosure, including loan modification, short sale, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, and even a special forbearance. The Aurora employee sent a letter following up on the conversation. The letter explained the various options to avoid foreclosure, and asked the Mabrys to forward current financial information to Aurora so it could consider the Mabrys for these options.
According to the lender, the Mabrys missed their September 2008 payment as well, and mid-month Aurora sent them another letter describing ways to avoid foreclosure. Aurora employees called the Mabrys “many times” to discuss the situation. The Mabrys never picked up.
It is undisputed that later in September, the Mabrys filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and Aurora did not contact the Mabrys while the bankruptcy was pending. (See 11 U.S.C. § 362 [automatic stay].) The Mabrys had their Chapter 11 case dismissed, however, in late March 2009.
According to the lender, Aurora once again began trying to call the Mabrys, calling them “numerous times,” including “three times on different days.” Meanwhile, in mid-April the Mabrys sent an authorization to discuss the loan with their lawyers.
According to the lender, finally, in June, the Mabrys sent two faxes to Aurora, the aggregate effect of which was to propose a short sale to the Mabrys’ attorney, Moses S. Hall, for $350,000. If accepted, the short sale would have meant a loss of over $400,000 on the loan. Aurora rejected that offer, and an attorney in Hall’s law office proposed a sale price of $425,000, which would have meant a loss to the lender of about $340,000.
It is undisputed that on June 18, 2009, Aurora recorded a notice of default. The notice of default used this (obviously form) language: “The Beneficiary or its designated agent declares that it has contacted the borrower, tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by California Civil Code section 2923.5, or the borrower has surrendered the property to the beneficiary or authorized agent, or is otherwise exempt from the requirements of section 2923.5.” Aurora sent six copies of the recorded notice of default to the Mabrys’ home by certified mail, and the certifications showed they were delivered.
It is also undisputed that on October 7, the Mabrys filed a complaint in Orange County Superior Court based on Aurora’s alleged failure to comply with section 2923.5.
According to the borrowers, no one had ever contacted them about their foreclosure options. Michael Mabry stated the following in his declaration: “We have never been contacted by Aurora nor [sic] any of its agents in person, by telephone or by first class mail to explore options for us to avoid foreclosure as required in CC § 2923.5.”
The complaint sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the foreclosure sale then scheduled just a week away, on October 14, 2009. Based on the allegation of no contact, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order, and scheduled a hearing for October 20.
But exactly one week before the October 20 hearing, the Mabrys filed an amended complaint, this one specifically adding class action allegations and seeking injunctive relief for an entire class. This new filing came with another request for a temporary restraining order, which was also granted, with a hearing on that temporary restraining order scheduled for October 27 (albeit the order was directed at Aurora only).
The first restraining order was vacated on October 20, the second on October 27. The trial judge did not, however, resolve the conflict in the facts presented by the pleadings. Rather he concluded: (1) the action is preempted by federal law; (2) there is no private right of action under section 2923.5 — the statute can only be enforced by members of pooling and servicing agreements; and (3) the Mabrys were required to at least tender all arrearages to enjoin any foreclosure proceedings.
The Mabrys filed a motion for reconsideration and a third request for a restraining order based on supposedly new law. The new law was a now review-granted Court of Appeal opinion which, let us merely note here, appears to have been quite off-point in regards to any issue which the trial judge had just decided. So it is not surprising that the requested restraining order was denied. The foreclosure sale was now scheduled for November 30, 2009. Six days before that, though, the Mabrys filed this writ proceeding, and two days later this court stayed all proceedings. We invited amicus curiae to give their views on the issues raised by the petition, and subsequently scheduled an order to show cause to consider those issues.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Private Right of Action? Yes
1. Preliminary Considerations
A private right of action may inhere within a statute, otherwise silent on the point, when such a private right of action is necessary to achieve the statute’s policy objectives. (E.g., Cannon v. University of Chicago (1979) 441 U.S. 677, 683 [implying private right of action into Title IX of the Civil Rights Act because such a right was necessary to achieve the statute’s policy objectives]; Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1988) 485 U.S. 224, 230-231 [implying private right of action to enforce securities statute].)
That is, the absence of an express private right of action is not necessarily preclusive of such a right. There are times when a private right of action may be implied by a statute. (E.g., Siegel v. American Savings & Loan Assn. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 953, 966 [“Before we reach the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, we must determine, therefore, whether plaintiffs have an implied private right of action under HOLA.”].)
California courts have, of recent date, looked to Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287 (Moradi-Shalal) for guidance as to whether there is an implied private right of action in a given statute. In Moradi-Shalal, for example, the presence of a comprehensive administrative means of enforcement of a statute was one of the reasons the court determined that there was no private right of action to enforce a statute (Ins. Code, § 790.03, subd. (h)) regulating general insurance industry practices. (See Moradi-Shalal, supra, 46 Cal.3d at p. 300.)
There is also a pre-Moradi Shalal approach, embodied in Middlesex Ins. Co. v. Mann (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 558, 570 (Middlesex). (The Middlesex opinion itself copied the idea from the Restatement Second of Torts, section 874A.) The approach looks to whether a private remedy is “appropriate” to further the “purpose of the legislation” and is “needed to assure the effectiveness of the provision.” (Middlesex, supra, 124 Cal.App.3d at p. 570.)
Obviously, where the two approaches conflict, the one used by our high court in Moradi-Shalal trumps the Middlesex approach. But we may note at this point that as regards section 2923.5, there is no alternative administrative mechanism to enforce the statute. By contrast, in Moradi-Shalal, there was an existing administrative mechanism at hand (by way of the Insurance Commissioner) available to enforce section 790.03, subdivision (h) of the Insurance Code.
There are other corollary principles as well.
First, California courts, quite naturally, do not favor constructions of statutes that render them advisory only, or a dead letter. (E.g., Petropoulos v. Department of Real Estate (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 554, 567; People v. Stringham (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 184, 197.) Our colleagues in Division One of this District nicely summarized this point in Goehring v. Chapman University (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 353, 375: “The question of whether a regulatory statute creates a private right of action depends on legislative intent . . . . In determining legislative intent, ‘[w]e first examine the words themselves because the statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of legislative intent . . . . The words of the statute should be given their ordinary and usual meaning and should be construed in their statutory context. . . . These canons generally preclude judicial construction that renders part of the statute “meaningless or inoperative.”’” (Italics added.)
Second, statutes on the same subject matter or of the same subject should be construed together so that all the parts of the statutory scheme are given effect. (Lexin v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1050, 1090-1091.) This canon is particularly important in the case before us, where there is an enforcement mechanism available at hand to enforce section 2923.5, in the form, as we explain below, of section 2924g. Ironically though, the enforcement mechanism at hand, in direct contrast to the one in Moradi-Shalal, is one that strongly implies individual enforcement of the statute.
Third, historical context can also shed light on whether the Legislature intended a private right of action in a statute. As noted by one federal district court that has found a private right of action in section 2923.5, the fact that a statute was enacted as an emergency statute is an important factor in determining legislative intent. (See Ortiz v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. (S.D. 2009) 639 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1166 [agreeing with argument that “the California legislature would not have enacted this ‘urgency’ legislation, intended to curb high foreclosure rates in the state, without any accompanying enforcement mechanism”]; cf. County of San Diego v. State of California (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580, 609 [admitting that private right of action might exist, even if the Legislature did not imply one, if “‘compelling reasons of public policy’” required “judicial recognition of such a right”].) Section 2923.5 was enacted in 2008 as a manifestation of a felt need for urgent action in the midst of a cascading torrent of foreclosures.
Finally, of course, there is recourse to legislative history. Alas, in this case, there is silence on the matter as regards the existence of a private right of action in the final draft of the statute, and we have been cited to nothing in the history that suggests a clear legislative intent one way or the other. (See generally J.A. Jones Construction Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1575 (J.A. Jones) [emphasizing importance of clear intent appearing in legislative history].) To be sure, as we were reminded at oral argument, an early version of section 2923.5 had an express provision for a private right of action and that provision did not make its way into the final version of the statute. And we recognize that this factor suggests the Legislature may not have wanted to have section 2923.5 enforced privately.
On the other hand, the bottom line was an outcome of silence, not a clear statement that there should be no individual enforcement. And silence, as this court pointed out in J.A. Jones, has its own implications. There, we cited Professor Eskridge’s work on statutory interpretation (see Eskridge, The New Textualism (1990) 37 U.C.L.A. L.Rev. 621, 670-671 (hereinafter “Eskridge on Textualism”)) to recognize that ambiguity in a statute may itself be the result of both sides in the legislative process agreeing to let the courts decide a point: “[I]f there is ambiguity it is because the legislature either could not agree on clearer language or because it made the deliberate choice to be ambiguous — in effect, the only ‘intent’ is to pass the matter on to the courts.” (J.A. Jones, supra, 27 Cal. App.4th at p. 1577.) As Professor Eskridge put it elsewhere in his article: “The vast majority of the Court’s difficult statutory interpretation cases involve statutes whose ambiguity is either the result of deliberate legislative choice to leave conflictual decisions to agencies or the courts.” (Eskridge on Textualism, supra, 37 UCLA L.Rev. at p. 677.)
We have a concrete example in the case at hand. Amicus curiae, the California Bankers Association, asserts that if section 2923.5 had included an express right to a private right of action, the association would have vociferously opposed the legislation. Let us accept that as true. But let us also accept as a reasonable premise that the sponsors of the bill (2008, Senate Bill No. 1137) would have vociferously opposed the legislation if it had an express prohibition on individual enforcement. The point is, the bankers did not insist on language expressly or even impliedly precluding a private right of action, or, if they did, they didn’t get it. The silence is consonant with the idea that section 2923.5 was the result of a legislative compromise, with each side content to let the courts struggle with the issue.
With these observations, we now turn to the language, structure and function of the statute at issue.
2. Operation of Section 2923.5
Section 2923.5 is one of a series of detailed statutes that govern mortgages that span sections 2920 to 2967. Within that series is yet another long series of statutes governing rules involving foreclosure. This second series goes from section 2924, and then follows with sections 2924a through 2924l. (There is no section 2924m . . . yet.)
Section 2923.5 concerns the crucial first step in the foreclosure process: The recording of a notice of default as required by section 2924. (Just plain section 2924 — this one has no lower case letter behind it.)
The key text of section 2923.5 — “key” because of the substantive obligation it imposes on lenders — basically says that a lender cannot file a notice of default until the lender has contacted the borrower “in person or by telephone.” Thus an initial form letter won’t do. To quote the text directly, lenders must contact the borrower by phone or in person to “assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure.” The statute, of course, has alternative provisions in cases where the lender tries to contact a borrower, and the borrower simply won’t pick up the phone, the phone has been disconnected, the borrower hides or otherwise evades contact.
The contrast between section 2923.5 and one of its sister-statutes, section 2923.6, is also significant. By its terms, section 2923.5 operates substantively on lenders. They must do things in order to comply with the law. In Hohfeldian language, it both creates rights and corresponding obligations.
But consider section 2923.6, which does not operate substantively. Section 2923.6 merely expresses the hope that lenders will offer loan modifications on certain terms. By contrast, section 2923.5 requires a specified course of action. (There is a reason for the difference, as we show in part III.C., dealing with federal preemption. In a word, to have required loan modifications would have run afoul of federal law.)
As noted above, other steps in the foreclosure process are set forth in sections 2924a through 2924l. The topic of the postponement of foreclosure sales is addressed in section 2924g.
Subdivision (c)(1)(A) of section 2924g sets forth the grounds for postponements of foreclosure sales. One of those grounds is the open-ended possibility that any court of competent jurisdiction may issue an order postponing the sale. Section 2923.5 and section 2924g, subdivision (c)(1)(A), when read together, establish a natural, logical whole, and one wholly consonant with the Legislature’s intent in enacting 2923.5 to have individual borrowers and lenders “assess” and “explore” alternatives to foreclosure: If section 2923.5 is not complied with, then there is no valid notice of default, and without a valid notice of default, a foreclosure sale cannot proceed. The available, existing remedy is found in the ability of a court in section 2924g, subdivision (c)(1)(A), to postpone the sale until there has been compliance with section 2923.5. Reading section 2923.5 together with section 2924g, subdivision (c)(1)(A) gives section 2923.5 real effect. The alternative would mean that the Legislature conferred a right on individual borrowers in section 2923.5 without any means of enforcing that right.
By the same token, compliance with section 2923.5 is necessarily an individualized process. After all, the details of a borrower’s financial situation and the options open to a particular borrower to avoid foreclosure are going to vary, sometimes widely, from borrower to borrower. Section 2923.5 is not a statute, like subdivision (h) of section 790.03 of the Insurance Code construed in Moradi-Shalal, which contemplates a frequent or general business practice, and thus its very text is necessarily directed at those who regulate the insurance industry. (Insurance Code section 790.03, subdivision (h) begins with the words, “Knowingly committing or performing with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice any of the following unfair claims settlement practices: . . . .”; see generally Moradi-Shalal, supra, 46 Cal.3d 287.)
Rather, in order to have its obvious goal of forcing parties to communicate (the statutory words are “assess” and “explore”) about a borrower’s situation and the options to avoid foreclosure, section 2923.5 necessarily confers an individual right. The alternative proffered by the trial court — enforcement by the servicer of pooling agreements — involves the facially unworkable problem of fitting individual situations into collective pools.
The suggestion of one amicus that the Legislature intended enforcement of section 2923.5 to reside within the Attorney General’s office is one of which we express no opinion. Our decision today should thus not be read as precluding such enforcement by the Attorney General’s office. But we do note that the same individual-collective problem would dog Attorney General enforcement of the statute. To be sure (which is why the possibility should be left open), there might, ala Insurance Code section 790.03, subdivision (h), be lenders who systematically ignore section 2923.5, and their “general business practice” would be susceptible to some sort of collective enforcement. Even so, the Attorney General’s office can hardly be expected to take up the cause of every individual borrower whose diverse circumstances show noncompliance with section 2923.5.
3. Application
We now put the preceding ideas and factors together.
While the dropping of an express provision for private enforcement in the legislative process leading to section 2923.5 does indeed give us pause, it is outweighed by two major opposing factors. First, the very structure of section 2923.5 is inherently individual. That fact strongly suggests a legislative intention to allow individual enforcement of the statute. The statute would become a meaningless dead letter if no individual enforcement were allowed: It would mean that the Legislature created an inherently individual right and decided there was no remedy at all.
Second, when section 2923.5 was enacted as an urgency measure, there already was an existing enforcement mechanism at hand — section 2924g. There was no need to write a provision into section 2923.5 allowing a borrower to obtain a postponement of a foreclosure sale, since such a remedy was already present in section 2924g. Reading the two statutes together as allowing a remedy of postponement of foreclosure produces a logical and natural whole.
B. Tender Full Amount of Indebtedness? No
The right conferred by section 2923.5 is a right to be contacted to “assess” and “explore” alternatives to foreclosure prior to a notice of default. It is enforced by the postponement of a foreclosure sale. Therefore it would defeat the purpose of the statute to require the borrower to tender the full amount of the indebtedness prior to any enforcement of the right to — and that’s the point — the right to be contacted prior to the notice of default. Case law requiring payment or tender of the full amount of payment before any foreclosure sale can be postponed (e.g., Arnolds Management Corp. v. Eischen (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 575, 578 [“It is settled that an action to set aside a trustee’s sale for irregularities in sale notice or procedure should be accompanied by an offer to pay the full amount of the debt for which the property was security.”]) arises out of a paradigm where, by definition, there is no way that a foreclosure sale can be avoided absent payment of all the indebtedness. Any irregularities in the sale would necessarily be harmless to the borrower if there was no full tender. (See 4 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (2d ed. 1989) § 9:154, pp. 507-508.) By contrast, the whole point of section 2923.5 is to create a new, even if limited right, to be contacted about the possibility of alternatives to full payment of arrearages. It would be contradictory to thwart the very operation of the statute if enforcement were predicated on full tender. It is well settled that statutes can modify common law rules. (E.g., Evangelatos v. Superior Court
44 Cal.3d 1188, 1192 [noting that Civil Code sections 1431 to 1431.5 had modified traditional common law doctrine of joint and several liability].)
C. Preempted by Federal Law? No — As Long
As Relief Under Section 2923.5 is Limited to Just Postponement
1. Historical Context
A remarkable aspect of section 2923.5 is that it appears to have been carefully drafted to avoid bumping into federal law, precisely because it is limited to affording borrowers only more time when lenders do not comply with the statute. To explain that, though, we need to make a digression into state debtors’ relief acts as they have manifested themselves in four previous periods of economic distress.
The first period of economic distress was the depression of the mid-1780’s that played a large part in engendering the United States Constitution in the first place. As Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes would later note for a majority of the United States Supreme Court, there was “widespread distress following the revolutionary period and the plight of debtors, had called forth in the States an ignoble array of legislative schemes for the defeat of creditors and the invasion of contractual obligations.” (Home Building and Loan Ass’n. v. Blaisdell (1934) 290 U.S. 398, 427 (Blaisdell).) Consequently, the federal Constitution of 1789 contains the contracts clause, which forbids states from impairing contracts. (See Siegel, Understanding the Nineteenth Century Contract Clause: The Role of the Property-Privilege Distinction and ‘Takings’ Clause Jurisprudence (1986) 60 So.Cal. L.Rev. 1, 21, fn. 86 [“Although debtor relief legislation was frequently enacted in the Confederation era, it was intensely opposed. It was among the chief motivations for the convening of the Philadelphia convention, and the Constitution drafted there was designed to eliminate such legislation through a variety of means.”].)
The second period of distress arose out of the panic of 1837, which prompted, in 1841, the Illinois state legislature to enact legislation severely restricting foreclosures. The legislation (1) gave debtors 12 months after any foreclosure sale to redeem the property; and (2) prevented any foreclosure sale in the first place unless the sale fetched at least two-thirds of the appraised value of the property. (See Bronson v. Kinzie (1843) 42 U.S. 311 (Bronson); Blaisdell, supra, 290 U.S. at p. 431.) In an opinion, the main theme of which is the interrelationship between contract rights and legal remedies to enforce those rights (see generally Bronson, supra, 42 U.S. at pp. 315-321), the Bronson court reasoned that the Illinois legislation had effectively destroyed the contract rights of the lender as regards a mortgage made in 1838. (See id. at p. 317 [“the obligation of the contract, and the rights of a party under it, may, in effect, be destroyed by denying a remedy altogether”].)
The third period of distress was, of course, the Great Depression of the 1930’s. In 1933, the Minnesota Legislature enacted a mortgage moratorium law that extended the period of redemption under Minnesota law until 1935. (See Blaisdell, supra, 290 U.S. at pp. 415-416.) But — and the high court majority found this significant — the law required debtors, in applying for an extension of the redemption period — to pay the reasonable value of the income of the property, or reasonable rental value if it didn’t produce income. (Id. at. pp. 416-417.) The legislation was famously upheld in Blaisdell. In distinguishing Bronson, the Blaisdell majority made the point that the statute did not substantively impair the debt the way the legislation in Bronson had: “The statute,” said the court, “does not impair the integrity of the mortgage indebtedness.” (Id. at p. 425.) The court went on to emphasize the need to pay the fair rental value of the property, which, it noted, was “the equivalent of possession during the extended period.”
Finally, the fourth period was within the living memory of many readers, namely, the extraordinary inflation and high interest rates of the late 1970’s. That period engendered Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Association v. de la Cuesta (1982) 458 U.S. 141 (de la Cuesta). Many mortgages had (still have) what is known as a “due-on-sale” clause. As it played out in the 1970’s, the clause effectively required any buyer of a new home to obtain a new loan, but at the then-very high market interest rates. To circumvent the need for a new high rate mortgage, creative wrap-around financing was invented where a buyer would assume the obligation of the old mortgage, but that required the due-on-sale clause not be enforced.
An earlier decision of the California Supreme Court, Wellenkamp v. Bank of America (1978) 21 Cal.3d 943, had encouraged this sort of creative financing by holding that due-on-sale clauses violated California state law as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. Despite that precedent, the trial judge in the de la Cuesta case (Edward J. Wallin, who would later join this court) held that regulations issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, by the authority of the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933 preempted state law that invalidated due-on-sale clause. A California appellate court in the Fourth District (in an opinion by Justice Marcus Kaufman, who would later join the California Supreme Court) reversed the trial court. The United States Supreme Court, however, agreed with Judge Wallin’s determination, and reversed the appellate judgment and squarely held the state law to be preempted.
The de la Cuesta court observed that the bank board’s regulations were plain — “even” the California appellate court had been required to recognize that. (de la Cuesta, supra, 458 U.S. at p. 154). On top of the express preemption, Congress had expressed no intent to limit the bank board’s authority to “regulate the lending practices of federal savings and loans.” (Id. at p. 161.) Further, going into the history of the Home Owners’ Loan Act, the de la Cuesta court pointed out that “mortgage lending practices” are a “critical” aspect of a savings and loan’s “‘operation,’” and the Home Loan Bank Board had issued the due-on-sale regulations in order to protect the economic solvency of such lenders. (See id. at pp. 167-168.) In what is perhaps the most significant part of the rationale for our purposes, the bank board had concluded that “the due-on-sale clause is ‘an important part of the mortgage contract,’” consequently its elimination would have an adverse effect on the “financial stability” of federally chartered lenders. (Id. at p. 168.) For example, invalidation of the due-on-sale clause would make it hard for savings and loans “to sell their loans in the secondary markets.” (Ibid.)
With this history behind us, we now turn to the actual regulations at issue in the case before us.
2. The HOLA Regulations
Under the Home Owner’s Loan Act of 1933 (12 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq.) the federal Office of Thrift Supervision has issued section 560.2 of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, a regulation that itself delineates what is a matter for federal regulation, and what is a matter for state law. Interestingly enough, section 560.2 is written in the form of examples, using the “ejusdem generis” approach of requiring a court to figure out what is, and what is not, in the same general class or category as the items given in the example.
On the preempted side, section 560.2 includes:
— “terms of credit, including amortization of loans and the deferral and capitalization of interest and adjustments to the interest rate” (§ 560.2(b)(4));
— “balance, payments due, or term to maturity of the loan” (§ 560.2(b)(4)); and, most importantly for this case,
— the “processing, origination, servicing, sale or purchase of, or investment or participation in, mortgages.” (§ 560.2(b)(10), italics added.)
On the other side, left for the state courts, is “Real property law.” (12 C.F.R. § 560.2(c)(2).)
We agree with the Mabrys that the process of foreclosure has traditionally been a matter of state real property law, a point both noted by the United States Supreme Court in BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1994) 511 U.S. 531, 541-542, and academic commentators (e.g., Alexander, Federal Intervention in Real Estate Finance: Preemption and Federal Common Law (1993) 71 N.C. L. Rev. 293, 293 [“Historically, real property law has been the exclusive domain of the states.”]), including at least one law professor who laments that diverse state foreclosure laws tend to hinder efforts to achieve banking stability at the national level. (See Nelson, Confronting the Mortgage Meltdown: A Brief for the Federalization of State Mortgage Foreclosure Law (2010) 37 Pepperdine L.Rev. 583, 588-590 [noting that mortgage foreclosure law varies from state to state, and advocating federalization of mortgage foreclosure law].) By contrast, we have not been cited to anything in the federal regulations that govern such things as initiation of foreclosure, notice of foreclosure sales, allowable times until foreclosure, or redemption periods. (Though there are commentators, like Professor Nelson, who argue there should be.)
Given the traditional state control over mortgage foreclosure laws, it is logical to conclude that if the Office of Thrift Supervision wanted to include foreclosure as within the preempted category of loan servicing, it would have been explicit. Nothing prevented the office from simply adding the words “foreclosure of” to section 560.2(b)(10).
D. The Extent of Section 2923.5?
More Time and Only More Time
State law should be construed, whenever possible, to be in harmony with federal law, so as to avoid having the state law invalidated by federal preemption. (See Greater Westchester Homeowners Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1979) 26 Cal.3d 86, 93; California Arco Distributors, Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 349, 359.)
We emphasize that we are able to come to our conclusion that section 2923.5 is not preempted by federal banking regulations because it is, or can be construed to be, very narrow. As mentioned above, there is no right, for example, under the statute, to a loan modification.
A few more comments on the scope of the statute:
First, to the degree that the words “assess” and “explore” can be narrowly or expansively construed, they must be narrowly construed in order to avoid crossing the line from state foreclosure law into federally preempted loan servicing. Hence, any “assessment” must necessarily be simple — something on the order of, “why can’t you make your payments?” The statute cannot require the lender to consider a whole new loan application or take detailed loan application information over the phone. (Or, as is unlikely, in person.)
Second, the same goes for any “exploration” of options to avoid foreclosure. Exploration must necessarily be limited to merely telling the borrower the traditional ways that foreclosure can be avoided (e.g., deeds “in lieu,” workouts, or short sales), as distinct from requiring the lender to engage in a process that would be functionally indistinguishable from taking a loan application in the first place. In this regard, we note that section 2923.5 directs lenders to refer the borrower to “the toll-free telephone number made available by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.” The obvious implication of the statute’s referral clause is that the lender itself does not have any duty to become a loan counselor itself.
Finally, to the degree that the “assessment” or “exploration” requirements impose, in practice, burdens on federal savings banks that might arguably push the statute out of the permissible category of state foreclosure law and into the federally preempted category of loan servicing or loan making, evidence of such a burden is necessary before the argument can be persuasive. For the time being, and certainly on this record, we cannot say that section 2923.5, narrowly construed, strays over the line.
Given such a narrow construction, section 2923.5 does not, as the law in Blaisdell did not, affect the “integrity” of the basic debt. (Cf. Lopez v. World Savings & Loan Assn. (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 729 [section 560.2 preempted state law that capped payoff demand statement fees].)
E. The Wording of the Declaration:
Okay If Not Under Penalty of Perjury
In addition to the substantive act of contacting the borrower, section 2923.5 requires a statement in the notice of default. The statement is found in subdivision (b), which we quote here: “(b) A notice of default filed pursuant to Section 2924 shall include a declaration that the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has contacted the borrower, has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section, or that no contact was required pursuant to subdivision (h).” (Italics added.)
The idea that this “declaration” must be made under oath must be rejected. First, ordinary English usage of the word “declaration” imports no requirement that it be under oath. In the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, numerous definitions of the word are found, none of which of require a statement under oath or penalty of perjury. In fact, the second legal definition given actually juxtaposes the idea of a declaration against the idea of a statement under oath: “A simple affirmation to be taken, in certain cases, instead of an oath or solemn affirmation.” (4 Oxford English Dict. (2d. ed. 1991) at p. 336.)
Second, even the venerable Black’s Law Dictionary doesn’t define “declaration” to necessarily be under oath. Its very first definition of the word is: “A formal statement, proclamation or announcement, esp. one embodied in an instrument.” (Black’s Law Dict. (9th ed. 2009) at p. 467.)
Third, if the Legislature wanted to say that the statement required in section 2923.5 must be under penalty of perjury, it knew how to do so. The words “penalty of perjury” are used in other laws governing mortgages. (E.g., § 2941.7, subdivision (b) [“The declaration provided for in this section shall be signed by the mortgagor or trustor under penalty of perjury.”].)
And, finally — back to our point about the inherent individual operation of the statute — the very structure of subdivision (b) belies any insertion of a penalty of perjury requirement. The way section 2923.5 is set up, too many people are necessarily involved in the process for any one person to likely be in the position where he or she could swear that all three requirements of the declaration required by subdivision (b) were met. We note, for example, that subdivision (a)(2) requires any one of three entities (a “mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent”) to contact the borrower, and such entities may employ different people for that purpose. And the option under the statute of no contact being required (per subdivision (h) ) further involves individuals who would, in any commercial operation, probably be different from the people employed to do the contacting. For example, the person who would know that the borrower had surrendered the keys would in all likelihood be a different person than the legal officer who would know that the borrower had filed for bankruptcy.
The argument for requiring the declaration to be under penalty of perjury relies on section 2015.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but that reliance is misplaced. We quote all of section 2015.5 in the margin. Essentially the statute says if a statement in writing is required to be supported by sworn oath, making the statement under penalty of perjury will be sufficient. The key language is: “Whenever, under any law of this state . . . made pursuant to the law of this state, any matter is required . . . to be . . . evidenced . . . by the sworn . . . declaration . . . in writing of the person making the same . . . such matter may with like force and effect be . . . evidenced . . . by the unsworn . . . declaration . . . in writing of such person which recites that it is . . . declared by him or her to be true under penalty of perjury . . . .” (Italics added.) The section sheds no light on whether the declaration required in section 2923.5, subdivision (b) must be under penalty of perjury.
F. The Wording of the Declaration:
Okay If It Tracks the Statute
In light of what we have just said about the multiplicity of persons who would necessarily have to sign off on the precise category in subdivision (b) of the statute that would apply in order to proceed with foreclosure (contact by phone, contact in person, unsuccessful attempts at contact by phone or in person, bankruptcy, borrower hiring a foreclosure consultant, surrender of keys), and the possibility that such persons might be employees of not less than three entities (mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent), there is no way we can divine an intention on the part of the Legislature that each notice of foreclosure be custom drafted.
To which we add this important point: By construing the notice requirement of section 2923.5, subdivision (b), to require only that the notice track the language of the statute itself, we avoid the problem of the imposition of costs beyond the minimum costs now required by our reading of the statute.
G. Noncompliance Before Foreclosure
Sale Affect Title After Foreclosure Sale? No
A primary reason for California’s comprehensive regulation of foreclosure in the Civil Code is to ensure stability of title after a trustee’s sale. (Melendrez v. D & I Investment, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1249-1250 [“comprehensive statutory scheme” governing foreclosure has three purposes, one of which is “to ensure that a properly conducted sale is final between the parties and conclusive as to a bona fide purchaser” (internal quotations omitted)].)
There is nothing in section 2923.5 that even hints that noncompliance with the statute would cause any cloud on title after an otherwise properly conducted foreclosure sale. We would merely note that under the plain language of section 2923.5, read in conjunction with section 2924g, the only remedy provided is a postponement of the sale before it happens.
H. Lender Compliance in This Case?
Somebody is Not Telling the Truth
and It’s the Trial Court’s Job to
Determine Who It Is
We have already recounted the conflict in the evidence before the trial court regarding whether there was compliance with section 2923.5. Rarely, in fact, are stories so diametrically opposite: According to the Mabrys, there was no contact at all. According to Aurora, not only were there numerous contacts, but the Mabrys even initiated a proposal by which their attorney would buy the property.
Somebody’s not telling the truth, but appellate courts do not resolve conflicts in evidence. Trial courts do. (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 697, fn. 23 [“Moreover, Diaz and Bezemek concede the proffered evidence is disputed; appellate courts will not resolve such factual conflicts.”].) This case will obviously have to be remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
I. Is This Case Suitable for
Class Action Treatment? No
As we have seen, section 2923.5 contemplates highly-individuated facts. One borrower might not pick up the telephone, one lender might only call at the same time each day in violation of the statute, one lender might (incorrectly) try to get away with a form letter, one borrower might, like the old Twilight Zone “pitchman” episode, try to keep the caller on the line but change the subject and talk about anything but alternatives to foreclosure, one borrower might, as Aurora asserts here, try to have his or her attorney do a deal that avoids foreclosure, etcetera.
In short, how in the world would a court certify a class? Consider that in this case, there is even a dispute over the basic facts as to whether the lender attempted to comply at all. We do not have, under these facts at least, a question of a clean, systematic policy on the part of a lender that might be amenable to a class action (or perhaps enforcement by the Attorney General). This case is not one, to be blunt, where the lender admits that it simply ignored the statute and proceeded on the theory that federal law had preempted it. We express no opinion as to any scenario where a lender simply ignored the statute wholesale — that sort of scenario is why we do not preclude, a priori, class actions and have not expressed an opinion as to whether the Attorney General or a private party in such a situation might indeed seek to enforce section 2923.5 in a class action.
Consequently, while we must grant the writ petition so as to allow the Mabrys a hearing on the factual merits of compliance, we deny it insofar as it seeks reinstatement of any claims qua class action. By the same token, in light of the limited right to time conferred under section 2923.5, we also deny the writ petition insofar as it seeks reinstatement of any claim for money damages.
IV. CONCLUSION
Let a writ issue instructing the trial court to decide whether or not Aurora complied with section 2923.5. To the degree that the trial court’s order precludes the assertion of any class action claims, we deny the writ. If the trial court finds that Aurora has complied with section 2923.5, foreclosure may proceed. If not, it shall be postponed until Aurora files a new notice of default in the wake of substantive compliance with section 2923.5.
Given that this writ petition is granted in part and denied in part, each side will bear its own costs in this proceeding.

SILLS, P. J.
WE CONCUR:

ARONSON, J.

IKOLA, J.

non-judicial sale is NOT an available election for a securitized loan

Posted 6 days ago by Neil Garfield on Livinglies’s Weblog
NON-JUDICIAL STATES: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORECLOSURE AND SALE:

FORECLOSURE is a judicial process herein the “lender” files a lawsuit seeking to (a) enforce the note and get a judgment in the amount owed to them (b) asking the court to order the sale of the property to satisfy the Judgment. If the sale price is lower than the Judgment, then they will ask for a deficiency Judgment and the Judge will enter that Judgment. If the proceeds of sale is over the amount of the judgment, the borrower is entitled to the overage. Of course they usually tack on a number of fees and costs that may or may not be allowable. It is very rare that there is an overage. THE POINT IS that when they sue to foreclose they must make allegations which state a cause of action for enforcement of the note and for an order setting a date for sale. Those allegations include a description of the transaction with copies attached, and a claim of non-payment, together with allegations that the payments are owed to the Plaintiff BECAUSE they would suffer financial damage as a result of the non-payment. IN THE PROOF of the case the Plaintiff would be required to prove each and EVERY element of their claim which means proof that each allegation they made and each exhibit they rely upon is proven with live witnesses who are competent — i.e., they take an oath, they have PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE (not what someone else told them),personal recall and the ability to communicate what they know. This applies to documents they wish to use as well. That is called authentication and foundation.

SALE: Means what it says. In non-judicial sale they just want to sell your property without showing any court that they can credibly make the necessary allegations for a judicial foreclosure and without showing the court proof of the allegations they would be required to make if they filed a judicial foreclosure. In a non-judicial state what they want is to SELL and what they don’t want is to foreclose. Keep in mind that every state that allows non-judicial sale treats the sale as private and NOT a judicial event by definition. In Arizona and many other states there is no election for non-judicial sale of commercial property because of the usual complexity of commercial transactions. THE POINT is that a securitized loan presents as much or more complexity than commercial real property loan transactions. Thus your argument might be that the non-judicial sale is NOT an available election for a securitized loan.

When you bring a lawsuit challenging the non-judicial sale, it would probably be a good idea to allege that the other party has ELECTED NON-JUDICIAL sale when the required elements of such an election do not exist. Your prima facie case is simply to establish that the borrower objects the sale, denies that they pretender lender has any right to sell the property, denies the default and that the securitization documents show a complexity far beyond the complexity of even highly complex commercial real estate transactions which the legislature has mandated be resolved ONLY by judicial foreclosure.

THEREFORE in my opinion I think in your argument you do NOT want to concede that they wish to foreclose. What they want to do is execute on the power of sale in the deed of trust WITHOUT going through the judicial foreclosure process as provided in State statutes. You must understand and argue that the opposition is seeking to go around normal legal process which requires a foreclosure lawsuit.

THAT would require them to make allegations about the obligation, note and mortgage that they cannot make (we are the lender, the defendant owes us money, we are the holder of the note, the note is payable to us, he hasn’t paid, the unpaid balance of the note is xxx etc.) and they would have to prove those allegations before you had to say anything. In addition they would be subject to discovery in which you could test their assertions before an evidentiary hearing. That is how lawsuits work.

The power of sale given to the trustee is a hail Mary pass over the requirements of due process. But it allows for you to object. The question which nobody has asked and nobody has answered, is on the burden of proof, once you object to the sale, why shouldn’t the would-be forecloser be required to plead and prove its case? If the court takes the position that in non-judicial states the private power of sale is to be treated as a judicial event, then that is a denial of due process required by Federal and state constitutions. The only reason it is allowed, is because it is private and “non-judicial.” The quirk comes in because in practice the homeowner must file suit. Usually the party filing suit must allege facts and prove a prima facie case before the burden shifts to the other side. So the Judge is looking at you to do that when you file to prevent the sale.

Legally, though, your case should be limited to proving that they are trying to sell your property, that you object, that you deny what would be the allegations in a judicial foreclosure and that you have meritorious defenses. That SHOULD trigger the requirement of re-orienting the parties and making the would-be forecloser file a complaint (lawsuit) for foreclosure. Then the burden of proof would be properly aligned with the party seeking affirmative relief (i.e., the party who wants to enforce the deed of trust (mortgage), note and obligation) required to file the complaint with all the necessary elements of an action for foreclosure and attach the necessary exhibits. They don’t want to do that because they don’t have the exhibits and the note is not payable to them and they cannot actually prove standing (which is a jurisdictional question). The problem is that a statute passed for judicial economy is now being used to force the burden of proof onto the borrower in the foreclosure of their own home. This is not being addressed yet but it will be addressed soon.

Fannie Mae Policy Now Admits Loan Not Secured

Posted 14 hours ago by Neil Garfield on Livinglies’s Weblog

29248253-Mers-May-Not-Foreclosure-for-Fannie-Mae

Editor’s Note: Their intention was to get MERS and servicers out of the foreclosure business. They now say that prior to foreclosure MERS must assign to the real party in interest.

Here’s their problem: As numerous Judges have pointed out, MERS specifically disclaims any interest in the obligation, note or mortgage. Even the language of the mortgage or Deed of Trust says MERS is mentioned in name only and that the Lender is somebody else.

These Judges who have considered the issue have come up with one conclusion, an assignment from a party with no right, title or interest has nothing to assign. The assignment may look good on its face but there still is the problem that nothing was assigned.

Here’s the other problem. If MERS was there in name only to permit transfers and other transactions off-record (contrary to state law) and if the original party named as “Lender” is no longer around, then what you have is a gap in the chain of custody and chain of title with respect to the creditor’s side of the loan. It is all off record which means, ipso facto that it is a question of fact as to whose loan it is. That means, ipso facto, that the presence of MERS makes it a judicial question which means that the non-judicial election is not available. They can’t do it.

So when you put this all together, you end up with the following inescapable conclusions:

* The naming of MERS as mortgagee in a mortgage deed or as beneficiary in a deed of trust is a nullity.
* MERS has no right, title or interest in any loan and even if it did, it disclaims any such interest on its own website.
* The lender might be the REAL beneficiary, but that is a question of fact so the non-judicial foreclosure option is not available.
* If the lender was not the creditor, it isn’t the lender because it had no right title or interest either, legally or equitably.
* Without a creditor named in the security instrument intended to secure the obligation, the security was never perfected.
* Without a creditor named in the security instrument intended to secure the obligation, the obligation is unsecured as to legal title.
* Since the only real creditor is the one who advanced the funds (the investor(s)), they can enforce the obligation by proxy or directly. Whether the note is actually evidence of the obligation and to what extent the terms of the note are enforceable is a question for the court to determine.
* The creditor only has a claim if they would suffer loss as a result of the indirect transaction with the borrower. If they or their agents have received payments from any source, those payments must be allocated to the loan account. The extent and measure of said allocation is a question of fact to be determined by the Court.
* Once established, the allocation will most likely be applied in the manner set forth in the note, to wit: (a) against payments due (b) against fees and (c) against principal, in that order.
* Once applied against payments, due the default vanishes unless the allocation is less than the amount due in payments.
* Once established, the allocation results in a fatal defect in the notice of default, the statements sent to the borrower, and the representations made in court. Thus at the very least they must vacate all foreclosure proceedings and start over again.
* If the allocation is less than the amount of payments due, then the investor(s) collectively have a claim for acceleration and to enforce the note — but they have no claim on the mortgage deed or deed of trust. By intentionally NOT naming parties who were known at the time of the transaction the security was split from the obligation. The obligation became unsecured.
* The investors MIGHT have a claim for equitable lien based upon the circumstances that BOTH the borrower and the investor were the victims of fraud.

90% Forclosures Wrongful

A wrongful foreclosure action typically occurs when the lender starts a non judicial foreclosure action when it simply has no legal cause. This is even more evident now since California passed the Foreclosure prevention act of 2008 SB 1194 codified in Civil code 2923.5 and 2923.6. In 2009 it is this attorneys opinion that 90% of all foreclosures are wrongful in that the lender does not comply (just look at the declaration page on the notice of default). The lenders most notably Indymac, Countrywide, and Wells Fargo have taken a calculated risk. To comply would cost hundreds of millions in staff, paperwork, and workouts that they don’t deem to be in their best interest. The workout is not in there best interest because our tax dollars are guaranteeing the Banks that are To Big to Fail’s debt. If they don’t foreclose and if they work it out the loss is on them. There is no incentive to modify loan for the benefit of the consumer.

Sooooo they proceed to foreclosure without the mandated contacts with the borrower. Oh and yes contact is made by a computer or some outsourcing contact agent based in India. But compliance with 2923.5 is not done. The Borrower is never told that he or she have the right to a meeting within 14 days of the contact. They do not get offers to avoid foreclosure there are typically two offers short sale or a probationary mod that will be declined upon the 90th day.

Wrongful foreclosure actions are also brought when the service providers accept partial payments after initiation of the wrongful foreclosure process, and then continue on with the foreclosure process. These predatory lending strategies, as well as other forms of misleading homeowners, are illegal.

The borrower is the one that files a wrongful disclosure action with the court against the service provider, the holder of the note and if it is a non-judicial foreclosure, against the trustee complaining that there was an illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive sale of property under a power of sale contained in a mortgage or deed or court judicial proceeding. The borrower can also allege emotional distress and ask for punitive damages in a wrongful foreclosure action.

Causes of Action

Wrongful foreclosure actions may allege that the amount stated in the notice of default as due and owing is incorrect because of the following reasons:

* Incorrect interest rate adjustment
* Incorrect tax impound accounts
* Misapplied payments
* Forbearance agreement which was not adhered to by the servicer
* Unnecessary forced place insurance,
* Improper accounting for a confirmed chapter 11 or chapter 13 bankruptcy plan.
* Breach of contract
* Intentional infliction of emotional distress
* Negligent infliction of emotional distress
* Unfair Business Practices
* Quiet title
* Wrongful foreclosure
* Tortuous violation of 2924 2923.5 and 2923.5 and 2932.5
Injunction

Any time prior to the foreclosure sale, a borrower can apply for an injunction with the intent of stopping the foreclosure sale until issues in the lawsuit are resolved. The wrongful foreclosure lawsuit can take anywhere from ten to twenty-four months. Generally, an injunction will only be issued by the court if the court determines that: (1) the borrower is entitled to the injunction; and (2) that if the injunction is not granted, the borrower will be subject to irreparable harm.

Damages Available to Borrower

Damages available to a borrower in a wrongful foreclosure action include: compensation for the detriment caused, which are measured by the value of the property, emotional distress and punitive damages if there is evidence that the servicer or trustee committed fraud, oppression or malice in its wrongful conduct. If the borrower’s allegations are true and correct and the borrower wins the lawsuit, the servicer will have to undue or cancel the foreclosure sale, and pay the borrower’s legal bills.

Why Do Wrongful Foreclosures Occur?

Wrongful foreclosure cases occur usually because of a miscommunication between the lender and the borrower. Most borrower don’t know who the real lender is. Servicing has changed on average three times. And with the advent of MERS Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems the “investor lender” hundreds of times since the origination. And now they then have to contact the borrower. The don’t even know who the lender truly is. The laws that are now in place never contemplated the virtualization of the lending market. The present laws are inadequate to the challenge.

This is even more evident now since California passed the Foreclosure prevention act of 2008 SB 1194 codified in Civil code 2923.5 and 2923.6. In 2009 it is this attorneys opinion that 90% of all foreclosures are wrongful in that the lender does not comply (just look at the declaration page on the notice of default). The lenders most notably Indymac, Countrywide, and Wells Fargo have taken a calculated risk. To comply would cost hundreds of millions in staff, paperwork, and workouts that they don’t deem to be in their best interest. The workout is not in there best interest because our tax dollars are guaranteeing the Banks that are To Big to Fail’s debt. If they don’t foreclose and if they work it out the loss is on them. There is no incentive to modify loan for the benefit of the consumer.This could be as a result of an incorrectly applied payment, an error in interest charges and completely inaccurate information communicated between the lender and borrower. Some borrowers make the situation worse by ignoring their monthly statements and not promptly responding in writing to the lender’s communications. Many borrowers just assume that the lender will correct any inaccuracies or errors. Any one of these actions can quickly turn into a foreclosure action. Once an action is instituted, then the borrower will have to prove that it is wrongful or unwarranted. This is done by the borrower filing a wrongful foreclosure action. Costs are expensive and the action can take time to litigate.
Impact

The wrongful foreclosure will appear on the borrower’s credit report as a foreclosure, thereby ruining the borrower’s credit rating. Inaccurate delinquencies may also accompany the foreclosure on the credit report. After the foreclosure is found to be wrongful, the borrower must then petition to get the delinquencies and foreclosure off the credit report. This can take a long time and is emotionally distressing.

Wrongful foreclosure may also lead to the borrower losing their home and other assets if the borrower does not act quickly. This can have a devastating affect on a family that has been displaced out of their home. However, once the borrower’s wrongful foreclosure action is successful in court, the borrower may be entitled to compensation for their attorney fees, court costs, pain, suffering and emotional distress caused by the action.

no recoded asignment no power of sale (foreclosure)2932.5

Mortgages with a power of sale as a form of security, although such powers of sale are strictly construed (Savings & Loan Soc. v. Burnett, 106 Cal. 514 [39 P. 922]), are not looked upon with disfavor in California. (Godfrey v. Monroe, 101 Cal. 224 [35 P. 761].) Indeed, such powers of sale are expressly permitted by section 2932 of the Civil Code, and since July 27, 1917, the exercise of such powers has been carefully regulated. (Civ. Code, sec. 2924.) In this connection we should also bear in mind section 858 of the Civil Code, which reads as follows: “Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of money, the power is to be deemed a part of the security, and vests in any person who, by assignment, becomes entitled to the money so secured to be paid, and may be executed by him whenever the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded.” This indicates to some extent that California intended that such a power of sale survives until the debt is paid or barred by the statute of limitations. [13 Cal.App.2d 239]

unperfected mortgage goes away in Bankruptcy and here is how it was done

Yes in San Jose an unperfected Mortgage was don away with the perfect storm.
1. COMPLAINT 2. MEMOR. IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER 3. APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 4. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 5. OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY 6. DECLARATION OF ISABEL 7. NOTICE OF HEARING

How to Stop Foreclosure

This is general information and assumes that you have access to the rest of the material on the blog. Foreclosures come in various flavors.

First of all you have non-judicial and judicial foreclosure states. Non-judicial basically means that instead of signing a conventional mortgage and note, you signed a document that says you give up your right to a judicial proceeding. So the pretender lender or lender simply instructs the Trustee to sell the property, giving you some notice. Of course the question of who is the lender, what is a beneficiary under a deed of trust, what is a creditor and who owns the loan NOW (if anyone) are all issues that come into play in litigation.

In a non-judicial state you generally are required to bring the matter to court by filing a lawsuit. In states like California, the foreclosers usually do an end run around you by filing an unlawful detainer as soon as they can in a court of lower jurisdiction which by law cannot hear your claims regarding the illegality of the mortgage or foreclosure.

In a judicial state the forecloser must be the one who files suit and you have considerably more power to resist the attempt to foreclose.

Then you have stages:

STAGE 1: No notice of default has been sent.

In this case you want to get a forensic analysis that is as complete as humanly possible — TILA, RESPA, securitization, title, chain of custody, predatory loan practices, fraud, fabricated documents, forged documents etc. I call this the FOUR WALL ANALYSIS, meaning they have no way to get out of the mess they created. Then you want a QWR (Qualified Written Request) and DVL (Debt Validation Letter along with complaints to various Federal and State agencies. If they fail to respond or fail to answer your questions you file a suit against the party who received the QWR, the party who originated the loan (even if they are out of business), and John Does 1-1000 being the owners of mortgage backed bonds that are evidence of the investors ownership in the pool of mortgages, of which yours is one. The suit is simple — it seeks to stop the servicer from receiving any payments, install a receiver over the servicer’s accounts, order them to answer the simple question “Who is my creditor and how do I get a full accounting FROM THE CREDITOR? Alternative counts would be quiet title and damages under TILA, RESPA, SEC, etc.

Tactically you want to present the forensic declaration and simply say that you have retained an expert witness who states in his declaration that the creditor does not include any of the parties disclosed to you thus far. This [prevents you from satisfying the Federal mandate to attempt modification or settlement of the loan. You’ve asked (QWR and DVL) and they won’t tell. DON’T GET INTO INTRICATE ARGUMENTS CONCERNING SECURITIZATION UNTIL IT IS NECESSARY TO DO SO WHICH SHOULD BE AFTER A FEW HEARINGS ON MOTIONS TO COMPEL THEM TO ANSWER.

IN OTHER WORDS YOU ARE SIMPLY TELLING THE JUDGE THAT YOUR EXPERT HAS PRESENTED FACTS AND OPINION THAT CONTRADICT AND VARY FROM THE REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL AND THE PARTIES WHO HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED TO YOU THUS FAR.

YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO THE OTHER PARTIES ARE, IF ANY, AND WHAT MONEY EXCHANGED HANDS WITH RESPECT TO YOUR LOAN. YOU WANT EVIDENCE, NOT REPRESENTATIONS OF COUNSEL. YOU WANT DISCOVERY OR AN ORDER TO ANSWER THE QWR OR DVL. YOU WANT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IF IT IS NECESSARY.

Avoid legal argument and go straight for discovery saying that you want to be able to approach the creditor, whoever it is, and in order to do that you have a Federal Statutory right (RESPA) to the name of a person, a telephone number and an address of the creditor — i.e., the one who is now minus money as a result of the funding of the loan. You’ve asked, they won’t answer.

Contemporaneously you want to get a temporary restraining order preventing them from taking any further action with respect to transferring, executing documents, transferring money, or collecting money until they have satisfied your demand for information and you have certified compliance with the court. Depending upon your circumstances you can offer to tender the monthly payment into the court registry or simply leave that out.

You can also file a bankruptcy petition especially if you are delinquent in payments or are about to become delinquent.

STAGE 2: Notice of Default Received

Believe it or not this is where the errors begin by the pretender lenders. You want to challenge authority, authenticity, the amount claimed due, the signatory, the notary, the loan number and anything else that is appropriate. Then go back to stage 1 and follow that track. In order to effectively do this you need to have that forensic analysis and I don’t mean the TILA Audit that is offered by so many companies using off the shelf software. You could probably buy the software yourself for less money than you pay those companies. I emphasize again that you need a FOUR WALL ANALYSIS.

Stage 3 Non-Judicial State, Notice of Sale received:

State statutes usually give you a tiny window of opportunity to contest the sale and the statute usually contains exact provisions on how you can do that or else your objection doesn’t count. At this point you need to secure the services of competent, knowledgeable, experienced legal counsel — professionals who have been fighting with these pretender lenders for a while. Anything less and you are likely to be sorely disappointed unless you landed, by luck of the draw, one of the increasing number of judges you are demonstrating their understanding and anger at this fraud.

Stage 4: Judicial State: Served with Process:

You must answer usually within 20 days. Failure to do so, along with your affirmative defenses and counterclaims, could result in a default followed by a default judgment followed by a Final Judgment of Foreclosure. See above steps.

Stage 5: Sale already occurred

You obviously need to reverse that situation. Usually the allegation is that the sale should be vacated because of fraud on the court (judicial) or fraudulent abuse of non-judicial process. This is a motion or Petitioner but it must be accompanied by a lawsuit, properly served and noticed to the other side. You probably need to name the purchaser at sale, and ask for a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) that stops them from moving the property or the money around any further until your questions are answered (see above). At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you need a good forensic analyst and a good lawyer.

Stage 6: Eviction (Unlawful Detainer Filed or Judgment entered:

Same as Stage 5.

The lawyer is not competend to testify

If the lawyer is not a competent witness with personal knowledge, then he should shut up and sit down.

So you sent a QWR and you know the loan is securitized. The orignating lender says talk to the servicer and the servicer declines to answer all the questions because they didn’t originate the loan. Or you are in court and the lawyer is trying to finesse his way past basic rules of evidence and due process by making representations to the Judge as an officer of the court.

He’s lying of course and if you let it go unchallenged, you will lose the case. Basically opposing counsel is saying “trust me Judge I wouldn’t say it if it wasn’t so.” And your answer is that the lawyer is not a witness, that you don’t trust the lawyer or what he has to say, that if he is a witness he should be sworn in and subject to cross examaintion and if he is not a witness you are entitled to be confronted with a real witness with real testimony based upon real knowledge.

First Questions: When did you first learn of this case? What personal knowledge do you have concerning the payments received from the homeowner or third parties? What personal knowledge do you have as to who providing the actual cash from which the subject loan was funded?

Only when pressed relentlessly by the homeowner, the servicer comes up with a more and more restrictive answer as to what role they play. But they always start with don’t worry about a thing we control everything. Not true. Then later after you thought you worked out a modification they tell the deal is off because the investor declined. The investor is and always was the lender. That is the bottom line and any representation to the contrary is a lie and a fraud upon the court.

So whoever you sent the QWR to, always disclaims your right to ask, or tells you the name of the investor (i.e., your lender) is confidential, or that they have authority (but they won’t show it to you). That doesn’t seem to be a lender, does it? In fact they disclaim even knowing enough to answer your questions.

So AFTER THEY SERVE YOU with something file a motion to compel an immediate full answer to your QWR since under TILA service on the servicer is the same as service on the lender. You argue that everyone seems to be claiming rights to be paid under the original obligation, everyone seems to be claiming the right to enforce the note and mortgage, but nobody is willing to state unequivocally that they are the lender.

You are stuck in the position of being unable to seek modification under federal and State rules, unable to sell the property because you don’t know who can sign a satisfaction of mortgage or a release and reconveyance, unable to do a short-sale, and unable to refinance — all because they won’t give a simple answer to a simple question: who is the lender and what is the balance claimed by the real lender on the obligation? At this point you don’t even know that any of the real lenders wish to make a claim.

This is probably because they received TARP funds and insurance proceeds on defaults of pools that they had purchased multiple insurance policies (credit default swaps). But whether they are paid by someone who acquired rights of subrogation or they were not paid, you have a right to a FULL accounting and to know who they are and whether they received any third party money. If they were paid in part or otherwise sold their interest, then you have multiple additional unknown parties.

The reason is simple. They are not the lender and they know it. The lender is a group of investors who funded the transaction with Petitioner/Homeowner and others who purchased similar financial products from the same group of participants in the securitization chain relating to the subject loan.

The people currently in court do not include all the real parties in interest for you to make claims against the lender. Cite to the Massachusetts case where Wells Fargo and its lawyer were subject to an $850,000 sanction for misrepresenting its status to the court.

It is not enough for them to bluff their way by saying that they have already answered the interrogatories. When they lost and it came time to allocate damages and attorneys fees, Wells suddenly said they were NOT the lender, beneficiary or current holder and that therefore the damages and attorneys fees should be assessed against the real lender — who was not a party to the pending litigation and whom they refused to disclose along with their misrepresentation that they were the true lender.

It is not enough that the lawyer makes a representation to the court as an officer of the court. That is not how evidence works. If the lawyer wants to represent facts, then he/she should be sworn in and be subject to (1) voir dire to establish that he/she is opposing counsel that it came from some company.

The witness must be a competent witness who takes an oath, has personal knowledge regarding the content of the document, states that personal knowledge and whose testimony conforms to what is on the document.

There is no such thing as foundation without a witness. There is no such thing as foundation without a competent witness. So if the lawyer tries to finesse the subject by making blanket representations to the court(e.g. the property is “underwater” by $xxx,xxx and we need a lift of stay…yet, there is no certified appraisal entered into evidence with a certified appraiser that can be cross examined…just a statement from opposing counsel) point to Wells, or even point to other inconsistencies between what counsel has represented and what now appears to be the truth, and demand an evidentiary hearing. If the lawyer is not a competent witness with personal knowledge, then he should shut up and sit down.

File a motion to extend time to file adversary proceeding(in BK situation), answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaim UNTIL YOU GET A FULL AND COMPLETE ANSWER TO YOUR QWR so you can determine the real parties in interest and serve them with process. Otherwise, we will have a partial result wherein the real owner of the loan can and will claim damages and injunctive relief probably against all the current parties to this action including the Homeowner.

In short, the opposing counsel cannot just make statements of “fact” and have them accepted by the court as “fact” if they don’t pass the sniff test of real evidence corroborated by a competent witness. …and with every pleading ask for an evidentiary hearing and attorneys fees. Follow rule 11 procedure in Federal Court or the state law counterpart so you can get them later.

The case is lost when you stip to the commissioner

remember this if you forget everything else you don’t have to agree to take a commissioner in your eviction case he has thirty or so cases per day and therefore does not have time to listen to your defenses to the foreclosure or that the sale was not dully perfected . He will politely say I do not have jurisdiction to hear these defenses. if they present the Trustees deed,

Trustees Fleming and Huff (Photo credit: dave.cournoyer)

its over.
See Cal. Const. Article 6, §§21; 22
CCP § 259(e)

Foreclosure Victory For Nor Cal Area Homeowner!

A Sacramento area court ruling against the plaintiff came in an unlawful detainer hearing last Friday. Lenders and servicers are taking notice of the “sale” by trustee that was set aside in favor of a loan modification. Submitted by Steve Shafer

February 5, 2009 / Sacramento California – The Bay Area Superior Court decision and judgment against the plaintiff allows the “sale” by the trustee to be set aside in favor of a loan modification.
Lenders nationwide who originate and service loans know California offers them a “safe haven” from homeowner’s who dispute a recent foreclosure. That means overwhelming odds for anyone in foreclosure who loses their home to a lender in a foreclosure. The borrower becomes a holdover and must respond to an unlawful detainer after their home is lost.

That was not the case for an El Dorado area resident at a recent hearing for an unlawful detainer matter heard in a Placerville County superior court room. The recent victory in court was in an unlawful detainer matter for the defendant Ms. Stella Onyeu and mortgage lender and securities sponsor – AURORA LOAN SERVICES v. STELLA D. ONYEU (case number PCU2008032).

AURORA LOAN SERVICES like so many other lender servicing agents has come under greater scrutiny as of late for questionable business practices. According to its web site Aurora Loan Services is operating as usual. The company is a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Bank, and not part of the Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. bankruptcy filing.

The case was originally filed in October of last year and shortly thereafter was dismissed when the Plaintiff failed to show at a scheduled hearing. Subsequent motions were filed to vacate the dismissal in favor of a motion to dismiss by the plaintiffs. The matter was heard recently heard again by the same court and earlier mentioned presiding judge. Mark Terbeek is the attorney for the Defendant and Maher Soliman a Juris Pro witness provided case development and court expert testimony.

This judgment for the defendant is monumental given the courts limited jurisdiction related to the lenders sole focus to have the borrower removed from the home. The issues at hand are the legal procedural limitations and high attrition rate for defendants and their attorney’s. The problem is the defendant’s lack of standing for pleading a wrongful foreclosure due to jurisdiction of the court.

So what does this all mean? Many homeowners can find some hope, for the moment, in knowing the otherwise unfriendly California UD courts will now hold some promise for hearing arguments as to the foreclosure and the plaintiffs standing. According to foreclosure and REO sales analyst Brenda Michelson of Nationwide Loan Services “It’s hit or miss at this level of the law and the courts willingness to step outside of its jurisdiction.” The smaller outlying courts seem to me to be more willing to entertain defense arguments that the plaintiff may not be the holder in due course and lacks capacity throughout the foreclosure” Terbeek’s response is that if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a logical and properly conveyed transfer of the beneficial interest – it is not entitled to possession.

After the foreclosure and conveyance back to the trustee, the homeowner is considered unlawfully occupying the dwelling as a holdover. However, the court ruled that AURORA had in fact violated its duty to show good faith and comply accordingly under the recent California statutes and amendments Power of Sale provision. The presiding judge who heard the matter ordered a judgment against the company allowed for Terbeek to enter a request for all legal fees due.

According to legal expert Soliman, “there are more attorneys willing to now jump into the wrongful foreclosure business and fight the court on the jurisdiction issue. However, it is nearly impossible to rely on the judge and courts at this level”. Soliman is an examiner with Nationwide Loan Services and has engagements in multiple cases throughout California through attorneys such as Terbeek who represented the defendant.

Jurisdiction: An Overview

The term jurisdiction is really synonymous with the word “power” and the sovereignty on behalf of which it functions. Any court possesses jurisdiction over matters only to the extent granted to it by the Constitution, or legislation of a paramount fundamental question for lawyers is whether a given court has jurisdiction to preside over a given case. A jurisdictional question may be broken down into various components including whether there is jurisdiction over the person (in personam), the subject matter, or res (in rem), and to render the particular judgment sought.

An unlawful detainer lawsuit is a “summary” court procedure. This means that the court action moves forward very quickly, and that the time given the tenant to respond during the lawsuit is very short. For example, in most cases, the tenant has only five days to file a written response to the lawsuit after being served with a copy of the landlord’s complaint. Normally, a judge will hear and decide the case within 20 days after the borrower now tenant files an answer.

The question of whether a given court has the power to determine a jurisdictional question is itself a jurisdictional question. Such a legal question is referred to as “jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction.” In order to evict the tenant, the landlord must file an unlawful detainer lawsuit in superior court. In an eviction lawsuit, the lender is the “plaintiff” and the prior borrower and homeowners become an occupant holdover and the “defendant.” Immediately after the trustee sale of the home the conveyance by the trustee is entered in favor of the lender. Until recently in most cases the lender is with in its right foreclose if a borrower has missed a number of payments, failed to make the insurance premiums or not paid the property taxes. “But sometimes a lender is wrong and you can fight foreclosure by challenging the foreclosure process and related documents” said Soliman.

As the new owner of record AURORA HOME LOAN SERVICES must follow procedures no different than that of a landlord in a tenant occupancy dispute. The next step is to remove the homeowner from the subject dwelling. If the tenant doesn’t voluntarily move out after the landlord has properly given the required notice to the tenant, the landlord can evict the tenant. If the lender makes a mistake in its filing of the foreclosure documents a court my throw out the whole foreclosure case. In the case of a wrongful foreclosure the borrower’s claims are limited to affirmative defenses.

Affirmative Defenses

Unlike a judicial proceeding, California lenders need to merely wait out the mandatory term for issuing default notices and ensure it has properly served those notices to the borrower. In other words the hearing and trial taken place in the above referenced matter is not subject to arguments brought by the homeowner for wrongful foreclosure versus the question as to lawful possession of the property by the lender.

California lenders are typically limited to only the defenses a landlord will face when opposed and made subject to claims of wrongfully trying to evict a tenant. Claims such as the Plaintiff has breached the warranty to provide habitable premises, plaintiff did not give proper credit before the notice to pay or quit expired or plaintiff waived, changed, or canceled the notice to quit, or filed the complaint to retaliate against defendant are often completely unrelated to the matter at hand. The courts decision to enforce the provisions of an earlier modification in lieu of a foreclosure sends a major wake up call to the lenders who are under siege to avoid foreclose and be done with mortgage mess affecting United States homeowners. Soliman says the decision is unfortunately not likely to be read into as case precedent for future lawyers and wrongful defendants seeking to introduce our case as an example of a lenders wrongful action.

Soliman goes on to say “it’s both interesting and entertaining to see experienced attorneys who jump in and immediately question the issue of the courts authority. Its reality time when they get to their first hearing and see first hand the problematic issues with jurisdiction.”

Servicing agents are never the less on notice they must be ready to defend themselves when the opportunity to argue the plaintiffs standing are allowed in an unlawful detainer motivate by a foreclosure. Therefore, the debate about what the courts hear will remain open and subject to further scrutiny by the lawyers for both sides and judges who preside over the courts at this level.

Nationwide Loan Servicing is an approved Expert Witness who provides court testimoney in matters concerning wrongful foreclosures, Federal Savings Banks regultory violations and SEC filings for private registrations.

SB 94 and its interferance with the practice

CA SB 94 on Lawyers & Loan Modifications Passes Assembly… 62-10

The California Assembly has passed Senate Bill 94, a bill that seeks to protect homeowners from loan modification scammers, but could end up having the unintended consequence of eliminating a homeowner’s ability to retain an attorney to help them save their home from foreclosure.

The bill, which has an “urgency clause” attached to it, now must pass the State Senate, and if passed, could be signed by the Governor on October 11th, and go into effect immediately thereafter.

SB 94’s author is California State Senator Ron Calderon, the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, which shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone familiar with the bigger picture. Sen. Calderon, while acknowledging that fee-for-service providers can provide valuable services to homeowners at risk of foreclosure, authored SB 94 to ensure that providers of these services are not compensated until the contracted services have been performed.

SB 94 prevents companies, individuals… and even attorneys… from receiving fees or any other form of compensation until after the contracted services have been rendered. The bill will now go to the Democratic controlled Senate where it is expected to pass.

Supporters of the bill say that the state is literally teeming with con artists who take advantage of homeowners desperate to save their homes from foreclosure by charging hefty fees up front and then failing to deliver anything of value in return. They say that by making it illegal to charge up front fees, they will be protecting consumers from being scammed.

While there’s no question that there have been some unscrupulous people that have taken advantage of homeowners in distress, the number of these scammers is unclear. Now that we’ve learned that lenders and servicers have only modified an average of 9% of qualified mortgages under the Obama plan, it’s hard to tell which companies were scamming and which were made to look like scams by the servicers and lenders who failed to live up to their agreement with the federal government.

In fact, ever since it’s come to light that mortgage servicers have been sued hundreds of times, that they continue to violate the HAMP provisions, that they foreclose when they’re not supposed to, charge up front fees for modifications, require homeowners to sign waivers, and so much more, who can be sure who the scammers really are. Bank of America, for example, got the worst grade of any bank on the President’s report card listing, modifying only 4% of the eligible mortgages since the plan began. We’ve given B of A something like $200 billion and they still claim that they’re having a hard time answering the phones over there, so who’s scamming who?

To make matters worse, and in the spirit of Y2K, the media has fanned the flames of irrationality with stories of people losing their homes as a result of someone failing to get their loan modified. The stories go something like this:

We gave them 1,000. They told us to stop making our mortgage payment. They promised us a principal reduction. We didn’t hear from them for months. And then we lost our house.

I am so sure. Can that even happen? I own a house or two. Walk me through how that happened again, because I absolutely guarantee you… no way could those things happen to me and I end up losing my house over it. Not a chance in the world. I’m not saying I couldn’t lose a house, but it sure as heck would take a damn sight more than that to make it happen.

Depending on how you read the language in the bill, it may prevent licensed California attorneys from requiring a retainer in advance of services being rendered, and this could essentially eliminate a homeowner’s ability to hire a lawyer to help save their home.

Supporters, on the other hand, respond that homeowners will still be able to hire attorneys, but that the attorneys will now have to wait until after services have been rendered before being paid for their services. They say that attorneys, just like real estate agents and mortgage brokers, will now only be able to receive compensation after services have been rendered.

But, assuming they’re talking about at the end of the transaction, there are key differences. Real estate agents and mortgage brokers are paid OUT OF ESCROW at the end of a transaction. They don’t send clients a bill for their services after the property is sold.

Homeowners at risk of foreclosure are having trouble paying their bills and for the most part, their credit ratings have suffered as a result. If an attorney were to represent a homeowner seeking a loan modification, and then bill for his or her services after the loan was modified, the attorney would be nothing more than an unsecured creditor of a homeowner who’s only marginally credit worthy at best. If the homeowner didn’t pay the bill, the attorney would have no recourse other than to sue the homeowner in Small Claims Court where they would likely receive small payments over time if lucky.

Extending unsecured credit to homeowners that are already struggling to pay their bills, and then having to sue them in order to collect simply isn’t a business model that attorneys, or anyone else for that matter, are likely to embrace. In fact, the more than 50 California attorneys involved in loan modifications that I contacted to ask about this issue all confirmed that they would not represent homeowners on that basis.

One attorney, who asked not to be identified, said: “Getting a lender or servicer to agree to a loan modification takes months, sometimes six or nine months. If I worked on behalf of homeowners for six or nine months and then didn’t get paid by a number of them, it wouldn’t be very long before I’d have to close my doors. No lawyer is going to do that kind of work without any security and anyone who thinks they will, simply isn’t familiar with what’s involved.”

“I don’t think there’s any question that SB 94 will make it almost impossible for a homeowner to obtain legal representation related to loan modifications,” explained another attorney who also asked not to be identified. ”The banks have fought lawyers helping clients through the loan modification process every step of the way, so I’m not surprised they’ve pushed for this legislation to pass.”

Proponents of the legislation recite the all too familiar mantra about there being so many scammers out there that the state has no choice but to move to shut down any one offering to help homeowners secure loan modifications that charges a fee for the services. They point out that consumers can just call their banks directly, or that there are nonprofit organizations throughout the state that can help homeowners with loan modifications.

While the latter is certainly true, it’s only further evidence that there exists a group of people in positions of influence that are unfamiliar , or at the very least not adequately familiar with obtaining a loan modification through a nonprofit organization, and they’ve certainly never tried calling a bank directly.

The fact that there are nonprofit housing counselors available, and the degree to which they may or may not be able to assist a given homeowner, is irrelevant. Homeowners are well aware of the nonprofit options available. They are also aware that they can call their banks directly. From the President of the United States and and U.S. Attorney General to the community newspapers found in every small town in America, homeowners have heard the fairy tales about about these options, and they’ve tried them… over and over again, often times for many months. When they didn’t get the desired results, they hired a firm to help them.

Yet, even the State Bar of California is supporting SB 94, and even AB 764, a California Assembly variation on the theme, and one even more draconian because of its requirement that attorneys only be allowed to bill a client after a successful loan modification has been obtained. That means that an attorney would have to guarantee a homeowner that he or she would obtain a modification agreement from a lender or servicer or not get paid for trying. Absurd on so many levels. Frankly, if AB 764 passes, would the last one out of California please turn off the lights and bring the flag.

As of late July, the California State Bar said it was investigating 391 complaints against 141 attorneys, as opposed to nine investigations related to loan modifications in 2008. The Bar hasn’t read anywhere all of the complaints its received, but you don’t have to be a statistician to figure out that there’s more to the complaints that meets the eye. So far the State Bar has taken action against three attorneys and the Attorney General another four… so, let’s see… carry the 3… that’s 7 lawyers. Two or three more and they could have a softball team.

At the federal level they’re still reporting the same numbers they were last spring. Closed 11… sent 71 letters… blah, blah, blah… we’ve got a country of 300 million and at least 5 million are in trouble on their mortgage. The simple fact is, they’re going to have to come up with some serious numbers before I’m going to be scared of bumping into a scammer on every corner.

Looking Ahead…

California’s ALT-A and Option ARM mortgages are just beginning to re-set, causing payments to rise, and with almost half of the mortgages in California already underwater, these homeowners will be unable to refinance and foreclosures will increase as a result. Prime jumbo foreclosure rates are already up a mind blowing 634% as compared with January 2008 levels, according to LPS Applied Analytics.

Clearly, if SB 94 ends up reducing the number of legitimate firms available for homeowners to turn to, everyone involved in its passage is going to be retiring. While many sub-prime borrowers have suffered silently through this horror show of a housing crisis, the ALT-A and Option ARM borrowers are highly unlikely to slip quietly into the night.

There are a couple of things about the latest version of SB 94 that I found interesting:

1. It says that a lawyer can’t collect a fee or any other compensation before serivces have been delivered, but it doesn’t make clear whether attorneys can ask the client to deposit funds in the law firm’s trust account and then bill against thsoe funds as amounts are earned. Funds deposited in a law firm trust account remain the client’s funds, so they’re not a lawyer’s “fees or other compensation”. Those funds are there so that when the fees have been earned, the lawyer doesn’t have to hope his or her bill gets paid. Of course, it also says that an attorney can’t hold any security interest, but money in a trust account a client’s money, the attorney has no lien against it. All of this is a matter of interpretation, of course, so who knows.

2. While there used to be language in both the real estate and lawyer sections that prohibited breaking up services related to a loan modification, in the latest version all of the language related to breaking up services as applied to attorneys has been eliminated. It still applies to real estate licensed firms, but not to attorneys. This may be a good thing, as at least a lawyer could complete sections of the work involved as opposed to having to wait until the very end, which the way the banks have been handling things, could be nine months away.

3. The bill says nothing about the amounts that may be charged for services in connection with a loan modification. So, in the case of an attorney, that would seem to mean that… well, you can put one, two and three together from there.

4. Lawyers are not included in definition of foreclosure consultant. And there is a requirement that new language be inserted in contracts, along the lines of “You don’t have to pay anyone to get a loan modification… blah, blah, blah.” Like that will be news to any homeowner in America. I’ve spoken with hundreds and never ran across one who didn’t try it themselves before calling a lawyer. I realize the Attorney General doesn’t seem to know that, but look… he’s been busy.

Conclusion…

Will SB 94 actually stop con artists from taking advantage of homeowners in distress? Or will it end up only stopping reputable lawyers from helping homeowners, while foreclosures increase and our economy continues its deflationary free fall? Will the California State Bar ever finishing reading the complaints being received, and if they ever do, will they understand what they’ve read. Or is our destiny that the masses won’t understand what’s happening around them until it sucks them under as well.

I surely hope not. But for now, I’m just hoping people can still a hire an attorney next week to help save their homes, because if they can’t… the Bar is going to get a lot more letters from unhappy homeowners.

Pretender Lenders

— read and weep. Game Over. Over the next 6-12 months the entire foreclosure mess is going to be turned on its head as it becomes apparent to even the most skeptical that the mortgage mess is just that — a mess. From the time the deed was recorded to the time the assignments, powers of attorneys, notarization and other documents were fabricated and executed there is an 18 minute Nixonian gap in the record that cannot be cured. Just because you produce documents, however real they appear, does not mean you can shift the burden of proof onto the borrower. In California our legislator have attempted to slow this train wreck but the pretender lenders just go on with the foreclosure by declaring to the foreclosure trustee the borrower is in default and they have all the documents the trustee then records a false document. A notice of default filed pursuant to Section 2924 shall include a declaration from the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent that it has contacted the borrower, tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section, or the borrower has surrendered the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
Invalid Declaration on Notice of Default and/or Notice of Trustee’s Sale.

The purpose of permitting a declaration under penalty of perjury, in lieu of a sworn statement, is to help ensure that declarations contain a truthful factual representation and are made in good faith. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy, 73 Cal. App. 4th 1214, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 339 (4th Dist. 1999).
In addition to California Civil Code §2923.5, California Code of Civil Procedure §2015.5 states:
Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, regulation, order or requirement made pursuant to the law of this state, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn statement, declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same, such matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced, established or proved by the unsworn statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, in writing of such person which recites that is certified or declared by him or her to be true under penalty of perjury, is subscribed by him or her, and (1), if executed within this state, states the date and place of execution; (2) if executed at any place, within or without this state, states the date of execution and that is so certified or declared under the laws of the State of California. The certification or declaration must be in substantially the following form:
(a) If executed within this state:
“I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct”:
_____________________ _______________________
(Date and Place) (Signature)

For our purposes we need not look any farther than the Notice of Default to find the declaration is not signed under penalty of perjury; as mandated by new Civil Code §2923.5(c). (Blum v. Superior Court (Copley Press Inc.) (2006) 141 Cal App 4th 418, 45 Cal. Reptr. 3d 902 ). The Declaration is merely a form declaration with a check box.

No Personal Knowledge of Declarant
According to Giles v. Friendly Finance Co. of Biloxi, Inc., 199 So. 2nd 265 (Miss. 1967), “an affidavit on behalf of a corporation must show that it was made by an authorized officer or agent, and the officer him or herself must swear to the facts.” Furthermore, in Giles v. County Dep’t of Public Welfare of Marion County (Ind.App. 1 Dist.1991) 579 N.E.2d 653, 654-655 states in pertinent part, “a person who verified a pleading to have personal knowledge or reasonable cause to believe the existence of the facts stated therein.” Here, the Declaration for the Notice of Default by the agent does not state if the agent has personal knowledge and how he obtained this knowledge.
The proper function of an affidavit is to state facts, not conclusions, ¹ and affidavits that merely state conclusions rather than facts are insufficient. ² An affidavit must set forth facts and show affirmatively how the affiant obtained personal knowledge of those facts. ³
Here, The Notice of Default does not have the required agent’s personal knowledge of facts and if the Plaintiff borrower was affirmatively contacted in person or by telephone
to assess the Plaintiff’s financial situation and explore options for the Plaintiff to avoid foreclosure. A simple check box next to the “facts” does not suffice.
Furthermore, “it has been said that personal knowledge of facts asserted in an affidavit is not presumed from the mere positive averment of facts, but rather, a court should be shown how the affiant knew or could have known such facts, and, if there is no evidence from which the inference of personal knowledge can be drawn, then it is
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬____________________________________________________________________________
¹ Lindley v. Midwest Pulmonary Consultants, P.C., 55 S.W.3d 906 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2001).
² Jaime v. St. Joseph Hosp. Foundation, 853 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1993).
³ M.G.M. Grand Hotel, Inc. v. Castro, 8 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App. Corpus Chrisit 1999).

presumed that from which the inference of personal knowledge can be drawn, then it is presumed that such does not exist.” ¹ The declaration signed by agent does not state anywhere how he knew or could have known if Plaintiff was contacted in person or by telephone to explore different financial options. It is vague and ambiguous if he himself called plaintiff.
This defendant did not adhere to the mandates laid out by congress before a foreclosure can be considered duly perfected. The Notice of Default states,

“That by reason thereof, the present beneficiary under such deed of trust, has executed and delivered to said agent, a written Declaration of Default and Demand for same, and has deposited with said agent such Deed of Trust and all documents evidencing obligations secured thereby, and has declared and does hereby declare all sums secured thereby immediately due and payable and has elected and does hereby elect to cause the trust property to be sold to satisfy the obligations secured thereby.”

However, Defendants do not have and assignment of the deed of trust nor have they complied with 2923.5 or 2923.6 or 2924 the Deed of Trust, nor do they provide any documents evidencing obligations secured thereby. For the aforementioned reasons, the Notice of Default will be void as a matter of law. The pretender lenders a banking on the “tender defense” to save them ie. yes we did not follow the law so sue us and when you do we will claim “tender” Check Mate but that’s not the law.

Recording a False Document
Furthermore, according to California Penal Code § 115 in pertinent part:
(a) Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office within this state, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered, or recorded under any law of this state or of the United States, is guilty of a felony.

If you say you have a claim, you must prove it. If you say you are the lender, you must prove it. Legislators take notice: Just because bankers give you money doesn’t mean they can change 1000 years of common law, statutory law and constitutional law. It just won’t fly. And if you are a legislator looking to get elected or re-elected, your failure to act on what is now an obvious need to clear title and restore the wealth of your citizens who were cheated and defrauded, will be punished by the votes of your constituents.

The doan deal 3

California Civil Code 2923.6: California Courts’ Negative Rulings to Homeowners.

By Michael Doan on Apr 26, 2009 in Foreclosure Defense, Foreclosure News, Mortgage Servicer Abuses

In September, 2008, I wrote about the new effects of California Civil Code 2923.6 and how it would appear that home loans in California would require modifications to fair market value in certain situations.

Since then, many decisions have come down from local judges attempting to decipher exactly what it means. Unfortunately, most judges are of the opinion that newly enacted California Civil Code 2923.6 has no teeth, and is a meaningless statute.

Time and time again, California Courts are ruling that the new statute does not create any new duty for servicers of mortgages or that such duties do not apply to borrowers. These Courts then immediately dismiss the case, and usually do not even require the Defendant to file an Answer in Court, eliminating the Plaintiff’s right to any trial.

Notwithstanding some of these decisions, the statute was in fact specifically created to address the foreclosure crisis and help borrowers, as Noted in Section 1 of the Legislative Intent behind the Statute:

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

(a) California is facing an unprecedented threat to its state economy and local economies because of skyrocketing residential property foreclosure rates in California. Residential property foreclosures increased sevenfold from 2006 to 2007. In 2007, more than 84,375 properties were lost to foreclosure in California, and 254,824 loans went into default, the first step in the foreclosure process.

(b) High foreclosure rates have adversely affected property values in California, and will have even greater adverse consequences as foreclosure rates continue to rise. According to statistics released by the HOPE NOW Alliance, the number of completed California foreclosure sales in 2007 increased almost threefold from 1,902 in the first quarter to 5,574 in the fourth quarter of that year. Those same statistics report that 10,556 foreclosure sales, almost double the number for the prior quarter, were completed just in the month of January 2008. More foreclosures means less money for schools, public safety, and other key services.

(c) Under specified circumstances, mortgage lenders and servicers are authorized under their pooling and servicing agreements to modify mortgage loans when the modification is in the best interest of investors. Generally, that modification may be deemed to be in the best interest of investors when the net present value of the income stream of the modified loan is greater than the amount that would be recovered through the disposition of the real property security through a foreclosure sale.

(d) It is essential to the economic health of California for the state to ameliorate the deleterious effects on the state economy and local economies and the California housing market that will result from the continued foreclosures of residential properties in unprecedented numbers by modifying the foreclosure process to require mortgagees, beneficiaries, or authorized agents to contact borrowers and explore options that could avoid foreclosure. These changes in accessing the state’s foreclosure process are essential to ensure that the process does not exacerbate the current crisis by adding more foreclosures to the glut of foreclosed properties already on the market when a foreclosure could have been avoided. Those additional foreclosures will further destabilize the housing market with significant, corresponding deleterious effects on the local and state economy.

(e) According to a survey released by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) on January 31, 2008, 57 percent of the nation’s late-paying borrowers do not know their lenders may offer alternatives to help them avoid foreclosure.

(f) As reflected in recent government and industry-led efforts to help troubled borrowers, the mortgage foreclosure crisis impacts borrowers not only in nontraditional loans, but also many borrowers in conventional loans.

(g) This act is necessary to avoid unnecessary foreclosures of residential properties and thereby provide stability to California’s statewide and regional economies and housing market by requiring early contact and communications between mortgagees, beneficiaries, or authorized agents and specified borrowers to explore options that could avoid foreclosure and by facilitating the modification or restructuring of loans in appropriate circumstances.

SEC. 7. Nothing in this act is intended to affect any local just-cause eviction ordinance. This act does not, and shall not be construed to, affect the authority of a public entity that otherwise exists to regulate or monitor the basis for eviction.

SEC. 8. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

The forgoing clearly illustrates that the California Legislature was specifically looking to curb foreclosures and provide modifications to homeowners in their statement of intent. Moreover, Section (a) of 2923.6 specifically references a new DUTY OWED TO ALL PARTIES in the loan pool:

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that any duty servicers may have to maximize net present value under their pooling and servicing agreements is owed to all parties in a loan pool, not to any particular parties,…..

California Civil Code 2923.6(a) specifically creates to a NEW DUTY not previously addressed in pooling and servicing agreements. It then states that such a DUTY not only applies to the particular parties of the loan pool, but ALL PARTIES. So here we have the clear black and white text of the law stating that if a duty exists in the pooling and servicing agreement to maximize net present value between particular parties of that pool(and by the way, every pooling and servicing agreement I have ever read have such duties), then those same duties extend to all parties in the pool.

So how do these Courts still decide that NO DUTY EXISTS??? How do these Courts dismiss cases by finding that the thousands of borrowers of the loan pool that FUND the entire loan pool are not parties to that pool?

Hmm, if they are really not parties to the loan pool, then why are they even required to make payments on the loans to the loan pools? As you can see, the logic from these courts that there is no duty or that such a duty does not extend to the borrower is nothing short of absurd.

To date, there are no appellate decision on point, but many are in the works. Perhaps these courts skip the DUTY provisions in clause (a) and focus on the fact that no remedy section exists in the statute (notwithstanding the violation of any statute is “Tort in Se”). Perhaps their dockets are too full to fully read the legislative history of the statute (yes, when printed out is about 6 inches thick!) Whatever the reason, it seems a great injustice is occurring to defaulting homeowners, and the housing crisis is only worsening by these decisions.

Yet the reality is that much of the current housing crisis has a solution in 2923.6, and is precisely why the legislature created this EMERGENCY LEGISLATION. Its very simple: Modify mortgages, keep people in their homes, foreclosures and housing supplies goes down, and prices stabilize. More importantly, to the Servicers and Lenders, is the fact that they are now better off since THEY GENERALLY SAVE $50,000 OR MORE in foreclosure costs when modifying a loan(yes, go ahead and google the general costs of foreclosure and you will see that a minimum of $50,000.00 in losses is the average). Thus it is strange why most Courts are ruling that the California Legislature spent a lot of time and money writing a MEANINGLESS STATUTE with no application or remedy to those in need of loan modification.

Well, at least one Judge recently got it right. On April 6, 2009, in Ventura, California, in Superior Court case number 56-2008-00333790-CU-OR-VTA, Judge Fred Bysshe denied Metrocities Mortgage’ motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought under 2923.6. Judge Bysshe ruled that 2923.6 is not a matter of law that can be decided in the beginning of a lawsuit to dismiss it, but is instead a matter of fact that needs to be decided later:

THE COURT: Well, at this juncture in this case the Court holds that section 2923.6 was the legislature’s attempt to deal with a collapsing mortgage industry, and also to stabilize the market. And the Court’s ruling is to overrule the demurrer. Require the defendant to file an answer on or before April 27, 2009. And at this juncture with regard to the defendant’s request to set aside the Lis Pendens, that request is denied without prejudice.

Hopefully, more judges will now follow suit and appeals courts will have the same rulings. To read the actual transcript of the forgoing case, please click to my other blog here.

Written by Michael Doan

Countrywide complaint

countrywide_fin_class_action_defense_mdl

Homecomings TILA complaint GMAC

homecomingstila

Leman Tila complaint

Lemantilacomp

Lender class action

Mortgageinvestorgroupclass

Option One Complaint Pick a payment lawsuit

optionone

What is worse bankruptcy or foreclosure?

So what is worse, bankruptcy or foreclosure? Which will have the biggest impact on my credit score? Both bankruptcy and foreclosure will have serious negative affects on your personal credit report and your credit score as well. With re-established credit after a bankruptcy and/or foreclosure you can possibly qualify for a good mortgage once again in as little as 24 months. Therefore, it is very difficult to say one is worse than the other, but the bottom line is that they are both very bad for you and should be avoided if all possible.

Foreclosure is worse then bankruptcy because you are actually losing something of value, your home. Once you are in foreclosure you will lose any and all equity in your home. If there is no equity in the home you will be responsible for the remaining balance after the property auction. With chapter 7 bankruptcy all of your unsecured debts are erased and you start over and in most cases you will not lose anything other then your credit rating.

Many times qualifying for a mortgage after a foreclosure is more difficult than applying for a home after a bankruptcy. With that said, that could possibly lead you to believe that foreclosure is worse than bankruptcy. Most people who have a home foreclosed upon end up filing bankruptcy as well.

Bankruptcy and Foreclosure filings are public records, however no one would know about your proceedings under normal circumstances. The Credit Bureaus will record your bankruptcy and a foreclosure. Bankruptcies will remain on your credit record for 10 years while foreclosures can stay on your report for up to 7 years.

In some cases, one can refinance out of a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy with a 12 month trustee payment history and a timely mortgage history. It is much more difficult to obtain financing with a foreclosure on your record.

Foreclosure is worse because of the loss of value. You will not receive any compensation for the equity in your home if it proceeds to foreclosure.

Standing argument

judge-youngs-decision-on-nosek

Ameriquest’s final argument, that the sanctions are a
criminal penalty, is bereft of authority. Ameriquest cites F.J.
Hanshaw Enterprises, Inc. v. Emerald River Development, Inc., 244
F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001), a case about inherent powers – not
Rule 11 –

This is an excerpt from the decision just this bloggers note the Hanshaw Case was my case. I argued this case at the 9th circuit court of appeals

http://openjurist.org/244/f3d/1128/fj-v-emerald fj-v-emerald

If you will grasp the implications of this judge-youngs-decision-on-nosekdecision all or most all the evictions and foreclosures are being litigated by the wrong parties that is to say parties who have no real stake in the outcome. they are merely servicers not the real investors. They do not have the right to foreclose or evict. No assignment No note No security interest No standing They do not want to be listed anywhere. They (the lenders) have caused the greatest damage to the American Citizen since the great depression and they do not want to be exposed or named in countless lawsuits. Time and time again I get from the judges in demurer hearings ” I see what you are saying counsel but your claim does not appear to be against this defendant” the unnamed investment pool of the Lehman Brothers shared High yield equity Fund trustee does not exist and so far can’t be sued.

Exponential Usury On Wall Street

By Edward W. Miller, MD

Thou hast taken usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbors by extortion, and thou hast forgotten me saith the Lord.” – Ezekiel 22:12 (King James Version)

And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple and turned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, ‘It is written, ‘My house show be called a house of prayer’; but you make it a den of robbers.'” -Matthew 21: 12

AS for our economy, the ongoing failure of millions of “sub-prime” mortgages with 9 million threatened foreclosures across the country, the increasing reported lack of “affordable housing”, along with a consumer debt of $2.52 trillion, and a major economic recession stretching across the industrial world comes as no surprise to those who have watched Congress, again and again surrender to Wall Street lobbying over the past half century. The first major slide downhill took place on June 23rd, 1947, when a newly elected Republican Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act over president Truman’s veto. The results of this assault on American labor appeared gradually over the years. Beginning in 1972, statistics show that wages were already falling below the costs of living for the American middle class.

The present huge pyramid of debt, both public and private was made possible by the weakening of labor’s political input plus thirty years of Congress’ relentless deregulation of our financial markets, culminating, during the Clinton Administration, in the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which Act had prohibited banks from dealing in high-risk securities. In effect, Washington supposed regulators had become passive enablers to Wall Street’s financial binge drinkers.

As columnist Robert Scheer pointed out (March 12th SF Chronicle): “The Clinton-backed Gramm-Leach-Baily Act of 1999 called the “Financial Services Modernization Act,” permitted banks, stock brokers, and insurance companies to merge and was exacerbated by Bush’s appointment of rapacious corporate foxes to watch the corporate hen house.” They will take care of their own…Their action was made possible only by the federal government’s using our tax dollars to pick up the bad debt of the banks.”

President Signs Mortgage Bills

Carrie Bay | 05.20.09

President Barack Obama signed two housing bills into law on Wednesday afternoon – one that provides additional foreclosure relief and a second that targets mortgage fraud and other criminal activity related to federal assistance programs. The Helping Families Save Their Home Act will make vital changes to the Hope for Homeowners (H4H) program to encourage servicers to employ the plan as a means to help underwater homeowners under the administration’s Making Home Affordable program.

The bill also includes a servicer safe haven to provide lenders with liability protections from investors for the mortgage modifications they make. It provides for an additional $130 million to fund foreclosure prevention efforts, such as counseling and education, and establishes foreclosure protections for renters. In addition, the new law more than triples the FDIC’s line of credit with the Treasury to $100 billion – a measure intended to rebuild the agency’s depleted insurance fund while keeping lenders’ depository insurance fees at a minimum.

The act also permanently raises the insurance cap on individual bank accounts from $100,000 to $250,000.

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) grants new resources to help fight financial fraud and address the rapid rise in mortgage and foreclosure rescue scams. The legislation provides nearly $500 million for the investigation and prosecution of such criminal activity – a move that John A. Courson, president and CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) called “imperative in protecting vulnerable consumers as well as protecting the integrity of our housing finance system.” Of the funds provided under FERA, the majority will be allocated to the hiring of fraud prosecutors and investigators at the Justice Department and to increasing the number of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents devoted to mortgage fraud.

The money will also be used to expand the staff of the U.S. Attorney’s office and the Justice Department’s criminal, civil, and tax divisions. In addition, the legislation, for the first time, expands federal fraud statutes to also apply to independent mortgage companies and mortgage brokers that are not regulated or insured by the government.

Using the countrywide complaint in your own case

Using the countrywide complaint in your own casecounrtrywidelanderscomplaintand countrywidelanders and word versionsCountrywide attorney general Complaint Form and templetsCountrywide Complaint Form

Coalition sues lenders

Coalition Sues lenders

They are to give options to foreclosure 2923.5

(a) (1) A mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent may not file a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924 until
30 days after contact is made as required by paragraph (2) or 30
days after satisfying the due diligence requirements as described in
subdivision (g).
   (2) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall contact
the borrower in person (and this does not mean agent for the foreclosure company) or by telephone in order to assess the
borrower's financial situation and explore options for the borrower
to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent shall advise the borrower that he or
she has the right to request a subsequent meeting and, if requested,
the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall schedule the
meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the borrower's
financial situation and discussion of options may occur during the
first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that
purpose. In either case, the borrower shall be provided the toll-free
telephone number made available by the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing
counseling agency. Any meeting may occur telephonically.
   (b) A notice of default filed pursuant to Section 2924 shall
include a declaration from the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent that it has contacted the borrower, tried with due diligence to
contact the borrower as required by this section, or the borrower
has surrendered the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary,
or authorized agent.
   (c) If a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent had
already filed the notice of default prior to the enactment of this
section and did not subsequently file a notice of rescission, then
the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall, as
part of the notice of sale filed pursuant to Section 2924f, include a
declaration that either:
   (1) States that the borrower was contacted to assess the borrower'
s financial situation and to explore options for the borrower to
avoid foreclosure.
   (2) Lists the efforts made, if any, to contact the borrower in the
event no contact was made.
   (d) A mortgagee's, beneficiary's, or authorized agent's loss
mitigation personnel may participate by telephone during any contact
required by this section.
   (e) For purposes of this section, a "borrower" shall include a
mortgagor or trustor.
   (f) A borrower may designate a HUD-certified housing counseling
agency, attorney, or other advisor to discuss with the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent, on the borrower's behalf, options
for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. That contact made at the
direction of the borrower shall satisfy the contact requirements of
paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). Any loan modification or workout
plan offered at the meeting by the mortgagee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent is subject to approval by the borrower.
   (g) A notice of default may be filed pursuant to Section 2924 when
a mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has not contacted a
borrower as required by paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) provided
that the failure to contact the borrower occurred despite the due
diligence of the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent. For
purposes of this section, "due diligence" shall require and mean all
of the following:
   (1) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall first
attempt to contact a borrower by sending a first-class letter that
includes the toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find
a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.
   (2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent shall attempt to contact the
borrower by telephone at least three times at different hours and on
different days.  Telephone calls shall be made to the primary
telephone number on file.
   (B) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent may attempt to
contact a borrower using an automated system to dial borrowers,
provided that, if the telephone call is answered, the call is
connected to a live representative of the mortgagee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent.
   (C) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent satisfies the
telephone contact requirements of this paragraph if it determines,
after attempting contact pursuant to this paragraph, that the
borrower's primary telephone number and secondary telephone number or
numbers on file, if any, have been disconnected.
   (3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the
telephone call requirements of paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the
mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall then send a
certified letter, with return receipt requested.
   (4) The mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall provide
a means for the borrower to contact it in a timely manner, including
a toll-free telephone number that will provide access to a live
representative during business hours.
   (5) The mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has posted a
prominent link on the homepage of its Internet Web site, if any, to
the following information:
   (A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to
afford their mortgage payments and who wish to avoid foreclosure, and
instructions to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore
those options.
   (B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be
prepared to present to the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent when discussing options for avoiding foreclosure.
   (C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss
options for avoiding foreclosure with their mortgagee, beneficiary,
or authorized agent.
   (D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a
HUD-certified housing counseling agency.
   (h) Subdivisions (a), (c), and (g) shall not apply if any of the
following occurs:
   (1) The borrower has surrendered the property as evidenced by
either a letter confirming the surrender or delivery of the keys to
the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent.
   (2) The borrower has contracted with an organization, person, or
entity whose primary business is advising people who have decided to
leave their homes on how to extend the foreclosure process and avoid
their contractual obligations to mortgagees or beneficiaries.
   (3) The borrower has filed for bankruptcy, and the proceedings
have not been finalized.
   (i) This section shall apply only to loans made from January 1,
2003, to December 31, 2007, inclusive, that are secured by
residential real property and are for owner-occupied residences. For
purposes of this subdivision, "owner-occupied" means that the
residence is the principal residence of the borrower.
  (j) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2013,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute,
that is enacted before January 1, 2013, deletes or extends that da

Toxic Corpus no note no corpus

In a trust (all trusts) there is a grantor/trustor, Trustee and a Beneficiary/investor. Right? Well, there is one more vital element you need for every trust that most people do not look at. You always need a “corpus” or a body of the trust. Right?

Well, sit down! Take a deep breath and keep reading: A transaction that uses a ‘deed of trust’ involves a trust. There is a ‘grantor/trustor’, a ‘trustee’, a ‘beneficiary/investor’ . Please tell me what the ‘corpus’ IS for this type of a trust? Most people think it is the property—but hold on—it isn’t–the property has a deed to it and the deed to the property is ONLY used as security for the real corpus–the Promissory Note! And–that is why they call these notes “Toxic Assets”. Without the Promissory Note (asset and corpus) there CANNOT be a valid trust. Without a valid trust–there is no longer need for any security called the ‘deed of trust’. RIGHT?

This is soooo simple that it is overlooked by EVERYONE—but it IS the law!!! They NEVER talked about trust law in a fight with a deed of trust and foreclosure–but that is because the TRUSTOR/GRANTOR does not bring it up. It is the job of the Trustor/Grantor to bring this up, that the Trust does NOT exist any longer because the corpus of the trust IS NOT THERE!

Let me know your thoughts on this.

Doan on “produce the Note”

Are Courts in California Truly Limited by Non-Judicial Foreclosure Statutes?

By Michael Doan on May 2, 2009 in Foreclosure Defense, Foreclosure News

Recently, many California Courts have been dismissing lawsuits filed to stop non-judicial foreclosures, ruling that the non-judicial foreclosure statutes occupy the field and are exclusive as long as they are complied with. Thus, in the case where a notice of default is recorded and a lawsuit then filed in response to stop the foreclosure since the foreclosing party does not possess the underlying note, all too often the Court will simply dismiss the case and claim “2924 has no requirement to produce the note.”

Thus, these Courts view the statutes that regulate non-judicial foreclosures as all inclusive of all the requirements and remedies in foreclosure proceedings. Indeed, California Civil Code sections 2924 through 2924k provide a comprehensive framework for the regulation of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale pursuant to a power of sale contained in a deed of trust. This comprehensive statutory scheme has three purposes: ‘“(1) to provide the creditor/beneficiary with a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy against a defaulting debtor/trustor; (2) to protect the debtor/trustor from wrongful loss of the property; and (3) to ensure that a properly conducted sale is final between the parties and conclusive as to a bona fide purchaser.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Melendrez v. D & I Investment, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1249–1250 [26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 413].)

Notwithstanding, the foreclosure statutes are not exclusive. If someone commits murder during an auction taking place under Civil Code 2924, that does not automatically mean they are immune from criminal and civil liability. Perhaps this is where some of these courts are “missing the boat.”

For example, in Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 1226, 1231 [44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352, 900 P.2d 601], the California Supreme Court concluded that a lender who obtained the property with a full credit bid at a foreclosure sale was not precluded from suing a third party who had fraudulently induced it to make the loan. The court concluded that “ ‘the antideficiency laws were not intended to immunize wrongdoers from the consequences of their fraudulent acts’ ” and that, if the court applies a proper measure of damages, “ ‘fraud suits do not frustrate the antideficiency policies because there should be no double recovery for the beneficiary.’ ” (Id. at p. 1238.)

Likewise, in South Bay Building Enterprises, Inc. v. Riviera Lend-Lease, Inc. [*1071] (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121 [85 Cal. Rptr. 2d 647], the court held that a junior lienor retains the right to recover damages from the trustee and the beneficiary of the foreclosing lien if there have been material irregularities in the conduct of the foreclosure sale. (See also Melendrez v. D & I Investment, Inc., supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1257–1258; Lo v. Jensen (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1095 [106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 443] [a trustee’s sale tainted by fraud may be set aside].)

In looking past the comprehensive statutory framework, these other Courts also considered the policies advanced by the statutory scheme, and whether those policies would be frustrated by other laws. Recently, in the case of California Golf, L.L.C. v. Cooper, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1053, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 153, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 850 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2008), the Appellate Court held that the remedies of 2924h were not exclusive. Of greater importance is that the Appellate Court reversed the lower court and specifically held that provisions in UCC Article 3 were allowed in the foreclosure context:

Considering the policy interests advanced by the statutory scheme governing nonjudicial foreclosure sales, and the policy interests advanced by Commercial Code section 3312, it is clear that allowing a remedy under the latter does not undermine the former. Indeed, the two remedies are complementary and advance the same goals. The first two goals of the nonjudicial foreclosure statutes: (1) to provide the creditor/beneficiary with a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy against a defaulting debtor/trustor and (2) to protect the debtor/trustor from a wrongful loss of the property, are not impacted by the decision that we reach. This case most certainly, however, involves the third policy interest: to ensure that a properly conducted sale is final between the parties and conclusive as to a bona fide purchaser.

This is very significant since it provides further support to lawsuits brought against foreclosing parties lacking the ability to enforce the underlying note, since those laws also arise under Article 3. Under California Commercial Code 3301, a note may only be enforced if one has actual possession of the note as a holder, or has possession of the note not as a non-holder but with holder rights.

Just like in California Golf, enforcing 3301 operates to protect the debtor/trustor from a wrongful loss of the property. To the extent that a foreclosing party might argue that such lawsuits disrupt a quick, inexpensive, and efficient remedy against a defaulting debtor/trustor, the response is that “since there is no enforceable obligation, the foreclosing entity is not a party/creditor/beneficiary entitled to a quick, inexpensive, and efficient remedy,” but simply a declarant that recorded false documents.

This is primarily because being entitled to foreclose non-judicially under 2924 can only take place “after a breach of the obligation for which that mortgage or transfer is a security.” Thus, 2924 by its own terms, looks outside of the statute to the actual obligation to see if there was a breach, and if the note is unenforceable under Article 3, there can simply be no breach. End of story.

Accordingly, if there is no possession of the note or possession was not obtained until after the notice of sale was recorded, it is impossible to trigger 2924, and simple compliance with the notice requirements in 2924 does not suddenly bless the felony of grand theft of the unknown foreclosing entity. To hold otherwise would create absurd results since it would allow any person or company the right to take another persons’ home by simply recording a false notice of default and notice of sale.

Indeed, such absurdity would allow you to foreclose on your own home again to get it back should you simply record the same false documents. Thus it is obvious that these courts improperly assume the allegations contained in the notice of default and notice of sale are truthful. Perhaps these courts simply can not or choose not to believe such frauds are taking place due to the magnitude and volume of foreclosures in this Country at this time. One can only image the chaos that would ensue in America if the truth is known that millions of foreclosures took place unlawfully and millions more are now on hold as a result of not having the ability to enforce the underlying obligation pursuant to Article 3.

So if you are in litigation to stop a foreclosure, you can probably expect the Court will want to immediately dismiss your case. These Courts just can not understand how the law would allow someone to stay in a home without paying. Notwithstanding, laws can not be broken, and Courts are not allowed to join with the foreclosing parties in breaking laws simply because “not paying doesn’t seem right.”

Accordingly, at least for appeal purposes, be sure to argue that 2924 was never triggered since there was never any “breach of the obligation” and that Appellate Courts throughout California have routinely held that other laws do in fact apply in the non-judicial foreclosure process since the policies advanced by the statutory non-judicial foreclosure scheme are not frustrated by these other laws.

Sample complaint template

this is the type of complaint to get the lender to the table sample-bank-final-complaint1-2

FORECLOSURE DEFENSE: CALIFORNIA SOMETIMES IT’S THE LITTLE THINGS THAT COUNT

As I continue through this journey through the maze created by lenders, investment bankers, title agents and closing/escrow agents I keep discovering things that end up being quite interesting.

For example: In California the requirements for posting Notice of sale are very clear and yet, I am told that they are routinely ignored. This would invalidate the notice of sale on the most basic of concepts “notice,” by definition and therefore could be attacked at any time as a defect of service and jurisdiction while at the same time bring your claims under TILA, usury, identity theft, fraud, etc. California requires public and private posting as do most other states. The public part is what they ordinarily ignore. see notice-of-the-sale-thereof-shall-be-given-by-posting-a-written-notice

With the new law changes Civil code 2923.5 that became effective Sept 6, 2008 it adds more procedures that are routinely not followed ie. a Declaration must be attached and recorded that recites that the lender has met and assessed the borrowers financial condition and made alternatives to forclosure ie. modification. First they don’t do it and second the declaration is not even under penalty of pujury. So on its face the sale could be set aside.

After the notice of default the lender routinely switches trustee’s and records a Substitution of trustee with an affidavit that is not under penalty of perjury. Again the sale could be set aside for this.

For example. MERS, whose legal status is dubious at best anyway inasmuch as it plainly violates the recording requirements of every state and which supposedly has not one but multiple corporate entities, one of which has been suspended from operation in California, is subject to specific instructions as to what to do with the “master Deed of Trust and what to do with the individual deed of trust, the procedures, language to be inserted etc. These too I am told are routinely ignored especially when it comes to (a) showing that you have provided a copy of the Master Deed of Trust and (b) having the proof as specifically required in the FNMA/Freddie instruction sheet.

As stated in my other posts, the entire MERS concept causes, in my opinion, a separation between the alleged security instrument and provisions, the Trustee’s authority and the note, all of which end up being different people who were all “real parties in interest” receiving fees and value not disclosed in the GFE or settlement statement. In all these closings the borrower is subjected to a series of documents that hide the true nature of the transaction, the true source of funds, the true lender, and the application of funds contrary to the terms of the note.

All of these new requirements create questions of fact, that if not correct, create a method to set aside the sale by way of court action. I guess that’s the point the lenders trustees and servicers are banking on the victims not fighting it.

Borrowers’ Defenses to Forclosure

A great source of information you can use, and since the Guy is in Washington I can give him all the credit
defensestoforeclosure

Doan deal 2

Mortgage Chaos? Add a Bankruptcy and its a Recipe for Disaster! Part II

My last article laid out the framework for the bankruptcy real estate cocktail. This article will attempt to predict how that cocktail will be served and its ramifications. Remember, this recipe for disaster requires two things: a “Non-Perfected” Mortgage and a Bankruptcy.

So far, about 70 to 80% of the mortgages I see in local Bankruptcy cases here in the Southern District of California Bankruptcy Court appear to be non-perfected. Despite my continued requests to the mortgage companies to produce either proof they possess the underlying note or proof of a recorded assignment, I have received neither. Instead I get the run around, “Yes we have the original note. Really, can I see? Actually no, I thought we had the original, but we have a copy…………Yes we have the assignment. Really, can I see? Sure, here you go. But that was not recorded. Oh…….” Its the same song and dance. So what becomes of this?

Chapter 7: The trustee will most likely put on his “544 hat” and now “strip the lien off the house.”

When he does this, he creates an unencumbered piece of real estate in most cases, with the exception of a small amount of past taxes and HOA fees remaining as liens on the property. The property is then sold and net profits held in trust. A notice is then sent to the creditors of the bankruptcy to submit a claim if they want to get paid.

The claims are then reviewed, and paid pro-rata or objected to with the Bankruptcy Court issuing the final ruling. The Claims process is a complex area too lengthy to discuss for this Blog, but suffice to say, many claims will be objected to as well, since most credit card debt and collection agents have similar problems in proving they too own their debts. Moreover, you might ask what happens to the mortgage lien which has now become a large unsecured debt? It might be paid, provided they can prove they own the note. However, it also may not. There is a Bankruptcy Code section, 11 USC 502(d) which states that a creditor may not be able to share in the distribution if they did not give up there lien when requested by the trustee under 544. So, it could be that any remaining monies may even go back to the debtor if the new unsecured mortgage claim is disallowed! But this remains a grey area, and time will tell.

But what if the debtor wants to keep the house? No problem. Time to make a deal with the trustee. Suppose that the House was bought for $650,000 in 2006 with 100% financing and now is worth $500,000. The debtor is negative $150,000 in equity. Upside Down! Now lets say a bankruptcy is filed. The Mortgage Note was not perfected so Bankruptcy Trustee avoids the lien. Now he has this $500,000 piece of real estate that he wants to sell, but the debtor wants to keep it. So the debtor makes an offer of $430,000 to keep the house and the Trustee agrees. Trustee agrees since he would only net $430,000 anyways after costs of sale, attorney fees, marketing, etc. Debtor gets the $430,000 from a new loan he might qualify for, have cosigned, or have a family member engage their credit. Trustee then takes the $430,000 and distributes to creditors, which include the debtor’

s non-dischargeable taxes, non-dischargeable child support obligations, and non-dischargeable student loans.

Wow! Lets get this straight: Mortgage reduced from $650,000 to $430,000, and over $100,000 in non-dischargeable bankruptcy debt consisting of student loans, taxes, and support obligations also paid, and all other debt wiped out? Sounds like the lemon just turned into lemonade! Also, time to also read the blog on why the credit score is much better after bankruptcy than before now.

Chapter 13: In Chapter 13, the Trustee does not liquidate assets. Instead, he administers a three to five year plan by distributing the monthly payments from the debtor to the creditors, and the avoidance powers of the Chapter 7 Trustee are given to the Debtor(at least here in the Ninth Circuit….western states in the US). This includes the power to remove unperfected liens such as unperfected mortgages.

So now the debtor can remove the mortgage just like a Chapter 7 Trustee.

But that might be a problem. The Chapter 13 Trustee may object now to the bankruptcy since the debtor has too many assets. Well, as discussed above, time to get another smaller mortgage, pay that money into the Chapter 13 plan, and again pay off the non-dischargeable debt. Even better, if not all the creditors filed claims, the money then reverts to the debtor!

In the alternative, the simple threat of litigating the issues to remove the mortgage sure makes for a great negotiating tool to deal with the lender and rewrite the mortgage…..knocking off possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars and also lowering the interest rate substantially.

Involuntary Bankruptcies? Is there such a thing? Unfortunately, YES. And this could be very problematic. If several creditors are owed substantial sums of money, say a SBA Loan, large Medical Bill, or even large credit cards, they could petition the court for an involuntary bankruptcy. The debtor has no control to stop it. Next thing the debtor knows, he is in a bankruptcy and all the property is being liquidated, less the property allowed by exemption law. Then steps up the Chapter 7 Trustee and discovers that the Mortgage is not perfected. Well, there goes the house now! Or does it?

Once again, a smart debtor would argue to the trustee that he will get a loan to pay the trustee as discussed above. Problem solved, and what appears to be disaster at first, may be a blessing in disguise. The debtor keeps his home with a much smaller mortgage and removes non-dischargeable debts. He is better off now than before, even though he did not want this!

So the Recipe for Disaster appears to only affect the Mortgage Companies. They are the losing parties here, and rightly so for getting sloppy…..attempting to save $14 per loan times thousands of loans. Why didn’t they compute losing hundreds of thousands of dollars per loan times thousands of loans? Couldn’

t they connect the dots? No…..like I said, lots of smart Real Estate Attorneys and lots of smart Bankruptcy Attorneys, but not too many Bankruptcy Real Estate Attorneys and none of them worked for the Mortgage industry.

But everyone else now seems to win. The debtor reduces his mortgage, gets a better interest rate, and eliminates the rest of his debts. The trustee makes a healthy profit on distributing such a large dividend to creditors. And the creditors who obey the law now share in a large dividend.

Of course, all the forgoing is Brand New. It has not been done yet in any cases I am aware of. But since talking with other Bankruptcy Attorneys across the Nation for the past couple weeks, its starting to catch on. I’

m told a few trustees back east have started this procedure now. And just today, I get an announcement from our local Chapter 7 Trustee that he is making new requirements concerning producing documents in all cases before him so that he can start avoiding these liens. Coincidentally, this also comes after three of our Local Bankruptcy Judges started denying relief to Mortgage Creditors when coming before the Bankruptcy Court during the past week! Its brand new…but catching on like wildfire.

Housing Bubble? Mortgage Bubble? Well now it’

s a Housing Mortgage Bubble disaster about to happen in Bankruptcy Court. Congress was not able to reform the predatory lending abuses. The Lenders certainly do not seem interested in workout programs. I guess its time for a Bankruptcy Cocktail!

Written by Attorney Michael G. Doan

	Randolph Frodsham on Viral Burger King Worker Fired…
	April on Prosecuting Violations of the…
	Kansas Supreme Court… on MERS Is Dead: Can Be Sued For…
	frontncenter on NOMI PRINS…Foreclosure c…
	Yadullah westry on Robo-signers List

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: