Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Judge Dodges Real Issue in BK Foreclosure Case

Greeting's to all,

I just wanted to share with you on what happened in BK court today.
The motion that was to be decided today was for changing the alleged secured creditor to an unsecured creditor. My claim was that they had no standing and they were not a secured creditor. I had answered their opposition with a 19 page pleading and 18 exhibits with about 500 pages worth of evidence. including a 424b5 prospectus, a Fannie Mae Residential Prospectus, A Pooling and Servicing Agreement, A Trust Agreement from Fannie Mae, and many more items along with 2 declarations from 2 independent forensic examinations that I had done on my account.
I thought that this was a slam dunk and should have been , however the judge said that he could not make a decision because I had been discharged last month on the day prior to my last hearing that was continued. This was outside the jurisdiction of his court.
I had bought forth fraud issues, perjury issues ,fraud upon the court issues and they had all been swept away. I was pissed and he knew it. He allowed me the 10 minutes that I took to try and get a straight answer
from him and he could not give me an answer to the question that I asked him point blank. and that was.

Is the claim that I have with BAC Home Loans discharged as such as listed on my BK Petition? They are listed as an unsecured non-priority creditor because they have failed to prove that they were a secured
creditor. He said that all of my claims other than the claims secured would be discharged. I asked again saying that YOUR HONOR YOU HAVE STILL NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. Is BAC discharged as such? He then said that (I) (am not) not going to like what I am going to tell you. He then said " I do not have the jurisdiction to make that decision" You make have to file a claim against BAC to resolve that issue if you have a issue with them.
That was it; Over 1500 pages copied and $150 in copying 3 sets of pleadings, 4 days of Grueling 20 hrs each day writing up the 1 pleading and 1 amended Pleading.

I have just begun to fight.
If anyone would like a copy of my pleadings I will send them to you if you send me an email personally. If you would like a copy of any of the other items such as the Trust agreement, Fannie Mae Residential Prospectus, send me a email and I will give you my case # and you can look at it on PACER.

Thursday, October 21, 2010



Office of the Comptroller

Customer Complaint (Confirmation # 70290EA2010);

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

NC Homeowners' Case Dismissed for Failure to State Claim; Motion for Reconsideration Denied

October 19, 2010


On September 14, 2009, Rex T. Gilbert, Jr., and Daniela L. Gilbert ("plaintiffs" or "Gilberts") filed suit in Hyde County Superior Court against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("Deutsche"), Residential Funding, LLC ("Residential Funding"), GMAC Mortgage, LLC ("GMAC"), and David A. Simpson, P.C. ("Simpson") (collectively "defendants"), seeking to rescind their mortgage loan [D.E. 1-1]. Defendants removed the action to this court [D.E. 1] and moved to dismiss the Gilberts' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [D.E.6]. The court granted the motion to dismiss and enteredjudgment in favor of the defendants [D.E. 32, 33]. The Gilberts subsequently filed a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 591 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [D.E. 34].

The court dismissed Gilberts' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. There was no trial in this case. Therefore the Gilberts' request for a "new trial" is denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a).

The Gilberts also ask the court to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59( e). The court has considered the motion for relief under the governing standard. See, e.g., Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010); Zinkand v. Brown, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 2007); Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2006); Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). "In general, reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403. Courts have recognized three grounds for altering or amending a judgment: (1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Zinkand, 478 F.3d at 637; Pac. Ins. Co, 148 F.3d at 403. Rule 59(e) motions may not be used "to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to the issuance of the judgment, nor may they be used to argue a case under a novel legal theory that they party had the ability to address in the first instance." Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403. Moreover, mere disagreement with the court's decision is not a proper basis for a Rule 59(e) motion. Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081-82 (4th Cir. 1993).

The Gilberts' motion does not meet the standard for relief under Rule 59( e). Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration [D.E. 34] is DENIED.



1. The Gilberts' motion sought relief under Rule 59(a)(1)(B) and (a)(2). However, the Gilberts' memorandum in support of the motion [D.E. 36] additionally requested relief under Rule 59(e).


BOA Sued by Homeowners for Racketeering

Bloomberg Business Week, October 19, 2010, 7:58 PM EDT

Bank of America Corp. and its Countrywide Home Loans unit were sued by two Indiana residents claiming that perjured affidavits were used to foreclose on their Knightstown home.

Plaintiffs Dwayne Ransom Davis and Melisa Davis accused the lender and its unit of racketeering in a complaint filed today in federal court in Indianapolis...

"The defendants and their cohorts engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity in which they routinely and repeatedly prepared perjured affidavits in order to rapidly churn foreclosures," the couple said in the complaint.

While the borrowers aren't asking the court to reverse their foreclosure, they're seeking compensatory damages tripled under federal racketeering laws, as well as class action, or group, status to sue on behalf of anyone whose home was allegedly taken since October 2006 under similar circumstances.

Levin said the group might include hundreds of thousands of people.

The case is Davis v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc., 10-cv-01303, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis).

Did you notice? -- compensatory damages TRIPLED under Federal racketeering laws?

Screw the house, go for the damages. See if you can join this case or use their example to file a similar one.

I love it. We're on a roll, folks...BoA has ordered in more Allka-Seltzer...

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Homeowner Wins Case Without a Lawyer

New York Times, October 18, 2010

A case in Oregon may prove to be a classic example of how a single person can affect the legal system.

Judge Garr M. King issued an injunction in United States District Court blocking the foreclosure of Ms. Rinegard-Guirma's home, saying she was likely to prevail in her argument that the basic structure of MERS violates Oregon law and renders the mortgage invalid.

In her complaint, she sees a conspiracy to drive her out of her home, and says actions of the defendants have caused her to suffer "nausea, headaches, sleeplessness, skin rashes and depression," for which she was treated at the Oregon College of Oriental Medicine. She says efforts to negotiate a loan modification were rebuffed, despite proof she could not afford the monthly payments.

According to the judge, the mortgage on her home was sold to one of the more troubled subprime mortgage securitizations, GSAMP Trust 2006-HE5, a Goldman Sachs deal. Under the law, the sale of the mortgage would have had to take place in 2006, around the time the securitization trust was created. The company that arranged the mortgage, Mortgage Lenders Network USA, has gone out of business...

The Oregon judge reports that "on April 15, 2008, at 4:56 a.m., Marti Noriega, acting as vice president for `Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. as nominee in favor of Mortgage Lenders Network USA Inc.' signed as assignment of deed of trust" conveying the mortgage to LaSalle National Bank, the trustee of the mortgage trust. (LaSalle is now part of Bank of America.)

That date is more than six months after the last payment on the mortgage. Mortgage Lenders Network had halted operations 15 months earlier, yet still was able to have someone act as its nominee.

Note the time, before 5 a.m. According to the trust report, it began foreclosure proceedings in April 2008. Is it possible that the proceedings began the same day the deed was assigned?

The Oregon case is Natache D. Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America in United States District Court in Oregon, Civil Case No. 10-1065-PK. In the trust records, which I found on Bloomberg, the loan has the number 404029308.

Read more here:

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Loan Modifications / Principal Reductions, a Farce

Phoenix Business Journal, Oct. 15, 2010

"Arizona Wholesale Mortgage charges $3,000 for loan modification work. If it is unsuccessful, all but $600 is refunded. [The company's owner] said consumers should be leery of modification firms promising principal reductions. He said the more likely scenario is for banks to temporarily lower interest rates to as low as 2 percent and then gradually bring them back up each year until they reach 5 percent. That practice is occurring under federal mortgage assistance programs...

"'Interest rate adjustments are really all I've seen, but these are tantamount to principal reductions if the homeowner ends up staying in the home long enough,' said Robert Nagle, a real estate attorney...'By this I mean when we borrow $100,000 to buy a house, we end up paying back, say $300,000, when you add in the $200,000 of interest. If you reduce the interest rate early enough in the term, as we are presently seeing, then perhaps the total paid drops to $250,000. So, in essence, the homeowner `repays' $50,000 less...

"The Arizona Department of Housing last month started a program with a $125 million grant from the Obama administration to curtail foreclosures in the state. The program could lower principal by as much as $100,000 for underwater borrowers at least two months behind in payments. But the principal reductions hinge on banks going along with the plan and matching a $50,000 principal payment by the state.

"Real estate pros aren't optimistic.

"'I have never seen a principal reduction, just `trial periods' that drag on and on... Seems like most of these banks know they are going to get the house back sooner or later, so they have made up these trial periods as a method to get some additional money to come in on the property before it is ultimately short sold or foreclosed on,' said Joseph Maggiore, a Realtor with Realty Executives in Scottsdale.

Friday, October 1, 2010

BOA Joins JP Morgan in Halting Foreclosures

Bank Of America Joins JPMorgan And Ally In Admitting It Never Validated Foreclosures Docs

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/01/2010 15:33 -0500

Bank of AmericaBank of New YorkFloridaGMACIllinoisJPMorgan ChaseOhioWells Fargo

The third major bank joins JPM and Ally, which have already halted foreclosures, in admitting that one of its officials "signed up to 8000 foreclosure documents a month and typically didn't read them." Which means Bank of America is about to halt its foreclosure process. Which leaves us with the last big mortgage lender: Wells Fargo, which is quietly doing the opposite. As American Banker reports, Wells is actually curtailing extensions on residential short sales, in a last ditch attempt to accelerate the foreclosure process before it also falls under the spotlight of fraudulent foreclosure disclosure. And Wells has more than everyone else combined, courtesy of its core market on the West Coast which, as it will soon be uncovered, has more mortgage fraud than any place in the known and unknown universe. As one reader wonders: "You think Wells is trying to hide more losses or are the banks switching to 100% bulk sale liquidations?" If indeed this is nothing than a last ditch attempt to dump as much as possible before the REO spigot is shut off, then shit is really about to hit the fan.

From the Associates Press:

A Bank of America official acknowledges in a legal proceeding that she signed up to 8,000 foreclosure documents a month and typically didn't read them.

The executive's admission adds the nation's largest bank to a growing list of mortgage companies whose employees signed documents in foreclosure cases without verifying the information in them.

Two other companies, Ally Financial Inc.'s GMAC Mortgage unit and JPMorgan Chase, have halted tens of thousands of foreclosure cases after similar problems became public.

The Bank of America executive said in a February deposition that she signed 7,000 to 8,000 foreclosure documents a month. "I typicallydon't read them because of the volume that we sign," she said.

Bank of America declined to comment.

Update: As expected, BofA has just confirmed it is halting foreclosures in the same 23 states in which Ally and JPM are also no longer operating.

From AP:

Bank of America is delaying foreclosures in 23 states as it examines whether it rushed the foreclosure process for thousands of homeowners without reading the documents.

Bank of America isn't able to estimate how many homeowners' cases will be affected, Dan Frahm, a spokesman for the Charlotte, N.C.-based bank, said Friday.

The move adds the nation's largest bank to a growing list of mortgage companies whose employees signed documents in foreclosure cases without verifying the information in them.

Two other companies, Ally Financial Inc.'s GMAC Mortgage unit and JPMorgan Chase, have halted tens of thousands of foreclosure cases after similar problems became public.

A Bank of America official acknowledged in a legal proceeding in February that she signed up to 8,000 foreclosure documents a month and typically didn't read them. The Associated Press obtained the document Friday.

The official, Renee Hertzler, said in a deposition in a Massachusetts homeowner's bankruptcy case that she signed 7,000 to 8,000 foreclosure documents a month.

"I typically don't read them because of the volume that we sign," Hertzler said.

She also acknowledged identifying herself as a representative of a different bank, Bank of New York Mellon, that she didn't work for. Bank of New York Mellon served as a trustee for the investors holding the homeowner's loan.

Hertzler could not be reached for comment.

A lawyer for the homeowner in the case, James O'Connell of Fitchburg, Mass., said such problems are rampant throughout the industry.

"We have had thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of foreclosures around the country by entities that did not have the right to foreclose," O'Connell said.

The disclosure comes two days after JPMorgan said it would temporarily stop foreclosing on more than 50,000 homes so it could review documents that might contain errors. Last week, GMAC halted certain evictions and sales of foreclosed homes in 23 states to review those cases after finding procedural errors in some foreclosure affidavits.

After GMAC's announcement, state attorneys general in California and Connecticut told the company to stop foreclosures until it proves it's complying with their state laws. The Ohio attorney general this week asked judges to review GMAC foreclosure cases.

And in Florida, the state attorney general is investigating four law firms, two with ties to GMAC, for allegedly providing fraudulent documents in foreclosure cases.

In some states, lenders can foreclose quickly on delinquent mortgage borrowers. But 23 states use a lengthy court process for foreclosures. They require documents to verify information on the mortgage, including who owns it. Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois are the biggest states with this process.