$hitiBanks Hall of $hame

New Plan to Help Under-Water Homeowners

2011-10-24T10:27:00.002-04:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fhfa-announces-new-program-to-help-underwater-homeowners/2011/10/24/gIQAxvDSCM_story.html?wpisrc=al_comboPNE

"OccupyHomes",,,,,,Fighting Against Foreclosure

2011-10-20T14:18:00.002-04:00

http://twitter.com/#%21/OccupyHomes

Foreclosures Are Killing Us

2011-10-04T08:09:00.002-04:00

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/430-foreclosure/7705-foreclosures-are-killing-us

Obomba to Preserve Gov't Role in Mortgage Mkt.

2011-08-15T21:08:00.000-04:00

News Alert: Obama plans to preserve major government role in mortgage market

August 15, 2011 9:01:13 PM

----------------------------------------

President Obama has concluded that the federal government must continue to play a significant role in the nation’s mortgage market, a milestone in the effort to craft a new housing policy from the wreckage of the mortgage meltdown. According to people familiar with the matter, a proposal now being developed by the administration could preserve, though with significant new constraints, mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which some critics say contributed to the financial crisis.

http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/5O5UA2/XTVC7T/MUU756/53Q8EN/7BZR2/4O/h

For more information, visit washingtonpost.com

Couple heads off forclosure by fighting back

2011-08-05T02:03:00.002-04:00

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/04/12/couple-heads-off-foreclosure-by-fighting-back/

Housing Double-Dip Accelerates

2011-07-18T22:45:00.002-04:00

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-april-case-shiller-2011-6?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Money%20Game%20Chart%20Of%20The%20Day&utm_campaign=Moneygame_COTD_062811

Mortgage Defenders in a 50 States

2011-07-13T22:15:00.002-04:00

http://www.1stchoicefamily.com/Agent/TheMortgageDefenseTeam

HOW 2 PAY OFF YOUR MORTGAGE EARLY

2011-06-30T08:02:00.000-04:00

http://money.msn.com/home-loans/how-to-pay-off-your-mortgage-early-bankrate.aspx?GT1=33032

$hitiGroup VP Charged with Embezzling

2011-06-28T19:57:00.000-04:00

http://www.newser.com/story/122057/ex-citigroup-vp-charged-with-embezzling-192m.html

OCC Takes Enforcement Action Against Eight Servicers for Unsafe and Unsound, Including $hitiBank!!!

2011-05-20T05:39:00.000-04:00

http://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-47.html

Links to The Orders below

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 13, 2011

Contact: Robert Garsson

(202) 874-5770

OCC Takes Enforcement Action Against Eight Servicers for Unsafe and Unsound

Foreclosure Practices

WASHINGTON — The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency today announced formal enforcement actions against eight national bank mortgage servicers and two third-party servicer providers for unsafe and unsound practices related to residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing.

The eight servicers are Bank of America, Citibank, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, MetLife Bank, PNC, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo. The two service providers are Lender Processing Services (LPS) and its subsidiaries DocX, LLC, and LPD Default Solutions, Inc.; and MERSCORP and its wholly owned subsidiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS).

"These comprehensive enforcement actions, coordinated among the federal banking regulators, require major reforms in mortgage servicing operations," said acting Comptroller of the Currency John Walsh. "These reforms will not only fix the problems we found in foreclosure processing, but will also correct failures in governance and the loan modification process and address financial harm to borrowers. Our enforcement actions are intended to fix what is broken, identify and compensate borrowers who suffered financial harm, and ensure a fair and orderly mortgage servicing process going forward."

The enforcement actions require the servicers to promptly correct deficiencies in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure practices that examiners identified in reviews conducted during the fourth quarter of 2010. The actions require the servicers to make significant improvements in practices for residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing, including communications with borrowers and dual-tracking, which occurs when servicers continue to pursue foreclosure during the loan modification process. The enforcement actions require the servicers to ensure that foreclosures are not pursued once a mortgage has been approved for modification and to establish a single point of contact for borrowers throughout the loan modification and foreclosure processes. In addition, the actions require servicers to establish robust oversight and controls pertaining to their third-party vendors, including outside legal counsel, that provide default management or foreclosure services.

The OCC's actions also require each servicer to engage an independent firm to conduct a multi-faceted review of foreclosure actions between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2010. This requirement includes a comprehensive "look back" to assess whether foreclosures complied with federal and state laws, whether foreclosures occurred when grounds for foreclosure were not present, such as when loans were performing, and whether any errors, misrepresentations or other deficiencies resulted in financial injury to borrowers. The actions also require each servicer to establish a process for borrowers who believe they have been financially harmed by such deficiencies to make submissions to be considered for remediation. Each servicer must also submit a plan to remediate all financial injury to borrowers caused by any errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies identified in the independent consultant's findings.

The OCC based its enforcement actions on the findings of examinations conducted as part of the interagency horizontal reviews undertaken by the federal banking regulators in the fourth quarter of 2010. Examinations of these eight national bank servicers identified significant weaknesses in mortgage servicing and foreclosure governance that resulted in unsafe and unsound practices. The scope and degree of these practices differed among the servicers; however, based on the sample of files reviewed by OCC examiners, borrowers in the sample were seriously delinquent at the time of foreclosures and servicers held the notes and documents required to foreclose. A summary of the findings of the interagency reviews is available in the Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices, which was produced by the OCC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

The enforcement actions do not preclude determinations regarding assessment of civil money penalties, which the OCC is holding in abeyance.

Go here for Related Links as listed below; http://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-47.html

Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices (PDF)

Consent Order for Bank of America (PDF)

Consent Order for Citibank (PDF)

Consent Order for HSBC Bank (PDF)

Consent Order for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (PDF)

Consent Order for LPS; DocX, LLC; and LPD Default Solutions, Inc. (PDF)

Consent Order for MetLife Bank, N.A. (PDF)

Consent Order for MERSCORP and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) (PDF)

Consent Order for PNC Bank, N.A. (PDF)

Consent Order for U.S. Bank National Association, U.S. Bank National Association ND (PDF)

Consent Order for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (PDF)

Big Banks Sued for Fraud by Bankrupt Mortgage Co.

2011-05-03T04:33:00.000-04:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/03mortgage.html

JP Morgan v. Harp

2011-05-01T13:50:00.000-04:00

Court finds bank improperly foreclosed on homeowner
http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=177148

Home Values Drop for Sixth Consecutive Period, The Shameful Mortgage Paperwork Fiasco

2011-04-11T01:47:00.003-04:00

CK Hunter April 11, 2011 at 9:55 am URL: http://wp.me/pzpRW-2O0 Copyright 2011-3011 Alternative News Forum, All Rights Reserved. I cannot promise you that you won't be infuriated when you watch this clip from CBS "60 Minutes." What has been done to American home owners is criminal beyond description. It is my most urgent desire to see these crooks working in banks, in mortgage brokerages, on Wall Street and in any profession that has contributed to the fleecing of US home owners get theirs in court and spend the rest of their days confined in prison. I was speechless when I watched this video. I never thought that business people in America were able to stoop this low. More and more it appears we no longer have an actual banking and mortgage industry. Instead we have some sort of crime cabal of corrupt mafia men masquerading as Wall Street investment houses, banks and mortgage brokers. If these people are not identified, located, and finally prosecuted then what hope of any kind of justice do we have for any crime commited, whether it's a crime of hidden high finance, or an open heist. A heist is a heist is a heist. And what these people have done to American home owners is an all out heist. My heart really goes out to people who are going through this kind of agony trying to stay in their homes. If we create enough outrage, hopefully the criminal justice system will swing into gear and begin prosecuting these rotten bankers and Wall Street paper pushers who not only devastated the mortgage market with their criminal back room deals, buying and selling mortgages, but then added the final injustice by losing the original mortgage papers and forging copies instead. Share this video with those you know and love. Chase Kyla Hunter http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/cbsnews_player_embed.swf

NY S. Ct. Upholds MERS Standing to Foreclose

2011-04-09T12:04:00.032-04:00

New York Supreme Court upholds MERS ability to foreclose
by JON PRIOR ·
*Ongoing MERS lawsuits may hurt current RMBS; http://www.housingwire.com/2011/03/28/ongoing-mers-lawsuits-may-hurt-current-rmbs

*MERS to members: Don’t foreclose in our name; http://www.housingwire.com/2011/02/17/mers-to-members-don%e2%80%99t-foreclose-in-our-name
*New Hampshire court latest to uphold MERS right to transfer mortgage; http://www.housingwire.com/2011/02/25/new-hampshire-court-latest-to-uphold-mers-right-to-transfer-mortgage

*Lost in New York, MERS claims victory in Kansas; http://www.housingwire.com/2011/02/16/lost-in-new-york-mers-claims-victory-in-kansas

*Alabama judge denies securitization trustee standing to foreclose; http://www.housingwire.com/2011/04/01/alabama-judge-denies-securitization-trustee-standing-to-foreclose

Monday, March 14th, 2011, 10:43 am

The Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems last week, validating the company's ability to foreclose on a mortgage and assign it. Judge Lucindo Suarez found in the case Bank of New York v. Sachar the Bank of New York Mellon has standing to foreclose based on a MERS assignment and the delivery of the note. Suarez said in his ruling the bank showed enough documentation to do so. "Plaintiff has shown that the assignment of the mortgage was not made retroactively," Suarez wrote. "Although the assignment refers only to an assignment of the mortgage, physical delivery of the note is sufficient to transfer the obligation, and plaintiff has established that the note was delivered to it prior to the commencement of this action." Adam Levitin, associate professor of law at Georgetown University, said the case could still go to the Court of Appeals, the top court in the state. "This ruling muddies the waters, but doesn’t really change things," Levitin said. A judge in a lower New York bankruptcy court ruled in February that MERS had no right to transfer the mortgage and thus no right to foreclose on the loan; http://www.housingwire.com/2011/02/14/merscorp-lacks-right-to-transfer-mortgages-judge-says In the middle of February, MERS told its members not to foreclose on residential mortgages in its name; http://www.housingwire.com/2011/02/17/mers-to-members-don%E2%80%99t-foreclose-in-our-name Consumer attorneys across the country continue to challenge this ability, but victories for MERS continue to emerge. MERS has already won cases in New Hampshire; http://www.housingwire.com/2011/02/25/new-hampshire-court-latest-to-uphold-mers-right-to-transfer-mortgage California; http://www.housingwire.com/2011/02/23/mers-rights-upheld-in-largest-foreclosure-state and Kansas http://www.housingwire.com/2011/02/16/lost-in-new-york-mers-claims-victory-in-kansas However, Virginia legislators are pushing to phase out the company and its role in tracking Ginnie Mae guaranteed mortgages; http://www.housingwire.com/2010/12/16/bill-aims-to-end-gse-affiliation-with-mers Email author @ jon DOT prior@housingwire.com

Criminal Law & Subprime Mortgages

2011-04-05T01:08:00.000-04:00

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/LawandS

House votes to kill Obama mortgage plan

2011-03-30T02:25:00.000-04:00

House votes to kill Obama mortgage plan

BOA Info Released by Hackers

2011-03-28T06:51:00.000-04:00

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11042895/1/bank-of-america-info-released-by-hackers.html?puc=outbrain&cm_ven=outbrain&obref=obnetwork

The American Dream Film-Full Length

2011-03-23T21:34:00.000-04:00

At Last! Word from $hiti!

2011-03-22T11:43:00.002-04:00

After waiting months and months (after filing complaint with Comptroller of Currency on 10/21/2010) we finally (on 3/21/2011) got a call from Shila Jones of the Executive Response Team at $hitiFinancial who asks that we reeturn her call....at 877-245-2511 Ex. 1803231.

Which I did return today (just now at approx 11:40 am EST) but got a message that Shila will be out of the office until wenesday. So left a message that we had returned her call and would appreciate a call back on wenesday when she returns to the office.

Bless a Little Fraud and More Will Surely Follow

2011-03-16T02:06:00.001-04:00

By George W. Mantor

On Thursday, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Committee released its long awaited report on how the destruction of the middle class was engineered.

If you listen to three dissenting members, it was a form of suicide. Like Lemmings, we raced to the cliff of financial destruction and hurled ourselves into poverty because all of the rest of the Lemmings were doing it.

Not with a bang, but a whimper did this nearly seven hundred page whitewash land with a thud in the halls of congress.

In the days leading up to the release of the report, some of the dissenting members…those who didn’t think there was quite enough whitewash…came out ahead of the report and blamed it all on the goal of homeownership.

Wait a minute! They want us to believe that Americans’ desire to own the roof over our heads destroyed the global economy?

It wasn’t the inflated appraisals, the predatory servicing fraud, the new and improved loan terms designed to assure default?

Nor, apparently, was it the fact that Wall Street bet massive amounts of other people’s money that the economy would collapse; it did, and they got huge bonuses.

All of that was said in testimony before the committee. It’s all in the report, as they say.

But, there has been no call for prosecutions or to apply the law equally to the middle class.

As to “foreclosure gate”, you have to pile through over 400 pages to get to this relating to MERS; but, it is exactly what I have been saying for nearly two years. The following italicized section is directly from the report.

“The standing of MERS or its designees to foreclose has been called into question by courts and academics, however. In a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on the foreclosure crisis, New York State Supreme Court Justice F. Dana Winslow testified that “standing has become such a pervasive issue that I frequently use the term ‘presumptive mortgagee in foreclosure’” to describe MERS. Because of “multiple unrecorded transfers of the legal ownership of the mortgage,” it is unclear whether MERS continued to be the mortgagee after subsequent sales of the loan, according to Winslow.

Moreover, courts have held that MERS does not own the underlying note and therefore cannot transfer the note or the deed of trust, or foreclose upon the property.

Winslow also highlighted other deficiencies in MERS’ standing, many involving sloppy paperwork: the failure to produce the correct promissory notes in court during foreclosure proceedings; gaps in the chain of title, including printouts of the title that have differed substantially from information provided previously; retroactive assignments of notes and mortgages in an effort to clean up the paperwork problems from earlier years; questionable signatures on assignments and affidavits attesting to the ownership of the note and mortgage; and questionable notary stamps on assignments.

Recently, a bankruptcy court ruled that the Bank of New York could not foreclose on a loan it had purchased from Countrywide, because MERS had failed to endorse or deliver the note to the Bank of New York as required by the pooling and servicing agreement. This ruling could have further implications, because it was customary for Countrywide to maintain possession of the note and related loan documents when loans were securitized.

Across the market, some mortgage securities holders have sued the issuers of those securities, demanding that the issuers rescind their purchases. If the legal challenges succeed, investors that own mortgage-backed securities could force the issuers to buy them back at the original pricepossibly with interest. The issuers would then be the owners of the securities and would bear the risk of loss.

The Congressional Oversight Panel said it is on the lookout for such risks: “If documentation problems prove to be pervasive and, more importantly, throw into doubt the ownership of not only foreclosed properties but also pooled mortgages, the consequences could be severe.”

This sentiment was echoed by University of Iowa law professor Katherine Porter who has studied foreclosures and the law: “It is lack of knowledge of how widespread the problems may be that is turning the allegations into a crisis. Lack of knowledge feeds speculation and worst-case scenarios.”

Adam Levitin, a Georgetown University associate professor of law, has estimated that the claims could be in the trillions of dollars, rendering major U.S. banks insolvent.”

Well, we wouldn’t want that now, would we?

It sounds too dire. And so, the question becomes what to do about it. Apparently, nothing.

There is so much guilt involved that it touches the majority of the privileged class.

Consider this ominous sign: Iowa Attorney General, Tom Miller, is heading the 50 state investigation into this fraud. At the beginning of the investigation, he was gung ho to keep families in their homes and put bankers in jail.

Then, last week, they propped his hollowed out former persona in front of the cameras and from his eyes you could see that the fire was out. Like a Stepford Wife, he appeared to have been “gotten to”.

Hey, Tom it doesn’t matter. The banks cannot be saved. They are already on life support and will succumb whether we pull the plug or not. But, we will never forget where you and others whose job it is to enforce the law took your paychecks and blessed the fraud.

Do the math. Foreclosing on 15 million homes won’t help; it actually will make things worse. Banks are already abandoning homes before the final sale all over the country because they have learned that if you seize too many, they aren’t worth much.

But, it wouldn’t matter if they foreclosed on every home in America. There isn’t enough equity to ever dig out of the massive global asset bubble they created.

So, we have a dilemma. The proverbial slippery slope. Do we let the banks get away with it and create a tidal wave of homelessness, or do we uphold the laws that make all of this a crime?

All of the above constitutes a massive fraud perpetrated on investors, borrowers, and law enforcement. The prospectuses are full of lies; the pooling and servicing agreements were routinely violated by the very people who wrote them. Tax and securities laws were repeatedly broken. Then, they forged documents and proffered perjured testimony to complete the final chapter of the business plan.

The evidence obtained by the committee through sworn testimony proves that there was, and continues to exist, numerous crimes in progress, and yet, there is little in the committee report that suggests that it will be anything but business as usual.

What ever happened to our lofty ideals about America being “a nation of laws”? Even more perplexing, how can someone who studies the law and chooses to become an “officer of the court” have as little regard for the law than the lawyers who represent financial intermediaries who routinely commit fraud upon the court?

But, where the real problem lies is with the judges who look the other way as foreclosure mills submit obviously forged documents and commit perjury for the most sinister of purposes.

Some won’t. Not judges Schack or Long or Tepper or Buford or Dawson whose levelheaded decisions have reverberated around the country; but still, people who never missed a payment are losing their homes to a system that cannot be stopped.

While foreclosure mills implement the final stage of a business plan based on illegally seizing 15 million homes and emptying all pension funds, a handful of court cases suggest that the banks may not be too big to fail after all.

Although most foreclosures, about 95%, go uncontested, a few have finally made their way through a more thorough review of the facts, and well-informed, fair-minded judges are concurring that, in most cases, the foreclosing entity lacks the legal right to do so.

The reason isn’t something that can be fixed by simply altering county recordings. The chain of title was willfully and deliberately breached in order to pledge the receivables, principal and interest payments, to multiple pools.

In order to save the banks, all of the following frauds will have to be blessed.

Fraud by mortgage originators against lender/investors.

Here are but two of hundreds of examples.

Bank of America Inc.’s Countrywide Financial unit, acquired by the bank in 2008, was accused of “massive fraud” in a lawsuit by investors who claim they were misled about mortgage-backed securities.

TIAA-CREF Life Insurance Co., New York Life Insurance Co. and Dexia Holdings Inc. are among a dozen institutional investors who filed complaints in New York State Supreme Court.

The investors claim they bought hundreds of millions of dollars of Countrywide mortgage-backed securities from 2005 to 2007 because they wanted conservative, low-risk investments. They said they relied on term sheets, prospectuses and other materials provided by the firm that were recklessly or knowingly false.

“Countrywide was an enterprise driven by only one purpose to originate and securitize as many mortgage loans as possible into MBS to generate profits for the Countrywide defendants without regard to the investors that relied on the critical, false information provided to them with respect to the related certificates,” according to the complaint.

In October, Mozilo agreed to pay a record $67.5 million to settle U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that he misled investors.

Former Bear Stearns mortgage executives who now run mortgage divisions of Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Ally Financial have been accused of cheating and defrauding investors through the mortgage securities they created and sold while at Bear. According to e-mails and internal audits, JPMorgan had known about this fraud since the spring of 2008, but hid it from the public eye through legal maneuvering. Recently, a lawsuit filed in 2008 by mortgage insurer Ambac Assurance Corp against Bear Stearns and JPMorgan was unsealed. The lawsuit’s supporting e-mails, going back as far as 2005, highlight Bear traders telling their superiors they were selling investors like Ambac a “sack of shit.”

Fraud upon the courts in submitting forged documents.

Fraud upon recording agencies where the bogus paperwork has been filed.

Fraud upon the IRS by violating numerous tax laws in the process of issuing and managing the investments.

Fraud upon accounting rules and regulations.

Fraud upon shareholders who suffer reduced earnings as a result of the crimes of senior executives.

Fraud upon securities laws.

Taken altogether it weaves a rich tapestry of overlapping frauds starting, not at the bottom, but the top.

And yet, there is wide spread belief that the consequences of holding the perpetrators accountable would be so horrific that lawmakers at every level are scrambling to see if there isn’t some way to retroactively change a host of laws.

Maybe we can’t do anything about it, but I did see where Al Qaeda is thought to be targeting executives of the big banks. The American middle class appears to be getting a new ally.

George W. Mantor
The Real Estate Professor
Founder, American Foreclosure Resistance Movement
http://www.realtown.com/gwmantor/blog
1611A South Melrose Drive, #134
Vista, CA 92081
760-758-0802

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” Mahatma Gandhi
__._,_.___

BAC Home Loan Servicing LIVE Mods Run Around results Conversation- Jen's...

2011-03-15T20:26:00.000-04:00

Guess this behavior is not unique to $hiti. Guess this is just how the Big Banks do.

Politics Northwest | GOP continues march to scrap mortgage-relief programs | Seattle Times Newspaper

2011-03-11T13:39:00.000-05:00

Politics Northwest GOP continues march to scrap mortgage-relief programs Seattle Times Newspaper

Kucinich: "We are Attacking the Victims of this Housing Crisis"

2011-03-11T12:43:00.000-05:00

CNBC Realty Check — Olick: More Borrowers Underwater: Why We Should Care — CNBC.com Real Estate News - CNBC

2011-03-08T14:04:00.000-05:00

CNBC Realty Check — Olick: More Borrowers Underwater: Why We Should Care — CNBC.com Real Estate News - CNBC

For the Record / Our Complaint

2011-03-07T04:07:00.000-05:00

June 6, 2010

George J. Jubic
118 River Rd.
Johnsonville, NY 12094

Re: CitiMortgage Run-Around
“Investor Loan” # 5001214664

United States Treasury Department
Office of Financial Stability
1500 Pennsylvania Av. NW
Washington, DC 20220

Dear Sir or Madam;

I am writing once again to complain about our problems with CitiMortage. Last September I “successfully completed” my loan modification probationary period, and was told by their loss mitigation department (Mrs. Liz Cory) that everything was set to finalize our plan…this was in November of 2009. Ever since that date, I have been making my monthly payment according to the plan,… and have been waiting for CitiMortgage to complete the paperwork to finally finalize my plan.

On or about the week of May 20-24th, 2010, I did get a call from Liz Cory from CitiMortage informing me that I would have to send more paperwork to finalize the plan. They wanted updated copies of my financial documents, such as two months worth of my last paycheck stubs and my IRS forms.

On May 25th I did fax them over (see cover sheet attached as poof of same) to Liz Cory of CitiMortage. However, when I called her today to check up on the status of my case, she informed me that she did not receive the faxes I sent and she asked me to send them again. This is not the first time CitiMortgage has claimed to lose the papers I have sent.

I informed her at this time that I would not be sending any more documents as I have been told numerous times that I did not need to send anymore. I told her I was tired of jumping through every hoop they asked of me with still no sign of finalization of the plan in sight. I also informed them that I would not be sending anymore “good faith” payments according to their supposed “plan” until which time I have some tangible evidence that they are in fact, committed to helping me keep my home and until which time I receive the finalized plan. In view of the fact that they are not showing good faith in finalizing the plan, I told them that they should either commence a foreclosure proceeding (advising them that I would fight it out in court with them) or finalize the plan.

I am writing to make you aware of the difficulties homeowners are facing when big banks such as these are granted free-rein on their discretionary powers and left to their own devices in the working out of any loan modification plans. It is my hope that the government will somehow mandate that these banks do everything within their power to work with the homeowners and NOT put stumbling blocks in their way.

Yours, etc.

_____________________________
George J. Jubic, Owner / Occupier

CC:

Barney Frank, Chairman
Financial Services Committee
2129 Rayburn Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515

CC: CitiMortgage
Loss Mitigation Dept.
1000 Technology Dr. MS 420
O’Fallon, MO 63368

Homeowner Suffers Horrific Injustice at the Hands of JPMorgan Chase

2011-03-06T19:08:00.002-05:00

http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2011/03/homeowner-suffers-horrific-injustice-at-the-hands-of-jpmorgan-chase/

For over two years I’ve had a front row seat for the foreclosure crisis, the by-product of our government’s complete mishandling of the worst economic downturn in seventy years.
During that time I’ve been exposed to some pretty horrific things… people living in their cars with a child sleeping in the trunk… the eviction of an 89 year-old couple… I’ve gotten to know what that fear sounds like and feels like… the fear of losing one’s home while the country talks about you as being nothing more than an “irresponsible borrower,” someone who never should have bought your home in the first place, even though you may have lived in it for 30 years.
What I saw this past week, however, was something new for me… I’d heard of things like this happening before, written about them, even. But, I had never seen anything like it, up close and personal.

As a warning… this story is not for the squeamish. If you’re pregnant, or have heart disease, or just want to go on pretending that your country is still a place of which you’re proud… it’s better that you click off now… because this one isn’t going to make you laugh.

An Anaheim couple with an eight year-old daughter has lost their home… that would be one way of phrasing it. Another way to describe what happened would be to say that JPMorgan Chase, an outfit that I now see clearly is significantly worse than any crime family… has thus far been permitted by the courts and the laws in California to STEAL an Anaheim couple’s home.
Why do I say that Chase stole it? Well, there are lots of reasons, but I think the one that tops my list would have to be, because they never missed or were late on a payment… in every single month that JPMorgan Chase told the couple to make a payment… they paid the exact amount they were told to pay… on time and as agreed… never missed even one… never were late, not even once. “We trusted the bank,” the Mom says, “like idiots.”

The husband in this family worked for the City of Placentia in Southern California for some 27 years. The wife and mother has her own small business. Their adorable eight year-old daughter, whose life is about to be inalterably changed at the hand of JPMorgan Chase, goes to school near by and loves her home. Her parents haven’t told her anything about this yet, and I pray to God they never have to… that JPMorgan Chase comes forward and stops this egregious wrong that they have let happen… that they have created.

I can barely tell this story… I can’t imagine it ever happening to me… I can’t imagine it ever happening to anyone in this country… a place I used to proudly think of as my country. Not so much anymore though.

The husband in this family became ill a few years ago… advanced diabetes… his kidneys have failed, he’s on dialysis… heart disease… he’s spent time on a respirator while hospitalized.
Yet, they’ve made it through everything, this family, through all of that and more… stayed together… raised a daughter… found ways to laugh and play together… they must love each other very much.

They had bought their 2-bedroom home in August of 2006… as it turns out… terrible timing… but who knew that the bankers, who had leveraged themselves 40-100 to one, were about to blame homeowners for their defrauding of the investment community, bankrupting the global financial system, and destroying the credit markets? Bernanke didn’t know… Paulson didn’t know… personally, I think that lets this couple off the hook about the whole should-have-known thing.

So, for three years they made their payments without fail. And maybe if it would have just been the economy or just the medical bills, they would have made it through this… but both was too much, and they received a Notice of Default in July of 2009.They applied to JPMorgan Chase for a loan modification, and Chase granted them a trial modification in February of 2010. Chase told them to pay $869 for three months, and entered them into another program in May, telling them to make monthly payments of $1358.

They paid every month, on time every time… by cashier’s check, as required by Chase. The trial modification paperwork said something to the effect of:
“If all payments are payments are made as agreed, we will reevaluate you to determine if we can offer you a permanent modification.”

“We trusted the bank,” the Mom says, “like idiots.”

In August, they received a Notice of Sale. They called Chase… and imagine their relief when they were told not to worry one bit about that notice. Apparently, it was just the fault of Chase’s stupid computer system that just spits things like that out without anyone telling it to do so. False alarm, what a relief.

So, they paid their September payment… and paid their October payment… and it was around October 10th when they received another Notice of Sale. Again, they called Chase, perhaps a little less nervous than the last time the same thing had happened… and wouldn’t you know it… another false alarm… it was that darn computer system again. Nothing to worry about, Chase told them… just keep those payments coming.

Oh, but while we’ve got you on the phone, we need you to send in some current paycheck stubs and other miscellaneous pieces of information, which they did… and then did again… you know the standard operating procedures for servicers by now I’m sure.

I know, it’s not Chase’s fault… they’ve reportedly been having trouble hiring minimum wage people for the last three years. Or was it the investor’s who won’t let them modify? I can never remember which lie was Chase’s favorite… Bank of America was having the phone problems… Wells couldn’t stop their employees from losing stuff over and over… Yep, Chase was the can’t-hire-anyone-and-investors-won’t-modify, I’m almost positive.

Right around the third week of October, they come home to find a notice of sale pinned to their front door. Oh my God… they called Chase again. “Oh, just ignore it once again,” Chase lied. “You don’t have to worry about that, silly, you’re under consideration for a loan modification, why would we sell your house?”A few more days and another notice on the door… Chase back on the phone… but this time everything was different… Chase said they were selling their home in ONE HOUR. To stop the sale, they would need to get down to the courthouse with about twenty-five grand… in 55 minutes, 50… 45… 40…

I suppose we needed another vacant home in Anaheim in a hurry, because predictably, the home went back to Fannie Mae at the Trustee Sale. Gone, in the blink of an eye… sold October 21, 2010… just 21 days after they had made their October payment. Chase had told them not to worry… it was just the computer system… no one would sell their home.
And now it was gone.

“We trusted the bank,” the Mom says, “like idiots.”

The father has a hospital bed in the living room, he requires special care… their daughter… in school close by… eight years old… is that second or third grade?

The couple pleaded with Chase that day on the phone, I can only imagine what that felt like for them on that day. Here’s what the mom said to me:

We’re not people who simply decided to skip out on our mortgage. We did everything as upright and by the book as we were instructed to do by Chase yet we still lost our home. On the day they took back the property, I called Chase pleading for an alternative to this. Their reply to me was “I suggest you find a new place to live.”

The Unlawful Detainer or UD hearing was the next indignity the couple would suffer… and I haven’t been able to stop thinking about this next part all week.

With the medical bills they were receiving, and the uncertainty about the future, they didn’t feel they could afford a lawyer for the Unlawful Detainer trial. As the date for the UD neared, the husband was still in the hospital; he would be released roughly 48 hours before he would have to be in court.

They found an attorney who would help them and she called the opposing counsel, a lawyer from one of those scum-of-the-earth foreclosure mills that have no doubt been making untold millions intimidating homeowners, already scared to death and almost always without counsel, McCarthy & Holthus. They look like rich young men who don’t care at all about what the banks are doing to their neighbors… well, maybe not their neighbors… they probably live in some zillion-dollar beach pad.

(Hey fellas… looking forward to seeing you on Google! If you’ve been spending money on SEO trying to rank up at the top, I’ve got outstanding news… I’m going to put you right up there. May not be exactly what you had in mind, but then I don’t give a rat’s ass what’s in your under-developed minds.)

The couple’s lawyer asked the McCarthy & Holthus lawyer if there could be a continuance as the husband would be only a day or two out of the hospital…. they said they’d check with Fannie Mae… then said that Fannie said no. I guess Fannie Mae, a bankrupt and tax-payer owned mortgage company really wanted another empty condo in Anaheim.

The lawyer asked, what if the couple comes in and asks the judge for a continuance, would McCarthy & Holthus object? No, she was told, they would not object “vigorously.” So, the couple went to the UD expecting to ask the judge for a continuance, she pushing him in his wheelchair.
As soon as they walked in, another McCarthy & Malthus lawyer, Kevin Mello was walking towards them. As he approached, the couple overheard Kevin say to another, “I’m so sick of all these sob stories.”

Oh, no he didn’t… Oh, yes he did.

(And boy oh boy, is Kevin going to regret saying that… LOL… Yoohoo, Kevy, baby… you hang in the courthouse right near my house… do you know how lucky you’re aren’t? I’m actually making a documentary about the foreclosure crisis, and hadn’t yet cast the shithead. How lucky is that?)
Mello asked the couple when they could be out of their home. They said that they would need six weeks. Mello made a call and said they could have 30 days. The husband asked to talk to the judge, but our guy Kevin said, “Why, the judge has no authority… he’ll tell you to be out in 4 days… the bank has all the authority.”

Does it now, Kevin? The bank? Fannie Mae? The scandal-ridden, morally and financially bankrupt, already absorbed into the federal government, Fannie Mae?

Kevin had some papers he said that the couple needed to sign. They said no, they didn’t want to sign anything. Kevin said they had no choice… either sign or be out in four days. He put the documents in front of them… they couldn’t move his hospital bed in 4 days… they signed.

Stipulated to a judgment and waved future claims.When they appeared before the judge, he said that they should be GRATEFUL that the bank gave them 30 days.

When the couple tried to relay the story of the loan modification con job and Chase lying and then the stealing of the home… well, they didn’t use those terms, I did, but someone has to, right? Because that’s what happened, and I don’t give a damn what other factors are involved, that’s what happened, sure as shootin’.

And, even though I’ve been covering the inconceivable tragedy that is the foreclosure crisis, after learning of what happened to this this couple, I couldn’t help but wonder how or why this could possibly happen… and no one cared… in this country… and no one cared. Because I know I’ve been hard on the servicers, and deservedly so, but is it really possible that they are actually inherently evil… are they literally lying to everyone and intentionally try to sabotage the nation? How could that be true? It couldn’t, right?

And something occurred to me, something that I had not previously considered. And maybe it’s important to consider.

Prior to the last three to four years tops, foreclosures were a very different animal than what we have going on today, but I’m starting to think that maybe a lot of people don’t know that. You see, prior to this crisis, foreclosures were exceedingly rare. When someone got into financial trouble they either sold their home, or borrowed against it to get through the storm. But this housing market was pushed off a cliff, the credit markets froze almost overnight, prices fell through the floor and fast. People losing homes today bear no resemblance to the foreclosures of the last 50 years… no resemblance whatsoever.

So, maybe our entire system, including the inadequate and fraudulent documentation, and the incredibly uncaring and incompetent treatment of the homeowners involved… maybe it’s happening because we haven’t stopped to realize that although today we have foreclosures and years ago we had foreclosures… they really shouldn’t be called the same thing because they’re not the same thing. In fact, they’re so different they shouldn’t share the same moniker.

Maybe we should call today’s foreclosures, fraudclosures… I mean, like all the time… like as in someone call Webster’s. Maybe if our society understood the substantive nature of the distinction, things would improve… no? I think maybe yes. Like, do the bankers think that today we’re just having more of the same foreclosures we had years ago… same thing… just more of them? Because that’s not the case.

Because in the days before this crisis, you’d never modify a loan… the person who went into foreclosure wasn’t a person that anyone would ever consider modifying a loan for, because by the time they went into foreclosure there was no hope for anything but repossession and after that, of course, liquidation was a certainty. That’s not a description of today’s situation.
Look, what happened to this couple… is it not the kind of thing that you might expect to happen in some totalitarian regime?

So, why is that okay with even one single American? We treat criminals better than this. But today’s homeowners aren’t losing homes for the same reasons as before, they’re not deadbeats, they’re victims. And something has to be done to change this, because as sure as I’m sitting here, what’s happening is going to end badly and I fear, violently. People are going to get hurt… I don’t know how, when or where… but no way does this just keep going and everyone’s okay.
Chase’s conduct was so offensive that a highly experienced trial attorney agreed to take their case.

A complaint will be filed on Tuesday in Orange County Superior court seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

The couple’s lawyer would later ask a McCarthy Holthus lawyer about the apparent preference for coercion and intimidation, and she basically replied by saying, “Hey, look… I’m not their lawyer, I’m the bank’s lawyer. If they wanted a lawyer they should have had their own.” My words, not hers… but that’s what she was saying.

No, I’m sorry McCarthy Holthus… on that point you’re entirely wrong. I mean, everyone knows you don’t need to pay a lawyer when you’re applying for a loan modification… just ask the California State Bar, the Attorney General’s office… President Obama… come on… everyone knows that.

Mandelman out.

P.S. Hey bloggers… Facebookers… please help me get the word out on this… post, repost, tweet, re-tweet. I’m hoping Chase sees this and stops the eviction… otherwise this couple could be fighting this from a homeless shelter. We can’t save everybody, so let’s save one at a time.

Oregon Puts STOP to Sale of Foreclosed Homes

2011-03-06T19:04:00.000-05:00

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/03/rulings_put_brakes_on_hundreds.html

INSIDE JOB: New Documentary Exposes How 'Banksters' Continue To Steal Ou...

2011-03-06T10:55:00.000-05:00

Abandoned Properties Rot in Foreclosure Hell

2011-03-03T09:04:00.000-05:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/chicago-vacant-reo-property_n_829343.html?utm_campaign=030211&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-business&utm_content=Title

California Opens New Doors to Help Families Stay in Homes

2011-03-02T00:59:00.001-05:00

http://www.record-bee.com/ci_17505475?source=most_viewed

HSBC made disclosure in annual SEC report - Where is the handcuffs ??

2011-03-02T00:29:00.001-05:00

http://4closurefraud.org/2011/03/01/foreclosure-freeze-hsbc-10k-report-on-fraudclosure-deficiencies/

HSBC made disclosure in annual SEC report - Where is the handcuffs ??
Full 10 K report at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/354964/000095012311019123/c62397e10vk.htm

HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Finance Corp. have stopped all home foreclosures until further notice and may face unspecified regulatory actions or fines, after regulators found “certain deficiencies” in servicing and foreclosure procedures, HSBC said in government filings Monday.
The disclosure by HSBC, buried deep within its annual financial report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, marks the first time HSBC has admitted to a foreclosure moratorium in the wake of a legal and paperwork crisis that swept the industry.

That’s a dramatic reversal from its stance just a few months ago, when it said publicly that it would not suspend home seizures because it didn’t feel its procedures were compromised by so-called “robo-signers” and faulty court affidavits.

“Robo-signing” refers to bank or law firm employees signing off on foreclosures without actually being familiar with the cases or reading paperwork.

In the SEC document, known as a 10-K, HSBC said it has “suspended foreclosures until such time as we have substantially addressed the noted deficiencies in our processes.” That suspension took effect in December, said spokesman Neil Brazil.

The company said it is also “reviewing foreclosures where judgment has not yet been entered and will correct deficient documentation and refile affidavits where necessary.”
Quote
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
Commission file number 1-8198
HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION ~

We may incur additional costs and expenses in ensuring that we satisfy requirements relating to our mortgage foreclosure processes and the industry-wide delay in processing foreclosures may have a significant impact upon loss severity. State and federal officials are investigating the procedures followed by mortgage servicing companies and banks, including HSBC Finance Corporation and certain of our affiliates, relating to foreclosures. We and our affiliates have responded to all related inquiries and cooperated with all applicable investigations, including a joint examination by staffs of the Federal Reserve and the OCC as part of their broad horizontal review of industry foreclosure practices. Following the examination, the Federal Reserve issued a supervisory letter to HSBC Finance Corporation and HSBC North America noting certain deficiencies in the processing, preparation and signing of affidavits and other documents supporting foreclosures and in governance of and resources devoted to our foreclosure processes, including the evaluation and monitoring of third party law firms retained to effect our foreclosures. Certain other processes were deemed adequate. The OCC issued a similar supervisory letter to HSBC Bank USA. We have suspended foreclosures until such time as we have substantially addressed the noted deficiencies in our processes. We are also reviewing foreclosures where judgment has not yet been entered and will correct deficient documentation and re-file affidavits where necessary.

We and our affiliates are engaged in discussions with the Federal Reserve and the OCC regarding the terms of consent cease and desist orders, which will prescribe actions to address the deficiencies noted in the joint examination. We expect the consent orders will be finalized shortly after the date this Form 10-K is filed. While the impact of the Federal Reserve consent order on HSBC Finance Corporation depends on the final terms, we believe it has the potential to increase our operational, reputational and legal risk profiles and expect implementation of its provisions will require significant financial and managerial resources. In addition, the consent orders will not preclude further actions against HSBC Finance Corporation or our affiliates by bank regulatory or other agencies, including the imposition of fines and civil money penalties. We are unable at this time, however, to determine the likelihood of any further action or the amount of penalties or fines, if any, that may be imposed by the regulators or agencies.

We expect to incur additional costs and expenses in connection with the correction or affirmation of previously filed foreclosure paperwork and the resulting delays in foreclosures, including costs associated with the maintenance of properties while foreclosures are delayed, legal expenses associated with re-filing documents or, as necessary, re-filing foreclosure cases, and costs associated with fluctuations in home prices while foreclosures are delayed. These costs could increase depending on the length of the delay. In addition, we may incur additional costs and expenses as a result of legislative, administrative or regulatory investigations or actions relating to our foreclosure processes or with respect to the mortgage servicing industry in general. We may also see an increase in private litigation concerning our practices. However, it is not possible at this time to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters or the impact that they will have on our financial results.

Due to the significant slow-down in foreclosures, and in some instances, cessation of all foreclosure processing by numerous loan servicers, including us, for some period of time in 2011 there may be some reduction in the number of properties being marketed following foreclosure. The impact of that decrease may increase demand for properties currently on the market resulting in a stabilization of home prices but could also result in a larger number of vacant properties in communities creating downward pressure on general property values. As a result, the short term impact of the foreclosure processing delay is highly uncertain. However, the longer term impact is even more uncertain as eventually servicers will again begin to foreclose and market properties in large numbers which is likely to create a significant over-supply of housing inventory. This could lead to a significant increase in loss severity on REO properties.
--------------
Well, that’s a pretty dramatic reversal from their stance from just a few months ago, when they said publicly that they would not suspend home seizures because they didn’t feel their procedures were compromised by so-called “robo-signers” and felonous court affidavits.
HSBC CEO Irene Dorner, October 2010: “We have looked. We don’t have robo-signers,” HSBC has not suspended foreclosures and “we don’t believe we have a reason to do so,” she said.
Now where are the damn handcuffs???
__._,_.___

WheresTheNote.com - What every homeowner should do to protect themselves

2011-02-20T13:28:00.000-05:00

Are You FED-UP with Big-Bank Greed?

2011-02-19T00:54:00.001-05:00

Join ShowDown America and STAND UP against Bank$ter fraud;
http://showdowninamerica.org/blog/2011/our-bottom-line

$hiti-Offer: $hort-$ale

2011-02-16T09:49:00.010-05:00

Isnt it wonderful that $hiti wants to help us with our upside-down underwater mortgage. This is their idea of helping: (click once to enlarge, then again to enlarge even more)

As an added bonus, they want to give us $16,977 cash for help with our re-location.....!! Isnt that nice of them?

And here is my response to $hiti's $hiti Offer:

Dear $hiti;

Thank you for your offer to help but I dont see how agreeing to a short sale will help us to keep our home. However, it is nice to know that you are willing to reduce the principal for a short sale so I am wondering why would you not want to reduce the principal for us so that we would not owe so much more than the home is worth? In other words (let me get this straight) you are willing to reduce the principal for sale to a stranger but are not willing to reduce the principal for us so that we can put our upside down mortgage right?

Also I am thinking if you are willing to give us $16,977 to help with our relocation, why cant you just (reduce our principal) and then apply that $16,977 to our arrears?

Anything SHORT of helping us to keep our (one and only) home, I say to you...

Kiss my ass and.....

Bring on the Mother Fuckin Lawyers, Ya'll!

Banking Fraud: Swindling the Stupid Goyim

2011-02-14T19:50:00.000-05:00

http://www.freestatevoice.com.au/finance/item/612-the-banking-fraud-swindling-the-stupid-goyim-alex-james

MERS Has "No Agency" Says NY BK Court

2011-02-14T13:04:00.001-05:00

Happy Valentines Day to Me!

http://dtc-systems.net/2011/02/mers-agency-york-bankruptcy-court-agard/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DtcSystems+%28DTC+Systems%29

Why Judges Help the Banks

2011-02-11T15:51:00.002-05:00

This is just some quick search info on Maricopa County pensions.

No wonder the judges and cops will break any law to help the banks. 2
years ago they had $680 million in their retirement, now they have $260
million. They know if the banks lose there will be nothing left for them.
The pensions were so vested in real estate mortgages, both US and
foreign, the pension fund is going down almost twice as fast as the rest
of us.

They are backed in a corner and must either rip us off or go broke.

The attached documents just scratch the surface of what we need to
discover. Once we can verify the judge is writing orders in violation of
state law AND protects his investment, we have sufficient grounds for Qui
Tam, Whistle blower, RICO and HOBBS on the judges.~ John Stuart

Here are some websites that correspond to the attachments

http://www.cafrman.com/Articles/Art-MaricopaCounty-AZ-C1.htm

http://www.maricopa.gov/Internal_audit/PubDocuments/FY2009/FinconFY09.pdf

http://cafr1.com

https://www.azasrs.gov/web/Investments.do

https://www.azasrs.gov/content/pdf/financials/20091218_REI_Report.pdf

https://www.azasrs.gov/content/pdf/financials/20091218_PEI_Report.pdf

http://www.psprs.com

http://www.psprs.com/Admin_Investments_and_Finance/cato_financial_volitility.htm

Underwater Mortgages Rise in 4Q

2011-02-10T02:31:00.001-05:00

http://valdostatoday.com/Articles/Business/One-in-Five-Mortgages-Underwater-in-4Q.html?print=1&tmpl=component

Madoff Nemesis Back in Spotlight -

2011-02-04T11:16:00.001-05:00

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/02/03/bernie-madoffs-nemesis-back-in-spotlight/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fdeals%2Ffeed+%28WSJ.com%3A+Deal+Journal+-+WSJ.com%29&utm_content=Twitter

Treasury Impotent to Do Anything about Wrongfully Denied Loan Modifications

2011-02-04T11:04:00.003-05:00

The hell you say? http://consumerist.com/2011/01/treasury-impotent-to-do-anything-about-wrongfully-denied-loan-mods.html

Talk to Barney Frank who stood on the Senate floor when advocating for the big bank bailout, promicing Americans that they (the banks) would work with us to help keep us in our homes IF ONLY we would support the bill. He also told us to contact him if they (the banks) gave us any trouble.

Barney Franks wil save our homes,...just ask him!

The Do-It-Yourself Foreclosure Fight

2011-02-04T09:12:00.000-05:00

http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/81-81/4833-the-do-it-yourself-foreclosure-fight

Game Over! Banks Must Have Standing

2011-02-01T16:35:00.001-05:00

No "Pretender Lenders" Allowed!

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/nj-game-over-standing-required-no-pretender-lenders-allowed-personal-knowledge-required-to-authenticate/

Insurance Companies Sue Countrywide Over Massive Mortgage Fraud

2011-01-27T19:33:00.002-05:00

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/insurance-companies-sue-countrywide-over-massive-mortgage-fraud-find-91-securitized-loans-ar

$hiti CEO Pandit Gets Giant Pay Raise

2011-01-26T12:22:00.001-05:00

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/citi-ceo-pandit-gets-giant-pay-raise-2011-01-21

Financial Crisis Commission finds cause for prosecution of Wall St.

2011-01-25T04:52:00.000-05:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/financial-crisis-commissi_2_n_813415.html?ref=fb&src=sp

Fannie, Freddie, to Taxpayers: Pay Our Legal Bills

2011-01-24T20:28:00.000-05:00

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Fannie-FreddietoTaxpayersPayOurLegalBills/2011/01/24/id/383715?s=al&promo_code=B87B-1

BOA Sweats WikiLeaks Release

2011-01-24T14:33:00.000-05:00

http://www.alternet.org/economy/149555/what_does_wikileaks_have_on_bank_of_america/

SEC Probes Big Banks Over International Bribery Concerns

2011-01-14T14:09:00.001-05:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/us-sec-probes-dealings-wi_n_809125.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=430769,b=facebook

$hitiGroup Was Near Collapse ~ Even AFTER Bail-Out

2011-01-13T19:03:00.004-05:00

And they think WE should be better able to balance our books! I get a KICK out of these guys! WE have NO accountants,....and both me and my hubbie flunked math.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/13/citigroup-was-on-the-verg_n_808721.html

Wondering what was their excuse?

Two Big Banks Lose in Foreclosure Cases

2011-01-08T11:21:00.002-05:00

By ROBBIE WHELAN, ALAN ZIBEL and VICTORIA MCGRANE
The highest court in Massachusetts ruled against Wells Fargo & Co. and U.S. Bancorp in two foreclosure cases that cast doubt over whether some home loans were properly handled when packaged into securitizations.

Justices in the state's Supreme Judicial Court upheld a lower court's decision to void foreclosure sales of two homes in Springfield, because owners of the loans couldn't prove that the mortgages had been assigned to them. Both loans were assembled into mortgage-backed securities sold to investors.

Wells Fargo shares fell 2% on the ruling, and other banks saw share-price losses as well.
Bank stocks fell on worries that Friday's ruling could make it harder for financial firms to foreclose on mortgages that wound up in securities. The defeat also might provide ammunition to mortgage-bond investors who have accused and even sued servicers for what the investors claim is systematically shoddy loan documentation.

The ruling against the fourth- and fifth-largest U.S. banks in assets came amid a delay in the crafting of new standards for mortgage lending as top U.S. regulators clash over protections for homeowners facing foreclosure.

The logjam is a sign of how strongly the financial crisis still looms as regulators work to implement the Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law passed last summer. To help prevent another housing collapse, lawmakers included a provision requiring issuers of mortgage-backed securities to keep 5% of the risk, since investors would suffer losses when loans go bad.

Six federal agencies must sign off on the provision before it is released for comment, but their tentative goal of completing a proposal by the end of December came and went with no agreement. The delay was caused partly by disagreement about whether to include new protections for homeowners on the brink of foreclosure within this so-called risk-retention rule or separately, people familiar with the negotiations said. The Dodd-Frank law requires that the regulators finalize the risk-retention requirement by April.

The snag indicates that implementing the changes triggered by the new law could be messy as regulators wrestle to reach consensus. Friday's court ruling brought even more anxiety to the mortgage-securitization market.

The Massachusetts case is a closely watched example of what some mortgage experts describe as "show-me-the-paper" cases over widely used procedures for transferring loans after they are made. Individual loans often are sold to an investor, with the new owner's name left blank in loan documents to minimize paperwork hassles as the loan subsequently changes hands before being combined with other loans into mortgage-backed securities.

Justice Robert J. Cordy concluded in a concurring opinion that the two banks showed "utter carelessness" when they "documented the titles to their assets." If the ruling is followed by lower courts in Massachusetts or emboldens borrowers and investors elsewhere, it could delay or even derail some foreclosures. That would make it harder for banks to recoup loan losses by selling homes that are seized through foreclosure proceedings.

"It's deeply disturbing to investors that it even got to this point, but it potentially strengthens any bondholder claim that the servicers are mishandling foreclosures," said Talcott Franklin, a lawyer representing bond investors.

Susan Wachter, a real-estate finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania, called the ruling a "landmark decision" with nationwide implications because Massachusetts loans wound up in many securities.

Shares of Wells Fargo, based in San Francisco, fell 2%; U.S. Bancorp, Minneapolis, slipped 0.8%. Betsy Grasek, an analyst with Morgan Stanley, wrote in a note to clients that the declines created "buying opportunity for bank stocks," adding that the court ruling "is not saying the foreclosure process is flawed."

R. Bruce Allensworth, a partner at law firm K&L Gates who represents U.S. Bancorp, said the decision would have no effect outside Massachusetts. In a statement, Wells Fargo said the ruling "does not prevent foreclosures on loans in securitizations."

In the risk-retention spat, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has insisted that forthcoming rules also contain new standards for mortgage servicers that collect mortgage payments and distribute them to investors.

Other regulators agree on the need for such changes but want to tackle them through a separate rule or possibly legislation. Those officials are concerned that the FDIC's approach wouldn't cover all mortgages, adding that it is unclear whether regulators have legal authority under the law to impose standards on mortgage servicers.

Industry officials are pressing for a delay, claiming that trying to define what kind of mortgages are deemed safe and therefore exempt from risk-retention requirements is complicated enough. "There should be a discussion on how you look at servicing standards and what they should be," said Paul Leonard, vice president of government affairs at the Housing Policy Council, a mortgage industry group. "We think they should be done separately."

The FDIC has the support of some top Democratic lawmakers, along with some investors in mortgage securities, economists and consumer groups. Supporters argue that servicing standards are a crucial part of the housing market's recovery and that the industry is long overdue for reform.

"We needed this three years ago; we needed it 20 years ago," said Alys Cohen, a lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center, a liberal consumer group. Including standards in the Dodd-Frank mortgage rules guarantees they will be in place by April, "which is lightning speed by federal rule-making standards."

Last month, the FDIC published a legal memo stating that servicing standards are "clearly permitted" under the risk-retention rules. Andrew Gray, an FDIC spokesman, said regulators were asked as part of the new law to "help ensure strong underwriting and a safe and stable securitization market, and the FDIC strongly believes that servicing standards are a critical part of this effort."

As a result of the recent foreclosure mess, regulators have been reviewing the mortgage-servicing system. Possible guidelines being discussed include a requirement that servicers establish a single point of contact for delinquent homeowners and disclose whether they own an interest in loans they handle.

—Liz Moyer contributed to this article.
Write to Robbie Whelan at Robbie.Whelan@wsj.com, Alan Zibel at Alan.Zibel@dowjones.com and Victoria McGrane at Victoria.McGrane @wsj.com

WSJ; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704055204576068273518378108.html

How I Missed the Housing Recovery of 2010

2011-01-03T08:05:00.000-05:00

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-03/how-i-missed-the-housing-recovery-of-2010-commentary-by-caroline-baum.html

Arizona AG Charges BOA with Foreclosure Fraud

2011-01-01T19:32:00.001-05:00

http://www.wmicentral.com/news/latest_news/article_b6ad40ee-144e-11e0-b633-001cc4c002e0.html

White House Against Forclosure Moratorium

2010-12-29T22:20:00.000-05:00

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/channels/pipelinepress/10132010-mortgage-foreclosure-miners.aspx

Ms Hines in Judiciary

2010-12-27T08:11:00.001-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUD37PANOpE&feature=player_embedded#

NY Fraudulent Forclosures

2010-12-23T00:23:00.001-05:00

http://mcm09.ipower.com/id27.html

Update;

A year ago, a New York judge wiped out the mortgage debt of Diana Yano-Horoski because of the shoddy behavior of the foreclosure plaintiff, IndMac. Now the New York Supremes have overturned the ruling. See the related article and ruling below

Storm Bradford of http://mortgagefraudanalysis.com
has repeatedly advised foreclosure victims that they have NO HOPE of avoiding the foreclosure unless they can prove fraud in the transaction. This case provides a clear example of the false hope people get when a lower court judge tosses a mortgage debt. The Plaintiff will win on appeal because the US Constitution prohibits states from making laws (and court rulings often have the effect of making laws) that impair the obligations of contract.

If you want to PROVE fraud so that you have some ghost of a chance of winning your case, contact Storm at the above web link, or Malcolm Doney at http://dolphindevelopments.com

You might also consider finding an expert witness who can explain to the court the kind of scam lenders play on borrowers.

"Looking for Homeowner Volunteers Across America to Rescue Homeless Families That Have Lost Their Homes to Foreclosure"

2010-12-20T11:04:00.001-05:00

http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2010/10/watch-the-democracy-now-tv-interview/

http://www.RepublicoftheunitedStates.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV6NeHoq1wA

http://www.thinkbigworksmall.com/mypage/archive/1/54154/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeVY7JH_xVU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKgl93Mf_Dg

Robo-Signer Scandal Gives State Attorney Generals Leverage to Clean Up Forclosure Mess

2010-12-20T10:52:00.001-05:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ray-brescia/leverage-the-robo-sign-sc_b_798396.html

Anatomy of a Mortgage Fraud Pt. 1

2010-12-20T10:51:00.000-05:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/l-randall-wray/merss-smoking-gun-part-1-_b_794713.html

World Savings Bank - A Living Legacy of Subprime Crisis

2010-12-19T16:31:00.000-05:00

http://dtc-systems.net/2010/12/world-savings-bank-living-legacy-subprime-crisis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DtcSystems+%28DTC+Systems%29

New Yorker Fights Foreclosure for Nearly 10 Years!

2010-12-13T17:16:00.019-05:00

it appears this lady fought foreclosure since 2001, and fought eviction since 2004 until July 2009.

408 B.R. 25 (2009)
In re Bettie Jean SANDERS aka Betty J. Sanders aka Nzingha Sanders, Debtor.
In re Bettie Jean Sanders aka Betty J. Sanders aka Nzingha Sanders, Debtor.
Nos. 07-45689-CEC, 08-47128-CEC.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York.
July 24, 2009.
29*29 Allan B. Mendelsohn, Zavatsky, Mendelsohn, & Levy, LLP, Syosset, NY, Attorneys for RSL Holdings, LLC.
Wilfred A. Callender, Esq., Brooklyn, NY, Attorney for Debtor.

DECISION

CARLA E. CRAIG, Chief Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the motions of Bettie Jean Sanders (the "Debtor"), the debtor in the above-captioned cases, for reconsideration of an order entered on April 4, 2008 granting RSL Holdings, LLC ("RSL") relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362 of the Bankruptcy Code[1] to continue an eviction proceeding against the Debtor and to obtain possession of the Debtor's residence, a house located at 1254 Broadway, also known as 1060 Green Avenue, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11221 (the "Property"). The Debtor also seeks the continuation of the stay to prevent RSL from evicting her from the Property, and a permanent injunction and restraining order preventing Steven Weintraub, Esq., as an agent of RSL, from entering the Property. Lastly, the Debtor seeks to reopen the record to introduce additional evidence in connection with her reconsideration motions, and seeks "a Stay until the District Attorney and the Office of the Inspector General have completed their investigation of this matter and the numerous violations of the Foreclosure Procedural laws by the law firm of Knuckles & Kominiski [sic], P.C."
30*30 Also before the Court is RSL's motion for relief from the automatic stay with prejudice for a period of one year to allow RSL to complete the eviction of the Debtor and to obtain possession of the Property.
For the following reasons, the Debtor's motions are denied, and RSL's motion is granted.
Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction of this core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (G) and 1334 and the Eastern District of New York standing order of reference dated August 28, 1986. This decision constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusion of law to the extent required by the Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052.
Facts
The following facts are undisputed, or are matters of which this Court may take judicial notice.
On October 19, 2007, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Prior Case"). This case was the Debtor's fifth since 2003.[2]
On November 2, 2007, RSL filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay imposed by § 362 to allow it to continue an eviction proceeding against the Debtor and to obtain possession of the Property (the "Prior Case Motion"). RSL asserted that it was the owner of the Property pursuant to a foreclosure sale that occurred on July 1, 2004, during the period between the dismissal of the Debtor's third and the commencement of her fourth case. The Debtor opposed the motion, arguing that a foreclosure never took place.
An evidentiary hearing was held on RSL's motion, during which RSL introduced evidence consisting of a Memorandum of Sale dated July 1, 2004 signed by Vincent Pizzuto, the original referee appointed by the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale entered in Supreme Court, Kings County on April 14, 2003 (the "Foreclosure Judgment"), and Shmuel Tabibov, a representative of MRS Properties, LLC ("MRS"). Also introduced was a Referee's Report of Sale dated February 26, 2007, signed by Manuel Romero, the successor referee, stating that Mr. Pizzuto, after giving the necessary notice and publication, sold the Property at the foot of the courthouse steps at 360 Adams Street in Brooklyn, N.Y. on July 1, 2004, that MRS was the successful bidder at $386,000, and that MRS assigned its bid to Preferred Acquisitions, LLC, ("Preferred Acquisitions") an assignee of the original mortgagee, American Business Credit, Inc. ("ABC"). RSL also submitted into evidence a Referee's Deed, dated February 26, 2007, executed by Mr. Romero, as referee, transferring the Property to Preferred Acquisitions; a deed dated March 12, 2007, signed by Preferred Acquisitions, transferring the Property to MVR Properties, LLC ("MVR"); and a deed dated March 29, 2007 transferring the Property from MVR to RSL.
On April 4, 2008, based upon the documentary evidence and the testimony of the Debtor and Rafael Tabibov, a member of MRS, the Court issued a decision determining 31*31 that a foreclosure sale of the Property occurred on July 1, 2004, and concluding that, as a result, the Debtor does not have an interest in the Property. On that same date, for the reasons stated in the decision, the Court issued an order granting RSL relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) (the "Lift Stay Order"). The Lift Stay Order also provided RSL with prospective relief "so that any future bankruptcy filings by the [D]ebtor within 180 days from the date of [that] order shall not act as a stay with respect to RSL's attempt to obtain possession of the Property." (Order dated April 4, 2008, Case No. 07-45689-CEC, Docket # 25.) The Debtor did not appeal the Lift Stay Order.
On May 15, 2008, the Prior Case was dismissed upon the motion of the chapter 13 trustee because the Debtor did not have any disposable income and because she failed to propose a feasible chapter 13 plan.
On October 23, 2008, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Current Case"), commencing her sixth bankruptcy case since 2003.
On November 6, 2008, RSL filed the instant motion for relief from the automatic stay with prejudice for one year to permit the completion of the Debtor's eviction and to obtain possession of the Property.
On December 5, 2008, the Debtor filed opposition to RSL's motion and sought reconsideration of the Lift Stay Order. RSL filed opposition to the Debtor's motion for reconsideration.
On February 19, 2009, the Debtor filed a motion in the Prior Case for reconsideration of the Lift Stay Order, and also sought a permanent injunction and a restraining order preventing Mr. Weintraub from continuing his efforts to evict the Debtor on behalf of RSL.
On February 23, 2009, the Debtor filed a motion in the Current Case for reconsideration of the Lift Stay Order, and also sought a permanent injunction and a restraining order preventing Mr. Weintraub from continuing his efforts to evict the Debtor on behalf of RSL.
On May 27, 2009, an evidentiary hearing was held with respect to both of the Debtor's motions for reconsideration, and on RSL's motion for relief from the automatic stay in the Current Case. At the conclusion of the hearing, the record was closed and the Court reserved decision on the motions.
On June 4, 2009, the Debtor filed a letter requesting an extension of time to allow Mr. Romero to respond to the Debtor's subpoena. On June 25, 2009, the Court denied the Debtor's request because the evidentiary hearing was held and the record was closed, and because the Debtor had ample opportunity to obtain discovery on the matters at issue.
On July 2, 2009, the Debtor filed a motion seeking to reopen the record and to introduce new evidence with respect to her reconsideration motions. The Debtor also seeks "a Stay until the District Attorney and the Office of the Inspector General have completed their investigation of this matter and the numerous violations of the Foreclosure Procedural laws by the law firm of Knuckles & Kominiski [sic], P.C." RSL opposed this motion. A hearing was held on July 14, 2009, at the conclusion of which this Court reserved decision on the Debtor's motion to reopen the record.
Discussion
A. The Debtor's motions to vacate the Lift Stay Order, and to reopen the record, are denied.
The Debtor's motion must be evaluated pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules 32*32 of Civil Procedure ("Rules")[3] made applicable in bankruptcy cases by Bankruptcy Rule 9024. Rule 60 provides, in pertinent part:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
* * *
A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time — and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), (c)(1).
At the outset, it must be noted that the Debtor has not sought to vacate the order dismissing the Prior Case, nor does there appear to be a reason to do so. It has been held that, once a bankruptcy case is dismissed, a bankruptcy court does not have jurisdiction to grant relief to a debtor affecting a related proceeding pending in state court, such as RSL's pending eviction proceeding against the Debtor in state court. See In re Kaplun, No. 05-24528, 2006 WL 4455778, at *3 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. Aug.23, 2006) (bankruptcy court denied debtor's motion to instruct a state court "how to interpret or apply" an order lifting the automatic stay after the bankruptcy case was dismissed); In re Garnett, 303 B.R. 274, 279 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin a state court foreclosure action after the bankruptcy case was dismissed).
On the other hand, it has also been held that, after a bankruptcy case is dismissed, a bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction to vacate an order issued during the pendency of the bankruptcy case, so long as "new relief independent of the prior rulings" is not being granted. In re Johnson, No. 04-52265, 2008 WL 878925, at *4 (Bankr.N.D.Cal. Apr.1, 2008) ("[R]econsideration by this Court of its inherent authority to enter [a provision in a prior order] is a proper exercise of this Court's jurisdiction — even after Debtor's bankruptcy case has been dismissed."). Even if this Court may vacate the Lift Stay Order without vacating the dismissal order in the Prior Case, the Debtor's motion must be denied, because she has not met her burden under Rule 60(b).
The Debtor's arguments in support of vacating the Lift Stay Order fall under Rule 60(b)(2), (3) and (6). "To prevail on a motion for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2), a movant must demonstrate that he was justifiably ignorant of the newly discovered evidence despite due diligence." State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Inversiones Errazuriz Limitada, 374 F.3d 158, 178 (2d Cir.2004) (citing United States v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 247 F.3d 370, 392 (2d Cir.2001)). A party seeking relief 33*33 under Rule 60(b)(3) "must show that the conduct complained of prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting his case," Inversiones Errazuriz Limitada, 374 F.3d at 176, by showing "clear and convincing evidence of material misrepresentations," Fleming v. N.Y. Univ., 865 F.2d 478, 484 (2d Cir.1989). A party may not use Rule 60(b)(3) to relitigate the merits of the order from which he seeks relief. Fleming, 865 F.2d at 484. Lastly, relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) may only be granted under extraordinary or exceptional circumstances. Grace v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 443 F.3d 180, 190 n. 8 (2d Cir.2006); Mendell v. Gollust, 909 F.2d 724, 731 (2d Cir.1990), aff'd, 501 U.S. 115, 111 S.Ct. 2173, 115 L.Ed.2d 109 (1991). This subsection is properly invoked only when the "asserted grounds for relief are not recognized in clauses (1)-(5) of the Rule." In re Calpine Corp., 363 B.R. 709, 711 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2007).
The Debtor argues that the Foreclosure Judgment was erroneously rendered for a number of reasons, and therefore, because the Foreclosure Judgment is the basis for the sale, and the sale is the basis of the Lift Stay Order, the Lift Stay Order must be vacated. First, she argues that she never received notice of the foreclosure action. Second, she argues that ABC, the original mortgagee, never commenced a foreclosure action against her, and that the action that resulted in the Foreclosure Judgment was commenced by a law firm, Knuckles & Komosinski, PC ("Knuckles & Komosinski") purportedly on behalf of ABC without ABC's authorization. Third, she argues that ABC was never licensed to operate as a bank in New York, making the initial mortgage illegal, and the subsequent foreclosure action illegal. Finally, she argues that she was not in default of her mortgage obligations.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents this Court from reviewing the validity of the Foreclosure Judgment. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine "strip[s] federal subject matter jurisdiction over lawsuits that are, in substance, appeals from state court decisions." Book v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Systems, 608 F.Supp.2d 277, 288 (D.Conn.2009) (citing Hoblock v. Albany County Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 84 (2d Cir.2005)).
However, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not divest the federal court of jurisdiction of an "independent claim based on an injury not `caused by' the state-court judgment, even if the claim denies a legal conclusion of the state court." Estate of Keys v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 578 F.Supp.2d 629, 637 (S.D.N.Y.2008). "[T]he applicability of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine turns not on the similarity between a party's state-court and federal-court claims (which is, generally speaking, the focus of ordinary preclusion law), but rather on the causal relationship between the state-court judgment and the injury of which the party complains in federal court." McKithen v. Brown, 481 F.3d 89, 97-98 (2d Cir.2007). "[A] party is not complaining of an injury `caused by' a state-court judgment when the exact injury of which the party complains in federal court existed prior in time to the state-court proceedings, and so could not have been `caused by' those proceedings." Id. at 98.
34*34 For instance, it has been held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was inapplicable when a party who lost in a state court foreclosure action asserted claims of conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress, because those claims alleged fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure judgment, and because the party did not seek to vacate the foreclosure judgment, but sought the remedy of money damages. Goddard v. Citibank, NA, No. 04CV5317, 2006 WL 842925, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2006). However, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was held to apply when a party sought to set aside a transfer of a house pursuant to a judgment of foreclosure, even though the party argued that the judgment of foreclosure was procured by fraud. Keys, 578 F.Supp.2d at 637.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies in this case because the Debtor lost in the state court foreclosure action, the Foreclosure Judgment was rendered before the Debtor commenced the Prior Case and the Current Case, and the Debtor seeks this Court's review of the Foreclosure Judgment in the context of her motion to vacate the Lift Stay Order. The injuries complained of, i.e., the foreclosure sale and the subsequent purchase by RSL, were "caused by" the Foreclosure Judgment because "the foreclosure would not have occurred but-for the judgment" in state court. Id. at 637. Accordingly, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not permit this court to disregard the Foreclosure Judgment. See Gray v. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 07 Civ. 4039, 2009 WL 1787710, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2009) (comparing the loss of an automobile to a loss of a home, and stating that "[c]ourts in this Circuit have consistently held that a plaintiff who lost possession of his home in a state court foreclosure proceeding is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine from attacking the state court judgment in federal district court"); Goddard, 2006 WL 842925, at *4 ("To the extent that Plaintiff asks that this court find the Judgment of Foreclosure to be invalid because her mortgage payments were up to date... I find that this claim is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.").
Even if this Court had jurisdiction to review the validity of the Foreclosure Judgment, the Debtor's arguments would be barred by res judicata. "Res judicata, or claim preclusion, operates to prevent a party from re-litigating a claim after the claim has already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction." Charell v. Gonzalez (In re Gonzalez), 241 B.R. 67, 72 (S.D.N.Y.1999); see also Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 131, 99 S.Ct. 2205, 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979); Monahan v. New York City Dep't of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 284 (2d Cir.2000). This doctrine "ensures the finality of decisions." Brown, 442 U.S. at 131, 99 S.Ct. 2205. To determine the preclusive effect of a state court decision, a federal court must apply the standard used by the state in which the decision was rendered. 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517; In re Fischer, 252 B.R. 603, 613 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.2000). Under New York's doctrine of res judicata "a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating claims that were or could have been raised in that action." Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 280, 286-87 (2d Cir.2002). "This doctrine also applies to defenses that could have been litigated, including defenses to a foreclosure." Yeiser v. GMAC Mortg. Corp., 535 F.Supp.2d 413, 421 (S.D.N.Y.2008). Although this doctrine requires "an identicality, or privity, of the plaintiffs and defendants in the initial and subsequent actions," this requirement "is not strictly imposed where the party against whom claim preclusion is sought 35*35 has, in essence, already received his or her day in court, and the application of res judicata would not alter this conclusion."[4] Pharr v. Evergreen Garden, Inc., 123 Fed. Appx. 420, 424 (2d Cir.2005). Therefore, because the Debtor was a party to the state court foreclosure action, and because she could have raised these defenses in that action, she is barred from asserting them at this juncture.
Some cases have held that, notwithstanding the doctrine of res judicata, a New York state court's judgment is not given preclusive effect by the federal court if the judgment was procured by collusion or fraud. See Kelleran v. Andrijevic, 825 F.2d 692, 694 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1007, 108 S.Ct. 701, 98 L.Ed.2d 652 (1988); Goddard, 2006 WL 842925, at *7; In re Slater, 200 B.R. 491, 495 (E.D.N.Y.1996); County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 710 F.Supp. 1387, 1393 (E.D.N.Y.1989). This is because New York law permits collateral attacks on judgments obtained by extrinsic, as opposed to intrinsic, fraud. Slater, 200 B.R. at 496 (citing Altman v. Altman, 150 A.D.2d 304, 542 N.Y.S.2d 7, 9 (N.Y.App. Div.1989)). Extrinsic fraud involves the parties' "opportunity to have a full and fair hearing," while intrinsic fraud, on the other hand, involves the "underlying issue in the original lawsuit." Id. Other cases have held that a judgment is still given preclusive effect even it was obtained by fraud. See Gray, 2009 WL 1787710, at *6; Alaimo v. Gen. Motors Corp., No. 07-CV-7624, 2008 WL 4695026, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.20, 2008); Keys, 578 F.Supp.2d at 635-636; Marshall v. Grant, 521 F.Supp.2d 240, 246 (E.D.N.Y.2007). However, these cases do not address the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud, and the fraudulent acts alleged in those cases appear to constitute intrinsic fraud.
It has also been held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not prevent the collateral attack on a state court judgment which is alleged to have been procured through fraud, if the claim now asserted is independent from the claim that the state court judgment was erroneous. See Marshall, 521 F.Supp.2d at 245; Goddard, 2006 WL 842925, at *5-6; Mac Pherson v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 452 F.Supp.2d 133, 140 (E.D.N.Y.2006).
No extrinsic fraud is alleged in the procurement of the Foreclosure Judgment, such as, for example, threats of physical harm, or the misrepresentation that the action would be discontinued. See Slater, 200 B.R. at 496 ("[T]he [d]ebtor's allegations that her brother physically assaulted her and threatened her life before and during the trial ... does constitute extrinsic fraud sufficient to attack the state court judgment."); Tamimi v. Tamimi, 38 A.D.2d 197, 328 N.Y.S.2d 477, 484 (N.Y.App.Div.1972) ("Upon the undisputed testimony in this case the [party] was 'robbed' of her opportunity to make her defense in the Thai court by reason of the [other party]'s fraud and misrepresentation that he would discontinue the action which he had instituted against her."). Nor is any claim asserted by the Debtor separate from the claim that the Foreclosure Judgment was erroneous. Cf. Goddard, 2006 WL 842925, at *4-6 (aside from the claim that a state court judgment was erroneously rendered, which was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the party 36*36 also asserted claims of conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress, which were not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
However, even if the doctrines of Rooker-Feldman and res judicata do not apply, the Debtor has not shown that the Foreclosure Judgment was obtained by fraud, or that, even if it was, relief pursuant to Rule 60(b) is warranted. See Tyson v. City of New York, 81 Fed.Appx. 398, 400 (2d Cir.2003) ("[R]elief [under Rule 60(b)(3)] is only available if the moving party establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the opposing party engaged in fraud or other misconduct."); Fleming, 865 F.2d at 484 ("[A] Rule 60(b)(3) motion cannot be granted absent clear and convincing evidence of material misrepresentations.").
In support of her argument that the Foreclosure Judgment was fraudulently obtained, the Debtor attached to her motion papers as Exhibit D a letter dated April 7, 2008, purportedly from the chapter 7 trustee of the bankruptcy estate of ABC. In the letter, the trustee stated that he has no record of the foreclosure action, or of any representation of ABC by Knuckles & Komosinski. First of all, the debtor has submitted no evidence of the authenticity of this document, nor any evidence that would remove it from the category of inadmissible hearsay. Fed.R.Evid. 802, 803, 901. Moreover, even if a proper foundation were laid for the admission of this document into evidence, the fact that the chapter 7 trustee of ABC's bankruptcy case states in 2008 that ABC has no record of a foreclosure action, which was commenced seven years earlier, and where the foreclosure sale took place four years earlier, does not support a finding that the action was never properly commenced in 2001, or that Knuckles & Komosinski commenced the foreclosure proceeding without authorization from ABC.
Also attached as part of Exhibit D to the Debtor's motion papers was an undated letter, purportedly from ABC to the Debtor, stating that it "can find no records of our legal department initiating a foreclosure action" and that her mortgage was "reinstated." However, this letter is insufficient to support a conclusion that the foreclosure judgment was obtained by fraud. This letter too is unauthenticated, and its contents are hearsay. The fact that the letter is undated further undermines its evidentiary value. Even if the statement it contains is accepted as true, it is impossible to determine whether the letter was written before or after the foreclosure action was commenced; it is possible that the letter predates the foreclosure action, and that the debtor subsequently defaulted.
Furthermore, the Debtor's allegation that the foreclosure action was not authorized by ABC does not constitute a claim that Knuckles & Komosinski engaged in conduct that deprived the Debtor from an opportunity to have a full and fair trial in the foreclosure action. These contentions could have been raised in the foreclosure action, and in subsequent proceedings which have been held in state court seeking relief from the Foreclosure Judgment. Therefore, this allegation, even if true, constitutes an allegation of intrinsic fraud, as opposed to extrinsic fraud, and is not sufficient to collaterally attack the Foreclosure Judgment. See Slater, 200 B.R. at 496.
The Debtor's argument that the underlying mortgage was illegal and that the foreclosure action was improperly commenced because ABC was not licensed to operate as a bank must also be rejected as grounds for collateral attack of the Foreclosure Judgment. These allegations, 37*37 even if true, do not constitute any conduct that would have prevented the Debtor from fairly and fully litigating the foreclosure action; rather, these arguments go to the merits of the foreclosure action, and are insufficient to permit collateral attack of the Foreclosure Judgment. See Gray, 2009 WL 1787710, at *6 n. 2 ("Plaintiff's allegations of fraud regarding the underlying loan transaction do not appear to be of the type recognized by certain courts as immune from res judicata."); Slater, 200 B.R. at 495 (debtor's argument in bankruptcy court that her signature on a deed, which was the basis for a foreclosure judgment, was fraudulently obtained was insufficient to collaterally attack the foreclosure judgment because the argument alleged intrinsic fraud); Bell v. Town Bd. of the Town of Pawling, 146 A.D.2d 729, 537 N.Y.S.2d 214, 215 (N.Y.App.Div.1989) ("A challenger will not prevail by merely showing fraud in the underlying transaction but must show fraud in the very means by which the judgment was procured.").
In short, the Debtor has not established any basis for denying the Foreclosure Judgment preclusive effect. However, even if the doctrines of Rooker-Feldman and res judicata did not prevent this Court from entertaining a collateral attack on the Foreclosure Judgment, the proffered evidence does not in any event provide grounds under Rule 60(b) for vacating the Lift Stay Order. Relief under Rule 60(b)(2) is not warranted because the Debtor has not given any reason why the information contained in the letters submitted by her as evidence "with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial [with respect to the Lift Stay Order] under Rule 59(b)." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2). Moreover, these letters do not shown the existence of any extraordinary circumstances warranting vacatur under Rule 60(b)(6). Most importantly, these letters do not establish that RSL, or any other party, engaged in fraud in obtaining the Lift Stay Order.
Additionally, the Debtor's allegation that Knuckles & Komosinski misrepresented to the state court that the Debtor was in default of her mortgage obligations is insufficient to permit collateral attack of the Foreclosure Judgment. "Bankruptcy proceedings may not be used to re-litigate issues already resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction." Kelleran, 825 F.2d at 695. The Debtor's argument that she was current on her mortgage obligations could have been made in state court. Moreover, the allegation that Knuckles & Komosinski misrepresented to the state court that she was in default is one that alleges intrinsic fraud. See Domino Media, Inc. v. Kranis, 9 F.Supp.2d 374, 388-389 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (allegations of perjury in New York state court action is insufficient to collaterally attack the state court judgment); Alleghany Corp. v. Kirby, 218 F.Supp. 164, 184 (S.D.N.Y. 1963) ("If [a party] had testified at the hearing before the Referee and had testified falsely, or had produced false documents, the fraud would be denominated as intrinsic and would not be subject to collateral attack."). Furthermore, the Debtor has not submitted any evidence that she was current on her mortgage obligations.
The Debtor's claim that she was never served in the foreclosure action, however, would, if true, potentially constitute extrinsic fraud in the procurement of the Foreclosure Judgment, because such a fact could support the conclusion that she was denied the opportunity to fully and fairly defend the foreclosure action. See In re Gates, 187 B.R. 426, 432-433 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y.1995) (finding that Pennsylvania judgment was not procured by extrinsic fraud because the defendant was properly served); Chenu v. Bd. of Trs., 12 A.D.2d 38*38 422, 212 N.Y.S.2d 818, 820 (N.Y.App.Div. 1961) ("The Florida judgment could be nullified by collateral attack in this State if there had been ... improper service upon defendant."). However, no evidence was introduced supporting her claim that she was not served in the foreclosure action, and her bare assertion is insufficient to rebut the presumption that she was served. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Schotter, 50 A.D.3d 983, 857 N.Y.S.2d 592, 594 (N.Y.App.Div.2008) (conclusory allegations of non-receipt are insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service where an affidavit of service is filed). It should be noted that the Foreclosure Judgment specifically recited that the Debtor was "duly served ... and/or [has] duly appeared" and that proof of service of the summons and complaint was filed. (Foreclosure Judgment 1.)
For these reasons, this Court concludes that the Foreclosure Judgment is res judicata under New York law, and is not subject to collateral attack. Additionally, even if the Debtor could establish that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and res judicata, did not preclude collateral attack on the Foreclosure Judgment, there would still be no basis to vacate the Lift Stay Order. In order to obtain relief from the Lift Stay Order under Rule 60(b), the Debtor would be required to establish the existence of a fraud on this Court in obtaining the Lift Stay Order, or some other grounds under Rule 60(b), relating to the proceedings in the Prior Case that resulted in the Lift Stay Order. None of the alleged misconduct of Knuckles & Komosinski in connection with the foreclosure action, if it occurred, would have operated to deny the Debtor a full and fair opportunity to present these arguments to this Court in the Prior Case; the Debtor had ample opportunity to raise all of these arguments during the trial on RSL's motion for relief from the automatic stay in the Prior Case. See Gleason v. Jandrucko, 860 F.2d 556, 560 (2d Cir.1988) (relief under Rule 60(b) was not warranted when the movant had "ample opportunity in the prior proceeding to uncover the alleged fraud"). Moreover, in order to vacate the Lift Stay Order under Rule 60(b)(3), the alleged fraud must have been perpetrated by RSL, which was the opposing party in the Prior Case. The Debtor does not argue that the alleged fraudulent conduct of Knuckles & Komosinski is attributable to RSL. See Crateo, Inc. v. Intermark, Inc., 536 F.2d 862, 870 (9th Cir.1976) ("Despite [the debtor]'s protestations of fraud in the obtaining of the Texas judgment, its Rule 60(b) motion in this case cannot be considered as falling under the third clause of that section because the ... actions [of the adverse party in the underlying state court action] cannot be charged to any adverse party in the bankruptcy proceeding."). Therefore, none of the Debtor's arguments that the Foreclosure Judgment was fraudulently obtained provide a basis under Rule 60(b) to vacate the Lift Stay Order.
The Debtor also asserts that the Lift Stay Order should be vacated because the sale never took place on July 1, 2004, or that the state court "aborted" and "stayed" the sale. (Tr.[5] at 15; Debtor's Mot. for Reconsideration at ¶ 30). However, the evidence offered by the Debtor does not support these conclusions. As Exhibit E to her motion, the Debtor attached an order to show cause issued by the Honorable Jules Spodek on June 29, 2004, temporarily staying the transfer of the deed until the return date of the order to show cause. That order did not stay the foreclosure sale. Indeed, Justice Spodek specifically crossed out the paragraphs of the 39*39 Debtor's proposed order that provided for a stay of the sale. Additionally, Exhibit F to the Debtor's motion is an order dated July 14, 2004, issued by the Honorable Ariel Belen, after the hearing on the June 29, 2004 order to show cause which stayed the transfer of the deed until August 30, 2004, but did not stay the foreclosure sale, which took place 14 days earlier. There is no evidence whatsoever that the foreclosure sale was stayed by any court.
Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the Debtor supports the conclusion that the sale actually occurred on July 1, 2004. The Debtor relies on the deposition testimony of Mr. Pizzuto, the original referee in the foreclosure, to support her assertion that the sale did not occur. However, Mr. Pizzuto testified that there was a sale of the Property, and that he took a deposit of $39,000. (Pizzuto Dep. Test. 4/2/09 at 10, 14.) Mr. Pizzuto further testified that the sale did not close and that he returned the deposit to the successful bidder, MRS. (Pizzuto Dep. Test. 4/2/09 at 15.) This testimony is contrary to the Debtor's assertion that the sale never took place. Moreover, the fact that the deposit was returned is entirely consistent with this Court's prior findings that the Property was auctioned at a foreclosure sale on July 1, 2004, and that the winning bid of MRS was ultimately assigned to Preferred Acquisitions, an assignee of ABC, and that the successor referee, Mr. Romero, transferred the deed to Preferred Acquisitions, and that the Property was subsequently transferred to RSL. Preferred Acquisitions, the mortgage holder, was assigned the winning bid, and therefore no deposit was required after the assignment of the bid. See Polish Nat. Alliance v. White Eagle Hall Co., Inc., 98 A.D.2d 400, 470 N.Y.S.2d 642, 649 (N.Y.App.Div.1983) ("A mortgagee, which bids in the property for less than the amount due, is not required to indulge the useless act of paying itself the amount of its bid.").
The Debtor argues that RSL submitted a fraudulent Terms of Sale and Memorandum of Sale to this Court, which was relied upon by this Court in issuing the Lift Stay Order. In support of her argument that the sale was aborted, the Debtor argues that Mr. Pizzuto testified that the signature on the Terms of Sale is not his. (Debtor's Reply Affirmation ¶ 13.) However, this is not an accurate characterization of Mr. Pizzuto's testimony. Mr. Pizzuto testified that the signature on the Terms of Sale "looks like my signature, but ... it could be anybody's signature," and that he could not state for sure whether it was his signature. (Pizzuto Dep. Test. 4/2/09 at 34-35.) When asked if he recalled signing a memorandum of sale, Mr. Pizzuto testified that he had no recollection of anything that transpired except with respect to occurrences that are referenced in the documents in his file. (Pizzuto Dep. Test. 4/2/09 at 31.) This testimony does not support the Debtor's assertion that the signatures on the Terms of Sale and Memorandum of Sale presented in the Prior Case were forged.
The Debtor has not given any reason why Mr. Pizzuto's testimony, "with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)," Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2), and therefore there is no basis in any event to vacate the Lift Stay Order under Rule 60(b)(2). More importantly, this "new evidence" does not support the Debtor's contention that RSL engaged in fraud in obtaining the Lift Stay Order, and therefore provides no basis for vacating the Lift Stay Order under Rule 60(b)(3). Nor does Mr. Pizzuto's testimony establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting vacatur under Rule 60(b)(6).
40*40 The Debtor also argues that the foreclosure sale was not conducted in accordance with New York law. For example, she argues that she never received notice of the sale, and that the sale was not properly advertised. These allegations are untimely because they should have been asserted within one year after the sale. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 2003; N.Y. Real Prop. Acts. Law § 231(6). Moreover, the Debtor has not provided any evidence in support of these allegations, and, even if true, such allegations are insufficient to set aside the sale under New York law. Wells Fargo Bank Minn. v. Ray, 23 Misc.3d 931, 880 N.Y.S.2d 454, 456-457 (N.Y.Sup.2009) ("[I]t is well settled that the failure to give proper notice of a sale ... is a mere irregularity and not a jurisdictional defect. Absent a showing that a substantial right of a party to participate in the sale was prejudiced, the failure to give proper notice will not require that a sale be set aside." (citations omitted)). These allegations would not in any event provide a basis for vacating the Lift Stay Order; no reason is given why these issues could not have been raised in the Prior Case.
The Debtor argues that the referee failed to timely file of a report of sale and other documents, the mortgagor did not attend the sale or sign various documents, and that the sale was not timely consummated. The Debtor also argues that MRS was not permitted to assign its bid to Preferred Acquisitions. However, the Debtor has not provided any authority which would lead to the conclusion that these allegations, if true, render the sale null and void. Furthermore, once the sale is completed, the Debtor lacks standing to enforce any of the provisions of the terms of sale, such as the time for closing. Scheckter v. Emigrant Sav. Bank, 237 A.D.2d 273, 654 N.Y.S.2d 162, 163 (N.Y.App.Div.1997) ("[T]here is no statutory authority which allows a mortgagor to enforce the provisions of a Terms of Sale Agreement when a foreclosure purchaser is allegedly in default."). The Debtor also lacks standing to claim any "impropriety in the events surrounding the closing of title which resulted in the sale of the premises" because she did not have any interest in the Property once the sale was completed on July 1, 2004. Kolkunova v. Guaranteed Home Mortgage Co., 43 A.D.3d 878, 842 N.Y.S.2d 46, 48 (N.Y.App.Div.2007) (holding that plaintiff lacked standing after foreclosure sale to set aside the foreclosure sale and reinstate her right to redeem property based upon arguments that events surrounding the closing of the sale were improper). Moreover, none of these arguments support vacatur of the Lift Stay Order pursuant to Rule 60(b). No claim of newly discovered evidence or fraud is made, and no reason given why these issues could not have been used in the Prior Case.
In her latest motion, the Debtor seeks to reopen the record to introduce an affidavit of Mr. Romero. The determination whether to reopen the record for the presentation of new evidence is within the court's discretion, DiBella v. Hopkins, 403 F.3d 102, 119 (2d Cir.2005), and in making its determination, "the court must consider (1) whether or not the moving party's failure to submit evidence was the result of its own lack of diligence; (2) the extent to which reopening the record might prejudice the nonmovant; and (3) where the interests of justice lie," John v. Sotheby's, Inc., 858 F.Supp. 1283, 1288 (S.D.N.Y.1994). The Debtor's motions for reconsideration have been pending for, at a minimum, five months. The Debtor had ample opportunity to seek whatever discovery she felt was necessary in order to adequately present her case, including the testimony of Mr. Romero. The Debtor has not provided any excuse for her failure 41*41 to present this evidence at the evidentiary hearing on her motions.
Furthermore, this Court notes that Mr. Romero's affidavit, in which he states that he received no funds in payment for the Property, does not support the Debtor's position that the sale of the Property did not properly close. To the contrary, Mr. Romero's affidavit is consistent with testimony at the evidentiary hearing in the Prior Case. The assignee of the mortgagee, Preferred Acquisitions, purchased the Property from the Referee. The Report of Sale confirms this, and states that the total amount due to the mortgagee is $493,427.95, and the winning bid was $386,000, leaving a deficiency of $107,427.95. Therefore, it is understandable that no money was exchanged, as the holder of the mortgage was entitled to credit bid its claim. Moreover, the Debtor lacks standing to challenge alleged improprieties in the transfer of the title that occurred after the auction sale took place. See Kolkunova, 842 N.Y.S.2d at 48.
The Debtor has not provided any evidence that the Lift Stay Order, or the underlying Foreclosure Judgment, was obtained by fraud, and has not established that she is entitled to relief from the Lift Stay Order pursuant to Rule 60(b). Accordingly, the Debtor's motion to vacate the Lift Stay Order is denied.
B. The Lift Stay Order is res judicata in the Current Case.
The Debtor asserts all of the arguments discussed above as grounds to deny RSL's motion for relief from the automatic stay, and in support of her motion to extend the automatic stay. These arguments are barred by the federal doctrine of res judicata, which parallels New York's doctrine of res judicata. See Marvel Characters, 310 F.3d at 286; Maharaj v. Bankamerica Corp., 128 F.3d 94, 97 (2d Cir.1997). RSL and the Debtor are the same parties as in the Prior Case, the Lift Stay Order was a final determination on the merits of RSL's motion for relief from the automatic stay in the Prior Case, and all of the Debtor's arguments now asserted could have been made in the Prior Case before the issuance of the Lift Stay Order. As such, the Lift Stay Order issued in the Prior Case, which is not vacated under Rule 60(b), is given preclusive effect in the Current Case. Accordingly, for reasons stated in this Court's decision in the Prior Case dated April 4, 2008, RSL is granted relief from the automatic stay with prejudice for a period of one year, so that, in the event of any future bankruptcy filing by the Debtor or an assignee of the Debtor, the automatic stay will not apply to prevent RSL from exercising its right with respect to the Property.
Given this conclusion, this Court also denies the Debtor's request for an injunction and temporary restraining order against Mr. Weintraub, as well as her request for a stay in this case until the offices of the Inspector General and the District Attorney complete their investigation into the Debtor's allegations of wrongdoing.[6]
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, all of the Debtor's motions are denied, and RSL's motion for relief from the automatic stay with prejudice for a period of one year is granted. A separate order will issue.
[1] Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references herein are to the Bankruptcy Code, Title 11 U.S.C.
[2] The first, Case No. 03-17283, was filed on June 4, 2003, and was dismissed on August 13, 2003. The second, Case No. 03-23549, was filed on October 16, 2003, and was dismissed on February 9, 2004. The third, Case No. 04-15000, was filed on April 8, 2004, was dismissed on May 14, 2004, and the Debtor was prohibited from a filing a bankruptcy case for one year from the date of the dismissal order. The fourth, Case No. 05-20733, was filed on July 5, 2005, was dismissed on October 3, 2005, and the Debtor was prohibited from filing another Chapter 13 petition for a period of 180 days from the entry of the dismissal order.
[3] The Debtor states that her motion for reconsideration is made "in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 3008." However, Bankruptcy Rule 3008 relates to the reconsideration of an order allowing or disallowing a claim against the estate, not to the reconsideration of an order lifting the automatic stay, and is thus inapplicable here. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3008.
[4] The requirement of privity may be satisfied because RSL owns the Property as a successor in interest to ABC's assignee, Preferred Acquisitions. Watts v. Swiss Bank Corp., 27 N.Y.2d 270, 277, 317 N.Y.S.2d 315, 265 N.E.2d 739 (1970) (privity "includes those who are successors to a property interest"); see also Pharr, 123 Fed.Appx. at 425 (quoting Watts, 27 N.Y.2d at 277, 317 N.Y.S.2d 315, 265 N.E.2d 739).
[5] "Tr." refers to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing held on May 27, 2009.
[6] Any request for an injunction and restraining order must be sought by way of adversary proceeding, and not by motion. Fed. R. Bankr.P. 7001. Additionally, the Debtor's exhibits in support of her assertions that an investigation is ongoing do not support a conclusion that there are pending active investigations.

------------------
Re Garnett; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15359749301552362044&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

Re Johnson; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6464107956901779244&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

State St. Bank v. ; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2742381716123711865&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

US v. Teamsters; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12242384205765031347&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

Flemming v. NYU; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17659893361516518653&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

Grace v. Bank; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1276581082795209739&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

Mendell v. Gollust; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=14640580729024439679&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

Re Calpine Corp.; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17197095688660808122&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

Exxon v. Saudi; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5125247909058229737&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

Book v. MERS; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17784863444737096148&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

Hoblock v. Albany Co.; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17378203664738568624&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

Estate of Keys v. Union Planters; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10785704030913915496&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

Mckithen v. Brown; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17291984661803572802&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

Goddard v. Citibank; http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=17586250919623422008&q=chronologically+impossible+allonge&hl=en&as_sdt=4000000003

All; https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&source=navclient&shva=1#inbox/12ce0f86027e9649

5 Ways Homeowners Are Victimized by Wrongful Bank Forclosures

2010-12-04T17:26:00.000-05:00

http://www.alternet.org/investigations/149054/5_ways_homeowners_are_victimized_by_wrongful_bank_foreclosure

NY Judge Rejects Banks Forclosure Filing Despite Compliance with New Rules!

2010-12-02T17:03:00.003-05:00

Washington Mutual Bank, Plaintiff v. Sheila U. Phillip, et. al., Defendants, 16359/08
Supreme Court, Kings County, IAS Part 27
new york law journal

Judge Lights Up WaMu; http://foreclosureblues.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/judge-schack-lights-up-washington-mutual-this-time-denies-foreclosure-continues-to-hold-banks-to-their-burden-of-proof-wash-mut-bank-v-phillip-2010-ny-slip-op-52034/

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

12-02-2010 http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/CaseDecisionNY.jsp?id=1202475567007&pStyle=decision&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=New%20York%20Law%20Journal%20&pt=New%20York%20Law%20Journal%20Case%20Alert&cn=case120210&kw=Washington%20Mutual%20Bank%20v.%20Phillip%2C%2016359%2F08&hbxlogin=1

Cite as: Washington Mutual Bank v. Phillip, 16359/08, NYLJ 1202475567007, at *1 (Sup., KI, November 29, 2010)
Justice Arthur M. Schack
Decided: November 29, 2010

BOA Mortgage Morass Deepens Over Promissory Note Issues

2010-12-01T11:43:00.000-05:00

http://dtc-systems.net/2010/11/bofa-mortgage-morass-deepens-promissory-notes-issues/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DtcSystems+%28DTC+Systems%29

U.S. BK Trustees: Dont Just Tell Us,....SHOW Us That You Have Standing to Foreclose

2010-11-29T01:01:00.001-05:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/business/28gret.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all

The Quants: Alchemists of Wall St.& Their Role in the Mortgage Meltdown

2010-11-27T23:21:00.001-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2FWNWwE3I&feature=player_embedded

Housing Loan Scam Takes Toll on NIFTY

2010-11-27T16:26:00.001-05:00

http://www.commodityonline.com/commodity-stocks/Housing-loan-scam-takes-its-toll-on-Nifty-nosedive-to-two-month-low-2010-11-26-33855-3-1.html

Related; http://www.deccanherald.com/content/116203/scams-take-toll-sensex-sentiments.html

DTC Systems Workshop

2010-11-27T00:34:00.001-05:00

http://dtc-systems.net/

Daily v. 1st National Bank

2010-11-27T00:14:00.002-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSqi1N_RrUs

I have since learned that the findings in this case were almost immediately over-turned by the higher courts. Apparently, it is ok for the banks to create $$$ out of nothing, loan it to us and keep us all forever in their debt paying interest back to them for giving us the "loan." It is our interest payments on those "loans" (creation of debt) making the bankers rich. Money IS debt and debt IS money today.

*Update: This case was almost immediately over-turned, making the creation of $$$ from nothing ok

Foreclosure Fraud Action Alert

2010-11-16T22:34:00.002-05:00

Immediate action needed;

http://4closurefraud.org/2010/11/16/action-alert-its-back-h-r-3808-interstate-recognition-of-notarization-act-of-2010/

More Homeowners Resisting Forclosure

2010-11-15T04:26:00.001-05:00

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2010/nov/15/seize-and-desist/

Congress Getting Ready to Legitimize MERS??!!

2010-11-11T19:06:00.001-05:00

Retroactively? Say it aint so!

After years of negative judicial decisions about the use of a straw-man on mortgages, MERS was about to lose its existence as well as its credibility. But now all of that is set to change as Wall Street money is pouring into the coffers of those who are receptive (i.e., almost everyone in Congress). The legislation is already being drafted under the interstate commerce clause to ratify MERS and everything it did retroactively. It appears that the Obama administration is ready to pardon all the securitization deviants by signing this bill into law. This information is corroborated by several people who are in sensitive positions — persons who would be the first to know such proposals. Fortunately, there are some people in Washington who have a conscience and do not want to see this happen.

Besides the obvious seediness of this maneuver, it runs roughshod over state property laws, and the rights of investors, homeowners and borrowers. It amounts to a permanent installation of a Federal system that supersedes the county records for recording property rights. Off-record comments I’ve heard from people in power are outraged at this assault on states’ rights. But these people are not legislators, who are getting promises larger than anything in your imagination, if they will support such a bill. It might be couched as a uniform law to be adopted by the states to get around the states rights issues, but it will permanently remove some of the power over property that lies solely within the jurisdiction of the states and place it preemptively within federal jurisdiction.

All of this is scheduled to happen during the lame duck session of congress between now and the end of the this year, 2010. That means in a manner of days, some bill that may look like it has nothing to do with property, mortgages or foreclosures is going to have attached to it a provision whose effect will go even further than the notarization bill that went through Congress like S–t through a goose and almost got signed by the President. We caught that one AFTER it was passed by Congress unanimously but before Obama signed it.

We announced it as an attempt at a presidential pardon to all those who committed crimes in the notarization of documents that were fabricated and forged, all those who committed forgery and perjury and all those who created counterfeit documentation that was presented to courts as original documents.

This time we got the information, we think, before it was stitched into some innocuous looking bill. If we don’t find it and block it, the plight of homeowners will get that much worse.

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/pardon-livinglies-obtains-wall-street-playbook-mers-to-be-legitimized-by-act-of-congress/

By-Passing County Fees May Cost Banks Now

2010-11-11T04:47:00.000-05:00

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewContent.act?clipid=576942908&mode=cnc&tag=3.5721%3Ficx_id%3DD9JDLFQO0

Courts Helping Banks Screw Over Homeowners

2010-11-11T04:25:00.000-05:00

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/83-83/3905-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners

Robo-Signer Getting Grilled

2010-11-10T15:15:00.002-05:00

Meet one of the Big-Banks Robo-Signers, who signed his name as vice-president of 20 different banks in the Mortgage Backed Securities Scams; http://www.youtube.com/user/TheForrestLawFirm#p/a/u/2/pqcy5aFibfQ

More Banks Sued Over Bad Mortgage Practices

2010-11-09T18:45:00.000-05:00

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12099535

Foreclosure-Gate / Update

2010-11-05T17:54:00.000-04:00

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-11-03/business/fl-foreclosure-paper-problems-1104-20101103_1_foreclosure-cases-foreclosure-documentation-problems-foreclosure-crisis

ForeclosureGate Could force Bank Nationalization

2010-11-05T17:26:00.001-04:00

http://www.truth-out.org/foreclosuregate-could-force-bank-nationalization64848

MO Attorney General gives homeowners "tool kit" to fight foreclosure

2010-11-01T22:58:00.003-04:00

KMOX-CBS St. Louis, November 1, 2010, 4:28 pm

ST. LOUIS–(KMOX)–Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster is offering consumers facing foreclosure a way to fight back. Koster has compiled a "tool kit" of information on his website — including a form letter consumers can send to their bank demanding proof of proper paperwork for the foreclosure to proceed.

http://kmox.cbslocal.com/2010/11/01/mo-attorney-general-gives-homeowners-tool-kit-to-fight-foreclosure/

MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL's MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE TOOL BOX

This is a great web site for information, whether you're from Missouri or not.

http://ago.mo.gov/mortgage_foreclosure/

The page with the form letter you can use to get demand proof of paperwork from you lender is at:

http://ago.mo.gov/mortgage_foreclosure/obtain_documents.htm

Judges FED UP w/ Bank$ters- Orders Proof of Title, Assignments

2010-10-30T20:40:00.001-04:00

http://www.scribd.com/doc/40489838/Kentucky-Order-FORECLOSING-ENTITY-MUST-SHOW-CHAIN-OF-TITLE-AND-ASSIGNMENTS

MD Court of Appeals Sets Down Tough New (Anti) Forclosure Rule

2010-10-29T06:00:00.002-04:00

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/maryland-court-of-appeals-adopts-new-foreclosure-rule
/

DC Sets Hurdles in Forclosures

2010-10-29T05:33:00.000-04:00

http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewContent.act?clipid=571355847&mode=cnc&tag=3.7343%3Ficx_id%3D1027750

Judge Dodges Real Issue in BK Foreclosure Case

2010-10-27T16:08:00.003-04:00

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.

NYC Housing Activist

2010-10-26T12:46:00.000-04:00

http://www.dailybrink.com/?p=490Kerri+White

Fed Letter to BOA: FAILURE OF MASTER SERVICER TO PERFORM ACCORDING TO LAW

2010-10-21T14:36:00.002-04:00

Re: HOLDERS’ NOTICE TO TRUSTEE AND MASTER SERVICER OF FAILURE OF MASTER SERVICER TO PERFORM GIVEN PURSUANT TO §7.01(ii) OF POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES LISTED ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT “A”

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/full-text-of-letter-to-bofa-from-ny-fed-maiden-lane-freddie-mac-pimco-western-asset-mgmt-neuberger-berman-kore-advisors/

Office of the Comptroller

2010-10-21T11:28:00.002-04:00

Customer Complaint (Confirmation # 70290EA2010); http://www.helpwithmybank.gov/complaints/index.html

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

2010-10-20T21:28:00.000-04:00

October 19, 2010

GILBERT v. DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

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.

SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

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).

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020101019B10.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR#FR_1

__._,_.___

BOA Sued by Homeowners for Racketeering

2010-10-20T00:45:00.002-04:00

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).

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-19/bank-of-america-countrywide-accused-of-racketeering.html

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...

Homeowner Wins Case Without a Lawyer

2010-10-19T15:37:00.002-04:00

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:

http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/the-homeowner-wins-without-a-lawyer/

Loan Modifications / Principal Reductions, a Farce

2010-10-17T18:41:00.001-04:00

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.

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2010/10/18/story5.html?b=1287374400%5E4096031

Troubled Lenders

2010-10-16T22:26:00.001-04:00

http://www.publicintegrity.org/project_assets/GinnieMae/

Obomba Falls Victim to Chase Mortgage "Robo-Signer" Notary

2010-10-12T01:41:00.000-04:00

Will they take his home? Lol

http://4closurefraud.org/2010/10/10/4closurefraud-exclusive-president-obama-falls-victim-to-chase-robo-signer/

White House Worries Moratorium on Forclosure "Bad for Housing Market," .....Wants to Throw Homeowners Out

2010-10-12T01:33:00.002-04:00

To hell with the people who are struggling with the banks to stay in their homes; http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/10/white.house.foreclosures/

20% of Americans Will Loose Their Homes, Study says

2010-10-08T21:24:00.002-04:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39562943#39561041

Housing Crisis / Mortgage Securities & Foreclose Process Wrought With Fraud: Problems Identified But How to Fix?

2010-10-08T21:19:00.001-04:00

Lets hope the Powers-That-Be make the Bank$ters compensate those who have suffered and/or are suffering loss because of their illegalities and neglect; an amazing insight into the Mortgage Backed Securities Morass and its many and varied consequences; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39562943#39562943

$hiti Speaks

2010-10-08T14:12:00.002-04:00

http://new.citi.com/2010/04/americans-are-bullish-but-theyre-playing-it-safe-finds-new-citi-survey.shtml?gclid=CMr_54fvw6QCFRpO5QodmFv-iw

S&E Charges Internationally Syndicated Radio Talk Show Host With Fraud

2010-10-07T15:31:00.000-04:00

Defrauding investors on mortgage backed securities; http://greedybastardsclub.blogspot.com/2010/10/s-charges-internationally-syndicated.html

Indymac Boys Get Sweetheart Deal

2010-10-06T21:36:00.002-04:00

Get ready to get REALLY pissed off;
http://www.youtube.com/user/fiercefreeleancer

Fed Notary Bill Would Grant Full Pardon to Lenders

2010-10-06T21:20:00.002-04:00

Obomba Backed Bill; http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/federal-notary-bill-attempts-to-grant-full-pardon-to-lender-notaries-witnesses/

Connecticut Halts All Foreclosures

2010-10-02T00:14:00.001-04:00

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/political-economy/2010/10/connecticut_halts_all_foreclos.html

BOA Joins JP Morgan in Halting Foreclosures

2010-10-01T19:35:00.000-04:00

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.