Aug
24
In re: SIMA SCHWARTZ | MERS beat down in MA. Opens Floodgate of Wrongful Foreclosure Cases, due to MERS as “MOM”
IN RE SCHWARTZ In re: SIMA SCHWARTZ, Chapter 7, Debtor.SIMA SCHWARTZ, Plaintiff,v.HOMEQ SERVICING, AGENT FOR DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE, Defendants. Case No. 06-42476-MSH, Adversary Proceeding No. 07-04098. United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts, Central Division. August 22, 2011. The Defendants’ Case It is undisputed … Read more
Jul
27
Demonstrations in the Street
I’ve always been puzzled by the lack of action and reaction of the public to the mortgage crisis. As I write this, it gets worse, more people lose their homes, more homes are beset by adversary relations between family members, more alcohol abuse, more spousal abuse, more child abuse, more anxiety, depression, divorce and grief. This was all done TO the people not BY the people. Tens of millions of people did not wake up one morning in 2001 with a plan to obtain fraudulent mortgages, with fraudulent appraisals, based upon non-existent income.
In the article below, you see how people can get things rolling by forgetting the ideology and getting with the program: this could not have happened without Wall Street running wild, without incentives to create bad mortgages, and without the tacit or express complicity of the federal Reserve and other U.S. agencies. How about letting them know you don’t like it? The Constitution allows for freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. Don’t let the oppressive tactics of the opposition stop you from using your constitutional rights.
By the way, this one led to immediate results. Read the article and then go to the follow-up at Resignations, Investigations and Salary Cuts of 90%
—————————————————————————–
Crime | Government | Medical marijuana | Education | Prop 8 | Traffic | Westside
L.A. NOW
Southern California — this just in
« Previous Post | L.A. NOW Home | Next Post »
Protesters incensed by Bell officials’ high salaries visit mayor’s business, home [Updated]
July 25, 2010 | 12:31 pm
Residents irate over the high salaries hauled in by their public officials marched Sunday to the businesses and homes of the mayor and City Council members.
A boisterous crowd of more than 200 gathered at the corner of Gage and Corona avenues. Several were wearing T-shirts featuring a city seal and the words “My city is more corrupt than your city.”
Their first stop: Oscar’s Korner Market and Carniceria, owned by the mayor, Oscar Hernandez. They then moved on to the mayor’s house, near Florence Avenue, then to a home on Otis Avenue owned by City Councilman George Mirabal.
At the stops, protesters maintained a moment of silence and then shouted “Fuera!” — “Out!” Dozens of cars honked as they passed and offered thumbs-up, though one man stopped, defended the city officials and challenged a protester physically.
“I don’t think they are taking it seriously. And we’re serious,” said Nestor Valencia, 45, an organizer of the demonstration, a Bell resident since 1975 and a founder of the Bell Resident Club. “They need to resign.”
Bell is a working-class city of 40,000 residents. The Times revealed earlier this month that City Manager Robert Rizzo received a $787,637 annual salary, Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia received $457,000, and Police Chief Randy Adams received $376,288. Rizzo earned more than President Obama, Spaccia earned more than the top administrator for Los Angeles County, and Adams earned 50% more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck.
All three resigned on Friday.
Four City Council members are paid close to $100,000 annually for their part-time positions — sums that are far higher than in other cities of comparable size and which have baffled and upset the League of California Cities and other local government organizations.
“This is a test for our community,” Valencia said. “There’s been a fiasco here.”
Hernandez, in particular, Valencia argued, represented “a culture that is not our culture.”
“It is a culture of rule-breaking,” Valencia said. “It is a culture of nepotism. … He thinks he can do anything because he is the mayor.”
Hernandez could not be reached for comment.
[Updated at 12:48 p.m.: Bell police have estimated the crowd at between 200 and 300.
Demonstrators have visited the residences or businesses of the mayor, the vice mayor and two City Council members -- all of whom they want to resign.
The crowd also stopped at a Chevrolet dealership, long a fixture on Atlantic Avenue, that shut its doors weeks ago, citing burdensome property taxes. Demonstrators are now approaching City Hall, their final stop.
"This city has woken up," said Jesus Casas, 35, a Bell resident for 15 years. "We want a new city government that will represent by the people and for the people."]
Filed under: foreclosure
Mar
16
A Thought About Bankruptcy Petitions: Creditor ID
Upon finding that a portion of those payments should be applied to the subject loan, the declaration of default would be invalid because it would either be wrong inasmuch that the third party payments would at least be prepayments of future monthly payments, or wrong because the third party payments reflected an inaccurate accounting of the principal due.
OK let’s be clear that I don’t know bankruptcy well enough to even have an opinion, but I do have an idea and I would like this post forwarded to bankruptcy attorneys to get their reaction.
Here is the proposition: A Petitioner files for bankruptcy where one of the issues is a securitized loan. My idea is that the schedules NOT show the any of the known parties as creditors, because they are not. Especially if you have an expert opinion that describes the creditors as being unnamed but readily identifiable investors if the servicer will respond properly to the Qualified Written Request.
Upon reflection I don’t see why we would name the pretender lenders as creditors at all. I would leave them off the list of creditors (on any new cases filed) because they are not creditors. Maybe file amended schedules removing them. I would disclose the non-judicial foreclosure attempt wherever you can do that of course. Show the house as an asset with undetermined value. Wouldn’t that force them into being proactive? They would have to say “Hey! We are creditors secured by this property.” That would force the burden of proof onto them even as to standing, wouldn’t it?
Can someone who is not a creditor on the schedules file a proof of claim? What happens if you deny the claim and deny they are creditors? Do THEY have to file the adversary? Your position would be that you have this Expert Declaration that identifies the creditors, at least by description, and these would-be foreclosers don’t meet the description. So you disclosed the fact that they were claiming a default but you deny they are even creditors, much less secured.
It would seem that this would force them into proving to a bankruptcy court that they actually have authority which in turn would require them to produce all the documents granting them that authority. It also seems to me that they would have to come up with a full accounting for all payments from all parties, including from credit default swaps, insurance and Federal bailouts.
In the course of the proceedings, your allegation would be that they did in fact receive third party payments as has been widely reported by the press. They would probably answer something like those payments are irrelevant.
Your response to their assertion is to ask the court, who decides whether third party payments are relevant or not — the court or the creditor? The court would most likely order them to disclose all such third party payments along with documentation thereon so that the court could determine whether the payments should be applied to the pools in which the subject mortgage loan is Located” (assuming the assignments are valid), and then in turn determine what percentage of the payment should be allocated to the subject loan.
Upon finding that a portion of those payments should be applied to the subject loan, the declaration of default would be invalid because it would either be wrong inasmuch that the third party payments would at least be prepayments of future monthly payments, or wrong because the third party payments reflected an inaccurate accounting of the principal due.
Comments?
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud, Servicer Tagged: accounting, adversary, bankruptcy, credit default swaps, creditor, Federal Bailout, foreclosure, insurance, schedules, secured claims, securitized mortgage, third party payments, unsecured creditors
