You are here: Home / Archives for Due Process
Aug
19

Excellent National Article That is an Indictment of The Florida Foreclosure Process

By | Weidner

Leave a Comment

It is critical to note that the court process that has developed in Florida is being maligned and properly criticized by national observers…read on:

The facts are that about 95% of the Florida foreclosure cases get slam dunked without so much as a whimper from anyone. The foreclosure mills don’t even come into court to get their summary judgments, they just call them in. Actually, they get the judges to call them. You see these mill lawyers are very busy beavers and court and due process and proper evidence are just nuisances that should be avoided at all cost.  So the most time a “mill” lawyer has to spend on a foreclosure case is about 90 seconds on a call in to the judge’s chambers…yup, not even in open court. Today, in America, a consumer can lose a home over the phone.  This reminds me of the old TV show called “Dialing for Dollars” but this time in reverse.  Now the mills are still dialing in for dollars but also securing an order of foreclosure at the same time.  And, by the way, I could possibly agree to own a foreclosure or bankruptcy mill if the firm made $2,500.00 for 90 seconds of “real lawyer” work.  It is not bad money if you can get away with and still sleep at night.  I have trouble sleeping anyway so this would never work for me.

I don’t like that our courts have become a national joke in the midst of this foreclosure catastrophe. The phenomena of a nameless voice on the other end of a phone dialing in for hearings really disturbs me.  I really wish more press and advocates were watching and documenting just how absurd the process is.  I find it especially disturbing that mill attorneys from across town don’t find it compelling enough to attend these hearings in person and that our judges and their staff spend their day juggling phones in favor of these mills.

Really insulting was a recent phone in hearing where the foreclosure mill attorney asked to have the argument repeated because he had just returned from the bathroom and had missed the argument….yes, this occurs in an American courtroom.

Read the full article here.

Tweet this!Tweet this! Share and Enjoy: Print Digg del.icio.us Facebook Google Bookmarks email FriendFeed Identi.ca LinkedIn Live MySpace PDF Ping.fm RSS StumbleUpon Technorati Tumblr Yahoo! Buzz Posterous Twitter Yahoo! Bookmarks

Scridb filter
Jul
21

MERS CLAIMS VICTORY — AND I CAN FLY

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

press_details.aspx?id=240

Despite hundreds of decisions over the last three years stating in no uncertain terms that MERS can’t assign anything because it doesn’t have anything to assign, they found this one case to crow about. It all boils down to the fact that since their name is in the title record, they are entitled to notice — something which I doubt will stand very long even in Missouri. Their claim about “due process” is in my opinion a desperate grab for continued existence. MERS will be out of business, in my opinion, within 1 year and probably less. Their records are bogus and unsecured and no not qualify as either public records nor as business records. MERS information is inadmissible as evidence. They disclaim any actual interest in the obligation, note or mortgage, they never touch the documents and they never touch the money nor do they have any record of monetary transactions. The best anyone can say about them is that anyone who is offering a document or testimony based on MERS authority or data is an incompetent witness. The worst I won’t mention here.


Filed under: foreclosure
Jun
10

AFTER THE SALE: PART III On the Courthouse Steps

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

Submitted by Charles Koppa

The auctioneer represents the “beneficiary” in the sale.. If there is a “reserve amount minimum” (see below) the auctioneer actually bids up as agent for the unnamed beneficiary! The recipient “beneficial trust” is finally publically identified and documented by the Foreclosing Trustee in the recorded Trustees Deed Upon Sale.  Try to find a human officer for that trust!

Beneficiary makes no personal bid, delivers no cash, and is allowed a credit bid!  PROBLEM: a beneficiary (if known) would be a “party in interest” and could not be a bonafide buyer.  An est. 80% of the Courthouse sales go “Back to Beneficiary” (publicly unknown) and therefore are unlawful.  Lack of Notice and availability of Due Process to meet your accuser are historically common.

Predatory devaluations, plus untitled transfer of foreclosed mortgage notes systematically confiscated by “investment trusts” that were structured by Bank Holding Companies with no skin in the game, plus processing by shadow intermediaries “against the borrower”, equals “Tyranny on the Courthouse Steps!”

Sellers have the option of setting a hidden Reserve Price that is above the minimum starting bid.  If a reserve price is in effect, then the seller does not have sell the item unless the high bid meets or exceeds his reserve.  Auctions with a reserve price will be noted in their listing, describing whether the reserve has been met or not.  The actual amount of the reserve price is not revealed to bidders, until it has been met.

When you submit a bid on a reserve price auction, one of three things might happen:
(1) If the reserve has already been met, then your bid will be submitted at one increment above the next highest competitor, in the same manner as an auction without a reserve price.
(2) If the reserve has not been met, and your maximum bid is also less than the reserve, then your bid will be entered at one increment above the next highest competitor.
(3) If the reserve has not been met, but your maximum bid is enough to meet the reserve, then your bid will be entered at exactly the seller’s reserve price.  If your maximum was above the seller’s reserve, then your proxy will defend your bid, up to your maximum.If you are the highest bidder at auction close but the reserve was not met, then neither you nor the seller are obligated to the transaction.  However, you may wish to negotiate further via email, to see if a mutually satisfactory price can be reached.

EXAMPLES:

No sale:
Item #9999 had a minimum starting bid of $100.00
The seller set a reserve price in his listing of $200.00.
At the end of the auction, the highest bid is $175.00.
In this case, the seller is not obligated to sell for $175.00, but may choose to do so anyway.

Sale:
Item #8888 had a minimum starting bid of $900.00.
The seller set a reserve price in his listing of $1,200.00.
At the end of the auction, the highest bid is $1,225.00.
In this case, the seller is obligated to sell for $1,225.00 to the highest bidder.


Filed under: bubble, CORRUPTION, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop Tagged: Auction, auctioneer, Back to Beneficiary, beneficial trust, beneficiary, due process, foreclosing trustee, HERS, lack of notice, notice, party in interest, reserve amount minimum
May
17

SECURITIZATION If They Did It Right

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

SECURITIZATION If They Did It Right

Sometimes it IS easier to prove a negative than a positive. Your opposition has far more facts than you do and in due process, should be required to prove them up into a prima facie case using real evidence from competent witnesses, with real documents that nobody played with before initiating foreclosure.

So let’s take a look at how all this WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE, because most judges, even today are seeing the transaction through this lens.

  1. A homeowner or prospective homeowner would apply for refinancing or a purchase money first, second or Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC).
  2. Loan Closing and Disclosures
  3. Details of the loan and loan closing, good faith estimate and closing statement are provided in some form to both the borrower and the investors who acknowledge receipt and acceptance in binding form. Presumably this would be done through the offices of the manager, agent or “Trustee” of the Special Purpose Vehicle, the name of which and contact information was disclosed to the borrower prior to closing and is confirmed at closing.
  4. Assignment of Loan into Pool, acknowledged by Borrower. Intermediaries and Investors disclosed to borrower/debtor. The lender is identified as the group of investors who have provided funding for the loan.
  5. Investors’ representative(s) identified and disclosed, with contact information.
  6. During the life of the loan, Borrower receives same statement as investor — receipts and disbursements allocable to the loan are allocated and applied to payments and loan balance. If third party payments are received for any reason by any of the intermediaries, who are all disclosed, the amount of the receipt and the method of allocation to the borrower’s loan is disclosed.
  7. If the Borrower falls delinquent, the Investors either decide as a group or through their representative, manager, agent or named Trustee whether to offer a workout or to foreclose. A modification or settlement would be negotiated with parties known to Borrower at closing or successors in interest which would have been disclosed immediately upon execution of closing documents between the investors, or part of them, and the successor(s).
  8. Any change in ownership of the loan would be a change in beneficiary and a change of Payee under the note, which would be the same party. Such change would be recorded in accordance with State Law. The change would not, under these circumstances leave the Borrower in doubt as to the amount of the obligation and whether the obligation was or should be affected by the third party transactions. If the third party transaction is intended contemporaneously with the closing with the Borrower, even if the third party is not identified, this fact would also be disclosed to the Borrower and the Investors.
  9. Insurance, credit default swaps, and other credit enhancements are identified and disclosed to the Borrower — pursuant to contractual provisions executed between the Investors as a Group or individually; provided however, the insurer or third party payor would have rights of subrogation in which upon payment under the referenced contract, they have acquired the interests of the insured parties, in order to mitigate their losses, a fact which was identified and disclosed to the borrower at the closing with the borrower.
  10. In this transparent series of transactions that are part and parcel of a single transaction consisting of many steps, the Borrower having accepted all the terms and conditions of the approval of the loan and the securitization of the loan, achieves no greater standing or defense in the event of default. The only exception would be malfeasance or misfeasance by the participants in the securitization chain wherein, disclosed or not, the loan, or part of it, was satisfied by direct or indirect payment to a representative with apparent authority over the loan and to act in the interests of the investor as an agent. If the loan was sold multiple times, neither the Borrowers liability nor the Initial investors’ asset would be effected. Any dispute would NOT include the Borrower whose obligation would be unaffected UNLESS the intermediaries receiving multiple payments for sale of the same loan or percentage interests in the same loan pool were allowed to retain the proceeds of said sale, inasmuch as this would mean that the liability of the borrower would either (a) be diminished by the excess payments or (b) spread out to investors that were not disclosed at the Borrower’s Loan Closing.
  11. In the event that the matter is referred to a foreclosure proceeding, the action (whether private non-judicial sale or public lawsuit in foreclosure) would be brought on behalf of the named investors, through their authorized representative, with a complete statement of accounting and exhibits showing the entire securitization structure and the balance due on the Borrower’s obligation, including any third party payments, whether those were allocated to payments, interest or principal, and what balance of the obligation exists. Also named as foreclosers would be those party who acceded to a subrogated interest in the Borrower’s loan in whole or in part.
  12. Since a judicial allocation would be required to determine the relative interests and priority of interests of the investors, successors and subrogated parties, it is probably not possible to initiate a non-judicial sale unless there existed an agreement between all of the parties as to those matters. Such an agreement would specifically describe the distribution of proceeds of sale, which party was entitled to enter a credit bid, and what would be done with the property if the bid resulted in a Trustee Certificate being issued giving title to the party that initiated the foreclosure.
  13. If the creditor parties were able to satisfy all the prerequisites of a non-judicial foreclosure sale and the sale took place under non-judicial circumstances, the Borrower would lose the right of redemption and the Creditor would lose the right to pursue any delinquency or deficiency resulting from the sale of the home.
  14. If the Borrower was the defendant or re-oriented as the defendant in a foreclosure lawsuit, then the borrower’s right to redemption would be retained, if State Law permits same, and the Creditor would, if State Law permits it, be allowed to pursue a deficiency judgment against the Borrower. The allegation for suing for damages to cover a deficiency would include the fact that the sale price was fair and reasonable under the circumstances. The prima facie case of the Plaintiff Creditor in those circumstances would require evidence from an appraiser or other credible resource that is admitted by the Court as competent testimony and evidence of the fair market value and the sales price. Submission of a written affidavit or document is sufficient to support the allegation, not insufficient to satisfy the requirements of establishment of a prima facie case. A competent witness with personal knowledge and recollection is required to establish the foundation of any document. Business records do not include records regularly prepared after the loan goes into default, if those records are offered to prove facts that relate to events prior to the default. SUCH RECORDS ARE ONLY ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE (WITH FOUNDATION FROM A COMPETENT WITNESS) FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES OR EVENTS THAT OCCURRED AFTER DEFAULT.

Filed under: foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motion Practice and Discovery, securities fraud, Securitization Survey, STATUTES, trustee, workshop Tagged: business records, CLOSING WITH BORROWER, CLOSING WITH INVESTORS, CLOSING WITH SECURITIZATION PARTICIPANTS, evidence, prima facie case, securitization, SUBROGATION, SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, third party payments
May
08

Non-judical sale is not exactly a foreclosure

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

1 Comment

The problem is that a statute passed for judicial economy is now being used to force the burden of proof onto the borrower in the foreclosure of their own home

I think the main issue in non-judicial states is what does “non-judicial” mean.

I think in your argument you do NOT want to concede that they wish to foreclose. What they want to do is execute on the power of sale in the deed of trust WITHOUT going through the judicial foreclosure process as provided in state statutes.

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

The power of sale given to the trustee is a hail Mary pass over the requirements of due process. But it allows for you to object.

The question which nobody has asked and nobody has answered, is on the burden of proof, once you object to the sale, why shouldn’t the would-be forecloser be required to plead and prove its case? If the court takes the position that in non-judicial states the private power of sale is to be treated as a judicial event, then that is a denial of due process required by Federal and state constitutions.

The only reason it is allowed, is because it is private and “non-judicial.” The quirk comes in because in practice the homeowner must file suit. Usually the party filing suit must allege facts and prove a prima facie case before the burden shifts to the other side. So the Judge is looking at you to do that when you file to prevent the sale.

Legally, though, your case should be limited to proving that they are trying to sell your property and that you have meritorious defenses. That SHOULD trigger the requirement of re-orienting the parties and making the would-be forecloser file a complaint (lawsuit) for foreclosure.

Then the burden of proof would be properly aligned with the party seeking affirmative relief (i.e., the party who wants to enforce the deed of trust (mortgage), note and obligation) required to file the complaint with all the necessary elements of an action for foreclosure and attach the necessary exhibits.

They don’t want to do that because they don’t have the exhibits and the note is not payable to them and they cannot actually prove standing (which is a jurisdictional question). The problem is that a statute passed for judicial economy is now being used to force the burden of proof onto the borrower in the foreclosure of their own home. This is not being addressed yet but it will be addressed soon.


Filed under: CASES, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, Forensic Analysis Workshop, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, Motion Practice and Discovery, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee, workshop Tagged: BURDEN OF PROOF, judicial event, judicial foreclosure, non-judicial, object to the sale, power of sale, trustee
May
06

Weisband Commentary

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

Judge Holloway clearly took some giant steps forward in both clearly explaining the application of law with respect to standing. But I think she was comparing apples and oranges when she came to the conclusion that she should not impose restrictions on the right to foreclose that were “greater than” those imposed by state law.

The mistake, I believe, is that the standard she was using was non-judicial process, which by definition is private. She skipped over the part that counted. Arizona has a judicial foreclosure process and like every other state in the country, such process must conform with due process requirements that are the law of the land.

By finding that GMAC and MERS lacked standing but opining that they don’t have to establish ALL the requirements of real party in interest, she sent the inadvertent signal to pretender lenders that they can still use non-judicial foreclosure as a hail Mary pass over the requirements of due process under Federal and State constitutional law.

The underlying defect and theme of foreclosure litigation is that non-judicial process was not intended and cannot be used to sidestep due process.  The Judge should have compared the requirements of real party in interest to JUDICIAL foreclosures in Arizona and not the private contract of non-judicial foreclosure.

There she would have found that everything was in sync and that the pretender lenders don’t have the option of getting a pass (get out of jail free card) on due process. The inevitable final conclusion of this legal debate is simply that non-judicial process does not apply to securitized loans. We are not there yet, but we are moving closer every day.


Filed under: foreclosure
Apr
20

Rally in Tally: Homeowner Relief and Housing Recovery Act is a Sham and Shame

By | Foreclosure Blog News, Homeowner Resources

Leave a Comment

Editor’s Note: Due process requires that nobody be deprived of life, liberty or property without a judicial determination on the merits of claims against them. Non-judicial procedure runs a thin line that has not actually been tested constitutionally. Assuming it is valid by virtue of the “freedom of contract” doctrine, it still cannot be used to abuse and trick people into losing their homes when in fact the trickster has no interest in the loan, the property or the originating transaction. The attempt in Florida to increase the number of states using non-judicial procedure is abhorrent to anybody who conceives this country as a nation of laws. Non-judicial procedure is in my opinion, inapplicable to most, if not all, securitized loans.

The reason is simple: non-judicial foreclosure sales are meant to achieve judicial economy without prejudice to anyone. In securitized loans there are so many potential stakeholders that non-judicial sale prevents notice and due process and even encourages tricksters to use it against the interests of those who might have an interest. It not only increases moral hazard, it assures a growing cloud on the title of all properties that have been or will be the subject of foreclosure sales.

The pandemic effect on an already unstable marketplace is being amplified by these legislative attempts to legalize unjust enrichment of intermediaries who have no financial interest and who who are not subject to any financial loss for a loan, with it is performing or non-performing.

Posted by Malcolm Doney

The following letter was sent to all 14 members of the House Criminal & Civil Justice Council the day before the Bill was killed. We have reason to believe that it was instrumental in causing the death of that Bill and of the Senate Bill. It was authored by me assisted by three other founding members of Mortgage Justice an activist and educational not for profit. It is now widely circulated to many of the people going to the Rally in Tally. Any of your readers is free to use it as a tool to fight the fraudsters.
1. The Florida Bankers Association is attempting to use the power of the Florida State Legislature as an instrument to commit fraud upon its citizens and House Bill 1523 is inappropriately named The Homeowner Relief and Housing Recovery Act.
2. This Bill and its sister Bill in the Senate SB 2270 will not relieve any Homeowners and neither will it aid any Housing Recovery. On the contrary these Bills, if enacted, will add to the personal burdens of this States’ citizens, deepen the recession, add to the destabilization of communities, the breakup of families, an increase in blue collar crime and hundreds of millions of Dollars in lost Court revenue to the State.
3. HB 1523 adds to the deception in its introduction by adding to the ‘deadbeat borrowers myths’ [whereas it was deliberately planned and executed by Wall Street Investment Banks, Main Street Banks, mortgage lenders and their cohorts], falsely suggests that the cure is to expedite foreclosures to bottom out the market and that somehow this unsupportable economic theory will revitalize the economy, allow citizens to pay their taxes and Housing Associations to maintain communities.
4. If enacted, the passage of these Bills would shift the burden of proof to foreclose from the foreclosing parties to the homeowner, thus denying those homeowners their existing rights of due process and simultaneously, circumvent the recently imposed Supreme Court of Florida’s requirement placed upon foreclosing parties to substantiate under penalty of perjury that they have the legal authority to foreclose on real property given as security in a Mortgage to the true Owner of a Promissory Note and to engage in mandatory mediation. These requirements are the real reason for these proposed laws, because they can no longer hide their crimes from our Courts.
5. Because all members of the legislature are unaware of the fraudulent intent behind the Florida Bankers lobbyists who proposed this draft legislation we have concentrated most of our detailed efforts upon exposing the frauds rather than pointing out the serious deficiencies of the Bills as we know that other groups and individuals are adequately bringing such reviews to the attention of the legislature.
6. However, of paramount importance is the fact that lines 216 to 225 of the original draft clearly backdates the effect of these proposed laws to time immemorial. By the clever use of the words “agreed in substance in the security instrument” the drafters are seeking to remove the requirement contained in Florida Mortgages in clause 22 that all foreclosures must be conducted through the Judicial system by obliquely [but not specifically] referring to clause 16 in which the signor has acknowledged that the whole document is subject to Federal and State Law. The intent of the signing parties of all such Mortgages was that clause 22 of that unilateral contract would apply for the life of that instrument and that imprecise words such as “agreed in substance” would not be used in future laws to imply that they had agreed to a major change in the terms of those Mortgages and if enacted it will negatively impact basic human, property and contractual rights guaranteed under the Federal and State constitutions.
7. Mortgage Justice wishes to reveal that the truth behind the mortgage meltdown is:-
(a) The Housing Bubble was deliberately planned and implemented by Wall Street entities and the Main Street Banks.
(b) Mortgage and other loans were deliberately set up to fail.
(c) The lenders shown on Promissory Notes and Mortgages were not the Lenders, but were misappropriating the use of their licenses to transact mortgage business in the various states and were funded by Wall Street Brokers from the proceeds of the sale of Derivatives in wrongly described AAA rated Mortgage Backed Securities, for which they were paid excessive ‘yield spread premiums’ as a commission.
(d) Notes and Mortgages were not sold in the secondary market, neither were they transferred into securitized mortgage pools. It was impossible for pretend lenders to sell what they did not own.
(e) Contrived sales in the secondary market were documented in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s public records to entitle these pretend lenders to avoid paying federal taxes upon their profits by appearing to comply with IRC 860 and ‘selling’ loans into Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMIC). Documents filed in the SEC provide proof that all these mortgages failed to comply with IRC 860.
(f) SEC documents establish that none of the mortgage loans that they say were put into REMIC Trusts, ever reached those Trusts and that the majority of the ‘so-called’ Trusts were not Trusts but a form of perpetual LLC with zero reporting requirements filed in the State of Delaware for the benefit of those major Banks and/or GSEs, as the true beneficiaries of all the frauds. These ‘Trusts’ are named Delaware Statutory Trusts, they are neither Statutory, nor are they Trusts.
(g) The true beneficiaries of the frauds also sold undisclosed and unregulated multiple default insurances and credit default swaps sold through the International Swaps and Derivatives Association on every new mortgage created to guarantee receipt of multiples of sums they had pretended to lend as and when the planned defaults occurred.
(h) It is therefore a fact that in almost every mortgage foreclosure action the foreclosing entity is not the owner of the Note or the Mortgage, never lent any money, is an integral part of a criminally motivated group has already reaped criminal profits, will share in multiple proceeds from insurances, all the Notes have been deliberately eliminated as admitted to the Supreme Court of Florida by the Florida Bankers Association and all Notes are already paid in full.
8. Mortgage Justice understands that the above text contains major allegations of fraud levied against some of the biggest and most powerful institutions in the land and does not make these accusations lightly. We are fully prepared upon request given adequate notice to furnish irrefutable documentary evidence supporting those accusations and if required to justify them with documentary evidence are willing so to do in order to demonstrate why this proposed legislation must be unanimously rejected by the Florida Legislature for the benefit of its present and future citizens.
9. We also request Public Hearings be scheduled prior to any passage of these proposals and we suggest inviting all interested parties, including representatives of finance and banking who are apparently promoting these Bills, consumers and their advocates.
10. Finally, we refer you to informative videos that can be accessed via the Internet. In our opinion the most reliably informative and professional presentations of the truth behind the housing bubble are those involving the eminent Academic, Criminologist, Economist, Lawyer, Accountant, author of the book entitled ‘The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One’ and a former lead regulator during the savings and loans crisis. Professor William [Bill] Black. To authenticate what we have revealed, please watch Bill Moyers’ PBS interview of Bill. WE BELIEVE this interview OFFERS AN EXCEPTIONAL OVERVIEW OF THE CAUSE OF THE ECONOMIC MELTDOWN AND FRAUD PERPETRATED BY THE BANKING INDUSTRY ON THE AMERICAN CITIZEN AND WE BELIEVE IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU WATCH AND HEAR THIS VIDEO.
11. Bill Black submitted himself to further questioning in a recent five-part interview on an Internet news channel, Real News. Please watch and listen to these questions and answers also. Political rhetoric, spin and sound bites are no answer to the serious crimes exposed in these interviews. He speaks openly, with a sincere honesty and integrity, almost extinct in our country today. His interview makes us starkly aware that the Banks are striking at the heart of our Republic and government, in all of its branches, but especially the judicial branch. Now that Courts are more closely examining foreclosure cases filed against homeowners in Florida and other jurisdictions the truth is beginning to emerge. Courts in Florida and in many states are finding that the banks lack standing, are filing frivolous lawsuits and are unable to prevail when a homeowner enters a properly pled defense. Mortgage justice strongly believes that the preservation of citizen rights to defend these actions is as vital to the Citizens of Florida as it is to the banks to destroy it. Preserving those rights will establish the truth, disclose extensive violations of state and federal laws by the banking industry, put an end to the power of the banking industry in our state legislature and the resultant backlash of public opinion will reverberate throughout our nation and the world. After nearly destroying the Global Economy, after lowering by twenty percent the net worth of our citizens, and after borrowing billions from them and reaping record profits without any legislative reform or inquiry they now attempt to make it even easier to take the homes of the citizens and deprive them of their legal rights. We urge you to carefully consider, investigate and reject this proposed legislation on behalf of the homeowners and citizens of Florida.
Sincerely,

MORTGAGE JUSTICE,
for our members and the Citizens of the United States, April 12, 2010.

P.S. Internet links – Please copy and paste the following links into your browser:- http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html

Then listen to – To rob a country, own a bank Pt5 – put this into Google and follow the links to 5 part video of Black on Real News.

Also essential viewing and listening to the latest on MSNBC,
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=170712


Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: cloud on the title, due process, Florida, Florida bankers Association, foreclosure sales, freedom of contract, Homeowner Relief and Housing Recovery Act, House Bill 152, House Criminal & Civil Justice Council, judicial determination, judicial economy, Malcolm Doney, merits of claims, non-judicial foreclosure sales, NON-JUDICIAL SALE, notice, Owner of a Promissory Note, rally, Tally, without prejudice
Nov
09

Finally, a Judge Willing to Hold Lenders/Servicers Accountable!

By | Court Cases, Featured, Foreclosure Defense Research, Foreclosure Rights

2 Comments

I have to say that reading the below order from Judge Arthur Schack is refreshing. It’s also disappointing because there are so few judges out there today willing to do what he is doing. The majority of Florida judges are cowboys who don’t really care about legal standards and rules of civil procedure. They routinely grant motions for Summary Judgment even when there are clear issues of material fact in the case or even when there is still outstanding disovery that the Plaintiff servicer/trustee hasn’t complied with. They routinely hear a Motion to Dismiss AND a Motion for Summary Judgment on the same day/time! It’s ridiculous and despicable all at the same time.

The bottom line is that most judges in Florida and other states trample on the civil rights of homeowners and deny them due process because of their “personal views” on the issues of foreclosure. I highly encourage homeowners to organize in their communities and march on the steps of their local courthouse and protest what their elected judges are doing and not doing to uphold the law as Judge Schack is doing in this case.

Judge Schack also provides some great points that attorneys and pro se litigants should focus on in their case(s). Read carefully and learn the elements that he is stipulating because there are fine points of law that he his holding the plaintiff in this case to. Enjoy…

 

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Valentin N.Y.Sup.,2008. NOTE: THIS OPINION WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN A PRINTED VOLUME. THE DISPOSITION WILL APPEAR IN A REPORTER TABLE. Supreme Court, Kings County, New York.
HSBC BANK USA, N.A., as Indenture Trustee for the Registered Noteholders of Renaissance Home Equity Loan Trust 2005-3, Renaissance Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Notes, Series 2005-3,, Plaintiff, v. Candida VALENTIN, Candide Ruiz, et. al., Defendants. No. 15968/07. Jan. 30, 2008. Vincent P. Surico, Esq., De Rose & Surico, Bayside, for Plaintiff. No Opposition submitted by defendants to plaintiff’s Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale. ARTHUR M. SCHACK, J. *
1 Plaintiff’s application, upon the default of all defendants, for an order of reference, for the premises located at 572 Riverdale Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3838, Lot 39, County of Kings) is denied without prejudice. The “affidavit of merit” submitted in support of this application for a default judgment is not by an officer of the plaintiff or someone with a power of attorney from the plaintiff.
Leave is granted to plaintiff, HSBC BANK USA, N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED NOTEHOLDERS OF RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2005-3, RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-3 (HSBC), to renew its application for an order of reference upon presentation to the Court of compliance with the statutory requirements of CPLR § 3215(f), with “an affidavit of facts” executed by someone who is an officer of HSBC or has a valid power of attorney from HSBC.
Further, the Court, upon renewal of the application for an order of reference requires a satisfactory explanation to questions with respect to: the assignment of the instant nonperforming mortgage loan from the original lender, Delta Funding Corporation to HSBC Bank; the employment history of one Scott Anderson, who assigned the instant mortgage to HSBC, yet in a case I decided last month, HSBC Bank, N .A. v. Cherry, 18 Misc.3d 1102(A), swore in an affidavit to be HSBC’s servicing agent; and the relationship between HSBC, Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB (OCWEN), Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs, who all seem to share office space at 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 (Suite 100). Background Defendants, Candida Valentin and Candide Ruiz, borrowed $340,000 from Delta Funding Corporation, on June 23, 2005.
The note and mortgage were recorded in the Office of the City Register, New York City Department of Finance on July 14, 2005, at City Register File Number (CRFN) 2005000395517. Delta Funding Corporation, by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), its nominee for the purpose of recording the mortgage, assigned the note and mortgage to plaintiff HSBC, on May 1, 2007, with the assignment recorded on June 13, 2007 at CRFN 2007000306260.
Plaintiff’s moving papers for an order of reference fails to present an “affidavit made by the party,” pursuant to CPLR § 3215(f). The application contains an April 23, 2007-affidavit by Jessica Dybas, who states that she is “a Foreclosure Facilitator of OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, servicing agent and attorney in fact to the holder of the bond and mortgage sought to be foreclosed herein.”On that date, the note and mortgage were still held by MERS, as nominee of Delta Funding Corporation. For reasons unknown to the Court, MERS, as nominee of Delta Funding Corporation, or plaintiff HSBC failed to provide any power of attorney authorizing OCWEN to go forward with the instant foreclosure action.
Further, even if HSBC authorized OCWEN to be its attorney in fact, Ms. Dybas is not an officer of OCWEN. She is a “Foreclosure Facilitator,” a job title unknown to this Court. Therefore, the proposed order of reference must be denied without prejudice. Leave is granted to plaintiff HSBC to comply with CPLR § 3215(f) by providing an “affidavit made by the party,” whether by an officer of HSBC or someone with a valid power of attorney from HSBC. *2 Further, according to plaintiff’s application, the default of defendants Valentin and Ruiz began with the nonpayment of principal and interest due on January 1, 2007. Yet, four months later, plaintiff HSBC was willing to take an assignment of the instant nonperforming loan. The Court wonders why HSBC would purchase a nonperforming loan, four months in arrears?
Additionally, plaintiff HSBC must address a third matter if it renews its application for an order of reference. In the instant action, as noted above, Scott Anderson, as Vice President of MERS, assigned the instant mortgage to HSBC on May 1, 2007. Doris Chapman, the Notary Public, stated that on May 1, 2007, “personally appeared Scott Anderson, of 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409.”In HSBC Bank, N.A. v. Cherry, at 3, I observed that: Scott Anderson, in his affidavit, executed on June 15, 2007, states he is Vice President of OCWEN. Yet, the June 13, 2007 assignment from MERS to HSBC is signed by the same Scott Anderson as Vice President of MERS. Did Mr. Anderson change his employer between June 13, 2007 and June 15, 2007. The Court is concerned that there may be fraud on the part of HSBC, or at least malfeasance. Before granting an application for an order of reference, the Court requires an affidavit from Mr. Anderson describing his employment history for the past three years. Lastly, the court notes that Scott Anderson, in the MERS to HSBC assignment gave his address as Suite 100. This is also the address listed for HSBC in the assignment. In a foreclosure action that I decided on May 11, 2007 (Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Company v. Castellanos, 15 Misc.3d 1134[A] ), Deutsche Bank assigned the mortgage to MTGLQ Investors, L.P. I noted, at 4-5, that MTGLQ Investors, L.P.: According to Exhibit 21.1 of the November 25, 2006 Goldman Sachs 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission … is a “significant subsidiary” of Goldman Sachs…. [T]he January 19, 2007 assignment has the same address for both the assignor Deutsche Bank and the assignee MTGLQ Investors, L.P., at 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409.
The Court will not speculate about why two major financial behemoths, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs share space in a West Palm Beach, Florida office suite In the instant action, with HSBC, OCWEN and MERS, joining with Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs at Suite 100, the Court is now concerned as to why so many financial goliaths are in the same space. The Court ponders if Suite 100 is the size of Madison Square Garden to house all of these financial behemoths or if there is a more nefarious reason for this corporate togetherness.
If HSBC seeks to renew its application for an order to reference, the Court needs to know, in the form of an affidavit, why Suite 100 is such a popular venue for these corporations. Discussion Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 1321 allows the Court in a foreclosure action, upon the default of the defendant or defendant’s admission of mortgage payment arrears, to appoint a referee “to compute the amount due to the plaintiff.” In the instant action, plaintiff’s application for an order of reference is a preliminary step to obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale. (Home Sav. Of Am., F.A. v. Gkanios, 230 A.D.2d 770 [2d Dept 1996] ). *3 Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements of CPLR § 3215(f) for a default judgment. On any application for judgment by default, the applicant shall file proof of service of the summons and the complaint, or a summons and notice served pursuant to subdivision (b) of rule 305 or subdivision (a) of rule 316 of this chapter, and proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due by affidavit made by the party… Where a verified complaint has been served, it may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim and the amount due; in such case, an affidavit as to the default shall be made by the party or the party’s attorney. [Emphasis added]. Plaintiff has failed to submit “proof of the facts” in “an affidavit made by the party.”The affidavit is submitted by Jessica Dybas, “a Foreclosure Facilitator of OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, servicing agent and attorney in fact to the holder of the bond and mortgage sought to be foreclosed herein.” There must be an affidavit by an officer of HSBC or a servicing agent, possessing a valid power of attorney from HSBC for that express purpose. Additionally, if a power of attorney is presented to this Court and it refers to pooling and servicing agreements, the Court needs a properly offered copy of the pooling and servicing agreements, to determine if the servicing agent may proceed on behalf of plaintiff. (EMC Mortg. Corp. v. Batista, 15 Misc.3d 1143(A) [Sup Ct, Kings County 2007]; Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Lewis, 14 Misc.3d 1201(A) [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2006] ).
Also, the instant application upon defendants’ default must be denied because even though it contains a verified complaint, the attorney’s verification is insufficient to meet the requirements of CPLR § 3215(f). The Court, in Mullins v. Di Lorenzo, 199 A.D.2d 218 [1st Dept 1993], instructed that “a complaint verified by counsel amounts to no more than an attorney’s affidavit and is therefore insufficient to support entry of judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215.”Citing Mullins v. Di Lorenzo, the Court, in Feffer v. Malpeso, 210 A.D.2d 60, 61 [1st Dept 1994], held that a complaint with not more than an attorney’s affidavit, for purposes of entering a default judgment “was erroneous and must be deemed a nullity.” Professor David Siegel, in his Practice Commentaries (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3215: 16) explains that Mullins v. Di Lorenzo is in point here. Perhaps the verified complaint can do service as an affidavit for various purposes within the litigation while the contest is on … but it will not suffice to put an end to the contest with as drastic a step as a default at the outset.  It must be kept in mind that even an outright “affidavit” by the plaintiff’s attorney on the merits of the case-except in the relatively rare circumstances in which the attorney happens to have first-hand knowledge of the facts – lacks probative force and is usually deemed inadequate by the courts to establish the merits. A fortiori, a verified pleading tendered as proof of the merits would also lack probative force when the verification is the attorney’s. [Emphasis added ] *4 In Blam v. Netcher, 17 AD3d 495, 496 [2d Dept 2005], the Court reversed a default judgment granted in Supreme Court, Nassau County, holding that: In support of her motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant upon her default in answering, the plaintiff failed to proffer either an affidavit of the facts or a complaint verified by a party with personal knowledge of the facts (seeCPLR 3215(f): Goodman v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. 2 AD3d 581 [2d Dept 2003]; Drake v. Drake, 296 A.D.2d 566 [2d Dept 2002]; Parratta v. McAllister, 283 A.D.2d 625 [2d Dept 2001] ). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion should have been denied, with leave to renew on proper papers (see Henriquez v. Purins, 245 A.D.2d 337, 338 [2d Dept 1997] ). (See Hazim v. Winter, 234 A.D.2d 422 [2d Dept 1996]; Finnegan v. Sheahan, 269 A.D.2d 491 [2d Dept 2000]; De Vivo v. Spargo, 287 A.D.2d 535 [2d Dept 2001]; Peniston v. Epstein, 10 AD3d 450 [2d Dept 2004]; Taebong Choi v. JKS Dry Cleaning Eqip. Corp., 15 AD3d 566 [2d Dept 2005]; Matone v. Sycamore Realty Corp., 31 AD3d 721 [2d Dept 2006]; Crimmins v. Sagona Landscaping, Ltd., 33 AD3d 580 [2d Dept 2006] ). Therefore, the instant application for an order of reference is denied without prejudice, with leave to renew.
The Court will grant plaintiff HSBC an order of reference when it presents: an affidavit by either an officer of HSBC or someone with a valid power of attorney from HSBC, possessing personal knowledge of the facts; an affidavit from Scott Anderson clarifying his employment history for the past three years and what corporation he serves as an officer; and, an affidavit by an officer of HSBC explaining why HSBC would purchase a nonperforming loan from Delta Funding Corporation, and why HSBC, OCWEN, MERS, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs all share office space in Suite 100.
Conclusion Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the application of plaintiff, HSBC BANK N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED NOTEHOLDERS OF RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2005-3, RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-3, for an order of reference for the premises located at 572 Riverdale Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3838, Lot 29, County of Kings), is denied without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that leave is granted to plaintiff, HSBC BANK N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED NOTEHOLDERS OF RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2005-3, RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-3, to renew its application for an order of reference for the premises located at 572 Riverdale Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3838, Lot 39, County of Kings), upon presentation to the Court, within forty-five (45) days of this decision and order, of: an affidavit of facts either by an officer of HSBC or someone with a valid power of attorney from HSBC, possessing personal knowledge of the facts; an affidavit from Scott Anderson, describing his employment history for the past three years; an affidavit from an officer of plaintiff HSBC BANK N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED NOTEHOLDERS OF RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2005-3, RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-3, explaining why plaintiff would purchase a nonperforming loan from Delta Funding Corporation and why plaintiff *5 HSBC BANK N.A., shares office space at Suite 100, 1661 Worthington Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409, with Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, MortgageElectronicRegistrationSystems, Inc., Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. N.Y.Sup.,2008. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Valentin Slip Copy, 18 Misc.3d 1123(A), 2008 WL 239932 (N.Y.Sup.), 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 50164(U) END OF DOCUMENT

Newer Posts »
Website Designed and Developed by Tampa Web Designer