Thursday, June 09, 2011

Michigan Trial Judge: Failure To Strictly Follow Pooling & Servicing Agreement, NY Trust Law Sinks Non-Judicial Foreclosure As To MERS Mtg Assignments

Buried in a recent Michigan story on the battle against foreclosure robosigners, The Michigan Messenger reports:
  • [A] judge in Washtenaw County ruled on Tuesday that foreclosures involving any title exchanges controlled by Michigan Electronic Recording Systems, Inc. (MERS) were improper. That ruling could void thousands and thousands of foreclosures in the state because it is likely the bank or mortgage company had no legal right to foreclose on the property.
  • Michigan law requires each mortgage assignment — which means company A sells the mortgage to company B — to be registered with the country register of deeds office. MERS marketed itself as a company that would keep track of the transfers, without all the fees associated with filing assignments. Many of the mortgages were sold over and over again, but the judge ruled that MERS had failed to keep an accurate accounting of the assignments.
  • In short, no one knew who exactly owned the mortgage, and thus had the right to foreclose. Hertel said his office was contacting those homeowners who were affected by the fraudulent foreclosures.(1)

Source: Ingham County to fund attorney to help with foreclosures.

For the ruling, see Hendricks v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Association, Case N. 10-849 CH (Washtenaw Cty. Trial Ct., June 6, 2011).

Thanks to Deontos for the heads-up on this story.

(1) Central to Washtenaw County Trial Court Judge Archie C. Brown's ruling was the bankster's failure to strictly follow with the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, as well as violations of the trust law of the State of New York in connection with the attempt to transfer the borrower's loan to the trust. Accordingly, Judge Brown declared the sale of the borrower's home through the use of a non-judicial foreclosure process to be absolutely void (ie. void ab initio).

It should be noted that one of the banksters named in the homeowner's lawsuit, the originator and original Lender of the Note and Mortgage, filed a counterclaim for judicial foreclosure against the homeowner, judgment on which was granted by Judge Brown.

Upstate NY Sale Leaseback Peddler Accused Of Using Various Aliases In Alleged Ripoff Racket Duping Strapped Homeowners Into Signing Over Home Titles

In Rochester, New York, the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle reports:
  • Anthony Cerame is a man of many names. Most of them are unusual; he's fond of Anthony Shablacone. Some are juvenile — he has signed documents as Joseph Damifino [read damn-if-I-know] — and some don't make much sense. According to court records, he has assumed the name Alphonse Portadori because it reminded him of an outhouse.
  • With all of these names, Cerame, who has lived recently in Ontario and Monroe counties and has an office in Gates, portrays himself as an expert in "distressed property" real estate. In the past year, he has been in court with three different lawsuits against him, and court records and testimony have detailed his various aliases.
  • What's left unanswered — and at issue now in the final pending lawsuit — is whether he uses the aliases for fraudulent purposes or, as he contends, for purely innocent reasons. Cerame said he needs aliases for security reasons, while those who have sued him instead allege that his shifting identities were part of a scheme to cheat them out of properties.
  • The two other lawsuits against Cerame were settled out of court last year. Pending still is a lawsuit by Irondequoit resident Cheryl Helfer; in that case, state Supreme Court Justice Evelyn Frazee is considering whether Cerame used fake names to set up fraudulent trusts for property ownership.

For more, see Man of many names target of civil suits.

F'closure Rescue Operator Gets 6+ Yrs For Running Racket Purporting To File Legitimate Lawsuits Pitting Borrowers & Banks Over Lending Law Violations

From the Office of the U.S. Attorney (Sacramento, California):
  • United States Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced that [] United States District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill sentenced George Eggleston, 65, of Las Vegas, to six years and nine months in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release.
  • Eggleston had previously pleaded guilty to charges he committed mortgage fraud and had operated a mortgage foreclosure rescue scheme to defraud homeowners facing foreclosure. The court also ordered Eggleston to forfeit $364,899, and to pay restitution to the victims of his offense. The actual amount of restitution has yet to be determined.
  • According to court documents, Eggleston, who did business as Nexxus and Global Legal Associates, admitted he told homeowners in California and elsewhere that he could save homes nearing foreclosure.
  • Through his websites, he falsely and fraudulently represented that his companies used and managed attorneys to file lawsuits against foreclosing lenders for violations of state and federal laws. Eggleston claimed that Nexxus could stop and reverse any pending or completed foreclosure. Victims each paid Eggleston $1,000 per month for his services, and in total Eggleston received more than $100,000 for his fraudulent scheme. Eggleston used the money for his own personal expenditures and not for the benefit of his clients.

For the U.S. Attorney press release, see Las Vegas Man Sentenced For A Foreclosure-Rescue Scheme And Mortgage Fraud.

Watch Out For Financially Strapped Home Builders Nearing Foreclosure Using Lease-Purchase Deals To Unload Unsold Inventory Onto Unwitting Homebuyers

In Bartlett, Tennessee, WMC-TV Channel 5 reports:
  • [V]iviana and Alex Cifuentes of Bartlett, TN, negotiated a lease-purchase agreement with John Porter of Precision Equity Homes in Collierville, TN. The Cifuentes agreed to pay $8,000 down on the home Porter's company built [...] in Bartlett's Brunswick Village, a development of Precision Equity Homes.
  • Agreeing to reasonable monthly lease terms as well as a furniture purchase from Porter, the Cifuentes moved into the home in January to start the lease, which officially began Feb. 1, according to the agreement.
  • March 10, the Cifuentes received the first foreclosure notice from the bank that Porter and Precision Equity Homes had defaulted on the mortgage. "Definitely, his intention was to be able to get this money, and then the house was going to go into foreclosure," said Viviana. "We were played and totally used by Precision Equity Homes," added Alex.
  • Court records revealed Precision Equity Homes defaulted on three of its homes, all in the Brunswick Village development, since last summer. At least three banks - First Citizens National Bank, First Capital Bank and Community Bank, North Mississippi - have sued Porter and Precision Equity Homes for breach of contract. Porter denied the allegations in responses to the suits filed by his attorneys.

***

  • After Action News 5's inquiry into the case, Porter paid the Cifuentes an undisclosed cash settlement. The family will attempt to use that money to negotiate a new agreement with the property's current owner, Regions Bank.

For more, see The Investigators: Lease-Purchase Agreement: Don't Do It! rent to own rent skimming

Short Sale Fraud: Quick Way To Big Profits?

Syndicated columnist Kenneth R. Harney writes:
  • Are banks and distressed home sellers getting rooked on a massive scale in the booming short-sale arena — leaving hundreds of millions of dollars on the table for white-collar criminals?
  • A comprehensive new study estimates they will lose more than $375 million this year alone when they sell undervalued houses to tag teams consisting of real-estate agents and investors. Worse yet, the trend appears to be growing at the rate of 25 percent a year.

For more, see Quick profits, a 'short' way to fraud.

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

Mom Sues To Stop Abusive Ex-Son-In-Law From Inheriting Deceased Daughter's Share Of Home; Suit Says Domestic Violence Incident Led To Woman's Death

In Kanawha County, West Virginia, The West Virginia Record reports:
  • The mother of a St. Albans woman whose case of domestic violence set a national precedent is now seeking to prohibit her former son-in-law from deriving any benefit from her daughter's estate.
  • Elena Campbell filed suit against Christopher J. Bailey on May 4 in Kanawha Circuit Court. In her complaint, Campbell, 74, of South Charleston, asks that a court order be entered against Bailey, 50, barring his ability to inherit anything from his wife Sonya Bailey's estate since torturing her in 1994 ultimately resulted in her recent death. According to the suit, Sonya on Feb. 25, 1993, purchased a home at 6716 MacCorkle Ave. in St. Albans. Later on Nov. 7, 1994, she conveyed title of the home to both she, and Chris.
  • A quarrel between the two on Nov. 26, lead Chris to abduct Sonya, and place her in the trunk of his car. During the next five days, he kept her bound in the trunk all the while assaulting and beating her. Eventually, Chris took Sonya to Baptist Regional Hospital in Corbin, Kentucky. After she was initially treated there, Sonya, who was near death, was later airlifted to Morgantown for additional treatment.
  • Though initially arrested and charged in Kentucky, Chris was later extradited back to West Virginia to face kidnapping, and, for the first time in U.S. history, interstate domestic violence charges. The later was enabled by the then-recently enacted Violence Against Women Act.
  • Following a trial, Bailey was found guilty on both charges. On Sept. 11, 1995, U.S. District Judge Charles Haden II sentenced Bailey to 20 years on the interstate domestic violence, and life on the kidnapping charge. Also, Haden fined Bailey $100, and ordered him to pay $40,000 in restitution to Sonya. Currently, he is incarcerated at the Gilmer Federal Corrections Institution in Glenville.
  • Due to being deprived of oxygen while in the trunk of Chris' car, Sonya lapsed into a permanent vegetative state. After a long stay in a nursing home, she died on Dec. 19 at age 49.
  • After posting a $10,000 bond, records show the Kanawha County Commission appointed Campbell the administratrix of Sonya's estate on Feb. 10. Since she died intestate, or without a will, Chris, by law, is entitled to inherit from Sonya's estate, including the house.
  • However, Campbell wants to deny him that right on the grounds "his felonious criminal acts caused the death of his wife...Sonya Bailey."(1) Along with an order barring Chris' intestate succession interest in Sonya's estate, Campbell seeks another lifting the liens the federal government and Equifax placed on the house for $100, and $40,000, respectively.
  • In her suit, Campbell says this is necessary so that title of the home can pass unencumbered to Sonya's sister, Kelly Campbell, and her daughter, Samantha, who've occupied, and paid taxes on it since Sonya's death.
  • Campbell and the estate are represented by Bruce Perrone and Elizabeth Wehner with Legal Aid of West Virginia.(2)

Source: Mother of domestic violence victim challenging son-in-law's estate claim.

(1) How this case turns may well depend on the application of West Virginia's common-law "slayer rule" as well as the state's "slayer statute" (W.Va.Code, 42-4-2), an issue which was most recently addressed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia in Plumley v. Bledsoe, 216 W.Va. 735, 613 S.E.2d 102 (2005). In that case, the West Virginia high court affirmed a lower court ruling that cut out a son, who killed his mother, from consideration when determining inheritance rights to the deceased mother's property, despite the fact that there was no criminal conviction against the son for the death.

For a discussion of the "slayer rule", see Sneddon, Karen J.: Should Cain's Children Inherit Abel's Property: Wading into the Extended Slayer Rule Quagmire, 76 UMKC L. Rev. 101 (2007-2008).

(2) Legal Aid of West Virginia provides free advocacy services to West Virginians with twelve offices throughout the state, from Wheeling to Princeton, Martinsburg to Logan. Click here for a map of its office service areas.

Fla. Appeals Ct. Nixes Prevailing Party Legal Fee Award In Foreclosure Defense; Failure To Include Request In Pleading Sinks Recovery Attempt

A major screw-up by a foreclosure defense attorney seeking recovery of prevailing party attorneys fees pursuant to section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes(1) on behalf of a client in a defense of a mortgage foreclosure action was at the heart of a recent decision by a Florida appeals court.

An abbreviated, somewhat 'butchered' summary of the facts follows:
  1. Lender filed a mortgage foreclosure action against defendants.

  2. Defendants filed their answer.

  3. The answer did not contain a claim for attorneys' fees.

  4. Subsequently, Defendant filed a supplemental answer to correct a scrivener's error but again failed to raise a claim for attorneys' fees.

  5. Court grants foreclosure judgment, and lender ultimately takes title to property at a foreclosure sale.

  6. Lender then filed a motion for deficiency judgment against defendants.

  7. The hearing was scheduled for February 10, 2009, and began as scheduled. However, due to insufficient time to present all evidence, the hearing was continued to February 18, 2009.

  8. Five days before the scheduled continuation of the evidentiary hearing, counsel for defendants filed an emergency motion to withdraw and to continue the hearing. The trial court granted the motion, and the hearing was continued to March 19, 2009.

  9. New counsel for defendants filed a notice of appearance on March 12, 2009.

  10. On March 13, 2009, only seven days before the final hearing on lender's motion for deficiency judgment (and after obviously realizing the screw-up by the original foreclosure defense attorney in failing to raise a claim for attorneys' fees in the defendant's answer to the foreclosure complaint), defendants filed a notice of intent to seek attorneys' fees and costs ("Notice of Intent").

  11. Following completion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered final judgment denying lender's motion for deficiency judgment.

  12. Defendants subsequently filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs, claiming entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs for both the foreclosure and deficiency judgment proceedings pursuant to portions of the subject loan documents as well as the reciprocal fees provisions of section 57.105.

  13. Lender filed a response to the motion, objecting to defendant's entitlement on multiple bases.

  14. Following the hearing on the fee motion, the trial court awarded $44,667.50 in attorneys' fees to defendants on account of the work of the foreclosure defense attorneys. The fee award reflected time spent by all of the attorneys involved in defendant's defense throughout the deficiency judgment proceedings only, and acknowledge no entitlement for time spent on account of the unsuccessful defense of the foreclosure proceedings.

In reversing the trial judge's $44K+ attorney fee award to the foreclosure defense attorneys, the appeals court, citing multiple authorities, simply said that the fee request must be included in a 'pleading' (Complaints, answers, and counterclaims are 'pleadings' pursuant to Rule 1.100(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure), and said that including the attorney fee claim in the "Notice of Intent" did not satisfy the 'pleading' requirement, because the "Notice of Intent" is not a pleading.(2)

This ruling should serve:

  • as a handy reminder for attorneys representing homeowners in foreclosure of what to do (and just as importantly, what not to do) when addressing the issue of recovering attorneys fees paid by their clients from the losing bankster in a successful defense,(3) and
  • as valuable information for homeowners successful in fending off foreclosure regarding their rights to recover, from the losing bankster, any fees paid or payable to the attorney representing them in a foreclosure action.

For the ruling, see BMR Funding, LLC. v. DDR Corporation, 2D10-2284 (Fla. App. 2d DCA, June 3, 2011) (Editor's Note: This ruling was subsequently withdrawn, and a new opinion was issued here, with a change contained in the text of one paragraph only).

(1) See Fla. Appeals Court: Homeowner Entitled To Nail Bank For Prevailing Party Legal Fees After Lender Voluntarily Dismissed F'closure Case w/out Prejudice.

(2) The appeals court ruled as follows in applying Florida law to the facts of this case (bold text is my emphasis):

  • Because DDR and Dunn did not claim entitlement to attorneys' fees and costs in any pleading, as defined by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(a), the trial court erred in granting DDR and Dunn's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. In Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991), the supreme court held that a claim for attorneys' fees must be pleaded, regardless of whether the claim is based on contract or statute. Id. at 837. This pleading requirement was subsequently clarified in Green v. Sun Harbor Homeowners' Ass'n, 730 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1998):

    This Court's use of the phrase "must be pled" [in Stockman] is to be construed in accord with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Complaints, answers, and counterclaims are pleadings pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(a). A motion to dismiss is not a pleading. Stockman is to be read to hold that the failure to set forth a claim for attorney fees in a complaint, answer, or counterclaim, if filed, constitutes a waiver.

    Id. at 1263 (emphasis added).

    Subsequently, in Precision Tune Auto Care, Inc. v. Radcliffe, 815 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), the Fourth District reversed an attorneys' fee award where the claimant failed to plead entitlement to fees. Applying the supreme court's ruling in Green, the court stated: "We assume that the supreme court meant what it said and said what it meant in Green. The plaintiffs here were required to set forth their claim for attorney's fees in a pleading." Id. at 712.

    In this case, DDR and Dunn urge this court to find that their "Notice of Intent" satisfied the pleading requirement. In its entirety, the notice states:

    Defendants, DDR Corporation and Carol J. Dunn, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby provide notice that, if they prevail with respect to Plaintiff's efforts to obtain a deficiency judgment, Defendants intend to seek the recovery of their attorneys' fees and costs from Plaintiff pursuant to the express terms of the subject Guaranty and the operation of the reciprocal fee provision of F.S. 57.105.

    We agree with BMR that the Notice of Intent is not a pleading. Having filed two answers to the amended complaint, DDR and Dunn had multiple opportunities to plead a claim for attorneys' fees. Thus, DDR and Dunn failed to raise entitlement to attorneys' fees in any pleading, as defined by Stockman and Green, and any claim they may have had was waived. See Sardon Found. v. New Horizons Serv. Dogs, Inc., 852 So. 2d 416, 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

    Further, pursuant to Stockman and Green, the purpose of the pleading requirement is notice. By pleading entitlement to attorneys' fees, the claimant puts the opposing party on notice, thereby preventing unfair surprise. Sardon Found., 852 So. 2d at 421. "The existence or nonexistence of a claim for attorney's fees may often affect the decision whether to pursue, dismiss or settle a claim. For these reasons, a party may not recover attorney's fees unless he has put the issue into play by filing a pleading seeking fees." Id.

    Here, not only did DDR and Dunn fail to plead entitlement, their "Notice of Intent" failed to satisfy the purpose behind the pleading requirement. The issue of DDR and Dunn's entitlement to attorneys' fees was not raised until the final hearing on BMR's motion for deficiency judgment was well underway and the foreclosure proceedings were complete. Not only was BMR deprived of any meaningful opportunity to consider whether to proceed with the deficiency judgment in light of possibly being assessed attorneys' fees, it was never put on notice of a potential claim for attorneys' fees during the pendency of the foreclosure action.

    Finally, DDR and Dunn urge this court to apply the exception to the pleading requirement recognized by the court in Stockman. "Where a party has notice that an opponent claims entitlement to attorney's fees, and by its conduct recognizes or acquiesces to that claim or otherwise fails to object to the failure to plead entitlement, that party waives any objection to the failure to plead a claim for attorney's fees."

    Stockman, 573 So. 2d at 838 (citing Brown v. Gardens by the Sea S. Condo. Ass'n, 424 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Mainlands of Tamarac by Gulf Unit No. Four Ass'n v. Morris, 388 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)).

    DDR and Dunn argue that BMR failed to object to their "Notice of Intent" on the basis that such notice was not a pleading; however, the record conclusively establishes otherwise. BMR's written response to the "Notice of Intent," as well as its argument at the fee entitlement hearing, clearly relied upon the pleading requirement and Stockman in objecting to DDR and Dunn's entitlement to fees. BMR did not "recognize[ ] or acquiesce[ ] to that claim" for attorneys' fees. Stockman, 573 So. 2d at 838.

    Accordingly, the final judgment awarding attorneys' fees to DDR and Dunn is reversed.

(3) See Pleading Requirements for a Claim for Attorneys' Fees for an old (July/August, 2000) article in The Florida Bar Journal that may be of some value in providing guidance to lawyers in requesting court-ordered, prevailing party attorneys fees from losing defendants (ie. lenders, servicers, etc.).

24 Dartmoor Drive: Representative Of Ever-Diminishing Value Of Collateral Securing MBS-Investor-Held Crappy Paper As Trustees, Loan Servicers Fiddle

Holders of investments in mortgage-backed securities ("MBS") who are curious as to how the collateral securing their crappy paper is doing and want to see an example of what their trustees and loan servicers are allowing to happen to said collateral can take a ride over to 24 Dartmoor Drive in Crystal Lake, Illinois, where the Northwest Herald reports:
  • The house at 24 Dartmoor Drive in Crystal Lake is rotting from the inside out. Water damage from a burst pipe caused part of the ceiling to cave in and the wooden floors on the first floor to buckle. Neighbors can smell mold. There is a for sale sign out front, but no one is allowed in. City inspectors put a notice on the house saying it’s uninhabitable.
  • This beige two-story house with a brown roof is one of more than 8,500 properties in McHenry County that have fallen into foreclosure since 2008. The circumstances of the house – and many others like it throughout the state – have become problems for which no one seems to want to take responsibility.(1) New legislation would change that, shifting the burden of security and maintenance of these homes to lenders.
  • David and Sherri Modrzejewski – who live next to the dilapidated Crystal Lake home with their children – want it cleaned up. They worry the mold will make their boys sick. They have called the bank that owns the property, the listing agent, and the city of Crystal Lake. So far, little has been done. “It’s been really frustrating,” Sherri Modrzejewski said. “Everyone says their hands are tied.”
  • The couple who lived at 24 Dartmoor Drive owed $191,107.59 on the mortgage. Foreclosure proceedings began March 30, 2009. The house was sold at auction in December 2009 to the highest bidder, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., for $135,000, according to court records.
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., based in Los Angeles, said it is not to blame because it acts as a trustee, spokesman John Gallagher said. “Loan servicing companies, and not the trustee, are responsible for foreclosure activity, maintenance of foreclosed properties and resale of foreclosed properties,” he said.
  • In May, the city of Los Angeles disputed such claims, calling Deutsche Bank’s subsidiary “one of the largest slumlords” in the city. The city attorney filed suit alleging that the international lender left dozens of homes and apartments to decay and illegally evicted tenants from foreclosed properties, according to The Associated Press.

  • Litton Loan Servicing, Gallagher said, is accountable for the house at 24 Dartmoor Drive in Crystal Lake. The Houston-based company said it would look into the matter.

***

  • Local health inspectors visited the house, saw the damage and smelled the mold, said Debra Quackenbush, spokeswoman for the McHenry County Department of Health. The property trustee has been asked to inspect the home. Quackenbush said she didn’t know when that would happen. [...] The Health Department has had complaints about foreclosed homes in neighborhoods throughout the county.

For more, see Foreclosure ownership gaps leave ‘rotting’ homes.

(1) MBS-investor concerns over the tab for increasing costs and expenses associated with the handling of loan collateral is at the center of a recent lawsuit by an institutional investor demanding an accounting from their loan servicer. See Inflated Fees, Force-Placed Insurance, Robosigning Among MBS Investor Concerns In Suit Demanding Bankster Accounting Over Loan Servicing Costs.

Broke C. Fla Man Unable To Mount Defense To Charges Of Hijacking, Renting Out 100+ Vacant F'closures Under Claim Of Adverse Possession Commits Suicide

In Sarasota, Florida, the Sarasota Herald Tribune reports:
  • When Joel McNair committed suicide last week, he left behind a broken management company and a string of legal issues that threatened to land him in prison. For some time, McNair found vacant homes, many of them in foreclosure, and rented them out — even though he did not own the homes. McNair moved more than 100 people into foreclosed homes along Florida's Gulf Coast.
  • He was arrested in November on charges of fraud and grand theft and was awaiting trial. McNair contended that renting empty properties was legal under Florida's adverse possession statute, which was created in 1869. The law allows someone to occupy an abandoned property as long as that person takes care of the property and pays the taxes, said Bob Hurt, an Internet blogger who had become fascinated with McNair's program of occupying foreclosed homes. And McNair was doing just that.
  • But law enforcement officials and legal experts say McNair was simply a con man stealing money from people down on their luck.

***

  • [A]cquaintances said the thought of going back to prison and having no money to mount a defense also was difficult for McNair to deal with. He spent seven years in Sumter County and Zephyrhills prisons from 1987 through 1993 after being convicted of racketeering and 52 counts of grand theft for collecting millions in commissions on more than 100 bogus time-share sales.
  • "He saw himself spending the rest of his life and dying in prison," said Hurt, the Internet blogger. "He was broke," he said. "It cost him $12,000 to get out of jail in November and he had to pay an attorney on to of that. His trial was coming up and he saw his life disappearing."(1)

For more, see Landlord left messy legal issues behind in suicide.

(1) See The Lord of Squat: Mark Guerette Got Busted for Putting Families in Foreclosed Homes for another example of an individual who got into the vacant home hijacking business and who, when faced with criminal charges, pleaded "no contest" to organized fraud, a felony. According to that story, "His lawyer was willing to fight the charges, but Mark said he didn't want to risk ending up in jail and leaving his wife and kids stranded without a husband and father."

Tuesday, June 07, 2011

NYS Martin Act May Provide Manhattan DA With Noose Feds Lack To Be Fitted Around Banksters' Necks

In New York City, Bloomberg reports:
  • The criminal investigation of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has at its disposal a 90-year-old New York law that makes it easier for state prosecutors to bring charges than their federal counterparts.
  • District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. subpoenaed Goldman Sachs, the fifth-biggest U.S. bank by assets, for records on its activities leading into the credit crisis, two people familiar with the matter said. Vance may bring charges under the state's Martin Act, which lawyers call a potent tool for New York prosecutors probing investment frauds, Ponzi schemes and other white-collar crime.
  • To prove securities fraud in federal court, U.S. prosecutors must show that a defendant intended to defraud victims and that the investors relied on misstatements or omissions.
  • Under the Martin Act, New York prosecutors aren’t required to prove intent, said Michael Perino, a law professor at St. John’s University in New York.
  • The reason why New York prosecutors love it so much and Wall Street firms hate it so much is that it is a much, much easier case to bring,” Perino said in an interview. “All a prosecutor has to show under the Martin Act is a material misstatement in connection with a securities offering.”

For more, see Goldman Sachs Criminal Probe May Allow Use of Powerful New York State Law.

For some background on New York's Martin Act, see:

Beleagured Bankster Bails Out Of Loan Servicing 'Racket'; Agrees To Unload Litton, Remain On The Hook For Gov't Penalties & Some 3rd Party Claims

Bloomberg reports:
  • Goldman Sachs Group Inc.(1) agreed to sell Litton Loan Servicing LP to Ocwen Financial Corp. for $263.7 million in cash, ending the New York-based bank’s 3-1/2 year experiment in processing home-loan payments.
  • In addition to the cash payment, which may be adjusted at closing, Ocwen will pay about $337.4 million to retire some of Litton’s debt, according to a filing by West Palm Beach, Florida-based Ocwen. The sale of Litton comes two months after Goldman Sachs wrote down the value of the mortgage-servicing business by about $200 million.
  • It really makes sense for them to sell it, and better for them to sell it sooner rather than later,” said David B. Hilder, a New York-based analyst at Susquehanna Financial Group LP who has a positive rating on Goldman Sachs. “They bought it at a time when the business was easier and it looked like there might be some insights to be gained in the mortgage market from having a servicer.”

***

  • Goldman Sachs will remain liable for fines and penalties that could be imposed by government authorities relating to Litton’s foreclosure and servicing practices before the deal closes, the statement said, and Goldman Sachs will share some of the losses arising out of third-party claims in connection to servicing agreements.
  • Litton is among the mortgage-servicing businesses cooperating with investigations by 50 state attorneys general into foreclosure practices. The probe began after authorities discovered some firms used faulty paperwork to seize homes.

For more, see Goldman Sachs Agrees to Sell Litton Unit to Ocwen for $264 Million in Cash.

(1) Affectionately referred to by some as Government Sachs, and which one critic calls "the most political firm on Wall Street."

Appeals Court 'Conga Line' Of Happy Homeowners Winning Reversals Of Erroneous Trial Judge Foreclosure Rulings Continues To Get Longer

William A. Roper, Jr. writes in Mortgage Servicing Fraud Forum:
  • In yet another appellate decision on conditions precedent, the Florida Court of Appeals for the Second District overturned a decision of the Circuit Court for Charlotte County. The decision is:

    Konsulian v. Busey Bank, N.A, No. 2D10-2163 (Fla. App. 2nd Dist. June 1, 2011.)

***

  • I would expressly note that litigants in other states might want to take particular note of conditions precedent cases in other jurisdictions where the express language of the mortgage provision is given. [emphasis in the original] In many instances, this language is uniform across jurisdictions. While an out of state case may NOT be authoritative in YOUR jurisdiction, the case is more influential when the facts are IDENTICAL.(1)

For more, see FL Court of Appeals Reverse Another Case on Conditions Precedent: Konsulian v. Busey Bank, N.A.

Representing the homeowner was attorney Gregg Horowitz, Sarasota, Florida.

Editor's Note: A question remaining unanswered is whether the defect in this case makes the foreclosure judgment absolutely void (ie. void ab initio), or merely voidable??? My guess is that in this case, the property has not yet been sold at a foreclosure sale so that the rights of downstream, innocent 3rd party purchasers are not involved. In such a case, the distinction between void and voidable may not need to be addressed.

However, had the property been sold at a foreclosure sale, with title ending up (either as a result of the foreclosure sale, or a subsequent conveyance by a title-taking lender) in the hands of a 3rd party purchaser, the void-voidable determination becomes crucial in assessing the rights of such a purchaser. See Bay State High Court Hears 'Ibanez' Follow-Up Case Involving Unwitting 3rd Party Buyer Who Purchased Void Title On Improperly Foreclosed Home for an example of such a problem currently being considered in Massachusetts by the state Supreme Judicial Court (the state's highest court).

(Given the nature of the defect in the foreclosure action at the center of the Florida case Konsulian v. Busey Bank, N.A (which is significantly different than the nature of the foreclosure defect in the Massachusetts case), I'll shoot from the hip, take a wild guess and say the judgment in the Florida case would probably be found to be merely voidable, not void ab initio, in which case a 3rd party purchaser's rights would be unaffected by the voiding of the judgment - provided, of course, the 3rd party purchaser otherwise qualifies as a bona fide purchaser).

(1) From the appellate court's ruling, reversing the earlier ruling of Charlotte County Circuit Court Judge George Richards (bold text is my emphasis):

  • Here, nothing in Busey's complaint, motion for summary judgment, or affidavits indicates that Busey gave Konsulian the notice which the mortgage required. The language in the mortgage is clear and unambiguous. The word "shall" in the mortgage created conditions precedent to foreclosure, which were not satisfied. See Frost v. Regions Bank, 15 So. 3d 905, 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

    Under Florida law, contracts are construed in accordance with their plain language, as bargained for by the parties. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29, 34 (Fla. 2000). Further, Busey did not refute Konsulian's defenses nor did it establish that Konsulian's defenses were legally insufficient.

    Because Busey did not prove that it met the conditions precedent to filing for foreclosure, it failed to meet its burden, and it is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

    Reversed and remanded.

Continued Crappy Loan Servicer Practices Harm Homeowners Even After 'Successfully' Obtaining Loan Modifications

ProPublica reports:
  • Chanel Rosario was supposed to be one of the lucky ones. After years of sending and re-sending documents, waiting on hold and attending court hearings to avoid foreclosure on her Staten Island home, she'd finally received a much-needed reduction on her mortgage. Eagerly, she and her husband signed it and mailed it in last September. "We thought it was over."
  • It wasn't. After months of making payments, Rosario called the bank handling her mortgage, Chase Home Finance, and found out Chase was still reporting her as delinquent, damaging her credit score and putting her home in jeopardy. Despite months of trying to get an explanation with the help of a legal-aid attorney, she still doesn't know why Chase isn't abiding by the agreement.
  • It's a disturbingly common occurrence, say consumer advocates: Many homeowners have been granted a hard-fought mortgage modification only to have their mortgage company effectively pull a bait and switch. The problems range from homeowners being hit with unexpected extra charges to the bank simply ignoring the signed agreement.

***

  • To get a sense of how common this problem is, the nonprofit Connecticut Fair Housing Center conducted an informal survey of 16 legal aid organizations and one private attorney. In nearly a quarter of the 655 cases of modifications they reviewed, the mortgage servicer didn't abide by the terms of the agreement. In the worst cases, homeowners who thought they'd successfully run the gauntlet of servicer errors and delays found themselves once again facing foreclosure. Sometimes the house was actually foreclosed on.
  • "It's not just one servicer screwing up," said Andrew Neuhauser, an attorney with Advocates for Basic Legal Equality of Toledo, Ohio. "It's industry-wide practice."

For more, see Even After Mortgage Modification, Shoddy Bank Practices Hurt Homeowners.

See also, Profiles: Shoddy Bank Practices Continue Even After Mortgage Mods for profiles of six homeowners who ended up getting screwed over, despite 'successfully' obtaining a loan modification from their respective banksters.

Monday, June 06, 2011

NYC Judge Voids Foreclosure Sale Over Use Of 'Sewer Service', Homeowner To Move Back In After Being Booted Two Years Ago

In East Elmhurst, Queens, the New York Daily News reports:
  • Johnny Ferreira may be the luckiest guy in Queens. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, a struggling homeowner who loses his home to foreclosure will never see it again. Last month, a judge vacated a bank's foreclosure sale of Ferreira's home, effectively handing him back his keys.
  • As a result, Ferreira is preparing to move back into the same brick two-family with postage stamp front lawn, snug backyard and tidy driveway he'd been evicted from two years ago. "He loves that house," his lawyer, Pankaj Malik, said. "He doesn't want to move" again.
  • The extremely unusual ruling appears to be a one-of-a-kind victory in New York for a homeowner in a battle that banks almost always win. The problems started in 2009 when Ferreira was evicted after his home in East Elmhurst a few blocks from LaGuardia Airport was sold at auction. He fought back in court.

***

  • "When he came to me I said his chances of winning were slim to none because judges are loath to do something this drastic," the lawyer said. Then Queens Supreme Court Justice Allan Weiss suddenly set aside the auction sale and ordered Ferreira "restored to possession."

***

  • Weiss ruled that Ferreira was never served with the foreclosure papers, depriving him of due process. The judge said the bank's document was filled with errors, including an incorrect docket number, and was never filed in court. "It was just shoddy paperwork," Malik said.(1)

For more, see Home sweet foreclosed home: Queens man returns to home after judge overrules bank's foreclosure.

For Justice Weiss' ruling, see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Quinones, 2011 NY Slip Op 31284(U) (NY Sup Ct., Queens County May 16, 2011).

(1) Justice Weiss offered these observations on the facts of the case and the application of New York law thereto (bold text is my emphasis):

  • A party moving to vacate his default pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the default and a potentially meritorious defense (see Eugene DiLorenzo, Inc. v. A.C. Dutton Lbr. Co., 67 NY2d 138, 143 [1968]).

    The defendant is relieved of that obligation when the basis for vacature is lack of personal jurisdiction (Harkless v. Reid, 23 AD3d 622 [2005]; Steele v. Hempstead Pub Taxi, 305 AD2d 401 [2003]).

    In the absence of personal jurisdiction, all subsequent proceedings are rendered null and void (see Feinstein v. Bergner, 48 NY2d 234, 241 [1979]; Muslusky v. Lehigh Val. Coal Co., 225 NY 584, 587 [1919]) and subject to vacature at any time without any conditions (see McMullen v. Arnone, 79 AD2d 496, 499 [1981] and cases cited therein).

    It is, at all times, the plaintiff’s burden to prove that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process (see Pearson v. 1296 Pacific Street Associates, Inc., 67 AD3d 659 [2009] lv denied 14 NY3d 705 [2010]; Munoz v. Reyes
    , 40 AD3d 1059 [2007]). A process server's affidavit of service ordinarily constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein and proper service (see Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Pestano, 71 AD3d 1074 [2010]; Frankel v. Schilling, 149 AD2d 657, 659 [1989]).

    Here, the plaintiff has failed to submit any proof of service upon the defendant in this action. The affidavit of service plaintiff submitted has a Supreme Court, Kings County caption with Index Number 74150/08 (not the index number of the instant action) and was filed in the office of the County Clerk of Kings County.

    In addition, the affidavit of service asserts that service was made at 17-24 Curtis Rd, East Elmhurst, N.Y. which is not the foreclosed premises nor the premises which was the subject of the holdover proceeding nor defendant’s actual dwelling place when the action was commenced.

    The affidavit of service produced by the plaintiff, on its face, demonstrates lack of personal jurisdiction, and a traverse hearing is unnecessary. Plaintiff’s attorney’s assertion that regardless of the defective affidavit of service, the defendant was properly served is without probative value since he has no personal knowledge of the facts (see JMD Holding Corp. v. Congress Fin. Corp.
    , 4 NY3d 373, 384-385 [2005]; Warrington v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 35 AD3d 455 [2006]).

    With respect to plaintiff's claim of waiver, there was no waiver in this case. In appropriate circumstances, a defendant may be deemed to have waived his jurisdictional defense (see e.g. Lomando v. Duncan
    , 257 AD2d 649 [1999]; Biener v. Hystron Fibers, Inc., 78 AD2d 162 [1980]).

    A valid waiver "requires no more than the voluntary and intentional abandonment of a known right which, but for the waiver would have been enforceable" (Nassau Trust Co. v. Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp.
    , 56 NY2d 175, 184). It may arise by an express agreement or by such conduct or a failure to act that will evince an intent not to claim the purported advantage (Hadden v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 45 NY2d 466, 469 [1978]).

    A waiver "is not created by negligence, oversight, or thoughtlessness, and cannot be inferred from mere silence" (Peck v. Peck
    , 232 AD2d 540, 540 [1996]; see Golfo v. Kycia Associates, Inc., 45 AD3d 531 [2007]. Intent is an essential element of a waiver, and requires that the person against whom the waiver is asserted had, at the time or the waiver, actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of his rights or of the relevant facts to support such right and chose not to take advantage of it (S. & E. Motor Hire Corporation v. New York Indemnity Co., 255 NY 69 [1930]; see also Savasta v. 470 Newport Associates, 180 AD2d 624 [1992] Airco Alloys Division, Airco Inc. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 76 AD2d 68 [1980]).

    In this case, there is no evidence from which the defendant’s knowing and intelligent waiver may be inferred. [...]

The Heat Continues For One Bankster; Is It Time Yet To Take A 'Short' Position In BofA Stock?

Fortune Magazine reports:
  • Are Countrywide mortgage-backed securities really mortgage-backed? Do banks even have the legal right to foreclose on certain homes?
  • These are just a few of the questions raised since the foreclosure crisis revealed shoddy mortgage servicing practices at many of the big banks – practices that have led to countless investigations and lawsuits. Court testimony by a former Countrywide employee added to the intrigue last fall, because she confessed that many loans there weren't properly handled, bringing into doubt the validity of Countrywide's securitization process. Bank of America, which owns Countrywide, quickly silenced the discussion with firm denials.
  • But Fortune has examined dozens of court records that corroborate the employee's testimony. And if Countrywide's mortgage securitizations systematically failed as it appears they did, Bank of America's potential liability dwarfs its shareholder equity, as the Congressional Oversight Panel points out.
  • Last November, a decision in a New Jersey bankruptcy case brought to light the testimony of Linda DeMartini, operational team leader for the litigation management department for Bank of America, which intended to prove the bank had the right to foreclose on a debtor's mortgage. Instead, her testimony was key to the judge's ruling that Bank of America couldn't foreclose, and along the way DeMartini made two statements that called into question the securitization of Countrywide loans.
  • She testified that Countrywide didn't deliver the notes to the securitization trustee, and that Countrywide notes weren't endorsed except on a case-by-case basis generally long after securitization ostensibly occurred. Both steps are required, in one form or another, under all securitization contracts.
  • Only the delivery issue was really scrutinized at the time, because without a doubt the failure to deliver the notes would invalidate the securitization.
  • The other issue, failure to endorse the notes, sparked a debate: the American Securitization Forum argues the notes would still have been securitized without endorsement, while Adam Levitin, associate professor of law at Georgetown Law, convincingly argues that they would not have been.
  • If the securitization failed, a variety of securities fraud charges could follow. Indeed, one investor lawsuit based in part on DeMartini's testimony about endorsements and delivery has already been filed. And investors aren't the only possible pursuers of securities fraud -- New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is investigating mortgage securitizations by three banks, including Bank of America.

For more, see At Bank of America, more incomplete mortgage docs raise more questions (Fortune examined hundreds of foreclosure documents to determine the validity of mortgage securitizations after Bank of America debunked testimony about them last fall. The results raise more questions than they answer).

Attorneys Offer A "Dizzying Variety Of Payment Plans" When Handling Foreclosure Defense Cases

The St. Petersburg Times reports:
  • With 466,500 Florida mortgages in default, more and more lawyers are vowing to "help you fight foreclosure.'' But help often comes at confusing cost, with cash-strapped homeowners forced to choose between a dizzying variety of payment plans.
  • Some foreclosure defense lawyers charge by the month or by the year. Others require an up-front retainer, sometimes several thousand dollars, plus more money as the case proceeds. And controversially, some even require the homeowner to pay a big bonus or contingency fee if the lawyer wins the case.

***

  • [Attorney Mark] Stopa says he generally charges $1,500 a year, which enables clients to "get off really inexpensively'' if the case is resolved within 12 months (If not, they can re-up for another year for another $1,500.) Handling a large volume of cases, many of which have similar legal issues, helps keep the fee relatively low, he says. Stopa says he has had several clients who first went to other lawyers and were quoted fees reportedly as much as $18,000 or even $35,000.

***

  • Kaufman Englett Lynd or KEL, a multistate firm with offices in Tampa and St. Petersburg, also charges by the year, although its annual fee is around $2,500. [...] Kaufman is highly critical of the practice at some firms of charging a monthly fee, typically $500. "It's the biggest scam,'' he says. "It's really in their benefit to make (the case) keep going and going. These cases on average, if you contest them, run from 12 to 24 months and that means $6,000 to $12,000. And the minute the guy stops paying, they're off the case.''
  • But other lawyers argue that monthly fees make sense, especially for borrowers who want to move the case along quickly.
  • "Suppose the property is vacant and the client is an out-of-town investor and the objective is a waiver of deficiency,'' says lawyer Richard Shuster, who has offices in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Melbourne. "We've had some cases resolve in under 90 days.''
  • Shuster's firm, which charges a monthly fee of $495, says many clients like paying the same amount each month instead of being socked with huge bills during periods when a case requires a lot of the lawyer's time. "In a month when a case goes to trial, we may do $10,000 worth of work and it would be very difficult for the client to afford that,'' Shuster says. "A monthly arrangement means that in some months we may be slightly overpaid and in others slightly underpaid, but we believe it balances out.''
  • For lawyers doing foreclosure defense, the ultimate victory is getting the buyer a "free'' house. But it might not be as free as the client thinks. Shuster's firm charges a bonus if a foreclosure suit is dismissed with prejudice, meaning the bank cannot refile the case, and the firm is able to remove all liens and other encumbrances on the property. So far, judges have dismissed three cases with prejudice but "we have not finished quieting title in those cases,'' Shuster says. "We wait for the time for appeal to expire or there may be a second mortgage to be settled or property taxes that need to be taken care of. The bonus when we get someone a free house, it's generally $10,000 or $20,000.''
  • But how would the homeowner pay that much? Shuster says he would trust clients to pay whatever they could each month or else pay the full amount if they sell the house. But he says his firm would never put a lien against the house "because we don't want to be a creditor of the client.''
  • That's not the case at the Ticktin Law Group, a Deerfield Beach firm with a Tampa office. When it wins a foreclosure case and quiets title, it charges a contingency fee of up to 40 percent, based on the property's value and payable via a new mortgage held by Ticktin. That means the client still makes mortgage payments, only this time to the lawyers instead of to the bank.
  • "If we are able to defeat the bank's mortgage, then we will have won the equity in the house,'' says Peter Ticktin, the firm's founder. "Our clients that have given us mortgages are very happy with us because they've won their houses.'' Ticktin says his firm is "in it to win it'' though he acknowledges that most of its 3,000 foreclosure cases have yet to result in a free house. Apart from the contingency, the Ticktin group charges a $100 "set-up'' fee plus monthly fees ranging from $330 to $600.
  • The Florida Bar offers little guidance on attorneys' fees other than that they should not be "excessive.'' "Generally, lawyers should be able to correlate between the services they actually provide and the fees that they charge,'' says Elizabeth Tarbert, the Bar's ethics counsel.(1) "Whether or not you can do that when just charging a flat monthly fee, I don't know.''
  • Matthew Weidner, a St. Petersburg lawyer who represents borrowers, typically charges $1,500 to $2,500 up-front, but says he bills against those amounts. "Ethically, I want to be able to show what I've done for my money through time records, e-mail, phone calls,'' he says. "The key is records — being able to defend your records in front of a judge.''

For the story, see Confusing lawyer fees complicate foreclosure battles.

Editor's Note: I'm surprised none of the attorneys interviewed for the story raised the point that, in Florida, where their homeowner/client is the winning party in one of these cases against an institutional lender, an entitlement to recover 'prevailing party' legal fees from the losing bankster typically arises. Further, where a contingency fee is involved, a court may also approve the recovery of an additional 'bonus' amount from the losing bankster. See:

While I'm quite confident that at least a couple of the attorneys interviewed for the story know about it, I'm also equally confident that there are many foreclosure defense attorneys who are completely clueless of this fact, in which case, it's up to their client to educate them on their legal/ethical obligation to seek recovery of these fees from the lender.

(1) See footnote 1 of this post, and go here for approximately 100 or so links to Florida court decisions, for guidance as to what constitutes excessive legal fees in the State of Florida. multiplier

Connecticut Attorney Gets Nine Years After $804K Escrow Cash Ripoff From 11 Clients, Leaving At Least One Victim Facing Foreclosure

In Bridgeport, Connecticut, the Connecticut Post reports:
  • A Stratford lawyer was sentenced Friday to nine years in prison for stealing more than $800,000 from nearly a dozen clients. "I just want to apologize. I know I've hurt a lot of people, but I just totally underestimated how sick I was," John M. Rodia told state Superior Court Judge George Thim, contending that an addiction to OxyContin led to his crime.
  • Moments later, Debra Turner, of Prospect, walked slowly up to the front of the courtroom after meekly raising her hand for attention. She had hired Rodia to pay off her $125,000 mortgage, but instead he stole the money. "My life is still upside down," she told the judge, crying. "The bank says they were victims too and they want their money." In addition to the original mortgage amount, she said she is also being billed thousands of dollars in late fees that she can not pay.
  • Thim lamented there is nothing he can do for her since Rodia claims he has no money.(1) Then facing the defendant, he continued: "Taking addictive drugs is not an excuse for illegal conduct. Our legal system gave you a license to practice law and protect clients and you violated that trust." He then sentenced Rodia, a former state trooper who previously pleaded guilty to six counts of first-degree larceny and five counts of third-degree larceny, to 15 years, suspended after he serves nine years in prison and followed by five years probation.
  • Senior Assistant State's Attorney Robert Brennan said the 47-year-old Rodia stole a total of $804,640 from 11 clients.(2) He has not paid any restitution and is not expected to. "We just don't know where the money went because his records disappeared," Brennan told the judge. "He may have gone into the practice of law to help people, but all he did was help himself."

For more, see Lawyer sentenced 9 years for stealing $800,000.

(1) If he wasn't half-asleep, Judge Thim (or the court's crime victim's advocate, for that matter) could have referred Ms. Turner and the other victims to the Connecticut Client Security Fund, which is a fund established by the rules of the Connecticut Superior Court to provide reimbursement to individuals who have lost money or property as a result of the dishonest conduct of an attorney practicing law in the State of Connecticut, in the course of the attorney-client relationship. The fund provides a remedy for clients who are unable to obtain reimbursement for their loss from any other source.

For similar "attorney ripoff reimbursement funds" that cover the financial mess created by the dishonest conduct of lawyers licensed in other states and Canada, see:

Maps available courtesy of The National Client Protection Organization, Inc.

(2) Reportedly, another victim claimed that after he hired Rodia to handle the sale of his parents' home, Rodia kept $186,000 from the sale and stuck the victim with the closing costs; a third victim hired Rodia to handle the refinancing of the mortgage on his condominium, but Rodia kept the $360,000 that was to pay off the old mortgage, leaving the condo currently in foreclosure, according to police. In addition, a 63-year-old woman, who was injured in a car crash in Fairfield, reportedly hired Rodia in 2006 to represent her in a lawsuit against the other driver, but police said the woman later learned that Rodia had settled the suit for $2,500 and kept the money, the story reports.

Sunday, June 05, 2011

BofA's Refusal To Pay Court-Ordered Attorney Fees In Failed Foreclosure Leads To Bank Branch 'Raid' By Cops Seeking Asset Seizure To Satisfy Judgment

In Naples, Florida, the Naples Daily News reports:
  • Warren and Maureen Nyerges know how difficult it can be to get Bank of America’s attention. When the lending giant mistakenly attempted to foreclose on the couple’s cash-purchased Golden Gate Estates home in 2010, they spent weeks on the phone and in court before the case was dismissed.
  • A judge ordered the bank to pay $2,500 in attorney fees for the couple’s troubles. Yet after five months and even more phone calls, neither the bank nor its local counsel had paid.
  • Friday morning, the couple opted for a different tactic. Media in tow, their attorney arrived outside a Davis Boulevard branch of the bank with deputies, a moving company and the court’s permission to seize branch assets. “I’m either leaving the building with a whole bunch of furniture, or a check or cash or something,” the attorney, Todd Allen, vowed.(1)
  • It was a scene that turned the foreclosure crisis on its head, if briefly. Collier County sheriff’s deputies entered the bank shortly after 9 a.m., located the bank manager and presented him with a court writ and a familiar choice: Pay the money or prepare to lose possessions.

***

  • Shortly after 10 a.m., the movers drove away from the parking lot. Allen entered the bank, was told that a check had been cut to deputies and watched as officers exited the bank soon after. He wasn’t immediately told the amount of the check, but an agency spokeswoman later said it was for $5,772.88. Of the total, $685 is slated for Sheriff’s Office fees, including the movers. The purpose of the amount remaining after the judgment, some $2,587.88, was not immediately clear.

***

  • Allen said that after leaving the bank on Friday, he was contacted by the bank’s new counsel, Florida Default Law Group. The case isn’t over, Allen indicated. He said he’ll seek for the bank to cover his own attorney fees. “If Bank of America doesn’t pay it, we’ll be back doing this again,” he said.

For more, see Tables turned: Bank pays up in mistaken foreclosure case.

For the video, see WINK News: Tables Turn: Deputies and movers show up at bank to seize property for homeowner.

(1) Allen is associated with The Law Office of Conrad Willkomm, P.A., Naples, Florida.

NYC Condo Developer Liable For Raiding Reserve Fund Out Of $7.4M; Used Account "As His Personal ATM" While Allowing Building Conditions To Deteriorate

From the Office of the New York Attorney General:
  • Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman [] announced a favorable decision in his case against YL Rector Street, LLC and Yair Levy. The Supreme Court in New York County ruled that the developer of the Rector Square Condominium in Battery Park City defrauded purchasers of approximately $7.4 million by failing to finance and maintain a legally-required reserve fund to ensure the health and safety of residents.
  • Yair Levy treated the Rector Square Condominium as his personal ATM, using the millions of dollars intended for residents for his own purposes, even while the building conditions deteriorated,” Attorney General Schneiderman said. “This kind of misconduct will not be tolerated and I will continue to hold those who defraud tenants and owners accountable.”
  • The case was initiated in June 2010 after an investigation by then-Attorney General Cuomo’s office revealed that Levy promised Rector Square Condominium tenants and owners that the legally-required reserve fund would be set aside to make repairs, improvements and other work to maintain their health and safety. Instead, Levy depleted the fund and left residents with just $70.
  • The decision was handed down by the Honorable Joan B. Lobis in the Supreme Court in New York County. It paves the way to recover $7.4 million in restitution for the residents at the Rector Square Condominium and a permanent bar prohibiting Levy from offering securities for sale in New York State under the Martin Act and Executive Law §63(12).

For the NY AG press release, see A.G. Schneiderman Wins Landmark Case Against NYC Developer Yair Levy, Opening Door To Millions Of Dollars For Defrauded Residents.

For the court ruling, see People v. Levy, 2011 NY Slip Op 31391 (NY Sup. Ct. New York County, May 25, 2011).

California Foreclosures & The 'One Action Rule' - Violators Could Lose Their Lien On Real Estate

A recent story from Lexology addresses the so-called "one action rule" that applies to foreclosures in California. An excerpt:
  • The one action rule places limits on the ability of lenders to enforce and collect debt that is secured by real property located in California. While most states permit secured creditors to freely pursue the foreclosure of real property as well as the underlying debt simultaneously, California essentially requires creditors to exhaust the entirety of their real property security before suing on the underlying debt or before taking other action to collect against any of the debtor’s unpledged assets.
  • Violation of the one action rule leaves lenders vulnerable to sanctions, including the potential loss of their lien on the real property. Certain conduct, including setoff against a debtor’s unpledged accounts, may run afoul of the one action rule. Lenders who have extended credit secured by California real property should carefully plan their enforcement and collection strategies in order to avoid violation of the one action rule.

Among the issues addressed in the article are:

  • The One Action Rule and its Ramifications,
  • What Constitutes Judicial Action and How to Avoid Tripping Over the One Action Rule,
  • Why Non-Judicial Foreclosure over Judicial Foreclosure?,
  • Preserving a Right to Judgment on the Debt,

  • Completing Non-judicial Foreclosures in California,
  • Some Practical Tips for Lenders.

For more, see Revisiting the one action rule for secured lenders: forget about California real property at your peril! (requires paid subscription; if no subscription, TRY HERE; or GO HERE - then click the appropriate link for the story).

Go here for links to several dozen California cases addressing the state's "one form of action" rule (which can be found at Section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure of California).

Top Secret Video Of Banksters Discussing MERS' Problem?

What may be a video of a top secret meeting of banksters discussing the current foreclosure problems they face as a result of the MERS mess has been found floating around online on YouTube.

The meeting could have taken place somewhere in Germany, since the participants all spoke in German, but English subtitles have been added.

Those who don't mind more than a few "f-bombs" can go here for what could be a 'MERS bankster video.'

Thanks to Deontos for the heads-up on this video.

Saturday, June 04, 2011

Woman Gets Probation Over Attempt To Persuade Hubby To Sign Over Home Deed, Divorce Papers By Putting Steak Knife To His Throat & Slashing His Fingers

In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the South Florida Sun Sentinel reports:
  • A Tamarac woman who held a steak knife to her husband's throat and demanded he sign divorce papers and the deed to their house was sentenced to three years probation Wednesday.
  • Prosecutors dropped an attempted murder charge, and Tamara Strulovici, 53, pleaded no contest to aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. In May 2009, Strulovici approached her husband from behind, put the steak knife to his throat, made her demands and slashed the fingers on his left hand, the Broward Sheriff's Office said.
  • In court Wednesday, Strulovici said through a Russian interpreter that she is "not sure" if she and her husband, James Little, are still legally married. "I heard the rumors that he did apply for divorce," Strulovici said. "I don't do that because I don't have any money."
  • Married or not, Broward Circuit Judge Sandra Perlman ordered that Strulovici have no contact with Little. Strulovici's lawyer said she has no problem with that aspect of her sentence. "He lives out of state and she has no interest of ever having contact with him," Strulovici's defense attorney, Frank Prieto, said.

Source: Tamarac woman gets three years probation for demanding divorce with knife.

Lawsuit, Media Intervention Force Loan Servicer To Backpeddle On Home Foreclosure Of Elderly Widow Who Was Current On Loan Modification Payment Plan

In Apache Junction, Arizona, KNXV-TV Channel 15 reports:
  • Eighty-three-year old Harriet Black has owned a rural home in Apache Junction since 1976, but in March she was served an eviction notice. "I don't have anywhere to go," she said. The problems all stem from mistakes with a mortgage modification.

***

  • She worked with a mortgage service provider to get a modified mortgage agreement that was finalized in January. Or so she thought. Black's son made payments on her behalf for $822, the reduced amount agreed upon in the modification. Before that her payments werer near $1,800 per month. Despite the payments, the bank foreclosed on the property in February and an eviction hearing was set in the courts.
  • The Consumer Law Group filed a suit on her behalf Wednesday alleging the bank Deutsche Bank and mortgage servicer Ocwen wrongfully and unlawfully foreclosed. The suit filed in Pinal County included exhibits showing on-time payments since January.
  • We contacted Paul Koches, the Executive Vice President of Ocwen to get some answers. In less than a day, Koches was able to find the problem. He explained that Harriet was actually making payments on the wrong modification agreement. Therefore the valid one was going unpaid which paved the way for foreclosure.
  • He acknowledged the problem as a mistake by all parties and said that steps will be taken to rescind the foreclosure and reinstate the agreement so Harriet can remain in her home.

For the story, see Apache Junction woman nearly evicted over mortgage confusion.

Massachusetts Man Receives BofA Foreclosure Notice Accusing Him Of Stiffing Lender Out Of 'Zero Dollars & Zero Cents'

In Northampton, Massachusetts, WWLP-TV Channel 22 reports:
  • A man from Northampton got a letter from his bank stating his house would be foreclosed on if he didn't pay them a total of zero dollars and zero cents. Not wanting to lose his home, he called the 22News I-team to get some answers. We did some digging, and found out that a glitch in the bank's electronic system caused the error.(1)

For more, see 22News I-Team: $0 Foreclosure Notice (A bank error almost cost one man his home).

For Bank of America's foreclosure notice demanding the unpaid $0, see Notice of Intention to Foreclose.

(1) Reportedly, the consumer requested payment for expenses incurred fixing the matter and was told he would receive compensation. That never came, but the homeowner has noted that Bank of America has sent him a form letter requesting he sign up for their paid credit watch report service.

Tenant Left Scrambling After Unwittingly Renting Vacant House In Foreclosure From Home Hijacker

In Jacksonville, Florida, WTLV-TV Channel 12 reports:
  • Pamela Lewis has few words to describe what happened. "These last few days (have been) hell, excuse my language, because I am scared to leave," she said. Her nightmare began in August when she rented a house - which was not actually authorized by the owner to be rented. Now she is afraid to leave her home because she doesn't know what she'd return to find.
  • After searching Craigslist, she found a two-story house near Morse Avenue on Jacksonville's Westside. "They were here on the property working," said Lewis. After making contact with the person she thought was the property owner, Lewis said a week later she signed a lease with James Loen to rent the property for $950 a month. She said that Loen told her he was the landlord. September 2010, Lewis moved in.
  • But in May, eight months later, a man showed up at her front door, and told her he was the owner, he didn't know who she was and that she needed to move out. "He gave me a 24-hour notice, stuck it on my door. The cops seen it and said this is illegal he can't do this, he typed it up and signed it," said Lewis.

***

  • On Your Side put her in contact with Erica Shaffor, an attorney with Three Rivers Legal Services.(1) Shaffor said even if a tenant signs a fake lease with a phony landlord, the tenant has rights. "The tenant cannot just be thrown out by the alleged owner," said Shaffor. Shaffor said the property owner has to file for an 'ejectment.' She said Lewis had every reason to believe her lease was legal.

***

  • Lewis said now that she knows she was scammed, she's in the process of finding a new home, but said she can't move as quickly as the property owner wants her to move.

For the story, see Beware of Rental Scam Using Foreclosures.

(1) Three Rivers Legal Services is a local, non-profit law firm which provides free civil legal services to low-income, eligible clients in seventeen counties throughout North Florida.

Abandoned Buildings In 'Foreclosure No-Man's Land' Leave Poor Tenants In Dangerous Digs As Lawyers Look To Lienholders To Fork Over Fix-Up Funds

In Brooklyn, New York, WABC-TV Channel 7 reports:
  • There's a major legal push to help tenants living in deplorable conditions. The tenants are living in apartment buildings now in foreclosure and essentially neglected because of the dire financial situation. It has become a nationwide problem.
  • Without landlords, no one is fixing these rent controlled buildings. There are crumbling ceilings and floors, and there was little heat or hot water over the winter and the roof has holes in it. "When it comes in, it's all over the floors," said Yolanda Jimenez, a tenant.
  • There is black mold, the vents have not worked in years, and in this building at 294 5th Avenue, five of the six tenants are more than 70 years old. The average monthly rent runs about $200. Downstairs, a 98-year-old woman in a hospital bed and her son deal with all of these problems. He showed Eyewitness News a list of the people he has called for help.
  • "This is New York City, America! This is not supposed to happen," said Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, (D) Brooklyn. How were these tenants left in foreclosure no man's land?
  • So, advocates and lawyers with South Brooklyn Legal Services(1) are taking banks and intermediaries to court to fix buildings, in foreclosure now around the city, buildings that are full of people. "I hope they fix it, I'm not going nowhere," Jimenez said. There's no comment from the bank involved.

Source: Brooklyn rent controlled apartment in foreclosure.

See also, South Brooklyn Legal Services Files Lawsuit to Hold Mortgage-Holders Accountable for Foreclosed Properties (The advocates seek to draw attention to a major housing crisis across the borough— a rapid increase in overleveraged multi-family buildings going into foreclosure).

(1) South Brooklyn Legal Services is a non-profit law firm that provides legal services and information to low-income people in Brooklyn, NY.