Category: Securitization

New Century Mortgage Corporation Bankruptcy May “Restart” Because Residential Borrowers Were NOT Notified of the Bankruptcy

 

 

 

New Century Mortgage Corporation Bankruptcy May “Restart” Because Residential Borrowers Were NOT Notified of the Bankruptcy

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

New Century Financial Corporation and its related entities filed voluntary bankruptcy on April 2, 2007.  Persistent Pro Se homeowners are holding the New Century Bankruptcy to task by insisting they, like thousands of other homeowners (if not tens of thousands) were never notified of the New Century bankruptcy.  Homeowners with claims would be considered “creditors” in the New Century bankruptcy.  If the judge resets the bar date, the bankruptcy would “start over”, or at least the claims period would be opened once more.  If this occurs, it is possible New Century would have to notify homeowners with New Century loans that they may be potential creditors.  Because of the fraudulent paperwork created by mortgage services and lenders, the number of claims by residential borrowers skyrocket.

The New Century Liquidating Trust insisted the Pro Se borrowers were wrong and everything was fine.

The next hearing on the matter is May 23 2012 in Judge Carey’s courtroom in Delaware.  On April 25, 2012, this is briefly what happened at the Omnibus hearing according to “Abby”:

Judge Carey came out for the homeowners in today’s telephonic hearing.  Hahn  & Hessen, the appointed trustee’s counsels from NYC, wanted to do the substantive arguments TODAY..but Carey shot them down.  They wanted to have only a cross examination of Atty. Uhland on May 23rd and Carey shot them down – he said no. He expected direct and cross.  He is taking this as a WHOLE NEW evidentiary hearing.  Atty. Uhland had been responsible for the bar date publication for one day each in the Wall Street Journal and the Orange County Register.

Homeowner/borrowers were never notified of the bankruptcy even though New Century had the contact data for each homeowner/borrower.

Also, the appointed bankruptcy trustee, Alan Jacobs was ordered back for the hearing on May 23, 2012 as well as Atty. Uhland.   Pro se Homeowner/borrowers will have about a month to prepare their questions for testimony from Atty. Uhland and the bankruptcy trustee Alan Jacobs.

For a list of other loan originators who have imploded and declared bankruptcy, such Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc. and Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., go to the infamous “Implode-O-Meter” (TM) website (http://ml-implode.com/) from Martin Andelman, author of the Mandelman Matters Blog (http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/)

Omnibus Reply of the New Century Liquidating Trust to Objections to Motion for Entry of An Order to Determine That the Debtors Have Complied with the Order Establishing Bar Dates for Filing Proof of Claim and Approving Form, Manner and Sufficiency of Notice Thereof [D.I. 1721]:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/NCLT_DI-10853_re_Bar_Date.pdf

Response of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White in Objection to the New Century Liquidating Trust Motion Requesting an Order That the Debtors Have Complied with the Bar Date Order for Filing Proofs of Claim and Approving Form, Manner and Sufficiency of Notice:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Pro_Se_objection_to_NCLT.pdf

New Century Liquidating Trust 1st Quarter 2012 financials:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/1st_qtr_2012_financials.pdf

There are numerous other objections from other Pro Se’s, but this is the only one we currently have.

Lenders Definition of Fraud

Lenders Definition of Fraud

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

I was reviewing the closing documents for a loan when I came across this definition of fraud from Countrywide (now allegedly owned by Bank of America):

 

Fraud, Misrepresentations, Falsehoods

  1. A fraud or scheme related to the transaction has been or may be committed.
  2. Any party to the transaction, including but not limited to Lender, Borrower, Seller, Real Estate Broker or Agent, Builder, Mortgage Broker, Title Insurer, Appraiser, Signing Agent or Settlement Agent, or an employee of any such party, has made a material misstatement.
  3. A loan document or invoice has been tampered with, falsely generated, bears any incorrect or falsified data, bears different names or addresses for the same party, or bears a fictitious name.  A ficitious name does not include an assumed name field of public record.
  4. A party’s handwriting or signature is inconsistent on the loan documents.
  5. Borrower is being paid to lend credit or identity to the transaction.

Note also that Freddie Mac has the following definition of straw borrower:

A form of fraud where one person purchases property or takes out a mortgage for another to conceal the identity of the real borrower. Usually the real borrower would not qualify for the mortgage.

Does Freddie Mac or any other lender apply this same definition to straw lender?  I would define straw lender as:

A form of fraud where one entity acts as the payee of a note for another to conceal the identity of the real lender. Usually the real lender would not qualify as a mortgage lender.

 

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez 458 Mass. 637 (2011) – The High Cost of Litigation

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Ibanez 458 Mass. 637 (2011) – The High Cost of Litigation

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

This case is a fiasco beyond imagination.  This boarded up house was the subject of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision where US Bank as Trustee of a securitized trust lost in an attempt to obtain a judicial declaration of clear title.  The investors now have an accounting that they can review.  The losses keep coming month after month and may not be finalized for many more years.  Here is what is being reported to the investors and ratings agencies as of February 2012:

Current Amt: $0.00

Paidoff: 9/2008

Last Report Date: 2/2012

Liquidation: $102,077

Curr Loss (as of 2/2012): $29,832.56

Cumulative loss: $274,340.89

Loss Severity (%): 268.76%

Original Amount: $103,500

The cumulative loss and loss severity are extremely high.  This is not a record high for the amount or the loss severity percentage.  But for a boarded up house that is probably not worth $100,000.00 it sure is quite a hit.   Good thing there are still 440 or so loans in this trust with a current balance of over $88 million.  That makes this small amount easy to swallow.  In reality the loss amount is very low because the loan amount is low.  Another loan in this same pool had a cumulative loss of $770,630.99 and a loss severity of 86.41%.  The loan amount was $900,000.

Now for the real question.  How does a loan for $103,500 actually cost the investors a loss of $274,340.89?  Where does the “exta” amount come from to pay for the loss of this property?

 

Lawyers Take Note: Wells Fargo Slammed with $3.1 Million Punitive Damages on One Wrongful Foreclosure

Lawyers Take Note: Wells Fargo Slammed with $3.1 Million Punitive Damages on One Wrongful Foreclosure

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Posted by Neil F. Garfield on livinglies.wordpress.com (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/lawyers-take-note-wells-fargo-slammed-with-3-1-million-punitive-damages-on-one-wrongful-foreclosure/).

GARFIELD PROPOSES NATIONAL LAW FIRM FOR COUNTER-ATTACK
Editor’s Comment:

The most perplexing part of this mortgage mess has been the unwillingness of the legal community to take on the Banks. Besides the intimidation factor the primary source of resistance has been the lack of confidence that any money could be made, ESPECIALLY on contingency. If you were the lawyer in the case reported below, you would be getting a check for fees alone of over $1.2 million on a single case. And as this article and hundreds of others have reported, based upon objective surveys, most of the 5 million homes lost since 2007 were wrongful foreclosures.

So the inventory for lawyers is 5 million homes plus the next 5 million everyone is expecting. Let’s due some simple arithmetic: if 4 million homes were wrongfully foreclosed and the punitive damages were $1 million per house the total take would be $4 Billion with contingency fees at $1.6 Billion. If each house carried $200,000 in compensatory damages, then the total would be increased by $800 Million with Lawyers taking home $320 Million. These figures exceed personal injury and malpractice awards. Why is the legal profession ignoring this opportunity to do something right and make a fortune at the same time?

Right now I’m a little under the weather (open heart surgery) but that hasn’t stopped my associates from rolling out a plan for a national anti-foreclosure firm. I’m only doing this because nobody else will. If you have had a home wrongfully foreclosed or suspect that your current foreclosure is wrongful, write to [email protected] (remember the “F”) and ask for help. Lawyers and victims of wrongful foreclosures should be able to pool their resources to attack the massive foreclosure attack with a massive anti-foreclosure attack.

 DTC Systems readers can write to [email protected] and ask for help.  We will see that your request is sent to the lawyers working on this new program.

Here is the Conclusion from the Order (download below):

Wells Fargo’s actions were not only highly reprehensible, but its subsequent reaction on their exposure has been less than satisfactory. There is a strong societal interest in preventing such future conduct through a punitive award. The total monetary judgment to date is $24,441.65, plus legal interest,$166,873.00 in legal fees and $3,951.96 in costs. Other fees and costs incurred by Jones through the first remand were also incurred and are not included in the foregoing amounts. Because the Court cannot reveal the sealed amount stipulated to by the parties when they settled Jones’ Application for Award of Fees and Costs Related to Remand (“Application”),70 the Court will use Jones’ Application itself as evidence of fees and costs actually incurred up to the date of the Application. The Application and supporting documentation establish that an additional $118,251.93 in attorneys’ fees and $3,596.95 in costs was also incurred by Jones.71 The amounts previously awarded plus the additional amounts incurred establish that the cost to litigate the compensatory portion of this award was $292,673.84. After considering the compensatory damages of $24,441.65 awarded in this case, along with the litigation costs of $292,673.84; awards against Wells Fargo in other cases for the same behavior which did not deter its conduct; and the previous judgments in this case none of which deterred its actions; the Court finds that a punitive damage award of $3,171,154.00 is warranted to deter Wells Fargo from similar conduct in the future. This Court hopes that the relief granted will finally motivate Wells Fargo to rectify its practices and comply with the terms of court orders, plans and the automatic stay.

Download the bankruptcy ruling here:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Jones_vs_Wells_Fargo.pdf

 

Homeowner Takes Goldman Sachs to Task and Gets a Favorable Loan Modification in Bankruptcy

Homeowner Takes Goldman Sachs to Task and Gets a Favorable Loan Modification in Bankruptcy

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

This bankruptcy case is a few years old (bankruptcy filed on 6/11/2007 and loan mod dated approx. 2009).  The Homeowners fight to find the identity of MTGLQ Investors, LP – a Goldman Sachs subsidiary.  They end up forcing Goldman Sachs to abandon foreclosure and accept a loan modification.  This is a complex case and the debtors acted as their own attorney.

Read the Motion for Relief from Stay here:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/22-Motion-for-Relief-from-Stay.pdf

 – filed by Attorneys for WMC MORTGAGE CORP., its successors and/or assigns

Read the Amended Motion for Relief from Stay here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/34-Amended-Motion-for-Relief-from-Stay.pdf

 – filed by Attorneys for MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P., its successors and/or assigns

(Yes that is right, one creditor files the motion, then another creditor amends the motion)

Read the Amended Motion for Relief from Stay exhibits here: http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/34-Amended-Motion-for-Relief-from-Stay_Exhibits.pdf

Read the Motion for Loan Mod Approval here:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/96-Motion-for-Loan-Mod-Approval.pdf

Read the Notice of Recorded Loan Mod Agreement here:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/102-Notice-of-Recording-of-Loan-Mod-Agreement.pdf

NTEX Realty vs Tacker – 3rd Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision Against Foreclosing Banks

NTEX Realty vs Tacker – 3rd Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision Against Foreclosing Banks

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Following two previous rulings favorable to homeowners, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma rules against another foreclosing bank.  This ruling is short and fully excerpted here (or download a PDF at the end of this article).

NTEX REALTY, LP v. TACKER
2012 OK 26
NTEX REALTY, LP, Plaintiff/Appellee,v.CINDY A. TACKER and THERON TACKER, WIFE AND HUSBAND, Defendants/Appellants,
No. 109824.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 3, 2012.

Phillip A. Taylor, TAYLOR AND ASSOCIATES, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellants.
Charles C. Ward, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellee.
——————————————————————————–
THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PERMANENT LAW REPORTS. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.
COMBS, J.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY.
¶ 1. On January 26, 2007, Appellants executed a promissory note (hereinafter “Note”) payable to Home Funds Direct, Inc. (hereinafter “Lender”). To secure payment of the Note, Appellants executed and delivered to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), as nominee for Lender, as mortgagee, a certain mortgage (hereinafter “Mortgage”), which conveyed and mortgaged to the mortgagee certain real property located in Rogers County, Oklahoma. In both the Note and Mortgage, Home Funds Direct, Inc., is named as the Lender and Payee. Appellants defaulted on the Note on July 1, 2010. Appellee initiated foreclosure proceedings on October, 27, 2010. A copy of the non-indorsed Note and Mortgage was included with the petition.
¶ 2. In their answer, Appellants denied that Appellee owned any interest in the Note and Mortgage, and challenged the authenticity of the documents included in the petition. Appellants then demanded production of the original Note and Mortgage. Appellee moved for summary judgment on March 3, 2011. In an attached affidavit, Appellee asserted that it currently held both the Note and Mortgage at issue, and again produced a copy of both the unindorsed Note and Mortgage. In response, Appellants argued that Appellee’s motion for summary judgment was improper because the Note had never been negotiated. Appellants also asserted that because the copy of the Note was purportedly a “full, true, and correct copy of said Note,” the original must also not be indorsed. Based on these reasons, Appellants concluded Appellee could not be the holder of the Note and, therefore, was not the proper party to bring a foreclosure proceeding. Continue reading “NTEX Realty vs Tacker – 3rd Oklahoma Supreme Court Decision Against Foreclosing Banks”

Force-Placed Insurance Class Action Lawsuit Initiated in Federal Court

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Force-Placed Insurance Class Action Lawsuit Initiated in Federal Court

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Mortgage Servicers are taking advantage of there position to increase fees by calling homeowners insurance providers and asking them to cancel the policy and send the refund to the servicer.  They then place insurance with very low coverage costing typically four times as much.  This is a common story we hear over and over again.  Allegations in this case detail what happens behind the scenes.  Chris Maxwell files this class action complaint against HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), Assurant, Inc. and Tracksure Insurance Agency, Inc.

Download case here:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/MAXWELL-v-HSBC-MORTGAGE-CORP-COMPLAINT_FPI-FRAUD.pdf

You Know You Are Going To Lose When …

You Know You Are Going To Lose When …

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Posted by Neil F. Garfield on livinglies.wordpress.com on 3/31/2012 (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/you-know-you-are-losing-when/).  Study this until you have it committed items 1 through 10 to memory.

Taking a line from Jeff Foxworthy, I have compiled the following guidelines of how to know when you are going to lose against the thieving bank seeking to steal your property. You might call it, “You know your screwed when…”

Note: The premise of this article is taken from various points made on this blog and others. The main point is that the obligation to repay the loan arose when the money transaction took place. When money exchanged hands it is presumed that the expectation was that it would be repaid. So the only defenses that exist and the only two defenses that will get the judge’s attention are PAYMENT and WAIVER. Failing to address these issues head on right at the beginning of the first pleading and the first hearing, will most likely lead to failure in the case. Read the appellate decisions that are in favor of the banks and servicers; they all start with a recitation of “facts” that are not true but which nonetheless are taken as true because the borrower failed to put them in issue as contested facts.

Start with the origination documents. If you don’t know whether they have merely reproduced the note and mortgage, then deny it and make them prove it. They could be fabricated from whole cloth. Continue reading “You Know You Are Going To Lose When …”

Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Ruling for Hawaii – Foreclosure Sale Avoided for Lack of Public Announcement

Ninth Circuit Appeals Court Ruling for Hawaii – Foreclosure Sale Avoided for Lack of Public Announcement

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Deontos for this one.  The bankruptcy court ruled the foreclosure was invalid.  The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed.  The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms “the bankruptcy court’s avoidance of the foreclosure sale.”  This ruling is FOR PUBLICATION.

Excerpt

We hold that (1) the lack of public announcement did violate Hawaii’s nonjudicial foreclosure statute, and (2) this defect was a deceptive practice under state law. Accordingly, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s avoidance of the foreclosure sale. However, we remand to the bankruptcy court for a proper calculation of attorneys’ fees and damages under HRS § 480-13.

Download the ruling here:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/9th_Circuit_Hawaii_For_Publication_No_Advertisement_and_Foreclosure_Invalid.pdf

All Causes of Action Survive Motion to Dismiss in California Federal Case Against Bank of America

All Causes of Action Survive Motion to Dismiss in California Federal Case Against Bank of America

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Brian Davies for this one.  Prosper Law Group’s complaint in Johnson vs. HSBC Bank USA, NA as Trustee for the Ellington Trust Series 2007-1, Bank of America, NA and does 1 – 10 inclusive contains 7 causes of action.  The conclusion and order from Federal Judge Jeffrey T. Miller is:

For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendants’ motion has failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s claims were implausible or precluded as a matter of law.

The following is an excerpt, but the rest is great reading also.

Excerpt

A. Viability of Attack on Loan Securitization
1. Ability to Challenge Loan Securitization
The threshold issue of whether Plaintiff can make any claim related to the loan’s securitization affects the viability of many of the individual claims discussed below. BOA cites Rodenhurst v. Bank of America, 773 F.Supp.2d 886, 899 (D. Haw. 2011) for its statement that “[t]he overwhelming authority does not support a cause of action based upon improper securitization.” However, the discussion cited in that case centers on plaintiffs who claim that securitization itself violates the agreement between the mortgagor and mortgagee. Here, Plaintiff does not dispute the right to securitize the mortgage, but alleges that as a result of improper procedures, the true owner of his mortgage is unclear. As a result, he has allegedly been paying improper entities an excess amount. Continue reading “All Causes of Action Survive Motion to Dismiss in California Federal Case Against Bank of America”