Tag: Bank of America

Texas Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Against Bank of America

Texas Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Against Bank of America

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Deontos for this ruling.  Homeowners in Texas survive motion to dismiss in Swim vs. Bank of America et. al.

Excerpt 1:

Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that they would not foreclose during the loan modification process—but they did. Therefore, since Defendants foreclosed during the loan modification process without contacting Plaintiffs to inform them that their trial modification had been rejected, Plaintiffs state a claim for breach of contract.

Excerpt 2: 

Section 392.304(a)(19) prohibits a debt collector, in debt collection or obtaining information concerning a consumer, from using a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer. Plaintiffs allege BOA representatives informed Plaintiffs they had provided the required documents and that it would not foreclose during the loan modification process, that BOA and/or BAC repeatedly required documents Plaintiffs already provided, and that BAC foreclosed on the Property during the loan modification process, despite representations that it would not, because Plaintiffs allegedly did not provide documents Plaintiffs claim they provided. The Court finds that such facts state a claim under TDCPA § 392.304(a)(19), and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this claim under that section of the TDCPA is thus DENIED. Continue reading “Texas Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Against Bank of America”

JPMorgan (WaMu) Dismissal Overruled and Judicial Notice of Recorded Documents DENIED

JPMorgan (WaMu) Dismissal Overruled and Judicial Notice of Recorded Documents DENIED

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Attorney J. Edward Kerley (Hereford Kerley LLP) presents a 7 page complaint (4 pages when you remove the case heading and the whitespace) with 4 causes of action (Leon Taylor vs. JPMorgan Chase).  JPMorgan Chase lawyers respond with 211 pages (including exhibits, which make up about 190 pages +/-).  The original note and Deed of Trust named Washington Mutual Bank, FA as the Lender and Beneficiary.

Excerpt from the complaint:

On or before February 27, 2007, Mr. Taylor is informed and believes that his promissory note was sold by Washington Mutual Bank, FA, to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corporation.

..

The challanged foreclosure is based upon an Assignment of Deed of Trust dated March 15, 2011.  JPMorgan, as successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank, FA, purports to assign its beneficial interests in the deed of trust to Bank of America, National Association.  The assignment is void and improper because JPMorgan has no right or interest in the promissory note as of March 15, 2011, and such purported assignment is fraudulent and false. Continue reading “JPMorgan (WaMu) Dismissal Overruled and Judicial Notice of Recorded Documents DENIED”

Texas Ropes One In: Motion to Dismiss Denied

Texas Ropes One In: Motion to Dismiss Denied

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
http://www.dtc-systems.net

From April Charney:

…”If the holder of the deed of trust does not own or hold the note, the deed of trust serves no purpose, is impotent, and cannot be a vehicle for depriving the grantor of the deed of trust of ownership of the property described in the deed of trust….[finding that]…inherent in the procedural steps outlined in the Texas Property Code is the assumption that whatever entity qualifies as a “mortgagee” either owns the note or is serving as an agent for the owner or holder of the note; and, the statute assumes that when a foreclosure is conducted by someone other than the owner or holder of the note, the person conducting the foreclosure will be acting as agent or nominee for the owner or holder…Otherwise, the Texas statutory law would make no sense, and would be directly at odds with long-standing, basic principles governing the relationship between real estate borrowers, on the one hand, and their corresponding secured real estate lenders, on the other.” (edited from the below decision):
JANE McCARTHY, Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendants. NO. 4:11-CV-356-A December 22, 2011
 

Attorneys General of California and Nevada Announce Mortgage Investigation Alliance

Attorneys General of California and Nevada Announce Mortgage Investigation Alliance

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Press Release December 6, 2011

Attorneys General of California and Nevada Announce Mortgage Investigation Alliance

LOS ANGELES — Attorneys General Kamala D. Harris of California and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada today announced that their states have entered into a joint investigation alliance designed to assist homeowners who have been harmed by misconduct and fraud in the mortgage industry.

By forging this alliance, California and Nevada will combine investigative resources, including litigation strategies, information, and evidence gathered through their respective ongoing investigations, assisting each state as it pursues independent prosecutions.

This alliance will link the offices’ civil and criminal enforcement teams, speeding along the full, fair and adequate investigation of wrongdoing in the two states, which have experienced similar foreclosure and mortgage fraud crises. Continue reading “Attorneys General of California and Nevada Announce Mortgage Investigation Alliance”

Independent Foreclosure Review Engagement Letters

Independent Foreclosure Review Engagement Letters

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has posted the following on its website (http://www.occ.gov/topics/consumer-protection/foreclosure-prevention/independent-review-foreclosure-letters.html).

Independent Foreclosure Review Engagement Letters

Below are links to engagement letters submitted by the independent consultants, retained by servicers regulated by the OCC, who will be conducting foreclosure reviews pursuant to the requirements of the April 13, 2011 consent orders.  The engagement letters describe how the independent consultants will conduct their file reviews and claims processes to identify borrowers who suffered financial injury as a result of servicer deficiencies identified in the OCC’s consent orders.

Limited proprietary and personal information has been redacted from the engagement letters.  Examples of information that has been redacted include, but are not limited to: names, titles and biographies of individuals; proprietary systems information; references to specific bank policy; fees and costs associated with the engagement; and specific descriptions of past work performed by the independent consultants.

Since the acceptance of the engagement letters in September of this year, the independent consultants have further refined and made adjustments to the processes, procedures, and methodologies outlined in the engagement letters in consultation with OCC supervision staff.  Therefore, in many cases the review processes being implemented may differ in some respects from those described in the engagement letters because of subsequent coordination with the OCC.  In particular, there were a number of changes made to integrated claims process to ensure a single, uniform process among the servicers.

Pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 4.12(c), the disclosure of the engagement letters at the OCC’s election has no precedential significance.

Interagency Independent Foreclosure Review – File Your CLAIM

Interagency Independent Foreclosure Review – File Your CLAIM

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following regarding the numerous Cease and Desist Consent Orders issued against servicers and others for unsafe or unsound foreclosure policies and practices is available here: http://www.independentforeclosurereview.com/

Independent Foreclosure Review

Looking for information about the Independent Foreclosure Review? Si usted habla español, tenemos representantes que pueden asistirle en su idioma.

Homeowners whose primary residence was part of a foreclosure action between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010, and whose home loan was serviced by a participating servicer, may be eligible for an Independent Foreclosure Review.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (federal bank regulators) have required an Independent Foreclosure Review by an independent consultant to identify eligible customers who may have been financially injured due to errors, misrepresentations or other deficiencies in their foreclosure process. If the review finds that financial injury occurred, the customer may receive compensation or other remedy.

To qualify, your mortgage loan would need to meet the initial eligibility criteria: Continue reading “Interagency Independent Foreclosure Review – File Your CLAIM”

Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent

Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The following was just posted on Neil Garfield’s blog, livinglies.wordpress.com.  It is reposted here with the following comments.  These are fabricated documents placed into the title record at the county recorders.  In non-judicial states these documents do not need to be recorded to foreclose as those foreclosing can instead file a judicial foreclosure and prove their claim.  Because they have no claim and cannot prove it, they knowingly, willingly and without any regard for the consequences, choose to corrupt the land title records instead.  To read about this choice, read the Hooker vs. BofA ruling from a Federal District Court judge out of Oregon: Hooker-v-BofA_and_MERS – Congratulations to Oregon Attorney James Stout for his work on this case.

From Neil Garfield and Lynn Szymoniak (see Lynn Szymoniak in action on 60 Minutes here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20049744-10391709.html)

EDITOR’S NOTE (Neil Garfield): We know the foreclosures were gross misrepresentations of fact to the Courts, to the Borrowers and to the Investors. This article shows the crossover between the MegaBanks — sharing and diluting the responsibility for these fabrications as they went along. If you are talking about one big bank you are talking about all the megabanks. Continue reading “Title Crisis – Part II – The Documents used to Foreclose are Fraudulent”

Consolidated Listing of All Cease and Desist Consent Orders Issued on April 13, 2011

Consolidated Listing of All Cease and Desist Consent Orders Issued on April 13, 2011

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Due to the volume of requests, here is a listing of all known Cease and Desist Consent Orders issued in April 2011 in regards to the Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices.

Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices

Cease and Desist Consent Orders Department of Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency OTS Board of Governers for the Federal Reserve System FDIC FHFA
Bank of America x        
Citibank x        
HSBC x        
JPMorgan Chase Bank x        
US Bank x        
PNC Bank x        
MetLife Bank x        
Wells Fargo Bank x        
Aurora Bank   x      
EverBank   x      
EverBank Financial Corp   x      
IMB HoldCo LLC   x      
OneWest Bank   x      
Sovereign Bank   x      
MERSCORP and MERS x x x x x
LPS Default and DocX x x x x  
SunTrust     x    
Ally Bank / Ally Financial / Residential Capital / GMAC Mortgage     x x  

County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents

County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The news release from Massachusetts speaks for itself:  County Recorders Surprised to Find Acknowledgements Cannot be Relied Upon.

New release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

 Salem, MA

June 7th, 2011

Contact:

Kevin Harvey, 1st Assistant Register

978-542-1724

[email protected]

Jeff Thigpen, Register of Deeds

336-451-5300

[email protected]

Massachusetts Register of Deeds John O’Brien is first in the nation to say no to recording robo-signed documents; North Carolina Register of Deeds, Jeff Thigpen agrees. Continue reading “County Recorder First in Nation to Step Forward and Reject Robo-Signed Documents”

The Internal Revenue Service is Investigating the Tax-Exempt Status of REMICs

The Internal Revenue Service is investigating the Tax-Exempt Status of REMICs

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Reuters has announced that “The Internal Revenue Service has launched a review of the tax-exempt status of a widely-held form of mortgage-backed securities called REMICs.”  This comes after many years of homeowners, lawyers and securitization experts having discussed the shenanigans of Wall Street.  The standard industry practice is that loans were never perfected into these REMICs, which required the loans as “qualified mortgages” to be in the REMIC within 90 days of the “startup day”, which corresponds with the trust “closing date”.  However, in nearly every case we have seen, the REMIC servicers are doing an assignment of the security instrument into the trust after the loan is in foreclosure in order that whoever is foreclosing has the right to foreclose.  Unfortunately once a loan is in default it is no longer a “qualified mortgage” under REMIC laws, not to mention that it is years past the REMIC “startup day”.  Nor as Judge Arthur Schack puts it in New York, why is the trustee accepting the conveyance of a non-performing loan into the trust?

Specifically the article says “These banks’ transgressions, confirmed in court decisions and through recent action by federal bank regulators, include the failure to formally transfer ownership of mortgages to the trusts that invested in them and the subsequent creation of fraudulent mortgage assignments and other false documents.”  Cease and Desist Consent Orders were just issued against Bank of America, Citibank, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank, Wells Fargo, Aurora Bank, EverBank, EverBank Financial Corporation, IMB HoldCo LLC, OneWest, Sovereign Bank, DocX, LPS Default and MERS.  Just wait until the Securities and Exchange Commission decides to investigate Sarbanes-Oxley legislation against the statements these entities have made under oath with what the bank regulators found actually happened with them. Continue reading “The Internal Revenue Service is Investigating the Tax-Exempt Status of REMICs”