Tag: LLC

State of Missouri 136 Count Indictment – 68 Class C Felonies for Forgery and 68 Class B Misdemeanors for False Declarations

State of Missouri 136 Count Indictment – 68 Class C Felonies for Forgery and 68 Class B Misdemeanors for False Declarations

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Charles Cox and George Christian for locating this indictment.  Each count lists either a forgery or a misdemeanor.  DOCX LLC is named throughout the indictment.  On April 13, 2011 the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Officer of Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision issued a Cease and Desist Consent Order against Lender Processing Services, Inc., DocX, LLC and LPS Default Solutions, Inc. making the following findings:

WHEREAS, in providing document execution services to Examined Servicers, including services that facilitated completing foreclosures, LPS and its employees allegedly:

(a) Executed numerous affidavits and similar sworn statements (collectively, “Affidavits”) making various assertions, such as the ownership of the mortgage note and mortgage (or deed of trust), the amount of principal and interest due, and the fees and expenses chargeable to the borrower, in which the affiant represented that the assertions in the Affidavit were made based on personal knowledge or based on a review by the affiant of the relevant books and records, when, in many cases, they were not based on such knowledge or review. LPS executed these Affidavits on behalf of Examined Servicers knowing they would be filed in state courts and in connection with bankruptcy proceedings in federal courts; Continue reading “State of Missouri 136 Count Indictment – 68 Class C Felonies for Forgery and 68 Class B Misdemeanors for False Declarations”

Nevada Attorney General Sues Lender Processing Services for Consumer Fraud

Nevada Attorney General Sues Lender Processing Services for Consumer Fraud

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The Nevada Attorney General released the following information today:

Carson City, NV – Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto announced today a lawsuit against Lender Processing Services, Inc., DOCX, LLC, LPS Default Solutions, Inc. and other subsidiaries of LPS (collectively known “LPS”) for engaging in deceptive practices against Nevada consumers.

The lawsuit, filed on December 15, 2011, in the 8th Judicial District of Nevada, follows an extensive investigation into LPS’ default servicing of residential mortgages in Nevada, specifically loans in foreclosure. The lawsuit includes allegations of widespread document execution fraud, deceptive statements made by LPS about efforts to correct document fraud, improper control over foreclosure attorneys and the foreclosure process, misrepresentations about LPS’ fees and services, and evidence of an overall press for speed and volume that prevented the necessary and proper focus on accuracy and integrity in the foreclosure process.

“The robo-signing crisis in Nevada has been fueled by two main problems: chaos and speed,” said Attorney General Masto. “We will protect the integrity of the foreclosure process. This lawsuit is the next, logical step in holding the key players in the foreclosure fraud crisis accountable.” Continue reading “Nevada Attorney General Sues Lender Processing Services for Consumer Fraud”

US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank

US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

This case is listed here without comment.  The issues of endorsements, allonges, burden of proof, etc. are raised here and are very illuminating.

In the Matter of the foreclosure of a Deed of Trust executed by Tonya R. Bass in the original amount of $139,988.00 dated October 12, 2005, recorded in Book 4982, Page 86, Durham County Registry,
Substitute Trustee Services, Inc., as Substitute Trustee,

No. COA11-565.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2011.

K&L Gates, LLP, by A. Lee Hogewood III, and Brian C. Fork for Petitioner-appellant.

Legal Aid of North Carolina, Inc., by E. Maccene Brown, Gregory E. Pawlowski, John Christopher Lloyd, and Andre C. Brown, for Respondent-appellee.

ROBERT N. HUNTER, JR., Judge.

U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee, c/o Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Petitioner”) appeals the trial court’s order dismissing foreclosure proceedings against Respondent Tonya R. Bass. Petitioner assigns error to the trial court’s determination that Petitioner is not the legal holder of a promissory note executed by Respondent and therefore lacks authorization to foreclose on Respondent’s property securing the note under a deed of trust. After careful review, we affirm.

I. Factual & Procedural Background Continue reading “US Bank is not the Note Holder – North Carolina: Bass vs. US Bank”

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.

MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard

The following is a New York Bankruptcy motion for relief from stay ruling from February 10th, 2011

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

—————————————————————–x

In re:

Case No. 810-77338-reg

FERREL L. AGARD,

Chapter 7

Debtor.

—————————————————————–x

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Before the Court is a motion (the “Motion”) seeking relief from the automatic stay

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) and (2), to foreclose on a secured interest in the Debtor’s real

property located in Westbury, New York (the “Property”). The movant is Select Portfolio

Servicing, Inc. (“Select Portfolio” or “Movant”), as servicer for U.S. Bank National Association,

as Trustee for First Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FF12, Mortgage Pass-Through

Certificates, Series 2006-FF12 (“U.S. Bank”). The Debtor filed limited opposition to the Motion

contesting the Movant’s standing to seek relief from stay. The Debtor argues that the only

interest U.S. Bank holds in the underlying mortgage was received by way of an assignment from

the Mortgage Electronic Registration System a/k/a MERS, as a “nominee” for the original

lender. The Debtor’s argument raises a fundamental question as to whether MERS had the legal

authority to assign a valid and enforceable interest in the subject mortgage. Because U.S. Bank’s

rights can be no greater than the rights as transferred by its assignor – MERS – the Debtor argues

that the Movant, acting on behalf of U.S. Bank, has failed to establish that it holds an

enforceable right against the Property.1 The Movant’s initial response to the Debtor’s opposition was that

MERS’s authority to assign the mortgage to U.S. Bank is derived from the mortgage itself which

allegedly grants to MERS its status as both “nominee” of the mortgagee and “mortgagee of

record.” The Movant later supplemented its papers taking the position that U.S. Bank is a

creditor with standing to seek relief from stay by virtue of a judgment of foreclosure and sale

entered in its favor by the state court prior to the filing of the bankruptcy. The Movant argues

that the judgment of foreclosure is a final adjudication as to U.S. Bank’s status as a secured

creditor and therefore the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits this Court from looking behind the

judgment and questioning whether U.S. Bank has proper standing before this Court by virtue of a

valid assignment of the mortgage from MERS.
Continue reading “MERS has no agency – New York Bankruptcy Court: in re Agard”