Source: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/tag/erica-johnson-seck/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 07:52:37+00:00

Document:
Tag Archive | "erica johnson seck"
WILFREDO GARCIA, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., AS NOMINEE FOR INDYMAC BANK F.S.B., CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, CITY OF NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, CITY OF NEW YORK PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU, and John Doe, Jane Doe, Defendants.
20049/08, Motion Cal. No. 12, Motion Seq. No. 5.
Garcia moves for an order to renew its original order to show cause which sought to vacate the default judgment based on alleged fraud on behalf of the plaintiff. (CPLR §5015(a)(3).) Garcia asserts that the recent discovery of alleged fraud in the preparation of Plaintiff’s affidavit to secure the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale is sufficient basis to renew it’s prior order to show cause to vacate the default judgment.
Plaintiff, in opposition, does not refute defendant’s assertion that Johnson-Seck is a “robo-signer,” rather, Plaintiff asserts that accusations regarding Johnson-Seck were made public prior to the execution of the aforementioned stipulation, dated March 24, 2010, and therefore any alleged fraud or mistake was known or knowable to defendant’s attorney. “The requirement that a motion for renewal be based upon newly-discovered facts is a flexible one, and a court, in its discretion, may grant renewal upon facts known to the moving party at the time of the original motion.” (Karlin v. Bridges, 172 A.D.2d 644 [2nd Dept 1991].) Even if the court assumes that Garcia’s counsel, David Fuster, Esq., should have known of Johnson-Seck’s “robo-signing,” it is still not a complete defense to Garcia’s motion. Accordingly, Garcia’s motion to renew is granted.
Upon renewal this court vacates the prior default judgment dated February 23, 2009, and the stipulation dated March 24, 2010.
On any application for judgment by default, the applicant shall file … proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due by affidavit made by the party.
Plaintiff submits a “reverified” Affidavit of Charlotte Warwick (hereinafter “Warwick”) attesting that the principal amount due on Garcia’s loan is $472,326.52. Plaintiff contends that the Warwick affidavit cures the fraudulent Affidavit of Amount Due submitted by Johnson-Seck. However, the Judgment of Foreclosure and aforementioned Stipulation, dated March 24, 2010, where all signed under the assumption that the plaintiff had originally submitted non-fraudulent documentation. So while the fraudulent Affidavit of Amount Due may be a curable defect, the court cannot ignore the fact that the papers supporting the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale and aforementioned stipulation were fraudulent.
Furthermore, the court is concerned by Plaintiff’s position that the “events he (Garcia) complains of… make no factual difference to the amount he owes on his mortgage.” The statement is alarming as it implies that the court should ignore fraud when the fraud may not be directly relevant to the outcome of the particular case. The court requires an Affidavit of Amount Due and that requirement cannot be satisfied by submitting a fraudulent affidavit. (Indymac Bank, FSB v. Bethley, 22 Misc.3d 1119 [Sup.Ct. Kings County 2009] [prior to granting an application for an order of reference, the Court required an affidavit from Ms. Johnson-Seck, describing her employment history for the past three years].) Plaintiff has failed to deny defendant’s contention that the Johnson-Seck document was fraudulent. Therefore, the Plaintiff failed to submit “proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due by affidavit made by the party” as required by CPLR §3215(f).
However, before the judgment on default can be vacated, the settlement stipulation must be vitiated.”Only where there is cause sufficient to invalidate a contract, such as fraud, collusion, mistake or accident, will a party be relieved from the consequences of a stipulation made during litigation” (Hallock v. State, 64 N.Y.2d 224 (1984.) “It is the party seeking to set aside the stipulation … who has the burden of showing that the agreement was the result of fraud.” (Sweeney v. Sweeney, 71 A.D.3d 989 [2nd Dept 2010].) As noted earlier, the fraud perpetrated by the Plaintiff had a domino effect that lead Garcia ultimately to enter into the stipulation. Garcia entered into the agreement on March 24, 2010 to avoid an immediate foreclosure he believed was obtained legally. Accordingly, Garcia has sufficiently established his burden by showing that he would not have entered the stipulation had he known that the Affidavit in support of the default judgment (vacated herein) was fraudulent.
Based on the foregoing, Garcia’s motion is granted to the extent of granting renewal and upon renewal granting the order to show cause dated August 27, 2009 vacating the default judgment of foreclosure and sale entered by this court on or about February 23, 2009 and the stipulation dated March 24, 2010 is declared null and void.
Yep, she signs for FDIC too!
Dept 1988). The note provided here reflects only partial proof of the amount allegedly owed.
Several articles regarding the authority and actions of Linda Green are available on “Fraud Digest.” In the “pleadings” section, there are examples of the many different Linda Green signatures/forgeries. Green’s “signature” appears on HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of mortgage assignments – as an officer of at least 20 different banks and mortgage companies.
The total mortgage loan amount on 500 “Linda Green” Mortgage Assignments is $126,956,912, or approximately $125 million for each 500 Assignments. The average output of Assignments from the Docx office in Alpharetta, Georgia in 2009 was 2,000 Assignments per day.
The offices of Lender Processing Services in Mendota Heights, Minnesota, seems likely to also have produced 2,000 Assignments each working day.
Jeffrey Stephan from the GMAC offices in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania also is likely to have produced 2,000 Assignments each day.
Bryan Bly of Nationwide Title Clearing also is likely to have produced 2,000 Mortgage Assignments each day.
Scott Anderson of Ocwen Loan Servicing in West Palm Beach, Florida, almost certainly produced an average of 2,000 Assignments a day.
Herman John Kennerty of America’s Servicing Company in Ft. Mill, South Carolina, also is likely to have produced 2,000 Assignments each day.
Erica Johnson-Seck was almost certainly producing Assignments at this same level for IndyMac.
Christina Trowbridge, Whitney Cook, and Stacy Spohn of Chase Home Finance in Franklin, Ohio likely had the same output.
Keri Selman and Renee Hertzler of BAC Home Loan Servicing (formerly Countrywide) in Texas almost certainly produced an average of 2,000 Assignments a day.
If these nine offices each produced 2,000 Assignments a day, the value of the Mortgage Assignments filed by all nine offices in 2009 was One Trillion, One Hundred Forty Seven Billion, Five Hundred Million ($1,147,500,000,000).
Most of these Assignments, of course, were not actually made in 2009. Trusts and trustees did not rush to acquire over a trillion dollars in sub-prime mortgages in 2009. The vast majority of these assignments were made solely for the purpose of “facilitating” foreclosures.
Each day, courts, regulators and law enforcement refuse to act on the issue of fraudulent Mortgage Assignments. By failing to act, they choose to protect the interests of Wall Street securitizers, hedge funds, Deutsche Bank (and other foreign banks), CDO sellers and purchasers, especially Goldman Sachs and investors, particularly Chinese traders.
If homeowners had committed the equivalent crime and filed millions of fraudulent “Satisfaction of Mortgage” documents, the courts and prisons would be filled with defendants. Two systems of justice, one for Wall Street and one for Main Street, means no justice at all.

References: §5015
 v. 
 v. 
 §3215
 v. 
 v.