Source: http://certifiedforensicloanauditors.com/letters-from-the-editor.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:55:15+00:00

Document:
As the Obama administration runs out the clock on its second term, it seeks to hide ever more of its policies from public scrutiny. One of the most extreme examples is the White House’s attempt to invoke presidential privilege, which is reserved for the most important national security, military, and diplomatic affairs, to conceal documents about housing. Yes, housing.
The purpose of these materials is to provide an outline of consumer claims under the Federal Truth in Lending (TILA) and Real Estate and Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), especially as they relate to mortgages, and consumer bankruptcy cases. With the crash in home prices, as a practical matter, TILA claims, at least as regards mortgages, are worthless to most consumers.
FDCPA and FCCPA (or similar state legislation) claims are getting traction across the country. Bank of America violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the related Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act ("FCCPA"). (Doc. 26). The Goodin case is a fair representation of the experience of hundreds of thousands of homeowners who have tried to reconcile the numbers given to them by Bank of America and others.
Prior to 1995, courts had the ability to impose monetary sanctions on litigants and their counsel for almost any kind of transgression, and some judges developed reputations for doing so very liberally! The relative calm that reigned after a significant change in the law in 1995 may be over. Effective January 1, 2015, California Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5 — a statute that authorizes the imposition of monetary sanctions for bad faith litigation tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause delay — is back. Dormant for several years but never repealed, the Legislature resuscitated it in 2014, and it again becomes part of every California litigator’s arsenal. This article briefly explains this development.
Is an untimely and/or non-conforming transfer of a California Homeowners Promissory Note and Deed of Trust to the mortgage pool of a securitized trust, in contravention of the trust governing agreements and after the trust's closing date, void or merely voidable?
TILA rescission remand affidavit that disclosures were inadequate; trial court to decide if adequate; if not, court imposes terms of recisssion remedy.
Laura Saterbak appeals a judgment dismissing her first amended complaint (FAC) after the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. Saterbak claims the assignment of the deed of trust (DOT) to her home by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) to Structured Asset Mortgage Investment II Trust 2007-AR7 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates 2007-AR7 (2007-AR7 trust or Defendant) was invalid. Arguing the assignment occurred after the closing date for the 2007-AR7 trust, and that the signature on the instrument was forged or robo-signed, she seeks to cancel the assignment and obtain declaratory relief. We conclude Saterbak lacks standing and affirm the judgment.
On its face, the holding in Yvanova is limited to post-foreclosure claims. There is at least an argument, however, that its reasoning is equally applicable to pre-foreclosure claims. See Lundy v. Selene Fin., LP, No., 2016 WL 1059423, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2016, predicting that California Supreme Court will extend Yvanova to the pre-foreclosure context).
The cards have been tipped, and it appears Italy's Prime Minister may have been right. In the aftermath of Brexit, much of the investing public's attention has turned to Italian banks which are in desperate need of a bailout as a result of €360 billion in bad loans growing worse by the day (and not a bail-in, as European regulations mandate, as that would lead to an immediate bank run) to avoid a freeze and/or collapse of Italy's banking sector. This has pushed stock prices - and default risk - on Italian banks to record levels.
It’s been almost 10 years in the making, but the fate of one of Europe’s most important financial institutions appears to be sealed. After a hard-hitting sequence of scandals, poor decisions, and unfortunate events, Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank shares are now down -48% on the year to $12.60, which is a record-setting low.
Plaintiff-lender Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as trustee) appealed a superior court decision to grant defendant-borrower Kevin Pinette's motion to dismiss. The lender tried to foreclose on property of Pinette, but the superior court dismissed its claims on foreclosure, the unpaid balance on a promissory note, and a deficiency judgment on the ground that they were barred by claim preclusion, as lender had previously instituted an identical action against borrower in 2013, which had been dismissed for failure to prosecute.
A Bank filed an action against four Guarantors on their personal guaranties of an LLC’s debts. That action resulted in three appeals by the Guarantors. The first appeal was generated after the district court granted the Bank’s motions for summary judgment but failed to adjudicate a cross-claim. The second appeal was taken from execution and garnishment proceedings that occurred while the first appeal was pending.
OneWest commenced a foreclosure action against defendant. The district court denied defendant's cross-motion to dismiss and granted OneWest's motion for summary judgment. The district court held in part that a national bank such as OneWest is a citizen only of the state in which its main office is located - not also of the state of its principal place of business - and that OneWest’s main office is indisputably in California.
In an antitrust class action brought on behalf of approximately 12 million merchants against Visa and Mastercard, as well as other various banks, plaintiffs alleged conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1. After the parties agreed to a settlement releasing all claims, the district court certified two settlement-only classes and approved the settlement.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed a class-action lawsuit against debt collector Encore Capital Group Inc to move forward, declining to hear its claim that such companies should be protected from state "usury" laws barring money-lending at unreasonably high interest rates.
Last week, Ocwen Financial Corp. OCN agreed to settle a couple of lawsuits that alleged it of providing misleading data related to the loans it was servicing. The company revealed this agreement in a filing with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The lawsuits were filed by Michael Fisher and the U.S. Justice Department (DoJ) in 2012. Ocwen will be paying $15 million to both Fischer and the DoJ, though the settlement is yet to receive legal approval. Notably, the company neither accepted nor denied any wrong doing.
Although MERS tracks changes in ownership of the beneficial rights for loans registered on the MERS® System, MERS cannot transfer the beneficial rights to the debt. The debt can only be transferred by properly endorsing the promissory note to the transferee. As a MERS Member you have two options for registering a transfer of beneficial rights to another Member: Option 1 and Option 2. The determination of whether Option 1 or Option 2 is used is based on the Membership Profile of the purchasing investor.
URGENT! "Prejudice" left open in Yvanova is met by alleging "LOSS OF HOME" proximately caused by VOID Assignment!
In this action for wrongful foreclosure, the homeowner, Monica Sciarratta, alleged that as a result of a void assignment of her promissory note and deed of trust, the entity that conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on her home had no interest in either the underlying debt or the subject property. In Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., (62 Cal.4th 919 (2016)), the California Supreme Court held that the homeowner has standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure. However, Yvanova did not address "any of the substantive elements of the wrongful foreclosure tort," and in particular did not address "prejudice . . . as an element of wrongful foreclosure."
As many of you know, the host of the popular foreclosure radio show "The Foreclosure Hour" attorney Gary Victor Dubin (who shepherded one of the cases heard in the JESINOSKI decision heard by the US Supreme Court, and is VERY affluent in TILA Rescission) featured our case on his radio show yesterday. Below is the link to the archived show for those who wanted to listen and could not and a link to download the appellate courts' ruling.
Here's a brief synopsis of the book: Chain of Title follows three individuals in south Florida who were instrumental in exposing one of Wall Street's greatest secrets: mortgage companies didn't actually have the evidence necessary to foreclose on millions of homes, and they covered it up by producing false documents in mass quantities and delivering them to courthouses and county recording offices.
"Assignee" Banksters Have to Pay Homeowners' Attorney Fees if homeowner prevails as assumption of BURDENS goes with assumption of benefits.
The Danielses obtained a $650,000 adjustable rate loan secured by a deed of trust on their Santa Cruz residence. When their interest rate adjusted upward, they spent years in unsuccessful attempts to obtain a loan modification from their then-loan servicer, Bank of America (BofA).
This map shows which states lie in which federal District Courts of Appeal. When you research the CFLA archives, you can "search" to find all the cases related to foreclosures in YOUR District Court of Appeal. This will give you an idea of how the federal judges may rule in YOUR case based on state decisions.
Plaintiffs filed suit against Green Tree to prevent it from foreclosing on plaintiffs' home. Plaintiffs alleged that Green Tree lacked authority to foreclose. The district court granted Green Tree's motion to dismiss based on plaintiffs' lack of standing to challenge the assignment between creditors and concluded that plaintiffs' notice claim failed to state a plausible claim for relief under Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
National Housing Law Project's (NHLP's) first quarterly Foreclosure Newsletter features an update to our foreclosure practice guide, now with a table of contents for easier navigation. It also includes summaries of recent HBOR and foreclosure-related case law and recent administrative guidance.
21st Century Oncology Inc., the nation’s largest physician led integrated cancer care provider and its wholly owned subsidiary South Florida Radiation Oncology LLC, have agreed to settle allegations that they performed and billed for procedures that were not medically necessary, the Department of Justice announced today. 21st Century is headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida, and has offices in 16 states.
In 2007, Cindy and David Ames executed a security deed to their residential property in favor of Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. (WaMu). WaMu’s receiver, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), later assigned the deed to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A (Chase). When Chase initiated a non-judicial foreclosure sale on the property, the Ameses filed lawsuits in state court and then in federal court, alleging among other things that the assignment of the security deed to Chase was invalid.
Brett and Josephine Ambridge defaulted on their home loan. Alaska Trustee, LLC sent the Ambridges a notice of default that failed to state the full amount due as required by the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Ambridges filed suit against Alaska Trustee and its owner, Stephen Routh, seeking damages under the FDCPA and the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPA), as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.
All notaries must be bonded, record their bonds at county recorder, and maintain $15,000 bond so you can put a claim against his/her BOND (insurance carrier). Check county recorder under his/her name to get name of insurance carrier on bond and put a claim against the BOND. The insurance company will defend and ferret out WHO got him/her to partake in the fraud.
1. In General; Validity This section simply seeks to bring within its terms various classes of instruments entitled under our law to be recorded, without any regard to whether the particular instrument is defective in form or certification. People v. Webber (1919) 44 Cal App 120, 186 P 406, 1919 Cal App LEXIS 473; People v. Baender (1924) 68 Cal App 49, 228 P 536, 1924 Cal App LEXIS 217. The statute was designed to prevent the recordation or registration of spurious documents, knowingly offered for record with intent to defraud. People v. Baender (1924) 68 Cal App 49, 228 P 536, 1924 Cal App LEXIS 217.
After YVANOVA CA SUP Court held you now have "standing" to challenge a fraudulent assignment. “Debt collectors” are subject to the entire FDCPA which prohibits them from using deceptive means to collect a debt [807(10)] or falsely represent the legal status of the debt [807(2)a].
Relators filed suit under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(2)(A), against various lenders and loan servicers, alleging that defendants certified that loans purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free and clear of certain home owner association liens and charges when they were not. At issue was whether Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are officers, employees, or agents of the federal government for purposes of the Act.
Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to enjoin the application of Propositions 89 and 9 as to them. Proposition 89 amended the California Constitution to vest in the Governor constitutional authority to reverse, affirm, or modify grants of parole as to inmates convicted of murder. Proposition 9 amended the California Penal Code to increase the default period of time after which a prisoner would be scheduled for a parole hearing, after the denial of parole.
For those of you who continue to doubt what you see on these pages despite concurrence by all three branches of government, consider this: Since 2014 the banks have been purchasing rescission insurance. If they didn't think they had a problem, why would they buy the insurance?
After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and as an accessory after the fact. After a penalty phase trial, the jury returned a verdict of death.
Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 580b, when an individual borrows money from a bank to buy a home and the bank forecloses on the home, the bank can collect proceeds from the foreclosure sale but may not obtain a deficiency judgment against the borrower.
American Fidelity Assurance Company sued the Bank of New York Mellon (“BNYM”) for claims arising from BNYM’s conduct as Trustee of a trust holding mortgage-backed securities owned by American Fidelity.
Defendants defaulted on their mortgage, and U.S. Bank filed a complaint for foreclosure. Following the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Bank of America, N.A. v. Greenleaf, the Bank filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the foreclosure action without prejudice, arguing that it could not proceed with the foreclosure because it did not have a mortgage assignment from the original lender and thus did not have standing to pursue the action.
Plaintiff filed suit against Wells Fargo, alleging that his mortgage agreement, providing him with a loan far in excess of his home’s actual value, was an “unconscionable contract” under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. Va. Code 46A–1–101 et seq. The court agreed with the district court that the amount of a mortgage loan, by itself, cannot show substantive unconscionability under West Virginia law, and that plaintiff has not otherwise made that showing.
In 2014, the California Legislature sought to place on the general election ballot Proposition 49, a nonbinding advisory question that would have asked the electorate whether Congress should propose, and the Legislature ratify, a federal constitutional amendment overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Petitioners filed an original emergency petition for writ of mandate in the Supreme Court seeking to prevent the Secretary of State from proceeding with placement of Proposition 49 on the November 2014 ballot.
This ruling came down yesterday in Oregon Federal Court. Judge Aiken does a good job of spelling out TILA post-Jesinoski in denying Chase's MTD. Read closely, as it is important for anyone to file their TILA action soon if you rescinded in the past. The fact that I filed my action right after Jesinoski is viewed by this Judge that I did not "sit on my hands."
A Bank filed a residential foreclosure complaint against Appellant, alleging that Appellant executed a promissory note and a mortgage securing the note on certain property and that Appellant defaulted on the note. The Bank claimed that, through a series of endorsements and assignments, the Bank had acquired rights in the mortgage and authority to enforce the note.
Lorene and Harley Walter owned a certificate of deposit account with Bank of America. The account was a survivorship account and a payable-on-death account. After Harley died and while Lorene was still alive, the Bank distributed the funds in the account to Dwight Eisenhauer and Jo Ann Day, the named beneficiaries on the account, in equal sums.
Ex-Litton Loan Servicing turned whistleblower, Chris Wyatt, has continued to hold Ocwen Servicing responsible for egregious errors in pushing foreclosures in California. In a recent letter to the California Department of Business Oversight he alleges that Ocwen used tainted documents; specifically, outdated Power of Attorney authorizations to evict families in direct contravention of the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights. His letter is appended to the end of this piece.
Our legal history has many examples of enormous errors committed by the Courts that were obvious to some but justified by many. The result is usually mayhem. The cause is a bias toward some underlying fact that was untrue at the time.
"You have to be asleep to believe it." A short excerpt from the video "Life Is Worth Losing" (2005).
Download Notice of Filing Disposition.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Barbara Scheper, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Bruce J. Guttman and Bruce J. Guttman, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, Raymond Babaian, Christopher D. Perez, Andrew J. Mallon and Fred R. Vasquez, for Defendant and Respondent Canterbury Lots 68, LLC. Bryan Cave, Christopher L. Dueringer and Nicole N. King, for Defendant and Respondent JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Plaintiff filed suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., against FCI, his mortgage loan servicer and a debt collector, alleging that FCI violated the FDCPA by sending him two written communications that failed to comply with FDCPA requirements that debt collectors timely provide certain notices to debtors.
Wanton and willful financial misconduct in the origination, securitization, servicing and foreclosure of a mortgage debt will not bar collection and enforcement of the debt. Notwithstanding the creditor’s misconduct, the sanctity of debt is the controlling and paramount variable. Judges believe that absent strict enforcement of the obligation to repay debt, the engine of commerce will grind to a halt without lubrication of the gears with commercial credit.
Osceola County Clerk of Court Armando Ramirez hired a company owned by a felon — convicted in a $64 million scam in the 1990s that stole money from the U.S. government — to review county mortgage records last year. Ramirez employed David Paul Krieger's company, DK Consultants LLC of San Antonio, in June 2014 and paid the company $34,500 to find out whether Wall Street banks had illegally foreclosed on hundreds of local homes, records show.
Appellants filed a promissory note that was secured by a deed of trust on their property. At the time that Appellants defaulted, Respondent was the holder of the note and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) was the beneficiary of the deed of trust securing the note. After Appellants filed for bankruptcy, MERS assigned its interest in the deed of trust to Respondent.
On July 8, 2015 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and 47 states took action against Chase Bank for illegal debt collection activities involving the sale of delinquent accounts to third-party junk debt buyers.
(RTTNews.com) - JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) agreed to pay $388 million to settle a suit by investors who claimed the bank misled them about the safety of $10 billion worth of residential mortgage-backed securities it sold before the financial crisis. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced a $388 million recovery on behalf of a class of investors in nine 2007 residential mortgage-backed securities or MBS offerings issued by JPMorgan- bringing to a successful conclusion one of the last remaining MBS purchaser class actions arising out of the global financial crisis.
This case arose from a dispute between plaintiffs and Chicago Title over whether Chicago Title breached a duty of care to plaintiffs, causing damages, when it recorded unauthorized liens on Plaintiff CPIII's property. Because this appeal turns on an unresolved question of Washington law, the court certified the following question to the Washington Supreme Court: Does a title company owe a duty of care to third parties in the recording of legal instruments?
The question is what do you do after you have sent the notice of rescission? And that extends to rescissions that were sent years ago. There are many nuances here caused by State and Federal law. But one thing cannot denied: the rescission is effective by operation of law when it is mailed and nothing except another operation of law can change that.
The challenge is getting people to accept the simplicity of the specific statutory procedures contained in the statutes governing TILA Rescission. The most common mistake I see is that the borrower justifies the rescission with all sorts of factual allegations in their notice of rescission. In so doing they may have set the stage for their undoing.
Foley v Biter: Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and related charges, appealed the district court's order denying his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 60(b)(6). Petitioner properly filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal district court in 2001; the district court denied the petition in 2004; and petitioner's counsel, forgetting that he represented petitioner, did not inform petitioner of the denial. Petitioner discovered that his petition was denied six years later when he sent a letter inquiring about his status.
I have always said that these cases will be won in discovery. Discovery must of course be preceded by proper pleading. Typically borrowers ask all the right questions and get no answers. They are met with objections that are, to say the least, disingenuous. The motion to compel better answers or to overrule the objections of the party seeking foreclosure is the real battle ground, not the trial.
Federal Court Judge John J. McConnell issued a decision in the Cosajay v. MERS case this week. This case provides the plaintiffs with an opportunity to over-turn thousands of home foreclosure cases and will be viewed as a watershed moment in foreclosure law. Judge McConnell's decision in the case puts to bed once and for all the contention that homeowners have no right to challenge fraudulent assignments appearing in their chain of title.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Eloisa Cosajay's objection to a Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued by Magistrate Judge Martin on June 23, 2011, in which he recommended that her mortgage foreclosure case be dismissed for lack of standing because she was not a party to the assignment documents that her lawsuit challenged.
This wraps things up for the week, and a reminder that there is no show tonight. I think the following rules should be applied to the letter of rescission. Remember that Congress explicitly stated that borrowers have the right to effectuate rescission with a mere letter. Congress did not state that the lenders could reject the rescission with a letter. They MUST file a legal action alleging whatever defects they wish to assert. Since the rescission is effective by operation of law it is ONLY through operation of law that the rescission could be vacated.
The Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) purchased Russell Hafer’s home at a non-judicial foreclosure sale. FNMA filed an eviction suit when Russell and his wife, Sandra, refused to vacate. The Hafers claimed that the foreclosure sale was invalid because their loan servicer, American Home Mortgage Services, Inc.(now known as Homeward Residential, Inc.), agreed to modify the terms of Russell’s loan just prior to instituting foreclosure proceedings.
From one of my readers, I received the Power Point Presentation (PDF) given by a law firm representing the banks. It confirms everything I have been saying. It also offers a glimpse of some of the ways they will try to wiggle out of it. Suffice it to say that in addition to losing far more cases than what has been previously been reporting, the banks are now stuck with a problem that they can't fix, to wit: when they try to "securitize" a pool of new loans they cannot say that the deal is done because the borrower could assert a right to rescind triggering a nightmare of problems for all the parties starting with origination. The appetite for mortgage backed securities is almost certainly going to decline or vanish completely.
Plaintiffs filed suit against Ocwen after their lender's purchase of their residence at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale, alleging that Ocwen violated Civil Code section 2923.6, the prohibition on "dual tracking" contained in the Homeowners Bill of Rights, when it conducted a foreclosure sale of plaintiffs' property while their loan modification application was pending. The trial court sustained Ocwen’s demurrer.
FRENCH police have been ordered to track down one of Europe’s wealthiest aristocrats over a fraud involving hundreds of British pensioners. Baron David de Rothschild has been indicted over the allegations after the victims, mostly expats living in Spain, bought into his loan scheme.
Apply for Attorney Fees as Soon as Your Attorney Obtains a Preliminary Injunction; You do NOT have to Wait Until the End to Get Attorney Fees!
In 2012, new legislation imposed specific limitations regarding the nonjudicial foreclosure of owner-occupied residential real property. Among other things, the statutory scheme provided that a court may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the "prevailing borrower:" "A borrower shall be deemed to have prevailed for purposes of this subdivision if the borrower obtained injunctive relief or was awarded damages pursuant to this section."
Welcome to the first issue of The Fraud Reporter, a periodic newsletter designed to be a source of news and information regarding fraud prevention, investigation and litigation. We hope that you will find this newsletter to be a useful tool to stay current on fraud-related issues.
This is a decision with extremely far reaching consequences. Practically all debt now is subject to claims of securitization. Thus most “loans” are assigned and/or sold or transferred to a third party. It has been assumed that the National Banking Act preempted any local laws on usury.
Defendant executed an adjustable rate note to First National Bank of Arizona, wherein she agreed to repay a loan. To secure payment, Defendants executed a mortgage with the the bank. The loan was subsequently made part of a residential mortgage-back securitization trust, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas became the owner of the note.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), entered July 10, 2013, as (a) granted those branches of the motion of the defendant Frederick D. Butler which were (i) pursuant to CPLR 2606 for the payment out of court of the sum of $490,000, held on deposit by the Kings County Clerk, to the extent of directing a payment to him in the sum of $55,617.11, and (ii) pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 for the imposition of sanctions against the plaintiff and/or its attorneys to the extent of directing a hearing to determine whether sanctions should be imposed, and (b) denied its cross motion pursuant to CPLR 2606 for the payment out of court of the sum of $490,000, held on deposit by the Kings County Clerk, and directed a hearing to determine whether it was entitled to the balance of the sum held on deposit by the Kings County Clerk.
For more information on common law rescission, TILA Rescission and foreclosure defenses please call 954-495-9867 or 520-405-1688. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION ON ANY ONE PARTICULAR CASE. GET A LAWYER, BUT INSIST THAT HE OR SHE DO THOROUGH ANALYSIS BEFORE HE OR SHE GIVES AN OPINION.
Rogers’s 2005 mortgage on her Minnesota home was executed in favor of Countrywide and it listed Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as the mortgagee. In 2008, MERS transferred its interest in the mortgage to a securitized mortgage trust by assigning the mortgage to Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate holders.
A Texas mortgage banker was sentenced to six months in prison, followed by six months of home confinement, for her role in a commercial bribery and tax evasion scheme. Lynda Sanabria of Rockwall, Texas, admitted accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in return for selling mortgage loans to her preferred customers on the secondary mortgage market.
I previously advised to ALWAYS make OBJECTIONS in the court below. They are usually waived on appeal if not made below (few rare exceptions-like when Ap Ct wants to create stare decisis on one of their pet issues. THIS USSC CASE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN PREACHING FOR YEARS! This is about SECOND TRUST DEEDS in Chapter 7 BK case. Are they discharged where the FIRST TD AMOUNT is MORE than the appraised or market value of the home; hence they would not be paid off in foreclosure.
Plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that defendants violated the Fair Debt Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692e, 1692f, by charging and attempting to collect interest at a rate higher than permitted under the law of her home state and that defendants violated New York's usury law, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349; N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law 5-501; N.Y. Penal Law 190.40.
HBOR Collaborative's May Foreclosure Newsletter (PDF) features an article on tort liability for bad servicing and improper loan modification practices. It also includes summaries of recent HBOR and foreclosure-related case law, new HUD guidance on non-borrowing spouses with reverse mortgage, and information on a free foreclosure PLI training on July 14.
Who's Money Did They Loan?
Please read these cases, then open the gif for Title 62 Revised Statutes Chapter 4. Read section 37 real close and ask yourself, Who's money did they loan? A national bank cannot lend its credit or become the guarantor of the obligation of another unless it owns or has an interest in the obligation guaranteed especially where it receives no benefits therefrom. Citizens' Nat. Bank of Cameron v. Good Roads Gravel Co., Tex.Civ.App.1921, 236 S.W. 153, dismissed w.o.j.
This case allows the jury to hear claims against OneWest for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, concealment, promissory estoppel, negligence, wrongful foreclosure, and violation of CA Business and Professional Code. Here is an example of the obvious: a Judge takes no risk in denying a motion for summary judgment. It is only when the Judge grants summary judgment that there is a risk of reversal.
Eric Mains is fulfilling a dream many Americans have had since the onset of the financial crisis seven years ago: He's attacking fraud in the banking industry as aggressively as he can, using every possible tool under the law to achieve justice —and win some money back for himself.
After refinancing a home mortgage in 2007, Beukes, mailed a notice of rescission in 2010, which was rejected. Beukes stopped making payments. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), as nominee for the lender, published notices of a mortgage foreclosure sale. MERS ultimately purchased the property at a foreclosure sale. Beukes sued, seeking rescission and damages under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1635(a), claiming that the amount disclosed as the finance charge on the loan understated the amount they were actually charged by $944.31.
Faison v Lewis 2015 NY Slip Op 04026 Decided on May 12, 2015 Court of Appeals Rivera, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, a debt collector, alleging that by sending a collection letter that sought ten percent interest on a debt, defendant violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692(f)(1) and thereby violated California's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the Rosenthal Act), Cal. Civ. Code 1788-1788.33.
When completing a certificate of acknowledgment or a jurat, a notary public is required to certify to the identity of the signer of the document. (Civil Code sections 1185(a), 1189, Government Code section 8202) Identity is established if the notary public is presented with satisfactory evidence of the signer’s identity.
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of Altisource Residential Corporation (RESI) securities from February 7, 2013 through January 23, 2015 of the important May 26, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action filed by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Altisource Residential Corporation investors under the federal securities laws.
Click here to download handbooks used to sit for the every 4-year exam live, followed up by obtaining new fingerprints each time.
Salazar was born in Mexico in 1945. He speaks little English and cannot write English. His wife attended school through the second grade. She does not speak, read or write English. They operate a food truck. In 1992, they purchased commercial property on Brundage Lane in Bakersfield. Most of the businesses occupying the property were run by their children, who did not pay rent. They also had rent-paying tenants.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 431