Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
arkygirl
I am going to put this link to the original article headlined above:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-20/gmac-mortgage-halts-home-foreclosures-in-23-states-including-florida-n-y-.html

Now I am going to paste this link to an article that tells why this is so important-the RoboSigners are not legal:

Various accounts have described how one officer of GMAC Mortgage’s servicing unit has admitted during testimony that, while he signs thousands of affidavits each month in order to affect steps in the foreclosure process, he does not have personal knowledge of certain critical facts in the affidavit which he asserts to be true. Reader Stupendous Man provided the text of Federal Rule 56 on affidavits (although the cases in question are in state courts, the same principles no doubt apply). Boldface ours:

A supporting or opposing affidavit must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated.

The key here is you can’t delegate creating affidavits to parties who weren’t close to relevant matter out of administrative convenience; you need to find people who were directly involved. And evidence in a number of foreclosure suits indicates that this problem not only extends well beyond GMAC, and is not a matter of matter of officers providing affidavits based on a review of copies of the paperwork in a transaction. As one attorney wrote:

It is beyond people signing things when they don’t see the “originals” These people don’t see s**t. We have depositions from these folks, the only thing they are able to verify on the documents is what title they are supposed to use, from the particular servicer they are working for – Executive Secretary, Executive Vice President, Asst. Sec., etc…..

So there is evidence to support the notion GMAC was not alone in providing cooked up affidavits. The only question is how widespread this practice was at other servicers.

(I would guess this is a pervasive practice myself-arkygirl)

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/09/how-serious-is-the-gmac-problem-pretty-serious-and-not-just-gmac.html

Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
Arky,

Looks like Stupendous Man made another post on naked capitalism after you posted here that seems a follow up, or addition, to the rule citations. Such appears below in quotation marks.

"Now a Reply to a Reply to a Reply, LOL

Federal Rule 6(c)(2) has this to say about attaching affidavits to a motion:

(2) Supporting Affidavit.

Any affidavit supporting a motion must be served with the motion. Except as Rule 59(c) provides otherwise, any opposing affidavit must be served at least 7 days before the hearing, unless the court permits service at another time."

Reading Rule 56(e)(1) and rule 6(c)(2) together yields the following:

Affidavits in support of a motion (including a motion for summary) must be submitted with the motion. The individual executing the affidavit must have personal knowledge of the matter. A certified or sworn copy of any documents or records referred to in the affidavit must be attached

Has anyone here ever seen a case in which these rules were voluntarily complied with fully by plaintiff? Has anyone here heard of a case in which, upon proper objection, the court ruled in accordance with the rules?

In re the deposition of Jeffrey Stephen, I am glad this is hitting in the way it seems to be. Still, I am very curious why none of the other robo-signer depositions, e.g., Beth Cotrell, Ceryll Sammons, Erica Johnson Seck, Angela Nolan, have had similar impact? Perhaps that is yet to come.

Quote 0 0
Equitable One,

It will take a lawyer with enough staying power and gumption to press the issue and a judge with enough common sense to enforce the law as it is written rather than just granting Summary Judgments to all and sundry. That will set precedence. Looks like something must be underway for GMAC to suspend foreclosures and evictions in 23 states.

There is a poster at this board (who shall remain nameless) who beats the drum on the what the law is and/or what the law should be and how judges should rule and all the other happy stuff that would be true in Utopia.

That poster assumes that all plaintiffs and defendants are treated equally when nothing could be further from the truth. State laws vary, yes, but so do individual judges. Some just don't seem to care and allow pure shenanigans in their courtrooms and chambers by banks and servicers. We do not live in Utopia.

In law the burden of proof is always upon the plaintiff, yet these judges don't ask for that proof. They operate under their own assumption that the banks and servicers are always correct and righteous and rule accordingly.

So maybe the nameless one can sit on his own hands for a time and study up on how many people have been foreclosed on based on nothing more than a servicer's complaint and sloppy records with no documents produced. And how many defendants have gone to court fully armed with complete records of their payment histories to defend themselves only to be told that the judge wasn't interested in seeing or hearing it. Nothing gets my dander up more than someone being told to "Sit down and shut up" when I know they are right.

Yes, the law is the law but the folks dispensing "justice" are NOT all created equal. It is up to defendants (and their attorneys) to press these issues and demand that plaintiffs provide proof every step of the way. At some point nearly all of them would have to retreat because this old country girl firmly believes that it would be impossible for them to do that. They operate in an environment of lies and bulls**t and too many judges let then get away with it.

I am not sure how long it is going to take for a country full of judges to catch on that they are being played for fools and idiots. Some get it now, others never will.

That is the purpose of this forum, to share things that are working. This RoboSigner issue may become a valuable tool at some point.

Quote 0 0
AG,

Thank you for your post.  It hits the nail on the head.

Have thought about making your statement also.  The deck is stacked.

Still fighting since 2003 and hoping to find Utopia soon.

Best to all,
Bob
Quote 0 0
arkygirl
Nice to hear from you, Bob, and know that you are still in the fight.

I learned that Mr. Stephan worked in his job since 2005 signing 10,000 or so fake affidavits a month. That's about 600,000 or do questionable foreclosures based on this one mans' signature. Add in all the other known robo-signers and it may be millions of questionable foreclosures. That is a lot of lives ruined...how do these people sleep at night?

 We'll take what we can get while searching for Utopia.

Quote 0 0
I'm glad this is finally seeing some light.

I had this bull by the horns over a year ago.

Here is the article about it in the St Petersburg Times.

  LINK 

May they get what they deserve....

Tom
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...