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

The Judicial Integrity of the United States Court is “Priceless” – 27 More Foreclosures Dismissed


November 16th, 2007 · 1 Comment


By Aaron Krowne & Moe Bedard

In a decision piggy-backing on Judge Boyko’s recent Deutsche Bank ruling (announced on this site Tuesday), Judge Rose has thrown out another batch of foreclosures, making the following summary remarks:

“This court is well aware that entities who hold valid notes are entitled to receive timely payments in accordance with the notes. And, if they do not receive timely payments, the entities have the right to seek foreclosure on the accompanying mortgages.

However, with regard the enforcement of standing and other jurisdictional requirements pertaining to foreclosure actions, this court is in full agreement with Judge Christopher A Boyko for the Northern District of Ohio who recently stressed, ‘That the judicial integrity of the United States District Court is ‘Priceless.’”

The ruling is another HUGE victory for consumer advocate attorneys and homeowners in general.

A pdf file of the full ruling is available here.

Jacksonville Legal Aid attorney April Charney remarked to us regarding the two Ohio decisions:

As to the real ramification of the Ohio decision, aside from slowing the foreclosure trains, is that the fact that there were no “original” assignments rendering the sales of the mortgages to the trusts, in violation of the true sale obligations imposed by securities law. ”

For more comments by April and us on this foundational issue of these rulings, see our next post. There we also address some criticisms and critiques we’ve received since our original coverage.
Quote 0 0
Ed Cage
Sincere thanks for posting this arky.
Quote 0 0
Did anyone read the links discussing ownership??

It looks as though investors who thought they owned tangible real estate are going to find out what they "owned" was a worthless piece of paper. And then they may learn that several other people also "owned" the exact same piece of paper.

How will true ownership ever be proven?

Wall Street may shake itself apart over this if this is what is really happening. I won't miss it!

Quote 0 0
Arky, you RIGHT ON POINT as to what investors are holding and they are finding out the bad news. 

Evidence showing "several other people also own the exact same piece of paper" will be coming forth soon.  Evidence also shows the fraudster's lawyers acted with full knowledge and intent to defraud -putting some big-name law firms at substantial risk. 

Keep in mind, other countries also invested in this Wall Street garbage.  This is HUGE. 
Quote 0 0
Isn't District Court just picky requiring proof?

This is the way court is supposed to be.

It also looks like a precedent case in the making if Deutsche appeals.

It is not so easy to reverse the District Court.  It can be done but it isn't easy.

I'm liking this one.

Again, they are showing disrespect showing up in court without proof they are the proper party to foreclose.

Produce the original docs.  Isn't that what NYE has been telling us to get for some time now?  I think this is an angle he has been working on.

All the lost or destroyed notes are starting to look mighty suspicious to me.

If you or I would try to leverage the same piece of paper more than once,
we'd be going to jail.

This is a great thread.



Quote 0 0
The Boyko, Rose and O'Malley Orders (See ) are ALL very significant and show a rather decided courage on the part of Ohio Federal Courts to draw the line on evidentially deficient judical foreclosures in federal courts.  It should also be noted, though, that the suits dismissed by these orders were dismissed without prejudice.  This means that lenders can still REFILE.

But the Courts seemed to hold out the prospect that they might dismiss future complaints WITH prejudice if such complaints were filed by attorneys who had already come into their courtroom and expressly been put on notice or otherwise acknowledged their duty to conform to federal subject matter jurisdictional rules.

Plaintiffs, who were apparently seeking an end run around crowded state court dockets, also may still be entitled to re-file in state courts.  But the jurisdictional defects underlying the rulings are just as eggregious in state courts as in the federal courts.

The GREAT NEWS here is that the Federal Courts in Ohio "get it" and have come to understand and appreciate that lenders and their attorneys have been taking such shortcuts in the litigation process that they don't even both to dot ANY "i"s or cross any "t"s.  It appears that Ohio Federal Courts will no longer tolerate the filing of suits by servicers abswnt an affirmative showing of the chain of custody of promissory notes and chain of title of mortgages, demonstrating a real pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the suit and the requisite standing to bring a complaint!  BRAVO!

Debtors and their attorneys would be well counselled to carefully read these three Ohio opinions and the cases cited therein.  They should also obtain and read the PORTER study.

Also, everyone should bear in mind that good DISCOVERY is going to be essential to WINNING the inevitable standing and capacity arguments!

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...