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
I have to tell you - pro-se litigants are killing their own cases - here is an article that highlights the point.

This one could have and should have been won on its merits:

http://www.examiner.com/article/deutsche-bank-takes-another-home-dubious-queens-foreclosure-case

Quote 0 0
The only problem with this story is that it fails to mention that there are two DB's
the New York entity, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (the real German Bank) and
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, a California entity which is owned by Americans(?).
The bad bank in this story is the California entity, not the New York entity, which
is the real German Bank.
The California entity works with the servicers to defraud homeowners, whereas the
NY entity is generally an honest bank, whose name gets "sullied" by the California
entity which is involved in widespread fraud. The "real" DBTCA should really do some-thing about this mix up.
Quote 0 0
....
QueensForeclosure wrote:
I have to tell you - pro-se litigants are killing their own cases - here is an article that highlights the point.

This one could have and should have been won on its merits:

http://www.examiner.com/article/deutsche-bank-takes-another-home-dubious-queens-foreclosure-case



The article you posted just shows the possibility that the bank did not have standing to file the law suit.

If this was found to be the case it would have only resulted in a dismissal without prejudice NOT a decision on the merits.

Instead, just like in hundreds of thousands of other foreclosure cases the homeowner did not file an answer, a default judgement was entered, and the home was sold. Nothing unusual here.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Movant has failed to set forth an excuse for his default\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"

We could easily find thousands of foreclosure cases that had many robust defenses but the homeowner just failed to file anything.
Quote 0 0
QueensForeclosure
.... wrote:
QueensForeclosure wrote:
I have to tell you - pro-se litigants are killing their own cases - here is an article that highlights the point.

This one could have and should have been won on its merits:

http://www.examiner.com/article/deutsche-bank-takes-another-home-dubious-queens-foreclosure-case



The article you posted just shows the possibility that the bank did not have standing to file the law suit.

If this was found to be the case it would have only resulted in a dismissal without prejudice NOT a decision on the merits.

Instead, just like in hundreds of thousands of other foreclosure cases the homeowner did not file an answer, a default judgment was entered, and the home was sold. Nothing unusual here.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Movant has failed to set forth an excuse for his default\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"

We could easily find thousands of foreclosure cases that had many robust defenses but the homeowner just failed to file anything.



Actually, anyone informed on the subject matter would know that Deutsche Bank takes many, many names.

DEUTSCHE BANK AMERICAS FOUNDATION
DEUTSCHE BANK AMERICAS HOLDING CORP.
DEUTSCHE BANK CAPITAL CORPORATION
DEUTSCHE BANK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (USA) CORPORATION
DEUTSCHE BANK FINANCIAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION
DEUTSCHE BANK FINANCIAL PRODUCTS INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK FINANCIAL PRODUCTS INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK FUTURES CORPORATION
DEUTSCHE BANK FUTURES INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK FUTURES INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK GOVERNMENT SECURITIES, INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK INSURANCE AGENCY INCORPORATED
DEUTSCHE BANK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK M & A INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK MORTGAGE CAPITAL, L.L.C.
DEUTSCHE BANK NORTH AMERICA HOLDING CORP.
DEUTSCHE BANK REALTY ADVISORS, INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES CORPORATION
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK SHARPS PIXLEY INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CORPORATION

These are just the ones registered with the NYS Department of State - Division of Corporations.

Deutsche Bank by any other name is still Deutsche Bank. The fact that they have many illegitimate children spread all over the world doesn't make some of them "nice guys".

The parent company participated in the MERS scheme, securitization, robo-signing, foreclosures, and plenty of other shady business like, CDO's, Credit Default Swaps, and much more.

In the story there is a link to the decision where this homeowner ignored the action until it was too late. I believe the quote from the article was "too little, too late".

The point of the story was to point out that lenders, servicers, investors, and trustees are completing foreclosures unabated, even though they can be stopped.

It was a call to action for homeowners who stick their head in the sand and hide and wait until it's too late.

You may be right, a Judge may have ordered a dismissal without prejudice, but the next step after that would be to file affirmative litigation to quiet title, using the prior decision and exhibits against Deutsche Bank to show that they have no claim to the property. The article linked to a 2009 assignment into a 2004 Trust, this was impossible and did not happen, meaning the Trust could not and did not own the loan.

Any positive intellectual comments would be appreciated



Quote 0 0
QueensForeclosure
Lester wrote:
This is just another garbage thread by scam artists seeking to create yet another point of contact to draw in new victims and swindle them. Probably Mike H., Sharon or one of the students at the Mike H. Swindle Academy!



Was there a cognizable point to your post?

I read it twice and couldn't find anything helpful. Do you have any suggestions for those folks out there facing the reality of a make believe plaintiff trying to foreclose on them?
Quote 0 0
Dear Forum regulars,
For those of you who know how to research a case, here it is Hillsborough County
Florida, 07-ca-018260, first read the docket, then go to Official Records and read
the Judge's order.
You will see that there are two DB's. My student won this case, but now they have filed an appeal of the decision. Personally, I think the judgment will be affirmed but
we'll have to wait and see.
I say it again, this Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is bad news. They are a
front for massive fraud by the servicers. When a servicer can not produce the original
documents, they will often foreclose in the name of DBNTC and present forged and phony documents to try and win their case. I am certain that the real DB, DBTCA has no clue
that the case is taking place, nor do they have any interest in it.
For Floridians, foreclosure pro se.com has a link so you can check out any entity
and find out who they really are and where they are located. DBNTC is in California
and they are not registered to do business in Florida. When the "capacity" defense
is raised, it often gets dismissed. They tried to register in Florida and were denied.
The exact reason for the denial, I was never able to discover so I'll leave that up
to someone who has the time to research it.
Quote 0 0
Kevin

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is a nationally chartered trust bank supervised by the Comptroller of the Currency:

http://www.occ.gov/topics/licensing/national-bank-lists/trust-by-name-v2.pdf

Based upon its national charter, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is entitled by statute to do business in all fifty states, as well as U.S. Territories and possessions and is expressly exempt from registration as a "foreign corporation" because it is a domestic U.S. banking entity exempted by an act of Congress.

For this reason, a suit brought by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company could never be validly defeated by a plea denying the plaintiff's capacity. However, most often this firm brings the suit as trustee of a residential mortgage backed trust. Some state statutes on registration of foreign entities expressly require trusts to register. In some of these places, a denial of the capacity of the trust can be a valid defense.

The argument that Deutsche Bank lacks capacity is always an invalid argument. The argument that Deutsche Bank lacks the capacity to sue as trustee of an unregistered foreign trust is sometimes a robust argument. If you make the argument the way Mike suggests, you will not only lose your case, but you will have been ripped off by whatever you paid Mike or his confederates for their losing arguments. In short, you will be both defrauded an homeless.

Quote:
They tried to register in Florida and were denied. The exact reason for the denial, I was never able to discover so I'll leave that up to someone who has the time to research it.


The most likely reason for the denial is that Florida's statutes on foreign registration contemplate the registration of entities incorporated in foreign states. However, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is not incorporated in any foreign state. Instead, it has a national trust banking charter. Thus it is not eligible to register as a foreign corporation because it is not a foreign corporation. Nationally chartered financial institutions are entitled to be treated as domestic corporations in evey state in the United States. The Florida registration ought to have been denied since Deutsche was both ineligible for foreign registration and such registration was completely unnecessary.

It seems unlikely that Deutsche Bank actually sought to register itself. This is not a mistake that bank lawyers at that firm would likely make. Sometimes, foreclosure mill attorneys will file corporate registration papers to register an out of state entity or even a defunct entity if that will speed a foreclosure along. It is more likely that the Florida registration was filed without Deutsche's knowledge by a foreclosure mill law firm not acquainted with national banking laws or the nature of the charter. The foreclosure mill attorneys are complete idiots
Quote 0 0
....
QueensForeclosure wrote:
.... wrote:
QueensForeclosure wrote:
I have to tell you - pro-se litigants are killing their own cases - here is an article that highlights the point.

This one could have and should have been won on its merits:

http://www.examiner.com/article/deutsche-bank-takes-another-home-dubious-queens-foreclosure-case



The article you posted just shows the possibility that the bank did not have standing to file the law suit.

If this was found to be the case it would have only resulted in a dismissal without prejudice NOT a decision on the merits.

Instead, just like in hundreds of thousands of other foreclosure cases the homeowner did not file an answer, a default judgment was entered, and the home was sold. Nothing unusual here.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Movant has failed to set forth an excuse for his default\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"

We could easily find thousands of foreclosure cases that had many robust defenses but the homeowner just failed to file anything.



Actually, anyone informed on the subject matter would know that Deutsche Bank takes many, many names.

DEUTSCHE BANK AMERICAS FOUNDATION
DEUTSCHE BANK AMERICAS HOLDING CORP.
DEUTSCHE BANK CAPITAL CORPORATION
DEUTSCHE BANK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (USA) CORPORATION
DEUTSCHE BANK FINANCIAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION
DEUTSCHE BANK FINANCIAL PRODUCTS INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK FINANCIAL PRODUCTS INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK FUTURES CORPORATION
DEUTSCHE BANK FUTURES INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK FUTURES INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK GOVERNMENT SECURITIES, INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK INSURANCE AGENCY INCORPORATED
DEUTSCHE BANK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK M & A INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK MORTGAGE CAPITAL, L.L.C.
DEUTSCHE BANK NORTH AMERICA HOLDING CORP.
DEUTSCHE BANK REALTY ADVISORS, INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES CORPORATION
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK SHARPS PIXLEY INC.
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST CORPORATION

These are just the ones registered with the NYS Department of State - Division of Corporations.

Deutsche Bank by any other name is still Deutsche Bank. The fact that they have many illegitimate children spread all over the world doesn\\\'t make some of them \\\"nice guys\\\".

The parent company participated in the MERS scheme, securitization, robo-signing, foreclosures, and plenty of other shady business like, CDO\\\'s, Credit Default Swaps, and much more.

In the story there is a link to the decision where this homeowner ignored the action until it was too late. I believe the quote from the article was \\\"too little, too late\\\".

The point of the story was to point out that lenders, servicers, investors, and trustees are completing foreclosures unabated, even though they can be stopped.

It was a call to action for homeowners who stick their head in the sand and hide and wait until it\\\'s too late.

You may be right, a Judge may have ordered a dismissal without prejudice, but the next step after that would be to file affirmative litigation to quiet title, using the prior decision and exhibits against Deutsche Bank to show that they have no claim to the property. The article linked to a 2009 assignment into a 2004 Trust, this was impossible and did not happen, meaning the Trust could not and did not own the loan.

Any positive intellectual comments would be appreciated





Here are the problems.

Any suggestion that the homeowner would have some how won the case based upon the merits is WRONG. I really don\\\'t see anything that distinguished this case from thousands in FL with many different lenders.

Over and over we see MERS assignments to a trust YEARS after they close. I think it would be more problematic to find a MERS assignment that was done prior to a trust closing. The problems with MERS assignments and the best way to handle them (definitely not what you suggested, running to the Judge with them) has been addressed in many different threads.

Your assertion that the \\\"next step\\\" would be to file a quiet title suit is also misplaced.

While the Plaintiff may not have standing and the right to file the suit, this does not mean SOMEONE doesn\\\'t have standing and you have a title problem to quiet. Usually the correct action after a dismissal is to DO NOTHING. Many times after a dismissal the case falls off the servicer\\\'s plate and the case can languish for months. Why would you want to energize them? Be assured that the bank in some form, will correct the prior problems and refile some where along the way.

While I think there are positive messages from the article to homeowners (you have to fight), it may mislead a lot of people. Foreclosures in NY have come almost to a stand still. Make sure you file some kind of response and use your time wisely.

Quote 0 0
Texas
There is a proper and legal way to quiet a title, but have not seen really the correct approach applied. To say all are a scam would not be correct, just have not seen one yet that is not a scam.
Quote 0 0
MSF Administrator
Posters Lester, Nancy, Kevin, Margery, etc. are all the same person and they have been BANNED. They will be back with a new IP and new names.


TWO MORE CASES INVOLVING DEUTSCHE BANK:

Deutsche Bank v. Cuesta

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2012/2012_32590.pdf

ORDERED, that this unopposed motion (001) by the plaintiff for, inter alia, an order: (1)
pursuant to CPLR 3212 awarding summary judgment in its favor against the defendant, Martha L.
Cuesta, and striking her answer and affirmative defenses; (2) pursuant to RPAPL 5 1321 appointing a
referee to (a) compute amounts due under the subject mortgage; and (b) examine and report whether
the subject premises should be sold in one parcel or multiple parcels; and (3) amending the caption, is
denied without prejudice to renew within One Hundred and Twenty (120) Days of the date of this
Order;



HSBC v. PUCCINI
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/pdfs/2012/2012_32592.pdf

ORDERED that this motion by defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for Fremont Home Loan Series 2006-3 (Deutsche Bank) for summaryjudgment on its first counterclaim against plaintiff, declaring that Deutsche Bank is the lawful owner and holder of a valid first mortgage against the subject premises, declaring that the credit line mortgage was paid in full and is discharged and satisfied of record, and declaring that plaintiff and all persons claiming by, through and under it be forever barred from all claims to an estate or interest in the subject premises, and granting defendant Deutsche Bank summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it and cancelling the notice of pendency filed by plaintiff is denied.
Quote 0 0
rt
Oh here we go again with the good posts being deleted.  No wonder no one will post here any more.

It is really unbelievable that this site continues to allow Mike H. to defraud everybody and then removes the posts which show that he is crooked.
Quote 0 0
FlaProSe
Please stop the whining. Be and let be. Why are you so obsessed with this guy? We are not idiot with no  intellectual capacity. We know fraud when we see it. Your continuous ranting about this guy Mike says a lot about your own credibility.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...