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
Nye Lavalle
Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Castellanos, 277/07
Decided: January 14, 2008
Justice Arthur M. Schack

KINGS COUNTY
Supreme Court

For the Plaintiff: Richard F. Komosinski, Esq.

Knuckles & Komosinski, PC

For the Defendant: No Opposition submitted by defendants to plaintiffs'
Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale

Justice Schack
Click here to see Judicial Profile

Plaintiff's renewed application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale for
the premises located at 78 Van Siclen Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block
3932, Lot 45, County of Kings) is denied without prejudice. In my prior
decision in this case, issued on May 11, 2007, 15 Misc3d 1134 (A), I
enumerated various defects in plaintiff's (Deutsche Bank) application. This
renewed application does not address any of these defects. Further, my
review of the instant application raises two additional matters that must be
satisfactorily addressed or I will dismiss the instant action with
prejudice.

As noted in my May 11, 2007 decision, Deutsche Bank lacks standing to bring
this action since January 19, 2007, the day when Deutsche Bank assigned the
instant mortgage and note to MTGLQ Investors, L.P. Goldman Sachs calls MTGLQ
Investors, L.P. a "significant subsidiary" in exhibit 21.1 of its November
25, 2006 10-k Filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. I
explained (citing Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Pataki, 100
NY2d 81, 812 [2003], cert denied 540 US 1017 [2003], Carper v. Nussbaum, 36
AD3d 176, 181 [2d Dept 2006], and Stark v. Goldberg, 297 AD2d 303 [1st Dept
2002)]) how Deutsche Bank now lacks standing to pursue this action. Further,
I held, at 5-6:

It is clear that plaintiff Deutsche Bank lacks standing to sue since January
19, 2007, when it assigned its ownership of the Castellanos' mortgage loan
to the Goldman Sachs subsidiary, MTGLQ Investors, L.P. The Court, in
Campaign v. Barba, 23 AD3d 327, instructed that "[t]o establish a prima
facie case in an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff must
establish the existence of the mortgage and the mortgage note, ownership of
the mortgage, and the defendant's default in payment [Emphasis added]." (See
Household Finance Realty Corp. of New York v. Wynn, 19 AD3d 545 [2d Dept
2005]; Sears Mortgage Corp. v. Yahhobi, 19 AD3d 402 [2d Dept 2005]; Ocwen
Federal Bank FSB v. Miller, 18 AD3d 527 [2d Dept 2005]; U.S. Bank Trust Nat.
Ass'n Trustee v. Butti, 16 AD3d 408 [2d Dept 2005]; First Union Mortgage
Corp. v. Fern, 298 AD2d 490 [2d Dept 2002]; Village Bank v. Wild Oaks
Holding, Inc., 196 AD2d 812 [2d Dept 1993]).
However, in light of the fact that Deutsche Bank has established the
existence of the mortgage and the note, and defendant's default in payment,
the Court is denying the judgment of foreclosure and sale without prejudice.
If Deutsche Bank moves to substitute assignee MTGLQ Investors L.P. as
plaintiff, pursuant to CPLR §1021 and no other material Facts change, the
Court will grant the substitution of plaintiff to MTGLQ Investors L.P.,
which will allow the proper mortgagee, the one with standing, to receive a
judgment of foreclosure and sale. (East Coast Properties v. Galang, 308 AD2d
431 [2d Dept 2003]; Lincoln Savings Bank, FSB v. Wynn, 7 AD3d 760 [2d Dept
2004]; CPLR §1018; GOL §13-101).

Plaintiff Deutsche Bank has failed to move to substitute MTGLQ Investors,
L.P. as plaintiff.

Two additional matters plaintiff needs to address in a renewed motion

In my recent review of the moving papers in the renewed motion, I noticed
that the July 21, 2006-"affidavit of merit" was executed by Jeff Rivas, who
claims to be Deutsche Bank's Vice President Default Timeline Management. On
the same day, Mr. Rivas executed, before the same notary public, M. Reveles,
a mortgage assignment from Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, claiming to be
Argent's Vice President Default Timeline Management. Did Mr. Rivas somehow
change employers on July 21, 2006 or he is concurrently a Vice President of
both assignor Argent Mortgage Company, LLC and assignee Deutsche Bank? If he
is a Vice President of both the assignor and the assignee, this would create
a conflict of interest and render the July 21, 2006-assignment void.

Also, Mr. Rivas claims that Argent Mortgage Company, LLC is located at 1100
Town and Country Road, Suite 200, Orange, California, while Deutsche Bank
has its offices at One City Boulevard West, Orange, California. Did Mr.
Rivas execute the assignment at 100 Town and Country Road, Suite 200, and
then travel to One City Boulevard West, with the same notary public, M.
Reveles, in tow? The Court is concerned that there may be fraud on the part
of Deutsche Bank, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC, and/or MTGLQ Investors,
L.P., or at least malfeasance. If plaintiff renews its motion for a judgment
of foreclosure and sale, the Court requires a satisfactory explanation by
Mr. Rivas of his recent employment history.

In my May 11, 2007 decision, in discussing the January 19, 2007 assignment
from Deutsche Bank to MTGLQ Investors, L.P., I observed, at 5, that:

the January 19, 2007 assignment has the same address for both the assignor
Deutsche Bank and the assignee MTGLQ Investors, L.P., at 1661 Worthington
Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409.The Court will not speculate
about why two major financial behemoths, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs
share space in a West Palm Beach, Florida office suite. What is clear to
this Court is that Deutsche Bank assigned the mortgage during the pendency
of this application, but neglected to move to amend the caption to reflect
the assignment or discontinue the foreclosure action. The Court . . . has no
choice but to deny the application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale
without prejudice. Plaintiff Deutsche Bank lacks standing to proceed with
this action since January 19, 2007.

However, my subsequent decision, HSBC Bank, N.A. v. Cherry, 18 Misc3d 1102
(A), issued on December 17, 2007, observed that Scott Anderson, on June 13,
2007, as Vice President of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
(MERS) assigned a mortgage and note to HSBC Bank, N.A., as Trustee for
various collateralized debt obligations. Mr. Anderson's assignment lists
1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 (Suite
100), as MERS address. The assignment also lists Suite 100 as the address
for HSBC. Further, Mr. Anderson, two days later, on June 15, 2007, executes
an "affidavit of merit" as "Senior Vice President of Residential Servicing
for Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB, servicing agent of HSBC Bank, N.A."

I noted, at 3, that:

with HSBC, OCWEN and MERS, joining with Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs at
Suite 100, the Court is now concerned as to why so many financial goliaths
are in the same space. The Court ponders if Suite 100 is the size of Madison
Square Garden to house all of these financial behemoths or if there is a
more nefarious reason for this corporate togetherness.
Therefore, if Deutsche Banks seeks to renew its motion for a judgment of
foreclosure and sale, it must provide an affidavit explaining why Suite 100
is such a popular venue for all of these corporations. Should Deutsche Bank
fail to provide an adequate explanation in its affidavit, I will conclude
that this corporate togetherness is evidence of corporate collusion.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that the motion of plaintiff, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
AS TRUSTEE OF ARGENT MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC. ASSET-BACKED PASS THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-W4 UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT DATED
AS OF NOVEMBER 1, 2005, WITHOUT RECOURSE, for a judgment of foreclosure and
sale for the premises located at 78 Van Siclen Avenue, Brooklyn, New York
(Block 3932, Lot 45, County of Kings), is denied without prejudice; and it
is further

ORDERED, that leave is granted to plaintiff, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE OF ARGENT MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC. ASSET-BACKED PASS
THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-W4 UNDER THE POOLING AND SERVICING
AGREEMENT DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 1, 2005, WITHOUT RECOURSE, to renew its
motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale for the premises located at 78
Van Siclen Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3932, Lot 45, County of Kings),
only if it presents to the Court within thirty (30) days from the date of
this decision and order: an affidavit from Jeff Rivas describing his
employment history for the past three years; and, an affidavit explaining
why it shares office space at Suite 100, 1661 Worthington Road, West Palm
Beach, Florida 33409 with Goldman Sachs, HSBC Bank, N.A., Ocwen Federal Bank
FSB, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
Quote 0 0
1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409.
*********************************************

I'd be taking a stroll through this building with a little camera.

Why?

No lies to the court will be tolerated and go unopposed.

That would be fun to furnish the judge with proof that they are lying to the court.

Right when they do it.

I wonder if plaintiff will file again using the same "complaint" that has been deemed to have no standing.

Clearly, this judge is suspicious and wondering about fraud.

Dee
Quote 0 0
Joe B
I think this is the previous address for Ocwen, and is now the address of Ocwen's servicing (Global Servicing Solutions) arm that does servicing work for various entities:

Global Servicing Solutions LLC
C/O Ocwen Financial Corporation
1661 Worthington Road
Suite 100
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
Phone: 561-682-8275
Email: GSSInfo@gss-o.com


http://www.globalservicingsolutions.com/contact.html

JB



Quote 0 0
Nye Lavalle
It is Ocwens office and I have MANY variations of Mr. Anderson's supposed signature for MANY different banks!
Quote 0 0
ASAP

Nye Lavalle wrote:
It is Ocwens office and I have MANY variations of Mr. Anderson's supposed signature for MANY different banks!

Hope you will get a copies of those documents to that judge ASAP!

Quote 0 0
Jeff Rivas

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Castellanos

2007 NY Slip Op 50978(U)

Decided on May 11, 2007

Supreme Court, Kings County

Schack, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.



Decided on May 11, 2007

Supreme Court, Kings County



Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, As Trustee of Argent Mortgage Securities, Inc. Asset-backed Pass Through Certificates Series 2005-W4 Under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement Dated as of November 1, 2005, Without Recourse, Plaintiff,

against

Gustavo Castellanos, Argent Mortgage, LLC, and New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Defendants.




22375/06



Plaintiff

Knuckles & Komosinski, PC

Tarrytown NY

Defendants

No Defendant(s)

Arthur M. Schack, J.

Plaintiff's application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale for the premises located at 78 Van Siclen Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3932, Lot 45, County of Kings) is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank), a financial powerhouse, lacks standing to bring this matter before the Court. Deutsche Bank, after making this application, and prior to the instant application being forwarded to me by court clerks, assigned the instant mortgage to MTGLQ Investor, L.P., a subsidiary of the financial goliath, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., (Goldman Sachs). Neither Deutsche Bank nor Goldman Sachs informed the Court of this assignment.

This mortgage, for a property in the East New York section of Brooklyn, illustrates how a subprime mortgage loan is assigned from one huge firm to another to maximize profits in the securitized mortgage asset market. The Deutsche Bank Group, parent of Deutsche Bank, according to a May 8, 2007 press release at its website, http://www.db.com, had income of 3.2 billion Euros (more than four billion dollars) in the first quarter of 2007, while Goldman Sachs, in its 2006 Annual Report, had 2006 net revenues of $37.62 billion. When these financial giants moved to foreclosure on the defendant's subprime [*2]mortgage loan, it appears that they neglected to see who actually owned the mortgage loan.



[*3]Background

Defendant Castellanos borrowed $412,000.00 from Argent Mortgage Company,

LLC (Argent), on November 16, 2005. He executed a thirty-year adjustable rate note for this amount and a mortgage to secure the loan for the 78 Van Siclen Avenue premises. I checked the Automated City Register Information System (ACRIS) website of the Office of the City Register, New York City Department of Finance and verified that the Castellanos' Note and Mortgage were recorded on December 7, 2005.

The instant mortgage loan is an example of the subprime loan denominated in the mortgage industry as a "2-28" adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) loan. According to the November 16, 2005 Note, defendant Casetellanos was to initially pay principal and interest of $3,023.12 per month for the initial two years, at 8.00 %. Then on December 1, 2007, and every six months thereafter, the interest rate could change on the "change date," based upon an "index" that is the average of interbank offered rates for the six-month U.S. dollar-denominated deposits in the London market (LIBOR) as published in the Wall Street Journal. The specific terms of the Castellanos note provided that the new interest rate would be the LIBOR rate, 45-days prior to the "change date," plus 6.00 %, rounded to the nearest .125%. The interest-rate could increase 1.00% on each "change date" until the LIBOR index plus 6.00% would be reached. The LIBOR rate, according to today's Wall Street Journal, is approximately 5.3%. Therefore, the LIBOR plus 6.00% rate is now approximately 11.30%. The Note capped the adjusted interest at 14.00% and set 8.00% as the floor, if rates go down. If interest rates stay constant, the defendant, if he hadn't become delinquent in his payments, would be paying his mortgage loan at the rate of 11.25% on December 1, 2009, and thereafter.
With respect to the instant mortgage loan, according to the July 21, 2006-affidavit of merit by Jeff Rivas, Deutsche Bank Vice-President for Default Timeline Management, "[t]he mortgage was subsequently assigned to the Plaintiff herein by instrument dated July 21, 2006 which is to be recorded with the City Register of the County of Kings [sic]." Mr. Rivas, possibly because he is in Orange, California, is not aware that the City Register is for the City of New York, not the County of Kings. Further, it is curious that he executed his affidavit on the same day that Argent assigned the Casetellanos mortgage loan to Deutsche Bank. My check of ACRIS verified that Argent assigned the mortgage to Deutsche Bank on July 21, 2006. It was recorded in the Office of the City Register on August 16, 2006.

Plaintiff Deutsche Bank commenced the instant foreclosure action with the filing of the summons, complaint, and notice of pendency with the Kings County Clerk on July 27, 2006. Initial service of the summons and complaint was made on July 29, 2006. Defendant Castellanos defaulted in answering. On November 16, 2006, I signed an order of reference to ascertain and compute the amount due plaintiff. The Referee prepared a report, dated January 4, 2007, finding that in excess of $427,000.00 was due to the plaintiff as of July 21, 2006. Plaintiff's counsel prepared an affirmation of regularity on January 10, 2007. Subsequently, counsel for Deutsche Bank filed the proposed judgment of foreclosure and sale in Part 72, the special part for ex-parte applications in Civil Term, Kings County Supreme Court. Part 72 forwarded the instant application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, with all its exhibits, affidavits, affirmations and attachments to me on April 26, 2007.

My check of ACRIS discovered that while the proposed judgment of foreclosure and sale was in Part 72, for review by court clerks, plaintiff Deutsche Bank assigned the instant mortgage, on January 19, 2007, to MTGLQ Investors, L.P. According to Exhibit 21.1 of the November 25, 2006 Goldman Sachs 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, MTGLQ Investors, L.P. is a "significant subsidiary" of Goldman [*5]Sachs. The Deutsche Bank to MTGLQ Investors, L.P. assignment was recorded on February 7, 2007, with City Register File Number 2007000073000. In the July 21, 2006 Argent to Deutsche Bank assignment, Deutsche Bank used an Orange, California address. However, the January 19, 2007 assignment has the same address for both the assignor Deutsche Bank and the assignee MTGLQ Investors, L.P., at 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409.

[key]

The Court will not speculate about why two major financial behemoths, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs share space in a West Palm Beach, Florida office suite. What is clear to this Court is that Deutsche Bank assigned the mortgage during the pendency of this application, but neglected to move to amend the caption to reflect the assignment or discontinue the foreclosure action. The Court, as will be explained, has no choice but to deny the application for a judgment of foreclosure and sale without prejudice. Plaintiff Deutsche Bank lacks standing to proceed with this action since January 19, 2007.

Discussion

The Court of Appeals, in Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v Pataki,

100 NY2d 81, 812 (2003), cert denied 540 US 1017 (2003), declared that "standing to sue is critical to the proper functioning of the judicial system. It is a threshold issue. If standing is denied, the pathway to the courthouse is blocked. The plaintiff who has standing, however, may cross the threshold and seek judicial redress." Professor David Siegel, in NY Prac, § 136, at 232 [4th ed] instructs that:

[i]t is the law's policy to allow only an aggrieved person to bring a

lawsuit . . . A want of "standing to sue," in other words, is just another

way of saying that this particular plaintiff is not involved in a genuine

controversy, and a simple syllogism takes us from there to a "jurisdictional"

dismissal: (1) the courts have jurisdiction only over controversies; (2) a

plaintiff found to lack "standing" is not involved in a controversy; and

(3) the courts therefore have no jurisdiction of the case when such a

plaintiff purports to bring it.

In Caprer v Nussbaum, 36 AD3d 176, 181 (2d Dept 2006), the Court held that "standing to sue requires an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant's request." If a plaintiff lacks standing to sue, the plaintiff may not proceed in the action. Stark v Goldberg, 297 AD2d 203 (1st Dept 2002).

It is clear that plaintiff Deutsche Bank lacks standing to sue since January 19, 2007, when it assigned its ownership of the Castellanos' mortgage loan to the Goldman Sachs subsidiary, MTGLQ Investors, L.P. The Court, in Campaign v Barba, 23 AD3d 327, instructed that "[t]o establish a prima facie case in an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff must establish the existence of the mortgage and the mortgage note, ownership of the mortgage, and the defendant's default in payment [Emphasis added]." See Household Finance Realty Corp. Of New York v Wynn, 19 AD3d 545 (2d Dept 2005); Sears Mortgage Corp. v Yahhobi, 19 AD3d 402 (2d Dept 2005); Ocwen Federal [*6]Bank FSB v Miller, 18 AD3d 527 (2d Dept 2005); U.S. Bank Trust Nat. Ass'n Trustee v Butti, 16 AD3d 408 (2d Dept 2005); First Union Mortgage Corp. v Fern, 298 AD2d 490 (2d Dept 2002); Village Bank v Wild Oaks, Holding, Inc., 196 AD2d 812 (2d Dept 1993).

However, in light of the fact that Deutsche Bank has established the existence of the mortgage and the note, and defendant's default in payment, the Court is denying the judgment of foreclosure and sale without prejudice. If Deutsche Bank moves to substitute assignee MTGLQ Investors L.P. as plaintiff, pursuant to CPLR § 1021, and no other material facts change, the Court will grant the substitution of plaintiff to MTGLQ Investors L.P., which will allow the proper mortgagee, the one with standing, to receive a judgment of foreclosure and sale. East Coast Properties, v Galang, 308 AD2d 431 (2d Dept 2003); Lincoln Savings Bank, FSB v Wynn, 7 AD3d 760 (2d Dept 2004); CPLR § 1018; GOL § 13-101.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the application of plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust

Company, as Trustee of Argent Mortgage Securities, Inc. Asset-backed Pass Through Certificates Series 2005-W4 under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of November 1, 2005, Without Recourse, for a judgment of foreclosure and sale for the premises located at 78 Van Siclen Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3932, Lot 45, County of Kings) is denied without prejudice.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

ENTER

___________________________

HON. ARTHUR M. SCHACK,J. S. C.

Top of Form


Bottom of Form


source
http://www.creditwrench.com/DuetschBankdecision.html
Quote 0 0
Nye,

Please don't forget that Deutsche Bank is one of the Defendants in my suit.

Thanks,
Bob
Quote 0 0
Nye Lavalle
Sorry Bob, can't help you.
Quote 0 0
Gee Nye,

Why does that not surprise me.

I really don't need or want your help.  Just wanted to see if you're the same 'ol nye.

Bob
Quote 0 0

Whats Mr. Andersons first name?

Nye Lavalle wrote:
It is Ocwens office and I have MANY variations of Mr. Anderson's supposed signature for MANY different banks!

Quote 0 0
Quote:
I noted, at 3, that:

with HSBC, OCWEN and MERS, joining with Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs at
Suite 100, the Court is now concerned as to why so many financial goliaths
are in the same space. The Court ponders if Suite 100 is the size of Madison
Square Garden to house all of these financial behemoths or if there is a
more nefarious reason for this corporate togetherness.
Therefore, if Deutsche Banks seeks to renew its motion for a judgment of
foreclosure and sale, it must provide an affidavit explaining why Suite 100
is such a popular venue for all of these corporations. Should Deutsche Bank
fail to provide an adequate explanation in its affidavit, I will conclude
that this corporate togetherness is evidence of corporate collusion.


He, he. Does anyone here remember when the fictitious law firm Moss, Codilis, etc. was sitting in Ocwen's office cranking out letters at $95.00 a pop? I do. It is documented in Kweku Hanson's case and Judge Schack may enjoy seeing that.

This judge is beginning to catch on to the scam. YES!! Corporate collusion has always been part of the scam.
Quote 0 0
Stephen

Suppose judges are getting wise to double-selling?  That's why these crooks want to foreclosure instead of forebear.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...