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
As a resident here on Long Island, it was pretty big news when I read that a Suffolk County Judge ruled in favor of a local homeowner voiding his $300,000 Indymac mortgage back in 2009.

Long story short, eventually Indymac Bank's attorney had the case overturned in an appeal. To my surprise as I was ready Newsday this morning that the Judge has reopened the case. The law firm is citing deception among many other things against Indymac, Deutsche Bank and Steven J. Baum and suing for 10 million dollars.

For those of you that are interested in this case or cases similar to this; this is a lawsuit to keep an eye on. Should be a very positive break for all of us effected by foreclosure fraud.

Quote 0 0
Hi All

Hi Sam--- Could you please post the Plaintiffs names and the Defendant names?

I would like to follow the outcome.

TIA

Best regards

Acesfull
Quote 0 0
Hi All

Hi Sam-- Yes I found the case.  Indymac bank v Yano Horoski

It appears the appelate court ruled that the lower court judge over stepped her bounds by awarding the Horoski's a free and clear house.

Not a good ruling for NY homeowners.. However I hope they prevail at the higher court level. Yes a good case to keep an eye out on.

TIA

Best regards

Acesfull
Quote 0 0
I will also be waiting to see what happens with this case.I have been fighting indymac for 3 years...
Quote 0 0
ROY wrote:
I will also be waiting to see what happens with this case.I have been fighting indymac for 3 years...


Been longer for us!
Quote 0 0
Just to keep you posted IndyMac is running for cover.  They force Judge Spinner to recuse himself.  They know the fraud charges against them will stick so their doing everything they can to kill the suit.

Stay tuned new judge was already appointed.

Quote 0 0

I recently am an employee of Indymac. I have come across a great many borrowers who I have been able to help with loan modifications. I hurts me because people think its a miracle from God that they become approved for a modification or that some help is available. At the end of the day, I am a human. I am not an employee. I wish I could fix these problems for people. What I do NOT like is people assuming that no matter what, everything will be fixed for them because of a down economy. Im sorry, if you are stupid enough to sign a document regarding how you are paying for your house, one of your most important investments, and then complain because you have to fax documents to see if we can help you, I have no sympathy. A piece of paper, a machine, a few buttons to make me slave and hope I can convince my superiors to save you. Do not hate the customer contact teams. We live and die for you. Think about what you did. Take some responsibility. Do not relish in one lawsuit. Im here every day trying to stop you from losing your house. These people think because they heard something on the news, we are evil. Im not evil. Im just a kid, working a job answering a phone. I work hard and I go above and beyond to keep people in their dreams. Don't hate me. Don't hate my coworkers. Don't hate my company. Everything is different since OneWest. I am one man.

Quote 0 0
JakeCFA
Kaiten,
I hear a lot of what you're saying. You are working for a company and a lot of the time, we lose that fact behind media attention. You are a rare breed that seems to care for his job and still work for the little guy. Maybe we call in and are a little rough, venting on the first person to answer, but this is a victory for us. I had everything and I lost it. Im sure you understand what an ARM can do to somebody. We just realize that mistakes have been made a little more than is permitted. Thank you for what YOU do.
Quote 0 0
Bill
Kaiten wrote:

I recently am an employee of Indymac. I have come across a great many borrowers who I have been able to help with loan modifications. I hurts me because people think its a miracle from God that they become approved for a modification or that some help is available. At the end of the day, I am a human. I am not an employee. I wish I could fix these problems for people. What I do NOT like is people assuming that no matter what, everything will be fixed for them because of a down economy. Im sorry, if you are stupid enough to sign a document regarding how you are paying for your house, one of your most important investments, and then complain because you have to fax documents to see if we can help you, I have no sympathy. A piece of paper, a machine, a few buttons to make me slave and hope I can convince my superiors to save you. Do not hate the customer contact teams. We live and die for you. Think about what you did. Take some responsibility. Do not relish in one lawsuit. Im here every day trying to stop you from losing your house. These people think because they heard something on the news, we are evil. Im not evil. Im just a kid, working a job answering a phone. I work hard and I go above and beyond to keep people in their dreams. Don't hate me. Don't hate my coworkers. Don't hate my company. Everything is different since OneWest. I am one man.


Every once in a while we will get a bank/servicer employee that says how they are just trying to help everyone and so is their company.  I'm sure all forum participants that have and currently are dealing with IndyMac would disagree.  So would the thousands of homeowners that were foreclosed upon using forged documents, fraudulent documents, perjured affidavits, ect.. presented to the courts by IndyMac/OneWest. 

I am not the moral police.  We all have to eat.  I am happy that you have a job in this down economy, but you are in the wrong place to suggest that IndyMac/OneWest is TRYING to help homeowners or has one shred of moral turpitude.  The company (which now includes you) is a bunch of thieves that has made hundreds of millions with their lies, perjury, and forgeries.  

Still not sure?????

Let me suggest you begin reading some of the cases that show the fraud, perjury and lies:

IndyMac v. Garcia   NY
Plaintiff submits a “reverified” Affidavit of Charlotte Warwick (hereinafter “Warwick”)attesting that the principal amount due on Garcia’s loan is $472,326.52. Plaintiff contends thatthe Warwick affidavit cures the fraudulent Affidavit of Amount Due submitted by Johnson-Seck.However, the Judgment of Foreclosure and aforementioned Stipulation, dated March 24, 2010,where all signed under the assumption that the plaintiff had originally submitted non-fraudulentdocumentation. So while the fraudulent Affidavit of Amount Due may be a curable defect, the court  cannot    ignore the fact that the papers supporting the Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale andaforementioned stipulation were fraudulent.

In re Jessie M. Arizmendi

California Bankruptcy Judge Laura Stuart Taylor has joined the ranks of judges who will not tolerate fraudulent documents produced by banks to foreclose. Judge Taylor entered an Order To Show Cause why OneWest Bank, FSB, should not incur “a significant coercive sanction intended to deter any future tender of misleading evidence to any court of this district.” Judge Taylor ordered OneWest to appear before her on July 29, 2011, to show cause as to why it should not be subject to compensatory and/or coercive sanctions

This Court is concerned, thus, that OneWest provided false or misleading evidence to the Court and that OneWest did so willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and/or for an inappropriate purpose.”

or maybe news stories:

May 20, 2009 -- California -- OneWest Bank (formerly IndyMac Bank, but now operating as IndyMac Mortgage Services, Inc.) and a realtor operating out of Valencia, CA, along with a few other culprits as you will soon see, participated in and/or concealed information related to illegal trespass, assault and attempted break-in at a house where two senior citizens were living legally.


The senior couple were legal tenants of a house that had apparently been foreclosed upon by IndyMac/OneWest Bank/Deutsche Bank, even though the bank had not produced a single document to prove that it now owns the house. Additionally, the couple never received legal notice that they were in jeopardy. They were properly paid up with their lease. They received no eviction notice.


While the wife was home alone on that day in May, she was startled to see a pickup truck carting a massive dumpster backing up into her driveway.  At first she thought they were using the driveway so they could turn around and move back down the street. She thought wrong. The truck kept coming; it backed up right to her front porch. And a second truck was parked at the curb.


She discovered that the men were there to break into the house and steal everything she and her husband owned.  She was threatened repeatedly by the men who then attempted to gain entry via the back door.  The terrified woman who barricaded herself inside her home said she was going to call police and only then the men from MONSTER MOWERS of Lancaster, CA , a company owned by Matthew jay Cohick, finally leave.

A police report was filed.


Investigation Discovery
Later, upon investigation, they discovered that it was OneWest Bank that foreclosed on the property and that the bank, in conjunction with Susan Kline who worked for Prudential California Realty at the time (she now works for ReMax of Valencia), Field Asset Services, Inc. a Texas company that hires locals in your area (such as Monster Mowers in Lancaster, CA), are all responsible for sending out the "cleaning crew" robbers to break in, clean out the house and take everything that the senior couple owned and do what they wanted  with it.  The crew of would be robbers were employed by Matthew Cohick's Monster Mowers.


Two days after the incident, Susan Kline's realtor partner showed up with a generic letter "to the tenants" offering "cash for keys".


SUMMARY:

  • The bank did not follow legal foreclosure or eviction proceedings.
  • Neither the bank nor the realtor who served as its property manager bothered to find out if there were any tenants in the house or if they did -- they simply didn't care.
  • After being notified of the incident, neither the bank nor the realtor apologized to the couple nor made any attempt at amends for their outrageous actions.
  • Despite repeated requests for information about the "cleaning crew" robbers, neither the bank nor the realtor Susan Kline who was the bank's property manager would provide details to the couple even though she had already admitted that they/the bank had sent the crew.
  • Susan Kline continued her threats to throw the senior citizens, one of whom is a military veteran, into the street, without due process.
  • The banks never responded to a single letter or phone call from the couple.
  • Field Asset Services (Joan Mougel) also concealed information from the couple because she was the one who officially sent out Monster Mowers to break into their house.


What kind of bank or realty company deals with people this way, you might ask? Greedy pigs with no conscience.  They are all paid handsomely to rob and evict unsuspecting and innocent people/victims.


CULPRITS IN THE ILLEGAL EVICTION ATTEMPT

The following individuals and companies are the ones involved in the expose story cited here of senior citizen abuse, mortgage fraud, illegal eviction, illegal trespass, assault and attempted break-in.  Agents in the Valencia office of Prudential California Realty were NOTIFIED by POLICE that they are to cease and desist their illegal tactics:


Prudential California Realty: Original Location for Realtor Susan Kline

Susan Kline and Al Taylor (agents)


Prudential California Realty

24200 Magic Mountain Parkway #105

Valencia, CA 91355

661-287-3200 X-3443

 

 

 

While I would love to continue the list a simple IndyMac/OneWest Google search will provide and endless list of cases and news articles showing the misdeeds of IndyMac/OneWest. 

 

You work for a great company!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote 0 0
Just to keep you posted Indy Mac is running for cover.  Now the new  Judge Jerry Garguilo is threatening to recuse himself.  They know the fraud charges against them will stick so their doing everything they can to kill the suit.

Stay tuned if new judge is appointed.
Quote 0 0
Bill

We wish you the best of luck. 

Quote 0 0
Merry Christmas Happy Chanukah
Quote 0 0
A great new article was publish about this case. I was alerted this morning about this. It has amazing details about this case and the law firm defending the Horoski's.

Judge Recuses From Foreclosure Involving His Lender
The New York Law Journal by Andrew Keshner  -  December 21, 2011

A judge whose widely publicized decision to cancel the mortgage of a Long Island homeowner was overturned has now recused himself from the case, with public records showing he holds a mortgage through the same lender. Acting Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Arlen Spinner in Suffolk County recused himself from IndyMac Bank v. Yano-Horoski, 17926-2005, the day after the lender's attorney asked him to step aside. The lawyer referred to "a commercial relationship" between the judge and the lender, OneWest Bank, which had acquired the assets of IndyMac Bank from the FDIC, the receiver.

IndyMac was the original plaintiff in the action. Justice Spinner wrote that he was taking the action "[u]pon the court's own initiative, for reasons which are dehors the record" but provided no other details. A review yesterday of the Suffolk County clerk's online database shows IndyMac Bank is listed as the mortgagee for a residence listing the justice as one of the mortgagors. The mortgage was filed on Jan. 31, 2004. Justice Spinner, through a court spokesman, declined to comment because the case is pending. Justice Spinner canceled Diana Yano-Horoski's $292,500 mortgage and judgment of foreclosure on her East Patchogue home in November 2009, faulting lender officials for their "harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive" treatment of Ms. Yano-Horoski during settlement conferences over which he presided (NYLJ, Nov. 23, 2009).

The canceled mortgage was reinstated when the Appellate Division, Second Department, held the "severe sanction was not authorized by any statute or rule nor was the plaintiff given fair warning that such a sanction was even under consideration" (Nov. 22, 2010).  With the mortgage reinstated, the homeowner's new pro bono attorney, Ivan E. Young of the Young Law Group in Bohemia, sought a vacatur of a default judgment obtained by the bank against his client. Mr. Young claimed improper service, extrinsic fraud and newly discovered evidence.  OneWest countered with a dismissal motion and the case was scheduled for oral arguments on Dec. 7 before Justice Spinner.

In a faxed Dec. 6 letter, an attorney representing IndyMac Bank, Allan J. Arffa, a partner with Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, wrote, "Our client has informed us of certain developments, relating to a commercial relationship that exists between Your Honor and OneWest, that reasonably call into question Your Honor's impartiality in this matter, or at the very least clearly create an appearance of partiality, and that we respectfully require Your Honor's recusal in this matter. Although we are reluctant to raise this issue, after careful research and consultation, we have concluded that, as a matter of professional responsibility, we have no choice but to pursue the matter, initially by calling the issue to the attention of the parties and the Court. "  Mr. Arffa was one of three Paul Weiss attorneys handling the Second Department appeal in 2009, along with McGlinchey Stafford in Albany.

The Dec. 6 letter does not specify the judge's "commercial relationship" with the bank. Mr. Arffa referred questions to his client OneWest, which declined to comment.  In any case, it is unclear whether Justice Spinner was required to recuse himself if his mortgage was the relationship to which Mr. Arffa was referring.  Under Section 100.3(E)(1) of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge, judges must disqualify themselves "in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned."  Under §100.3(E)(1)(c), one of those instances includes where "the judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge's spouse or minor child residing in the judge's household has an economic interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding or has any other interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding."  Here, there is no indication that the judge has an economic interest in the Yano-Horoski house or that his own mortgage could have been affected by his actions in the case.  With foreclosure cases flooding the courts in recent years, several decisions by Justice Spinner—including the Yano-Horoski ruling—have gained media attention. Lenders have taken notice too, apparently deciding against sending junior associates to handle cases before the judge (NYLJ, July 15, 2010). 

Nevertheless, Mr. Young said Justice Spinner was "quite capable" of fairly handling each case.  "There is no doubt in my mind that he could be fair and impartial. If you look at his record, he decided against banks and with banks," Mr. Young said.  The case has been reassigned to Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo (See Profile) and next court date is scheduled for Jan. 12.  Meanwhile, Mr. Young has raised new claims in an effort to allow the Yano-Horoskis to stay in their home.

In October court papers, Mr. Young contended the January 2009 default judgment of foreclosure against his clients had to be vacated due to the lack of personal service and the "extrinsic fraud" committed by the lender and Steven J. Baum P.C., its counsel before Paul Weiss entered the case.  In one "instance of deception," Ms. Yano-Horoski's husband, Gregory, allegedly contacted Mr. Baum after the complaint was served. 

Mr. Baum, according to the defendant's filings, told the husband it was not necessary to file an answer because the foreclosure would be dismissed if a modification could be achieved or the outstanding balance was paid. Mr. Baum also allegedly told him the homeowners had time to make the mortgage current.  In a second incident, Ms. Yano-Horoski claims she spoke with an unnamed woman lawyer at the Baum firm three days after her bankruptcy petition had been dismissed.  The attorney allegedly told Ms. Yano-Horoski it was too late to file an answer. The homeowner's court papers, however, argue the bankruptcy triggered an automatic stay of the foreclosure and the Baum firm misrepresented that fact in filings to obtain the foreclosure.  Mr. Young also argued the foreclosure action was fatally flawed owing to standing deficiencies; the plaintiff lender did not own the mortgage and note; and "true and obvious discrepancies" existed between the mortgage and note filed with the clerks' office, the court and given to the defense, the attorney said. 

Mr. Young's motion seeks the caption be amended to include Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as a trustee of a particular home equity mortgage loan asset-backed trust.  In court papers, Mr. Arffa rejected Ms. Yano-Horoski's motion as "palpably deficient."  He rejected claims of improper service and said extrinsic fraud allegations were insufficient and unsupportable. In affirmations, Mr. Baum and the two attorneys at the firm who handled the case said they never spoke with either Mr. Horoski or Ms. Yano-Horoski.  Once the largest foreclosure law firm in New York, the Baum firm has been heavily criticized for its practices and recently announced that it was shutting down. Mr. Baum declined to comment on the litigation for this article. Mr. Arffa called the lack of standing claims "unfounded speculation as to the 'true' owner of the note and mortgage relating to the loan that fails to furnish competent evidence of any meritorious defense." 

Noting in court papers that during the course of the action OneWest has paid approximately $160,000 in principal and interest, plus $64,000 in insurance and taxes, Mr. Arffa said, "Having lived in her home for free for the past five years and more, it is more than time for defendants to cease trying to postpone the inevitable. If ever a borrower in a foreclosure proceeding had her day in court, Ms. Yano-Horoski is that borrower."


On a separate note. @Kaiten- No disrespect to you, but this goes way beyond your duties at IndyMac/OneWest whatever.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...