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 consequence of the recent insistence of Ohio Federal Courts that plaintiffs demonstrate their actual standing, foreclosure filings in Federal courts in Ohio have virtually DRIED UP.  The first BOYKO dismissals came down on October 10, 2007.  But these dismissals received little attention.  It was the second group of dismissals by Judge Christopher BOYKO on October 31, 2007, that made the national news.

Judges Kathleen M. O'MALLEY and Thomas M. ROSE followed with additional bulk dismissals on November 14 and 15, 2007.

The accompanying chart ("Ohio Daily Federal Foreclosure Filings 2007.jpg") shows that plaintiffs got the Federal Court's message.

The graphic shows that daily foreclosure filings were at least several per day, with gaps reflecting weekends and federal Holidays.  Ten or more foreclosures per business day were not uncommon, with counts as high as seventeen or eighteen filings in a single day.  The average count throughout the year was about 6.9 new foreclosure filings daily.

The second week of November 2007 -- the week BEFORE Judge Kathleen O'MALLEY's dismissals -- 57 new foreclosures were filed.  The week of the O'MALLEY and ROSE dismissals, the number of new foreclosure filings fell to eight (8).  AFTER the ROSE dismissals, the number of filings for teh remainder of November totaled only FOUR (4).  There were only SEVEN (7) new foreclosure filings during the entire month of December (to date).  In the post ROSE environment there were only two days when two new foreclosure actions were filed (Nov 16 and Dec 10).  Most days saw ZERO filings.

It is interesting to note that while the Federal Courts are dismissing foreclosure suits WITHOUT PREJUDICE, the plaintiffs appear NOT to be refiling in Federal Court.  IF plaintiffs intended to re-litigate in Federal Courts, one would expect foreclosure filings to INCREASE rather than DECREASE as refilings were ADDED to the regular foreclosure volume.  Instead federal foreclosure litigation seems to have DRIED UP completely in Ohio! 

And it appears that plaintiffs think that they can GET AWAY with their mischief in Ohio STATE COURTS, where they seem more inclined to refile their fraudulent suits!

Think about this for a moment!  ALL THE FEDERAL COURTS HAVE ASKED THE PLAINTIFFS TO DO IS PROVE THAT THEY OWN THE MORTGAGES THAT THEY ARE SEEKING TO FORECLOSE.  BUT NONE OF THE PLAINTIFFS APPEAR TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE NOMINAL FEDERAL STANDARDS OF PROOF!
 
DOES THIS GIVE ANYBODY A BETTER UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHY IT IS IMPERATIVE TO PLEAD STANDING IN EVERY JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE ACTION?
Click image for larger version - Name: Ohio_Daily_Federal_Foreclosure_Filings_2007.jpg, Views: 19, Size: 133.14 KB
Quote 0 0
 
This is Great! How can we get the word out to all the Judges?Frivolous law suits don't pay to well  from what I hear. LOL

 
 
Quote 0 0
Bill,
 
This is awesome news. It's just a shame its taken such a long time to come to the forefront. The real ??? is now how many have been conducted fraudently thru out the country? How many people should be sitting in jail for these illegal tactics?
 
It seems this is something that'll remain unknown. Your diligence is greatly appreciated once again!
 
Have a Great Day and God Bless!
 
Kathy
Quote 0 0
Kathy:

In assessing how courts have handled the standing issue, it is very important to bear in mind that MOST judicial foreclosures are UNOPPOSED.  The defendant rarely bothers to obtain an attorney -- most CANNOT AFFORD ONE -- and most fail to EVER EVEN ANSER the foreclosure complaint.

Accordingly, plaintiffs have been obtaining routine default judgments in foreclosure for years.  When the defendant does NOT show up it is easy for the judge to overlook the sufficiency of the basic proof. 

What possibly distinguishes the Ohio Federal Courts is that it appears that the Federal Courts in both the Northen and Southen Districts implemented new FILING Rules pertaining to the minimal items that plaintiffs were REQUIRED to file atthe commencement of the suit.  It is my impression that these new Rules were actually implemented as a case management expedient to assure that paperwork was properly and uniformly filed at the inception of the case.

One can readily see how it is MORE EFFICIENT if this documentation of standing accompanies the original filing.  It AVOIDS the circumstance wherein the plaintiff OMITS the evidence, the defndant demands it by motion, a hearing is conducted, the plaintiff is ordered to produce evidence of standing, etc.  It PRECLUDES an unnecessary WASTE of judicial resources, promoting judicial economy.

I think that the Federal bench had little if any idea that Plaintiffs were UNABLE TO PROVE ownership of the mortgages they were seeking to foreclose!

What really distinguishes the meltdown in Federal disclosures for plaintiffs in Ohio cases is that the Federal Court is now routinely DISMISSING UNOPPOSED CASES where the plaintiff fails to show the requisite standing under the new Rules.  But Plaintiffs ARE still seeking and obtianing foreclosures in Ohio Federal Courts with fabricated evidence.  And a defendant who fails to DEFEND is going to LOSE where the fabricated evidence appears regular on its face.

The lesson for everybody should be (a) seek competent legal counsel, (b) to appear and ANSWER (when properly served),  (c) enter various pleas as to juridiction (standing) and capacity, and (d) conduct vigorous discovery to uncover and reveal the TRUE FACTS of the case.
Quote 0 0
~beenawhile
Love this one too! Love it, love it!

The light is shining so brightly!
Thank you for the fantastic post!
~Happy~ NEW ~ YEAR~ ALL!


Quote 0 0
WAIT A MINUTE !
you people don't get it  !   , the scumbags are now filing their cases in STATE COURTS  and this keeps the fradulant dealings going and they will still foreclose on these victims and THROW them out on their a$$.


wake up ...............................  state courts will not protect the vicitms .!
Quote 0 0
Nye Lavalle
What you have to plead is a VERY STRONG AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE claming that amounts owed and who they are owed to are not before the court and that they have no right to be there and there is a break in the chain of title!
Quote 0 0
Digger

USA Mortgage Meltdown Video

Quote 0 0
Originally Posted By WAIT A MINUTE !
you people don't get it  !   , the scumbags are now filing their cases in STATE COURTS  and this keeps the fradulant dealings going and they will still foreclose on these victims and THROW them out on their a$$.

wake up ...............................  state courts will not protect the vicitms .!/QUOTE]

No, WAIT A MINUTE !... YOU DO NOT GET IT!

While I AGREE that many if not MOST of the Federal dismissals seem likely to be followed by successful state Court foreclosures, this will be because the Defendant FAILS TO APPEAR and ANSWER and the plaintiff is likely to obtain DEFAULT JUDGMENTS.  Most of the dismissals have been of defendants who are UNREPRESENTED.

But jurisdictional objections to standing are also going to be VALID in Ohio State Courts, as well.  Moreover, foreclosure is an equitable action and defendants have a VERY VIABLE DEFENSE NOW in ALL of these cases based upon the "Clean Hands Doctrine"!

What you FAIL to appreciate is that the difficulty of the plaintiffs in PROVING ownership is no small paperwork issue.  The Plaintiffs are fleeing Federal Court because they CANNOT PROVE OWNERSHIP.

Nor is this a problem limited to Ohio! 

Of course, another reason that plaintiffs are fleeing the Federal Courts is that the attorneys who have fraudulently brought actions in these courts are now also facing the very REAL POSSIBILITY of SANCTIONS and of DISCIPLINARY ACTION.  There is FAR MORE HERE than meets the eye!

I have examined not only the OPINIONS, but also the underlying pleadings and PROOF submitted, including fabricated documents!  Have YOU?

I have repeatedly seen participants at this forum excortiate state court judges for failing to act on behalf of defendants.  But I really do NOT think that it is the state court jurists who are to blame.  When defendants FAIL TO ANSWER or APPEAR and FAIL TO RAISE ANY JURISDICTIONAL ARGUMENTS, it is UNSURPRISING that they LOSE!
Quote 0 0

Bill,
 
Since bankruptcy courts operate under the color of law what is a debtor to do. Your points are valid. However, such in my case I did have an attorney. While there are some bankruptcy attorneys or judges that do right the one's I've dealt with here in MO aren't.
 
I know you've read the posts I've made over and over. I know I'm behind in my trustee pymts. Which means my attorney has fees do as well. But even when I was able to pay them he's yet to effectively represent me. And now that there's even more evidence of deceit I'm just lost anymore.
 
Last month I went to court to attempt to keep my bankruptcy from being dismissed. I was sucessful and was able to stop it from being dismissed. I did attempt to pay something to the trustee as well. Not much as it was only $500 but my husband has become the major source of income in our household once again. I know shortly I'll be faced with going back to work after my children go back to school from xmas break.
 
But my lack of focus comes from not knowing how to handle the present matters. Since you know so much I know when I say my credit score was 650 before all of this you'll know I was meticiulous in my financial obligations.
 
However, as I've said before the last couple of years finanically havent been to my advantage. So I have Title companies involved, Homeq, Wells fargo, Wachovia, Option One, Ameriquest, my attorney and judge all on the hook here.

The reason behind this is yes I missed a couple of pymts but tried to fix it before they even started any actions. And in doing my due diligence I was told any of the banks could own this debt. To date none of them have claimed ownership yet. To me or the bankruptcy judge.

Thinking I was doomed because of the employment issues faced with my husband and actually myself I found out even though I was paying an attorney his only interests are his fees. Which I know I've been charged by the minute for. And anymore don't think he rightfully deserves. He never once asked to see all paperwork when I filed bankruptcy. I've since found out how illegitmate my 1st mortgage is as well. But am told it doesn't matter at all.

To me regardless of state laws if federal laws are followed thru out in banko ct my case shouldn't be sent to state court. To me their playing havoc for no reason. Or else in another court it wouldn't be being handled properly.
 
The most mind boggling part of this is if banko ct denied to hear more about my 2nd mortgage and things have turned out the way they have then they've created a cloud on title.
 
By him or my attorney not addressing it and the financial issues we have he gave a lift of stay to foreclose. But even in giving a lift of stay to foreclose with the cloud on title can the first really foreclose by reverting to when there was clear title before the case was proven that they don't know who owns? That the person who owns doesn't even know they own?

If state law statutes dictate every lienholder has to be notified prior to sale that they intend to foreclose and we've proven they don't know who owns how can they foreclose? The bankruptcy may of given lift of stay but didn't void the lien which means its still in tact.
 
And even if I am to accept the first liens propsal of modifying the loan how is this right when they haven't owned up to what they did the first time around?  It still doesn't erase the 2nd lien even if I file chp 7.
 
Couldn't these be good reasons for breach of contract in their behalf? Also couldn't they possibly be sued for filing erroneous documents in the county recorders office?
 
Also why is it that they only have to show a copy of said debt and not the actual promissory note showing the endorsements on it it in a bankruptcy court? Is there any such motion to file in banko ct to overturn a judges decision?
 
Thanks A Million!
 
Kathy
Quote 0 0
Proof
Nye ,

     what about the lady in pasco county florida , that lost her house even after she should she had ALL  the PROOF , that she didn't owe them any back payments , she had insurance , and paid her property taxes , her attorney was DUMB  founded to the verdict from the judge , who stated the auction will still carry through at the court house steps  !  this was at state level courts , these state courts will screw you  any way they can ............

any answers to this one  ?
Quote 0 0
O -

He had to get his last SCUMBAG in for the year... Why don't you just jab us with a stick when we get happy about something. You never have anything NICE to say. WHY?

 
WAIT A MINUTE ! wrote:
you people don't get it  !   , the scumbags are now filing their cases in STATE COURTS  and this keeps the fradulant dealings going and they will still foreclose on these victims and THROW them out on their a$$.


wake up ...............................  state courts will not protect the vicitms .!


Quote 0 0
O -

So what was the Judge's name or do you have a case number OR anything to Prove what you are saying? I would like to check this out. Maybe if we put his name on a list of who to watch it might help? Who was the attorney?

Proof wrote:
Nye ,

     what about the lady in pasco county florida , that lost her house even after she should she had ALL  the PROOF , that she didn't owe them any back payments , she had insurance , and paid her property taxes , her attorney was DUMB  founded to the verdict from the judge , who stated the auction will still carry through at the court house steps  !  this was at state level courts , these state courts will screw you  any way they can ............

any answers to this one  ?

Quote 0 0
Case # 06-44827
Judge: Barry S. Schermer
Atty: Bryan Voss

Sorry I didn't realize when I read early this morning u wanted info

Thanks,

K
Quote 0 0
Kathy:

Two weeks ago I REPLIED to you e-mail.  I have heard NOTHING back from you, even an acknowledgement of receipt of my message.

You newest post is UNRESPONSIVE to ANY of my questions or suggestions.

I am VERY SORRY THAT YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE.  I would LIKE TO HELP.

But my expertise pertains to the mortgage marketplace.  I am NOT AN ATTORNEY and I CANNOT GIVE YOU LEGAL ADVICE.  I am NOT a psychologist or therapist.

I UNDERSTAND that you are having financial problems.  Frankly, I think your OPEN DISCUSSIONS of your FINANCIAL DISTRESS on public message boards is a REALLY BAD IDEA.  I also think that discussions relating to your FINANCIAL DISTRESS in e-mails is a really BAD IDEA.

If you REPLY to my most recent messages or even e-mail me telling me that you didn't receive them, I am willing to TRY TO HELP YOU, subject to the constraints I have mentioned.  But I am NOT going to publicly discuss your situation in this Forum any further absent some meaningful indication that you RECOGNIZE the time I already invested and ONLY if you are committed to doing something constructive to help yourself.

I realize that it is the Holiday Season.  Perhaps my messages were overlooked.  But what I see is a serious of anguished messages DEVOID of any meaningful information which might facilitate HELP but which rather seem to just be possibly feeding more information over open channels to your plaintiff! 
Quote 0 0
O -

KSU, I don't think it's a good idea to put your case info on this site. The Servicers are here all the time. I know I have had to deal with them and have proof that they have been here, So be careful what you say and or talk about. If I were you I would ask that it be taken off. That's just my 2 cent's

Ksu wrote:
Case # xxxxx

Judge: Barry
Atty: Bryan xxxxxxx

Sorry I didn't realize when I read early this morning u wanted info

Thanks,

K

 
I don't think that anyone asked for your case info and attorney, That was aimed at the other poster on this forum. Sorry if you thought it was a question to you.
Quote 0 0
Update on NEW December 2007 Ohio Federal Court Filings

On December 31, 2007, I posted the original message in this discussion thread announcing that Ohio Federal Court foreclosure filings had DRIED UP.  I also posted a graphic.

My roll-up and the graphic were based upon the FILING DATE shown for various cases within the Ohio PACER indices.  In preparing a similar roll-up for January, I noticed that there seems to be an ideosyncracy with the reported FILING DATE.  What seems to be happening is that when cases are administratively suspended due to a civil stay in bankruptcy, the case is retained in the docket with the SAME CASE NUMBER, but when the civil stay is LIFTED or a dormant case is otherwise RESUMED, a NEW filing date is shown within the PACER Index.

The consequence of this anomaly is the occasional reporting of OLD CASES lingering on the docket as NEW CASES.

An illustration is instructive.  The following NINE (9) cases are REPORTED to have December 2007 FILING DATES within the PACER case Index:
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Young; Filed 12/10/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00269; Judge Walter H. RICE
  • Huntington National Bank v. Tanglewood Associat; Filed 12/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03754; Judge Donald C. NUGENT
  • Washington Mutual Bank v. Spiller; Filed 12/13/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00433; Judge James G. CARR
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. Shade; Filed 12/18/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00353; Judge Thomas M. ROSE
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Brown; Filed 12/20/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02172; Judge Patricia A. GAUGHAN
  • RocOne First Corp. v. Krantz; Filed 12/21/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03866; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thompson; Filed 12/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00178; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH
  • Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v Heflin; Filed 12/28/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01304; Judge Michael H. WATSON
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Ford; Filed 12/28/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00468; Judge Gregory L FROST
However, closer scrutiny reveals that only THREE (3) of these were actually originally filed during December 2007:
  • Huntington National Bank v. Tanglewood Associates; Filed 12/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03754; Judge Donald C. NUGENT
  • RocOne First Corp. v. Krantz; Filed 12/21/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03866; Judge Dan Aaron POLSTER
  • Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas v Heflin; Filed 12/28/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv01304; Judge Michael H. WATSON
Though the other cases nominally show a filing date within December, inspection of the case number and scrutiny of the actual case history reveals that each was actually first filed MUCH EARLIER.  The actual original filing date is shown in brackets:
  • HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Young; Filed 12/10/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00269; Judge Walter H. RICE [07/26/2007]
  • Washington Mutual Bank v. Spiller; Filed 12/13/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00433; Judge James G. CARR [05/16/2007]
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. Shade; Filed 12/18/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00353; Judge Thomas M. ROSE [09/21/2007]
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Brown; Filed 12/20/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02172; Judge Patricia A. GAUGHAN [07/19/2007]
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thompson; Filed 12/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00178; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH [03/02/2007]
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Ford; Filed 12/28/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00468; Judge Gregory L FROST [05/21/2007]
When the volume of new filings was LARGE, this distortion in the identification of the filing date was of little consequence.  But with the evaporation of new filings, the number of the phantom new filings now exceeds the number of actual new filings.

I can now state with some confidence that the total number of new Ohio Federal Court filings during December 2007 was THREE (3).  This is consistent with other published reports (from earlier in December) that only two new cases had been filed.

*

Of these other six cases, three were voluntarily dismissed, including cases before Judge ROSE and Judge HOLSCHUH in which these judges had issued prior SHOW CAUSE ORDERS indicating an intention to dismiss due to lack of standing.  The cases with nominal December filing dates which were voluntarily dismissed were:
  • Washington Mutual Bank v. Spiller; Filed 12/13/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00433; Judge James G. CARR [05/16/2007]
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., v. Shade; Filed 12/18/2007; Case No. 3:2007cv00353; Judge Thomas M. ROSE [09/21/2007]
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Thompson; Filed 12/27/2007; Case No. 2:2007cv00178; Judge John D. HOLSCHUH [03/02/2007]

While I wanted to INFORM the Forum of the actual count of NEW CASES, I am NOT going to ALTER the Filing Date shown in the PACER Index.  It would require far too much work to examine and correct the filing date for each of the 1,933 cases filed since January 1, 2006, in my Ohio Federal case database.  Accordingly, when I show a graphc roll-up of the new filings, there will be several filings shown which reflect this phantom filing date arising from a revival of a case already on the docket. 

Quote 0 0
January 2008 NEW Ohio Federal Court Foreclosure Filings TO DATE

Just as the December 2007 new filings are slightly distorted by older revived cases nominally SHOWING December 2007 filing dates, the Janaury 2008 roll-up shows a similar distortion.  Here are the SEVEN (7) "new" Ohio foreclosure cases which the PACER Index suggests were filed during January 2008:
  • United States Of America v. King; Filed 1/3/2008; Case No. 2:2008cv00010; Judge Algenon L. MARBLEY
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Laws; Filed 1/3/2008; Case No. 3:2007cv01437; Judge James G. CARR
  • Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. Brown; Filed 1/10/2008; Case No. 1:2006cv01222; Judge Leslie WELLS
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Newman; Filed 1/11/2008; Case No. 3:2007cv00277; Judge Thomas M. ROSE
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Coyle; Filed 1/11/2008; Case No. 3:2007cv00304; Judge Thomas M. ROSE
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Corona; Filed 1/15/2008; Case No. 1:2007cv02319; Judge Patricia A. GAUGHAN
  • NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. v. Holcombe; Filed 1/17/2008; Case No. 1:2007cv02882; Judge Solomon OLIVER
Closer scrutiny, however, reveals that only the FIRST of these cases, United States Of America v. King, is actually a NEW case.  The other six are simply reappearances of OLDER cases.  This is actually readily apparent from an inspecion of the CASE NUMBERS which have the original filing year embedded therein.

So during the month of January 2008, there has actually been only ONE (1) new Ohio Federal foreclosure case filed through January 24, 2008!

Of the remainder of the phantom January cases, the two cases before Judge Thomas M. ROSE were voluntarily dismissed by the Plainitff on January 15:
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Newman; Filed 1/11/2008; Case No. 3:2007cv00277; Judge Thomas M. ROSE
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Coyle; Filed 1/11/2008; Case No. 3:2007cv00304; Judge Thomas M. ROSE
In fact, these cases seem to have been revived primarily to effect the dismissal.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...