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
Federal Judge Christopher A. BOYKO, of the Northern District of Ohio (Eatstern Division) gained national attention by a thoughtful, well reasoned order dismissing fourteen Ohio judicial foreclosure actions due to lack of standing of the plaintiffs.  That order was dated October 31, 2007.  However, this well researched and well written dismal order was PRECEEDED by other dismissals of thirteen judicial foreclosure cases three weeks EARLIER on October 10, 2007.  The cases disposed of by Judge BOYKO's earlier October 10, 2007, order were:

  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Mason; Filed 5/25/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01547
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bowers; Filed 5/10/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01356
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Pullum; Filed 4/30/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01272
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust v. Thompson; Filed 4/25/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01240
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jones; Filed 4/23/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01204
  • Wells Fargo Bank National Association v. Kinion; Filed 8/20/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02516
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A v. Davis; Filed 7/30/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02322
  • NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. v. Kovacs; Filed 7/24/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02228
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Moore; Filed 7/17/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv00357
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Cook; Filed 7/9/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02033
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Kamps; Filed 6/26/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01903
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Toler; Filed 6/22/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01880
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Long; Filed 6/18/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv01803

Judge BOYKO disposed of all thirteen cases in a single two page order entered on October 10, 2007.  I would be delighted to furnish a copy of that order to anyone desiring a copy.  Frankly, the later October 31, 2007, order is much more scholarly and academically rigorous.  The October 10, 2007, order is mostly interesting as a historical artifact, as it shows a cursory dismissal of case by Judge BOYKO prior to his entry of the more detail elaboration for the additional cases three weeks later.
Quote 0 0
For comparison purposes and for those keeping SCORE, the cases dismissed by Judge Christopher A. BOYKO's October 31, 2007, order were:

  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Williams; Filed 10/4/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03029
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Benitez; Filed 10/1/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03000
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Beedle; Filed 9/26/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02950
  • Citibank, N.A. v. Coljohn; Filed 9/26/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02949
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Oliver; Filed 9/25/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02930
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Dunn; Filed 9/25/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02920
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Doe; Filed 9/6/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02695
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Bragg; Filed 9/5/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02681
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jackson; Filed 8/30/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02638
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Harper; Filed 8/29/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02631
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Williams; Filed 8/27/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02602
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Gamble; Filed 8/23/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02560
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Jenkins; Filed 8/21/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02532
  • Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Moore; Filed 7/27/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02282

All of these are cases for the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) [Sixth Circuit].  That October 31, 2007, order is already posted in the MS Fraud Legal Lounge.
Quote 0 0

Judge Christopher A. BOYKO was nominated to the Federal bench in 2004 by President George W. BUSH and was actually commisioned on January 3, 2005.

For additional biographical information regarding Judge BOYKO, please see the Federal Judicial Center's Biographical Directory of Federal Judges (at http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj) or more specifically the entry for Christopher A. BOYKO  at http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=3082.

Quote 0 0
Blossom
Foreclosure-proof homes? - Los Angeles Times
Mortgage-backed securities have made many homes legal and financial mazes that put ultimate ownership in limbo.
By Eric J. Weiner
December 3, 2007
Who owns your home?

That seems like a pretty straightforward question. But the answer might not be as clear-cut as you think.

A U.S. District Court judge in Cleveland tossed out 14 foreclosure cases Oct. 31 on the grounds that the bank suing to repossess the properties, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., didn't actually own them. Deutsche Bank held debt securities that were linked to the mortgage loans on the properties, not the mortgages themselves. And the judge ruled that a security backed by a mortgage is not the same as a mortgage.

That's a distinction that could make all the difference in the world -- especially to the millions of Americans facing potential foreclosure in our crumbling housing market.

Most people in the U.S. buy houses using mortgage loans from banks and other lending institutions. In theory, the firm that issues your mortgage owns your property until you pay off the loan. In practice, however, that's not how the modern mortgage business works.

Instead, mortgage lenders typically pool collections of loans and then sell off pieces of the portfolios to Wall Street investors in the form of mortgage-backed securities. Basically, mortgage-backed securities enable lenders to spread the risk so one institution isn't on the hook when a few people can't make their monthly payments.

Overall, the development of mortgage-backed securities has been a boon for Americans. By reducing the risk of writing mortgages, lenders have been encouraged to offer more loans, enabling countless people who'd previously been shut out of homeownership to get financing.

As a result, we've seen an explosion in mortgage securities. In 1981, there were $367 billion of these debt instruments outstanding; by the end of last year, there were roughly $6.5 trillion. Mortgage-related securities account for nearly a quarter of today's total U.S. bond market, more than any other debt sector, including Treasuries and corporate bonds.

Naturally, as the number of mortgage securities has increased, so has their complexity. There are simple "pass-through" securities, where the payments on the mortgages in a pool go directly to the investors. There are more complicated collateralized mortgage obligation securities, which essentially are bonds that carry different maturity dates and repayment rates based on the quality of the loans in each pool. Then there are "strips," or stripped mortgage securities, which intricately tear apart the loans and create separate payoffs based on the interest and principal payments generated by the pool.

The trouble is, these securities are now so complex that it's become nearly impossible to know who actually owns the underlying properties in a typical mortgage pool. The mortgages are like sticks of chalk pounded into powder. When the dust settles, no one can tell what the original pieces looked like.

This, in effect, is why Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the federal District Court in Cleveland dismissed those foreclosure cases. Boyko had asked Deutsche Bank to produce documentation proving that the company held the mortgages on each property it wanted to seize. But after reviewing the paperwork, Boyko ruled that "none [emphasis his] of the assignments show [Deutsche Bank] to be owner of the rights, title and interest under the mortgage at issue."

Essentially, Boyko found that the people who believed they owned the rights to the mortgages couldn't prove it. And without a legal owner, there was nobody to foreclose on the properties, even if the borrowers had violated the terms of their loans. Case dismissed.

Boyko's decision challenges one of the central tenets of mortgage-backed securities: The holders have the right to foreclose on delinquent properties. Since the ruling, other Ohio judges have thrown out more than 50 other foreclosure cases on similar grounds.

If the ruling holds up, it's sure to reverberate far beyond the Cleveland area, which is already reeling from one of the highest rates of foreclosure in the nation. California cities been hit as bad or worse, including Stockton, Sacramento, Oakland, San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles and Long Beach. A congressional report issued last month estimated that there could be a nationwide wave of as many as 2 million foreclosures by 2009. It's hard to see how this won't end up in a legal showdown.

Mortgage-backed securities have proved far too valuable to banks, investors and homeowners for the entire class to be legislated out of business. But a ruling like this has been overdue. The structure of these securities needs to be reexamined so investors can get a clearer understanding of what they're buying. Ultimately, this could result in an overhaul of our financial laws and the mortgage market as a whole.

But until that happens, if you're having trouble making your mortgage payments, before you start preparing for the worst, you might want to do a little digging and see who actually owns your home. Because you never know, it may turn out to be no one.

Eric J. Weiner is the author of "What Goes Up: The Uncensored History of Modern Wall Street as Told by the Bankers, CEOs, and Scoundrels Who Made It Happen."

Quote 0 0
The SAME Case Ohio Federal Case DISMISSED a SECOND TIME

As was reported above, one of Judge BOYKO's October 31, 2007, dismissals was the case styled as Citibank, N.A. v. Coljohn (Filed 9/26/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv02949).  It appears that after the dismissal of this case without prejudice on October 31, 2007, that Citibank, NA, REFILED the SAME case in Ohio Federal Court on Novermber 8, 2007, as:

Citibank, N.A., as Trustee v. Coljohn et al (Filed 11/8/2007; Case No. 1:2007cv03490)

 

The REFILED case was then randomly assigned to Judge Kathleen M. O'MALLEY.  Noting that this SAME case had been previously assigned to Judge Christopher BOYKO, Judge O'MALLEY and Judge BOYKO signed a joint order on December 4, 2007, reassigning the case back to Judge BOYKO.

 

Remarkably, the plaintiff didn't even bother to COMPLY with the Federal Court's Rules in REFILING the complaint one week later.

 

After the case was reassigned back to Judge BOYKO, there is a crytpic indication of "Remark" on December 20, 2007.  Perhaps this was where Judge BOYKO mentioned to the plaintiffs lawyer that he actually was NOT JOKING when he dismissed the case before and directed that the plaintiff COMPLY with the Rules.

 

It is noteworthy that the SWORN affidavit filed in support of the case appears to contain false statements.  Also, the two assignments executed and recorded in support of CItiBank's purported ownership both appear to have been fabricated.  Both appear to have serious DEFECTS.  And actually NEITHER would seem to convey an interest in the alleged mortgage to the true owner.  It is also noteworthy that the grantor of these assignments is shown to be MERS.  

 

Those that continue to assert or believe that the problems underlying these Ohio Federal dismissals are easily resolved by simply REFILING the cases fail to appreciate that the plaintiffs have some VERY SERIOUS PROOF PROBLEMS.  They also have the problem of explaining systematic evidence fabrication in support of their cases.

 

I have copies of the various pleadings and orders in this case for anyone who is interested.  Frankly, the second dismissal order is simple.  It simply reflects the voluntary dismissal of this case pursuant to to Rule 41(a)(2).

 

The DEFENDANT, by the way, is STILL UNREPRESENTED

Quote 0 0
SamBates
I would like copies of those pleadings and orders if they are still available. Please let me know the costs, etc. Thanks.

Sam Bates
Quote 0 0
SamBates
I would like copies of those pleadings and orders if they are still available. Please let me know the costs, etc. Also, are there any updates to these cases?

Sam Bates
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...