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
William A. Roper, Jr.
Wall Street Journal reporter Nick Timoraos files yet another informative story that reflects the extent to which major media outlets are beginning to fully appreciate the gravity of the mortgage foreclosure fraud issue and the consequent meltdown:

 

WSJ: "Banks Hit Hurdle To Foreclosures", by Nick Timoraos (May 31, 2011) [Subscription $$]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576357462376821094.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_business


Nick cites the Murphy decision (Maine Supreme Court) and the Horace case (Alabama trial court) within the article.

Interestingly, it seems that JPMorgan Chase has decided to take its lumps rather than appealing the Horace decision.  

Drop by the WSJ and leave a comment!

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.
In addition to the story in the print edition, Nick Timoraos has also posted a related story in the WSJ Developments Blog:

WSJ: "Mortgage Ownership Miscues Threaten Foreclosures" (June 1, 2011)

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/06/01/mortgage-ownership-miscues-threaten-foreclosures/

Why not stop by and leave a comment?

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Within his posted story, Nick Timoraos mentions the questions presented by rather curious assignment of mortgage shown as an Exhibit to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company's claim in the Connecticut Bankruptcy case In Re Kritharakis, Case No. 10-51328, a matter before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut.


Some here at the Forum are already familiar with the Affidavit of Dale SUGIMOTO, which was filed in the In Re Wilson case:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46562142/In-Re-Wilson-Affidavit-of-Dale-M-SUGIMOTO-Pres-of-Sand-Canyon-19-Mar-2009


I posted this affidavit on Scribd some time ago to inform discussion about the validity of Option One assignments.

It is rather difficult to reconcile the assignment of the Kritharakis note and mortgage shown within Deutsche Bank's claim with the averments which appear within Mr. SUGIMOTO's affidavit:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56909187/In-Re-Kritharakis-Claim-No-2-1-Deutsche-Claim-Ex-F-Assignment-28-Jul-2010


So who should we believe?  The sworn affidavit of the President of the company dated March 19, 2009, who claims that Sand Canyon owns no mortgages?  Or Sand Canyon Asst. Secretary Rhonda Werdel, who conveys the mortgage to Deutshce by assignment on June 11, 2010?
Quote 0 0
TheEquitableOne
If JPMorgan Chase were to appeal in the Horace case and lose it would become an appellate level decision on the argument. That would be significant. It would set binding precedential law.

Presently when/if the same argument is made at trial level every case has to reinvent the wheel. There aren't many attorneys knowledgeable enough, or homeowners with enough resources, to do that effectively, or often.

JPMorgan Chase may be making a strategic decision. The facts present in the Horace case seem to be present in many/most cases. Even one appellate level decision that validates Wooten's argument/s could open a flood gate and potentially be disastrous for the banks.

Quote 0 0
William A. Roper, Jr.

Quote:
TheEquitableOne said:

JPMorgan Chase may be making a strategic decision.  The facts present in the Horace case seem to be present in many/most cases.  Even one appellate level decision that validates Wooten's argument/s could open a flood gate and potentially be disastrous for the banks.


I think that the decision NOT to appeal Horace was definitely a strategic decision.  But I do NOT believe that it implicitly demonstrates the strength of the Levitin argument presented by Nick Wooten.

Although I haven't seen any of the pleadings, I think that Nick probably presented the argument ably and that the other side was caught flat footed and didn't properly defend or get contrary evidence into the record.

They may have very well thereby failed to preserve one or more critical argument for appeal.

The Ibanez case in Massachusetts is a classic example of a case that it was very foolish for the foreclosure mill to appeal.  It was a losing case.

Desparate borrowers seeking to hold onto their homes will appeal both strong and weak cases.  The industry will probably be more judicious next time (after Ibanez) in choosing a case on the securitization arguments to appeal.  The recent emergeance of various cases in which the servicer confesses error is consistent with a growing realization that some appeals are better avoided rather than argued and decided.
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...