Showing posts with label Bankruptcy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bankruptcy. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

TAKE A BANKS WORD FOR IT? HA! AFTER ALL THEIR FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVITS? THEY SHOULD BE HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARDS.


WEISBAND APPEAL: IS EVIDENCE REQUIRED OR CAN WE JUST TAKE THE BANKS’ WORD FOR IT?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES



FILED BY RONALD RYAN, ESQ. IN TUCSON, AZ
Debtor informed the Bankruptcy Court (herein, “Court” as the trial court) that it had expert testimony to support Debtor’s challenge to the Motion, and informed the Court that the evidence in the record contained certain indicators that also supported Debtor’s challenge. Primarily Debtor contends that the Loan, Note and Deed of Trust (“DOT”) were intended for Securitization into a Mortgage Backed Security (“MBS”) Trust, and that Appellee was not, either at the time the bankruptcy case was filed, nor at the time the motion for relief from stay was filed: the real Article 3 Holder of the Note; nor the owner of the Loan; nor the party possessed of the DOT rights, including the security interest in the Property. Debtor alleged that the merger agreement was irrelevant. Debtor alleged that the Loan, Note and DOT rights had been sold or otherwise transferred to a completely separate entity, within weeks after the original loan closed, to a completely separate entity from either FHHLC, FTBNA and FHHL.
The Court did not hold a single evidentiary hearing. It did not require a single piece of evidence or testimony to be admitted in a legal proceeding, subject to cross examination and the right to present controverting evidence. The Court did not require that the evidence and the purport of said evidence met even the standard of summary judgment evidence. Debtor was not afforded an opportunity to perform reasonable discovery, despite the fact that Debtor informed the Court that they intended to immediately serve written discovery requests.
  1. Did the Court err in finding that FHHL proved itself to have Constitutional Standing and Real Party in Interest status (“RPI”) (Prudential Standing), without having to present any evidence in an admissible form, over Debtor’s objection?

  2. Even if FHHL had established a prima faci case that it had Constitutional Standing and Prudential Standing, was it a denial of due process, or in contravention of statutory law or the applicable rules of procedure to deny Debtor an evidentiary hearing?

  3. was it error to deny Debtor the right to a reasonable amount of discovery within a reasonable period of time in this case?

  4. What evidence is necessary to prove Constitutional Standing and Prudential Standing in the context of a Motion for Relief from Stay in Bankruptcy Court on residential real estate?

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Lawyer intensifies fee-splitting battle against mortgage servicing providers
by KERRI PANCHUK
Friday, April 22nd, 2011, 3:06 pm

The alleged splitting of attorney fees between foreclosure law firms and third-party mortgage servicing providers is the subject of another lawsuit, bringing the number of cases filed on this issue to five within the past seven months, said Nick Wooten, an Alabama-based plaintiff's attorney involved in all of the cases.

By mid-May, Wooten said he expects to file 10 to 12 additional cases, making similar allegations about what he claims are illegal, split-attorney fee arrangements between mortgage servicing outsourcers and law firms. The cases are concentrated in the Northern District of Mississippi, the Southern District of Alabama and the Northern District of Florida-Pensacola division.

The latest case involves plaintiff, Susan Marie Harris of Florida, against Lender Processing Services (LPS: 28.41+0.11%), its subsidiary LPS Default Solutions Inc., and the Ben-Ezra & Katz law firm.

Harris, who is seeking class-action status of her lawsuit, claims the defendants violated bankruptcy code by creating contractual agreements that allowed them to "illegally split attorney's fees" with law firms that signed up to join LPS Default Solutions' attorney network.

Harris alleges the defendants set up a contractual arrangement in which attorneys in the LPS network compensated LPS Default Solutions by splitting attorney's fees with the outsourcer. Because of this compensation model, the plaintiff contends LPS was able to offer its clients — namely large mortgage servicers –  some services free of charge, expanding its competitive positioning in the default servicing marketplace.

Harris filed her complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Florida — Pensacola division.
A spokesperson for LPS said Friday the company does not comment on specific ongoing litigation matters, but "has been successful in disposing of similar allegations in the past and is confident it will do so in the future."

Ben-Ezra also is named as a defendant in the case as the law firm under contract by LPS in this case. A spokesperson for the Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based firm was not immediately available for comment.

When asked if every in-network law firm working with LPS Default could face litigation, Wooten said "at some level, it is likely that each of those law firms will have to address their relationship with LPS." He estimates that more than 200 firms have contracts with the mortgage servicing outsourcer.

Harris contends in her suit that "LPS Default and the network (law) firms attempt to disguise what are in fact attorneys’ fee sharing and referral agreements by characterizing the fees paid by the attorneys to LPS Default as administrative fees." Harris alleges that when a bankruptcy court is wrapping up one of the cases handled by LPS and one of its in-network law firms, the law firm applies for attorney's fees and does "not disclose to the courts that a substantial portion of the fees requested will be paid to LPS Default."

The result, Harris claims, is a situation where LPS Default and its network law firms "fraudulently mislead the bankruptcy courts, the bankruptcies and their attorneys as well as the bankruptcy trustee as to the actual amount of attorneys' fees incurred by the creditors," the complaint states. The complaint accuses LPS, LPS Default and Ben-Ezra with abuse of the bankruptcy process, fraud on the court, contempt of bankruptcy code, contempt of federal rules of bankruptcy procedure, breach of the uniform mortgage covenant, unauthorized practice of law and civil conspiracy.

The Harris case filed in Florida this week resembles existing cases filed by Nick Wooten, where large mortgage servicing outsourcers are facing the same claims.

The issue of fee-splitting isn't new. It arose in a 2008 Houston bankruptcy case involving Ernest and Mattie Harris. The couple said its loan servicer, Saxon Mortgage Services, never told the court it had hired Fidelity National Information Services as its agent. (LPS was spun off from Fidelity in 2008.) The borrowers claimed that Fidelity's involvement resulted in higher legal fees. Fidelity steadfastly denied wrongdoing in that case, arguing that its business model created efficiencies that lowered costs for all. HousingWire Magazine wrote about the case in its inaugural issue, in September 2008.

Wooten's first bankruptcy-related case, filed last year in the Northern District of Mississippi, makes similar allegationsagainst Prommis Solutions Holding Corp., its majority owner Great Hill Partners, and the law firm of Johnson & Freedman. The suit also names Lender Processing Services, and its subsidiary, LPS Default Services, as defendants.

Another case filed in the Bourbon Circuit Court in Kentucky involves a homeowner who counter sued Wells Fargo(WFC: 28.54 -1.01%) last year in a foreclosure action. The plaintiff alleged the company did not own his mortgage by assignment. In addition, the plaintiff accused the Manley, Deas, Kochalski law firm, LPS and LPS Default Solutions of illegally splitting attorney's fees as part of their contractual arrangement.

Wooten filed two other cases this month. In the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Alabama, a plaintiff named Katrinn Bowden Meeker accused LPS, LPS Default Solutions and the firm of Sirote & Permutt of reaching "an arrangement to illegally split attorney's fees."
In yet another case, plaintiffs in the Northern District of Mississippi made similar allegations against LPS, LPS Default and the firm of Morris and Associates.

Write to Kerri Panchuk.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Delicious
  • Share/Bookmark

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, April 14, 2011

HERE IS A CALIFORNIA JUDGE THAT "GETS IT" (AND HOW!) REGARDING MERS -- BK JUDGE MARGARET M. MANN

ANOTHER CALIFORNIA BANKRUPTCY JUDGE SLAMS PRETENDER LENDERS AND MERS

CLE SEMINAR: SECURITIZATION WORKSHOP FOR ATTORNEYS — REGISTER NOW

Bankruptcy Judge Margaret M. Mann GETS IT!

1 Posted by Dan Edstrom on April 12, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Bankruptcy Judge Margaret M. Mann GETS IT!
By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
Coming off of the heels of in re: Agard (http://dtc-systems.net/2011/02/mers-agency-york-bankruptcy-court-agard/), the Honorable Judge Mann from the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of California took 76 days to review the Motion for Relief From Automatic Stay for the in re: Salazar Chapter 13 bankruptcy (Bankruptcy No: 10-17456-MM13).   The findings of fact and conclusions of law were an amazing reading that confirms many of the issues we have been discussing in regards to loans, securitization and foreclosure.  Like Judge Grossman in the agard case, Judge Mann goes to great lengths to research the details that are applicable to this case.   Here are some highlights:
  • Assignments must be recorded before the foreclosure sale

  • Civil Code Section 2932.5 applies to Deeds of Trust

  • Recorded assignments are necessary despite MERS’ role

  • The Gomes case does not apply [to the Salazar case]

  • US Bank or MERS cannot contract away their obligations to comply with the foreclosure statutes

  • As a matter of law, Salazar’s acknowledgment cannot be read as a waiver of his right to be informed of a change in beneficiary status.

  • MERS System is not an alternative to statutory foreclosure law

  • US Bank as the foreclosing assignee was obligated to record its interest before the sale despite MERS’ initial role under the DOT, and this role cannot be used to bypass Civil Code section 2932.5.  Since US Bank failed to record its interest, Salazar has a valid property interest in his residence that is entitled to protection through the automatic stay

  • Cause does not exist to grant relief from stay

  • Denying relief from stay at this time is the least prejudicial option for both parties


Be the first to like this post.

12 Responses

  1. Don’t get your hopes up yet kiddies, the Fraudclosure industry has many more Aces in the hole and plenty of dirt on all judges state and federal. And I have yet to see any one of them call anybody out on the fact their pensions were defrauded and all homes were foreclosed illegally, because SECURITIZING MORTGAGES IS IMPOSSIBLE AND PAYMENT FOR EVERY LOAN WAS ALREADY RECEIVED IN FULL.
  2. this is some of the better news..
    thx – kickboxer& “THE A MAN,
    EXCUSE ME MAY G-D ALMIGHTY INFLICT THE 10 PLAGUES ON THE BANKSTERS.”
    I have faith that He will. The entire corrupt system will be destroyed and we will watch the vultures pick the meat off of them.
  3. Quote:
    “THE A MAN, on April 14, 2011 at 8:05 am said:
    EXCUSE ME MAY G-D ALMIGHTY INFLICT THE 10 PLAGUES ON THE BANKSTERS.”
    I have faith that He will. The entire corrupt system will be destroyed and we will watch the vultures pick the meat off of them.
  4. EXCUSE ME MAY G-D ALMIGHTY INFLICT THE 10 PLAGUES ON THE BANKSTERS.
  5. Monday night is the start of Passover. The Pharoahs didnt get it either. We must inflict the 10 plagues on the Banksters.
    HAPPY PASSOVER NEIL GARFIELD FAMILY AND ASSOCIATES.
    TO MY CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS HAPPY EASTER.
    AND TO THE REST OF HUMANITY HAPPY HOLIDAYS.
  6. “Lenders” are not saying “UNCLE.”
    See below quote from the article. “More normal level of foreclosures”?????? Are these guys kidding??? How did foreclosures become a “Goal” to be achieved???
    Why Foreclosures Could Be Set to Rise Again
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    “The bottleneck is opening up a little bit and we’re starting to see the first inklings that we might be getting back to more normal levels of foreclosures,” said Rick Sharga, a senior vice president at RealtyTrac.
    By normal levels, Sharga means the elevated pace of foreclosure activity that led to more than 1 million homes being taken back by lenders last year.”
  7. California Civil Code Section 2932.5
    Legal Research Home > California Laws > Civil Code > California Civil Code Section 2932.5
    Where a power to sell real property is given to a
    mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure
    the payment of money, the power is part of the security and vests in
    any person who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the
    money secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be exercised
    by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded.
    ASSIGNMENT must be recorded.
  8. Yes, it is about time that California judges start applying the law. I was beginning to think all Cali judges were bought and paid for.
  9. The tide is slowly turning. I have been waiting for this for three years. California has been one of the worst-hit states in the fraudclosure crisis. It is good to see something come around for them. California has very expensive real estate, and the banksters want to get their hands on it. I hope there is a giant surge of lawsuits in or out of bankruptcy court. Kick their butts. Burmese8@yahoo.com
  10. Attorney blog with dozens of motion to dismiss complaint examples.
  11. John posted this 2 days ago. thanx john and thanx dan edstrom.
  12. But this is only one judge and the Appelate courts must recognize.

Enhanced by Zemanta