Monthly Archives: September 2012

Wednesday September 26th 2012 @ 9:19pm

Credit reporting is regulated by the federal government
under the Fair Credit Protection Act (FCPA). The FCPA passed in 1970 and
regulates how credit information can be used and reported. The Federal Trade
Commission handles enforcement of the regulations. The FCPA ensures that the
information on a credit report is fair and accurate, with recourse for the
consumer if the information is inaccurate. The act also regulates how long
negative credit information is reported, annual credit reports and rules for reporting
disputes. The FCPA affects three main groups: consumer reporting agencies,
specialty consumer reporting agencies, and information furnishers.

Other People Are Reading

 Credit Reporting
Act  Fair & Accurate Credit Report
Act 

Print this articleConsumer Reporting Agencies

A consumer reporting agency is a business that prepares
credit reports for lenders checking on a borrower’s credit worthiness. The
three big consumer reporting agencies are Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion.
The FCPA requires the consumer reporting agencies to provide consumers with one
free credit report every year. The agencies are required to verify all
information on the reports. The agencies are not able to report negative
information previously removed on a report without letting the consumer know
five days ahead of time. The FCPA puts the following limits on reporting
negative information: Bankruptcies are reported for ten years. All other forms
of negative information are reported for seven years, then removed from the report.

Speciality Consumer Reporting Agencies

Specialty consumer reporting agencies cover the many
different agencies that provide reports based on medical records, rental
history, check or banking history, employment and insurance history. Examples
of specialty CRAs include Lexis Nexis, Innovis, and Chex System. Like the main
CRAs, the specialty agencies are required to provide a yearly report upon
request.

Information Furnishers

Information furnishers are companies that provide credit
information to the CRAs. An information furnisher is a creditor, bank,
collection agency, court or employer. An information furnisher may report to
many different CRAs, only one or two, or report to a single specialty CRA. For
example, banks report unpaid bounced checks and closed accounts to Chex
Systems, which is referenced by other banks when opening a checking account.Information
furnishers have three responsibilities under the FCPA. Any information a
furnisher sends to the CRA must be accurate in all ways. It must investigate
all information disputes a consumer initiates to ensure the information is
correctly reported. Investigations are required to take place within 30 days of
a consumer dispute request. A furnisher reporting negative information to a CRA
must inform the consumer before and after the negative information is reported.  Sponsored Links  Read more: Credit Reporting Regulations |
eHow.com
http://www.ehow.com/list_6546982_credit-reporting-regulations.html#ixzz27YSzhVTj

Wednesday September 26th 2012 @ 8:59pm foreclosre fraud suit GMAC articel

skip to main | skip to sidebar naked capitalism 

[ Subscribe | Blogroll | Topics | Archives | Videos |
Contributors | Site Statistics | Search ] 

Trade free for 60 days + Get up to $600 with TD Ameritrade.
Recent Items

•Africa and the War Against Offshore Finance – 07/27/2012 –
Lambert Strether

•Libor Manipulation Well Known in London by 1991 –
07/27/2012 – Yves Smith

•Hiram residents seek local control on fracking – 07/27/2012
– Lambert Strether

•Links 7/27/12 – 07/27/2012 – Lambert Strether

•George Washington: Numerous Top Bankers Call for Break Up
of Giant Banks – 07/27/2012 – Lambert Strether

 Monday, September 20,
2010

More on GMAC and Foreclosure Fraud Mess: “The Shit is
Hitting the Fan” (Updated) 

Various updates on the possible drivers of the GMAC
announcement suspending its foreclosures in 23 states. Max Gardner, a North
Carolina bankruptcy attorney who is held in high esteem and is playing a
leading role in legal efforts against foreclosure fraud, provided this comment
on our earlier post on the GMAC bombshell: 

I believe this action relates to thousands of false
affidavits filed by an officer of GMAC Residential Funding. It is also my
understanding that this particular officer may be facing a multitude of federal
and state criminal charges. As of this date, thousands of foreclosure
affidavits have been withdrawn in Florida and a number of notices of false
evidence have been filed by the mill law firms with the Florida trial and
appellate courts. This, in my view, is the tip of the iceberg! 

More details from Jeffrey Stephens of the Florida Default
Law Group via e-mail: 

On September 14, 2010, Florida Default Law Group filed
“Notices” in foreclosure actions that the firm was withdrawing Affidavits it
had previously filed. The Affidavits were signed by Jeffrey Stephan of GMAC
Mortgage/Homecomings Financial in Montgomery County, PA. Stephan had previously
admitted in depositions that he signed thousands of such affidavits each month
with no knowledge of the contents and in many cases without even bothering to
read the Affidavits. In the Notices, Florida Default claimed that “the
undersigned law firm was not aware” that the Stephans Affidavits were improper
and had a good faith belief in the Stephans Affidavits. Stephans signed so many
Affidavits, however, on behalf of so many different securitized trusts, that
his lack of actual knowledge should have been obvious. Many other mortgage
servicing companies and foreclosure firms have filed thousands of other
worthless, unfounded Affidavits. Perhaps the Law Offices of Marshall Watson
will notify courts that Lost Note Affidavits signed by Linda Green, Tywanna
Thomas and Korell Harp are also improper; perhaps The Law Offices of David
Stern will notify Courts that their own office manager, Cheryl Samons, had no
knowledge and did not even read the Affidavits she signed. The dark days of the
foreclosure “robo-signers” seem to finally be coming to an end in Florida. Will
the same judges who accepted thousands of these worthless Affidavits now
believe the allegations that the foreclosure law firms acted in good faith when
they presented these documents to Courts? An example of the Notice filed by
Florida Default is available in the “Pleadings” section of this site.
Highlights from the deposition of Jeffrey Stephan are available in the
“Articles” section. Scott Anderson, Bryan Bly, Margaret Dalton, Erica
Johnson-Seck, Crystal Moore and the other professional signers may finally be
held accountable for their sworn false statements. 

I’m also told that an Mortgage Bankers Association
conference which is in progress, is “freaking out” over this. Um, how could
they not know this dead body was in the room? 

This analysis from Jasraj Vaidya at Barclays via Brian C (no
online source). As this alludes, this has the potential to extend/derail
foreclosures and potentially increase loss severities. Moreover, the evidence
is mounting that documentation fraud has become widespread, if not pervasive,
because the securitization machinery effectively broke down on the back end
(the steps necessary to get the note, the borrower’s IOU, into the trust, were
not completed, and after the fact forgery is used to create a legally
acceptable paper trail). 

It was reported on Bloomberg today that GMAC has sent a memo
to all brokers suspending all foreclosure activity against delinquent borrowers
in 23 states… 

Most likely an issue with judicial states 

Using publicly available data from HUD and RealtyTrac, we
have created a list of judicial foreclosure states. These are states where
judicial foreclosures are most common and in which the lender has to appear
before a judge and obtain a court order before initiating foreclosure
proceedings against the delinquent borrower. Such states tend to have much
longer foreclosure timelines than non-judicial states. What is striking about
the list of states in the GMAC announcement is that all but one (North
Carolina) are judicial states. Also, all judicial states in the country but one
(Delaware) are in the GMAC list. This would hint at some potential issues with
judicial states that is driving the GMAC directive. 

A recent news report provided some hints at the type of
issues with judicial foreclosures that servicers may look to avoid before it
become a larger issue. The Florida Attorney General recently announced an
investigation of the three largest foreclosure law firms in the state. These
firms represent the lenders, and there have been question about claims of note
ownership put forth by these firms during foreclosure

proceedings. A clean record of note ownership is lost or
hazy in many cases, due to multiple transfers of the notes. The moratorium can
be an attempt on the part of RFC to ensure that the process does not have
significant flaws that can leave it open to legal action in the future. 

At this stage, we are unable to ascertain what that exact
issue might be. What is certain is that foreclosure timelines in those states
for GMAC loans will be extend further, potentially adversely affecting their
eventual severity. 

Can it also be a lawsuit in the making? 

Given that the directive spans multiple states, and given
previous experience with Countrywide, there is always the possibility of some
multi-state settlement in the works for various disclosure issues with

lending practices. However, we found some major omissions
when we compared the list of states in the GMAC announcement with those
involved in the Countrywide announcement. California, Nevada and Michigan –
three states with significant mortgage volume, as well as distressed mortgages
– are missing from the announcement. This makes us a little skeptical whether
this is indeed a class action lawsuit in the making on the lines of the
Countrywide one. On the other hand, the Countrywide list ballooned from 11
states initially to 42 states and DC finally, so one cannot yet rule out
multi-state action. However, given greater evidence about judicial states, we
still believe that to be the primary driver of  this directive. 

Update 5:00 PM: GMAC has issued a press release denying the
Bloomberg story, which is pretty curious, given that Bloomberg cited specific
language from a memo GMAC issued last Friday and got confirmation of the memo
from a named GMAC source. As we will show further down, Bloomberg has modified
its earlier report only slightly. While GMAC asserts it it in business as usual
mode, this is hardly the case; it has most assuredly suspended evictions in the
23 states in question. 

Note that the press release indicates that the GMAC
investigation started more than three months ago. It further indicates (at the
top, where one might not notice the timing issue) that “new foreclosures” are
proceeding. That isn’t defined, since foreclosures consists of many legal
filings, but it gives the impression of meaning newly-initiated foreclosures.
Moreover, given the apparent change in procedures, it also raises the question
of whether this change will restrict the number of properties that can be
foreclosed upon. As we have indicated, the evidence is mounting that private label
securitizations in the post 2004 era suffered from widespread, if not endemic,
failure to convey the note (the borrower’s IOU) to the trust properly, which
means the trust cannot foreclose (ie, the trust lacks legal standing), and the
time has long passed for any easy remedies to be available. 

Note even more curiously, this memo takes the line that the
problem was “procedural”. Hhm. So they found they had an internal officer
signing thousands of bogus affidavits? He presumably would not have gone this
route if there was not an impediment (presumably failure to convey the note
through the proper chain of endorsements, as required by the Pooling &
Servicing Agreement). And what workaround have they come up with, exactly? 

From PR Newswire (hat tip reader mezcal). I’ve highlighted
the relevant sections 

Recent reports have stated that GMAC Mortgage instituted a
moratorium on all residential foreclosures in 23 states. This is not true. In
fact, all new residential foreclosures are continuing in the ordinary course of
business with no interruption in our usual practice. 

The speculation likely emanates from a direction previously
given by GMAC Mortgage to certain of its outsource vendors to allow time to
address a potential issue that was raised in a number of existing foreclosures
challenging the internal procedure we used for executing one or more judicially
required forms. This direction was to suspend evictions and REO closings where
the related foreclosure could have been impacted by the same internal procedure.
We are also reviewing certain previously completed foreclosures where the same
procedure may have been used. 

We are unable to comment on the specific merits of the
challenge because some of them are in litigation. Nevertheless, a new process
has already been developed and implemented so that though some existing
foreclosures may experience delays while corrective action is taken, there will
be no interruption in new foreclosures. These delays are expected to be
resolved within the next few weeks and certainly before year end, without
serious consequence. GMAC Mortgage has been addressing the procedural challenge
for more than three months. In all other respects, the mortgage business is
operating as usual. 

Now contrast this release, which in isolation reads like a
denial, with the updated Bloomberg story, which shows that you can drive a
truck through “In all other respects” qualification to the “business as usual”
claim: 

Ally Financial Inc.’s GMAC Mortgage unit told brokers and
agents to halt evictions tied to foreclosures on homeowners in 23 states
including Florida, Connecticut and New York…. 

The company has been working on the issue for “more than
three months” and expects it to be resolved “within the next few weeks,” Proia
said. She declined to provide further details, saying some of the cases are in
litigation. 

Suspensions will occur “where the related foreclosure could
have been impacted by the same internal procedure. We are also reviewing
certain previously completed foreclosures where the same procedure may have
been used,” Proia said. 

The lender will suspend sales of bank-owned properties and
extend closings 30 days. Buyers will be able to cancel their agreement to
purchase and get their deposit back, according to the memo 

Topics: Banking industry, Credit markets, Legal, moral
hazard, Real estate 

 Email This Post
Posted by Yves Smith at 3:52 pm 

38 Comments » Links to this post 

 38 Comments:

• zephyrum says:

September 20, 2010 at 4:45 pm

Wow. Very interesting, Yves. Thank you.

 

(I can’t help reading the post title “More on GMAC…” as
“Moron GMAC…”)

 

• ScottP says:

September 20, 2010 at 4:45 pm

Thank you for sharing this. We need to know.

 

• steven teuber says:

September 20, 2010 at 4:57 pm

check it ou

 

• mezcal says:

September 20, 2010 at 4:58 pm

GMAC is now denying the entire thing. 

MINNEAPOLIS, Sept. 20 /PRNewswire/ — Recent reports have
stated that GMAC Mortgage instituted a moratorium on all residential
foreclosures in 23 states. This is not true. In fact, all new residential
foreclosures are continuing in the ordinary course of business with no
interruption in our usual practice. 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GMAC-Mortgage-Statement-on-prnews-2558172474.html?x=0&.v=1

 

• readerOfTeaLeaves says:

September 20, 2010 at 5:08 pm

So the mortgage bankers are ‘freaking out’?

This is news to them….?

How do they get their shoes tied in the morning?!

 

• John Stark says:

September 20, 2010 at 5:52 pm

Here’s a story about Bryan Bly, mentioned in the post above. 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/when-bryan-j-bly-became-nb-did-he-know-what-he-was-signing/1103508

 

• John Stark says:

September 20, 2010 at 5:58 pm

There’s a Florida company called “Nationwide Title Clearing”
that handles lots of property reconveyance documents. Here in Bellingham,
Wash., at the opposite corner of the country, I’m finding many such documents
filed on properties here, signed by a small number of individuals identified as
“vice presidents” of various financial institutions. I’m trying to find out if
these documents, with little curlicue scribbles as signatures, are legally
valid. This is a non-judicial foreclosure state.

 

• Michael Redman says:

September 20, 2010 at 6:02 pm

Here is why they are freaking out. It is a huge issue and it
is all about to unravel…

 

http://4closurefraud.org/2010/09/14/what-what-re-jeffrey-stephan-of-gmac-florida-default-law-group-admits-to-violation-of-professional-conduct-code/ 

I just got off the phone with the Financial Times and GMAC
is saying it is just a technicality. 

I have all the depos on the site above if interested. 

GMAC is not the only one facing this issue…

 

• Z says:

September 20, 2010 at 6:13 pm

So what happens if these ownership documents are shown to
have been signed w/o no knowledge of the properties? It sounds like they can’t
foreclose then. Does the paperwork lead to another owner of the mortgages? Can
that owner of the mortgage foreclose? If not, can anyone foreclose on those
homes? If not, does that mean that these folks can stay in their houses w/o
making mortgage payments … essentially that they have free housing?

 

Z

 

• Z says:

September 20, 2010 at 6:22 pm

My first sentence should read as follows: 

So what happens if these ownership documents are shown to
have been signed with no knowledge of the properties?

 

• Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty – Foe of Tyranny
says:

September 20, 2010 at 6:28 pm

This is wonderful news. For the entire country. 

I would love to start seeing charges brought, and
convictions obtained, for: forgery, uttering a forgery, possession of a forged
instrument, perjury, subbornation of perjury, bribing a witness, bribe
receiving by witness, tampering with public records, filing of sham pleadings,
fraud on the court, etc.
 

And attorneys must needs be prosecuted as well, both
criminally and with their BAR Associations. Can you say “dibarrment” boys and
girls?

   

Foreclosure Fraud – Fighting Foreclosure Fraud by Sharing
the Knowledge     HomeAbout UsAdvertise
With UsContact 4closureFraud.orgContributeDepositionsMessage
BoardSecuritizationVideosACT NOW! GMAC BANKRUPTCY PETITION FOR OFFICIAL
BORROWER COMMITTEE

Posted by 4closureFraud on June 19, 2012 · 3 Comments

 

 

BANKRUPTCY PETITION FOR OFFICIAL BORROWER COMMITTEE

ALERT

BANKRUPTCY PETITION FOR OFFICIAL BORROWER COMMITTEE

In re: U.S. Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York
(Manhattan)

Bankruptcy Petition #: 12-12020-mg

 

Debtor-Residential Capital, LLC aka Residential Capital
Corporation

Subsidiary List – See Attached Exhibit A

 

1177 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

NEW YORK-NY

Tax ID / EIN: 20-1770738

 

Robert Brown, a consumer attorney based in New York will
bring the motion for an Official Borrower Committee in the Residential Capital,
LLC bankruptcy case. He has experience in lender liability litigation and
bankruptcy practice.

 

Robert E. Brown, Esq.

Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, PC

44 Wall Street

Wednesday September 26th 2012 @ 8:50pm records for mortgages at courthouse

Public Records

 Home

 OR Document Search

 OR Legal Search

 OR Case Search

 Map Search

 Range Information

 User Guide

     Clerk’s
Office   |   Records Search   |  
Recording   |   Court Divisions   |  
Clerk To The Board   |   Careers  
|   Links   |  
Forms   |   Fees

 

 

Role

Functions

Office Locations

Holidays

Press Releases

Notices

News Room

Clerk Webmail

Emergency Information

Fees

Forms

FAQsBMR Records

Court Records

Dockets

Foreclosures

Lobbyist

Official/Land Records

Tax Deeds

VAB History 2007-2011 Zoning Maps

Fees

Forms

FAQsOverview

Official/Land Records

Tax Deeds

Passports

Marriage Licenses

Fees

Forms

FAQsChild Support

Civil

Civil Appeals

Criminal

Domestic Violence

Evictions

Foreclosures

Jury Duty

Juvenile

Probate

S.A.V.E.

Small Claims

Traffic

Fees

Forms

FAQsBoard Minutes & Records

Agendas

BCC Minutes

Advisory Board Minutes Recaps

Lobbyist Registration

Value Adjustment Board

Commissioners

Finance

Internal Audit

Clerk’s Accounting

Fees

Forms

FAQsOpportunities

Volunteer

BenefitsCollier County

Sheriff’s Office

Tax Collector

Property Appraiser

Supervisor Of Elections

B.C.C.

State

Florida Elected Officials and Laws

MyFlorida.com

FLClerks.com

FLCourts.org

Sunbiz.com

20th Judicial Circuit Court

Collier County Judges

F.D.L.E.

Public Defender

State Attorney

Federal

Passports Board Minutes & Records

Civil Evictions Civil Small Claims

Family Law Forms

Marriage License

Recording

Traffic

Turbo Court

Work ApplicationClerk To The Board

Court Departments

Traffic

Recording DepartmentInternetSearch took 0.017 seconds.
Results 1 – 34 of 34  

 Party Names Recorded
DocType Inst # Book Page Pgs 

 F:CYPRESS COVE AT
PELICAN STRAND CONDO ASSN INC

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 6/22/2012 ORDER
4709801 OR 4810 473 2

 

 

 V

 F:CLUB AT THE STRAND
LC

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 6/14/2012 CL 4706228
OR 4807 1583 1

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:CLUB AT THE STRAND
LC

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 7/13/2011 CL 4585268
OR 4700 3044 1

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:CYPRESS COVE AT
PELICAN STRAND CONDO ASSN INC

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 6/30/2011 FJ 4580514
OR 4696 2452 4

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:RESIDENTIAL FUNDING
CO LLC

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 3/15/2011 DISM
4537237 OR 4661 1647 2

 

 

 V

 F:OPTION ONE MORTGAGE
CORP

F:ZISKA MARY JEAN

T:RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CO LLC

 4/7/2009 AM 4280685
OR 4441 3482 2

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:CLUB STRAND LC

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 3/30/2009 CL 4277073
OR 4439 754 1

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:RESIDENTIAL FUNDING
CO LLC

T:CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND CONDO ASSN INC

TELICAN STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN INC

T:STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN INC

T:SYMBIONT SERVICE CORP

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 2/22/2008 LP 4131433
OR 4332 777 2

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:CYPRESS COVE
PELICAN STRAND CONDO ASSN INC

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 12/18/2007 LP 4107783
OR 4312 3445 1

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:CYPRESS COVE
PELICAN STRAND CONDO ASSN INC

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 5/10/2007 CL 4016619
OR 4227 2080 1

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE 20TH JUDICIAL COLLIER

T:WEBER PATRICK C GRDN

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 3/8/2007 ORDER
3984182 OR 4194 1490 1

 

 

 V

 F:AEGIS FUNDING CORP

F:MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 1/11/2007 SM 3958255
OR 4168 81 1

 

 

 V

 F:CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE 20TH JUDICIAL COLLIER

T:WEBER PATRICK C GRDN

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 1/8/2007 ORDER
3956317 OR 4165 3527 3

 

 

 V

 F:GREGORY MARION JEAN

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 11/21/2006 SM 3935858
OR 4142 2349 1

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:GREGORY MARION JEAN

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 11/21/2006 SM 3935859
OR 4142 2350 1

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:ZISKA MARY JEAN

T:OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP

 11/21/2006 MTGE
3935860 OR 4142 2351 14

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:CYPRESS COVE
PELICAN STRAND CONDO ASSN INC

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 8/1/2006 RL 3880108
OR 4081 1558 1

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:OAK STREET MORTGAGE
LLC

FELICAN CAPITAL INVESTMENT GROUP INC

F:ZISKA MARY JEAN

T:RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORP

 3/10/2006 AM 3799341
OR 3996 2232 1

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601

 V

 FELICAN CAPITAL
INVESTMENT GROUP INC

F:RESIDENTAL FUNDING CORP

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 3/10/2006 SM 3799342
OR 3996 2233 1

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:CYPRESS COVE
PELICAN STRAND CONDO ASSN INC

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 2/16/2006 CL 3787045
OR 3984 1179 1

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 FELICAN CAPITAL
INVESTMENT GROUP INC

F:ZISKA MARY JEAN

T:RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORP

 2/14/2006 AM 3785331
OR 3982 2341 2

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 FELICAN CAPITAL
INVESTMENT GROUP INC

F:RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORP

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 2/14/2006 SM 3785332
OR 3982 2343 1

 

 

 V

 FELICAN CAPITAL
INVESTMENT GROUP INC

F:RESIDENTIAL FUNDING CORP

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 2/14/2006 SM 3785333
OR 3982 2344 1

 

 

OR 17553 PG 1059 INCORRECT 
V

 F:ZISKA MARY JEAN

T:AEGIS FUNDING CORP

T:MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC

 1/3/2006 MTGE 3760620
OR 3959 173 17

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:ZISKA MARY JEAN

T:GREGORY MARION JEAN

 11/15/2005 NOTE
3733447 OR 3929 3063 2

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:ZISKA MARY JEAN

T:GREGORY MARION JEAN

 3/17/2005 NOTE
3577939 OR 3754 3961 4

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:ZISKA ELWIN J

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 10/7/2004 DEED
3487763 OR 3657 471 1

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 F:ZISKA MARY JEAN

TELICAN CAPITAL INVESTMENT GROUP INC

 10/7/2004 MTGE
3487764 OR 3657 472 15

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601 V

 FELICAN CAPITAL
INVESTMENT GROUP INC

F:ZISKA MARY JEAN

T:OAK STREET MORTGAGE

 10/7/2004 AM 3487765
OR 3657 487 2

 

 

CYPRESS COVE PELICAN STRAND PHASE 16 BUILDING 16 UNIT 1601

OR * PG * V

 F:SOUTHTRUST BANK SW
FL

T:ZISKA MARION J

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 4/12/1999 SM 2461362
OR 2534 1040 1

 

 

OR 1904 PG 1126 V

 F:ZISKA MARION J

F:ZISKA MARY JEAN

T:ZISKA MARION JEAN GREGORY

 3/11/1994 DEED
1797450 OR 1922 1219 2

 

 

NAPLES PARK UN 6 BLK 45 LT 23 V

 F:ZISKA MARION J

T:ZISKA MARION

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 1/13/1994 DEED
1778984 OR 1904 1125 1

 

 

NAPLES PARK UN 6 BLK 45 LT 23 V

 F:ZISKA MARION J

F:ZISKA MARY JEAN

T:SOUTHTRUST BANK SW FL NA

 1/13/1994 MTGE
1778985 OR 1904 1126 7

 

 

NAPLES PARK UN 6 BLK 45 LT 23 V

 F:JOHNSON DONALD H TR

T:ZISKA MARION J

T:ZISKA MARY JEAN

 1/13/1994 SM 1778982
OR 1904 1123 1

 

 

OR 1573 PG 830 VAR OR LT 23 BLK 45 UN 6 V

 

 

  Search 

 

Home | Site Map | Search | Disclaimer | Privacy Statement |
FAQs | Contact Us

This website is maintained by The Collier County Clerk of
the Circuit Court. Under Florida law, email addresses are public records. If
you do not want your email address released in response to a public records
request, do not send email to this entity. Instead, contact this office by
phone or in writing.

    

Wednesday September 26th 2012 @ 8:43pm Gmac and foreclosure fraud mess” the shit is hitting the fan”e

 Monday, September 20,
2010

More on GMAC and Foreclosure Fraud Mess: “The Shit is
Hitting the Fan” (Updated)

 

Various updates on the possible drivers of the GMAC
announcement suspending its foreclosures in 23 states. Max Gardner, a North
Carolina bankruptcy attorney who is held in high esteem and is playing a
leading role in legal efforts against foreclosure fraud, provided this comment
on our earlier post on the GMAC bombshell:

 

I believe this action relates to thousands of false
affidavits filed by an officer of GMAC Residential Funding. It is also my
understanding that this particular officer may be facing a multitude of federal
and state criminal charges. As of this date, thousands of foreclosure
affidavits have been withdrawn in Florida and a number of notices of false
evidence have been filed by the mill law firms with the Florida trial and
appellate courts. This, in my view, is the tip of the iceberg!

 

More details from Jeffrey Stephens of the Florida Default
Law Group via e-mail:

 

On September 14, 2010, Florida Default Law Group filed
“Notices” in foreclosure actions that the firm was withdrawing Affidavits it
had previously filed. The Affidavits were signed by Jeffrey Stephan of GMAC
Mortgage/Homecomings Financial in Montgomery County, PA. Stephan had previously
admitted in depositions that he signed thousands of such affidavits each month
with no knowledge of the contents and in many cases without even bothering to
read the Affidavits. In the Notices, Florida Default claimed that “the
undersigned law firm was not aware” that the Stephans Affidavits were improper
and had a good faith belief in the Stephans Affidavits. Stephans signed so many
Affidavits, however, on behalf of so many different securitized trusts, that
his lack of actual knowledge should have been obvious. Many other mortgage
servicing companies and foreclosure firms have filed thousands of other
worthless, unfounded Affidavits. Perhaps the Law Offices of Marshall Watson
will notify courts that Lost Note Affidavits signed by Linda Green, Tywanna
Thomas and Korell Harp are also improper; perhaps The Law Offices of David
Stern will notify Courts that their own office manager, Cheryl Samons, had no
knowledge and did not even read the Affidavits she signed. The dark days of the
foreclosure “robo-signers” seem to finally be coming to an end in Florida. Will
the same judges who accepted thousands of these worthless Affidavits now
believe the allegations that the foreclosure law firms acted in good faith when
they presented these documents to Courts? An example of the Notice filed by
Florida Default is available in the “Pleadings” section of this site.
Highlights from the deposition of Jeffrey Stephan are available in the
“Articles” section. Scott Anderson, Bryan Bly, Margaret Dalton, Erica
Johnson-Seck, Crystal Moore and the other professional signers may finally be
held accountable for their sworn false statements.

 

I’m also told that an Mortgage Bankers Association
conference which is in progress, is “freaking out” over this. Um, how could
they not know this dead body was in the room?

 

This analysis from Jasraj Vaidya at Barclays via Brian C (no
online source). As this alludes, this has the potential to extend/derail
foreclosures and potentially increase loss severities. Moreover, the evidence
is mounting that documentation fraud has become widespread, if not pervasive,
because the securitization machinery effectively broke down on the back end
(the steps necessary to get the note, the borrower’s IOU, into the trust, were
not completed, and after the fact forgery is used to create a legally
acceptable paper trail).

 

It was reported on Bloomberg today that GMAC has sent a memo
to all brokers suspending all foreclosure activity against delinquent borrowers
in 23 states…

 

Most likely an issue with judicial states

 

Using publicly available data from HUD and RealtyTrac, we
have created a list of judicial foreclosure states. These are states where
judicial foreclosures are most common and in which the lender has to appear
before a judge and obtain a court order before initiating foreclosure
proceedings against the delinquent borrower. Such states tend to have much
longer foreclosure timelines than non-judicial states. What is striking about
the list of states in the GMAC announcement is that all but one (North
Carolina) are judicial states. Also, all judicial states in the country but one
(Delaware) are in the GMAC list. This would hint at some potential issues with
judicial states that is driving the GMAC directive.

 

A recent news report provided some hints at the type of
issues with judicial foreclosures that servicers may look to avoid before it
become a larger issue. The Florida Attorney General recently announced an
investigation of the three largest foreclosure law firms in the state. These
firms represent the lenders, and there have been question about claims of note
ownership put forth by these firms during foreclosure

proceedings. A clean record of note ownership is lost or
hazy in many cases, due to multiple transfers of the notes. The moratorium can
be an attempt on the part of RFC to ensure that the process does not have
significant flaws that can leave it open to legal action in the future.

 

At this stage, we are unable to ascertain what that exact
issue might be. What is certain is that foreclosure timelines in those states
for GMAC loans will be extend further, potentially adversely affecting their
eventual severity.

 

Can it also be a lawsuit in the making?

 

Given that the directive spans multiple states, and given
previous experience with Countrywide, there is always the possibility of some
multi-state settlement in the works for various disclosure issues with

lending practices. However, we found some major omissions
when we compared the list of states in the GMAC announcement with those
involved in the Countrywide announcement. California, Nevada and Michigan –
three states with significant mortgage volume, as well as distressed mortgages
– are missing from the announcement. This makes us a little skeptical whether
this is indeed a class action lawsuit in the making on the lines of the
Countrywide one. On the other hand, the Countrywide list ballooned from 11
states initially to 42 states and DC finally, so one cannot yet rule out
multi-state action. However, given greater evidence about judicial states, we
still believe that to be the primary driver of

this directive.

 

Update 5:00 PM: GMAC has issued a press release denying the
Bloomberg story, which is pretty curious, given that Bloomberg cited specific
language from a memo GMAC issued last Friday and got confirmation of the memo
from a named GMAC source. As we will show further down, Bloomberg has modified
its earlier report only slightly. While GMAC asserts it it in business as usual
mode, this is hardly the case; it has most assuredly suspended evictions in the
23 states in question.

 

Note that the press release indicates that the GMAC
investigation started more than three months ago. It further indicates (at the
top, where one might not notice the timing issue) that “new foreclosures” are
proceeding. That isn’t defined, since foreclosures consists of many legal
filings, but it gives the impression of meaning newly-initiated foreclosures.
Moreover, given the apparent change in procedures, it also raises the question
of whether this change will restrict the number of properties that can be
foreclosed upon. As we have indicated, the evidence is mounting that private label
securitizations in the post 2004 era suffered from widespread, if not endemic,
failure to convey the note (the borrower’s IOU) to the trust properly, which
means the trust cannot foreclose (ie, the trust lacks legal standing), and the
time has long passed for any easy remedies to be available.

 

Note even more curiously, this memo takes the line that the
problem was “procedural”. Hhm. So they found they had an internal officer
signing thousands of bogus affidavits? He presumably would not have gone this
route if there was not an impediment (presumably failure to convey the note
through the proper chain of endorsements, as required by the Pooling &
Servicing Agreement). And what workaround have they come up with, exactly?

 

From PR Newswire (hat tip reader mezcal). I’ve highlighted
the relevant sections

 

Recent reports have stated that GMAC Mortgage instituted a
moratorium on all residential foreclosures in 23 states. This is not true. In
fact, all new residential foreclosures are continuing in the ordinary course of
business with no interruption in our usual practice.

 

The speculation likely emanates from a direction previously
given by GMAC Mortgage to certain of its outsource vendors to allow time to
address a potential issue that was raised in a number of existing foreclosures
challenging the internal procedure we used for executing one or more judicially
required forms. This direction was to suspend evictions and REO closings where
the related foreclosure could have been impacted by the same internal procedure.
We are also reviewing certain previously completed foreclosures where the same
procedure may have been used.

 

We are unable to comment on the specific merits of the
challenge because some of them are in litigation. Nevertheless, a new process
has already been developed and implemented so that though some existing
foreclosures may experience delays while corrective action is taken, there will
be no interruption in new foreclosures. These delays are expected to be
resolved within the next few weeks and certainly before year end, without
serious consequence. GMAC Mortgage has been addressing the procedural challenge
for more than three months. In all other respects, the mortgage business is
operating as usual.

 

Now contrast this release, which in isolation reads like a
denial, with the updated Bloomberg story, which shows that you can drive a
truck through “In all other respects” qualification to the “business as usual”
claim:

 

Ally Financial Inc.’s GMAC Mortgage unit told brokers and
agents to halt evictions tied to foreclosures on homeowners in 23 states
including Florida, Connecticut and New York….

 

The company has been working on the issue for “more than
three months” and expects it to be resolved “within the next few weeks,” Proia
said. She declined to provide further details, saying some of the cases are in
litigation.

 

Suspensions will occur “where the related foreclosure could
have been impacted by the same internal procedure. We are also reviewing
certain previously completed foreclosures where the same procedure may have
been used,” Proia said.

 

The lender will suspend sales of bank-owned properties and
extend closings 30 days. Buyers will be able to cancel their agreement to
purchase and get their deposit back, according to the memo

 

.

 

Topics: Banking industry, Credit markets, Legal, moral
hazard, Real estate

 

 Email This Post
Posted by Yves Smith at 3:52 pm

 

38 Comments » Links to this post

 

 38 Comments:

• zephyrum says:

September 20, 2010 at 4:45 pm

Wow. Very interesting, Yves. Thank you.

 

(I can’t help reading the post title “More on GMAC…” as
“Moron GMAC…”)

 

• ScottP says:

September 20, 2010 at 4:45 pm

Thank you for sharing this. We need to know.

 

• steven teuber says:

September 20, 2010 at 4:57 pm

check it ou

 

• mezcal says:

September 20, 2010 at 4:58 pm

GMAC is now denying the entire thing.

 

MINNEAPOLIS, Sept. 20 /PRNewswire/ — Recent reports have
stated that GMAC Mortgage instituted a moratorium on all residential
foreclosures in 23 states. This is not true. In fact, all new residential
foreclosures are continuing in the ordinary course of business with no
interruption in our usual practice.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GMAC-Mortgage-Statement-on-prnews-2558172474.html?x=0&.v=1

 

• readerOfTeaLeaves says:

September 20, 2010 at 5:08 pm

So the mortgage bankers are ‘freaking out’?

This is news to them….?

How do they get their shoes tied in the morning?!

 

• John Stark says:

September 20, 2010 at 5:52 pm

Here’s a story about Bryan Bly, mentioned in the post above.

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/when-bryan-j-bly-became-nb-did-he-know-what-he-was-signing/1103508

 

• John Stark says:

September 20, 2010 at 5:58 pm

There’s a Florida company called “Nationwide Title Clearing”
that handles lots of property reconveyance documents. Here in Bellingham,
Wash., at the opposite corner of the country, I’m finding many such documents
filed on properties here, signed by a small number of individuals identified as
“vice presidents” of various financial institutions. I’m trying to find out if
these documents, with little curlicue scribbles as signatures, are legally
valid. This is a non-judicial foreclosure state.

 

• Michael Redman says:

September 20, 2010 at 6:02 pm

Here is why they are freaking out. It is a huge issue and it
is all about to unravel…

 

http://4closurefraud.org/2010/09/14/what-what-re-jeffrey-stephan-of-gmac-florida-default-law-group-admits-to-violation-of-professional-conduct-code/

 

I just got off the phone with the Financial Times and GMAC
is saying it is just a technicality.

 

I have all the depos on the site above if interested.

 

GMAC is not the only one facing this issue…

 

• Z says:

September 20, 2010 at 6:13 pm

So what happens if these ownership documents are shown to
have been signed w/o no knowledge of the properties? It sounds like they can’t
foreclose then. Does the paperwork lead to another owner of the mortgages? Can
that owner of the mortgage foreclose? If not, can anyone foreclose on those
homes? If not, does that mean that these folks can stay in their houses w/o
making mortgage payments … essentially that they have free housing?

 

Z

 

• Z says:

September 20, 2010 at 6:22 pm

My first sentence should read as follows:

 

So what happens if these ownership documents are shown to
have been signed with no knowledge of the properties?

 

• Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty – Foe of Tyranny
says:

September 20, 2010 at 6:28 pm

This is wonderful news. For the entire country.

 

I would love to start seeing charges brought, and
convictions obtained, for: forgery, uttering a forgery, possession of a forged
instrument, perjury, subbornation of perjury, bribing a witness, bribe
receiving by witness, tampering with public records, filing of sham pleadings,
fraud on the court, etc.

 

And attorneys must needs be prosecuted as well, both
criminally and with their BAR Associations. Can you say “dibarrment” boys and
girls?

 

May this not stop with GMAC as the practice is industry
wide.

 

• mezcal says:

September 20, 2010 at 7:13 pm

ZeroHedge now has the (purportedly) actual GMAC letter up.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gmacs-full-letter-agents-something-does-not-add

 

Kind of amusing watching all these fraudsters tripping over
each others spin.

 

• F. Beard says:

September 20, 2010 at 7:13 pm

It’s kind of fun watching an inherently dishonest system,
fractional reserve lending, implode.

 

What a twisted mess we make

when we dare to fractionate

 

• MinnItMan says:

September 20, 2010 at 8:15 pm

Reading between the lines here, I think this is probably
about “true and correct copies of originals” affidavits. The people signing
them don’t ever see first hand the originals they’re making their statements to
support. Very bad for them, and the cases depending on them.

 

This will affect everybody in a by-action state all most
lenders, since the T&CC affidavit is what gets foreclosure, what’s know as
a routine “document case” into court.

 

Note: I do not think this specifically relates to MERS
assignments or assignments at all. The T&CC affidavit is a court document,
not a real estate document.

 

Go short on the E&O insurers for the law firms and
foreclosure processing companies. Ulitmately, it is really “faster, better,
cheaper” that is going to be the culprit here. ) O for 3 ain’t bad.

 

• Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty – Foe of Tyranny
says:

September 21, 2010 at 12:18 am

Not only do the rules require the affiant executing the
affidavit of merit to have personal knowledge it is also required that the
records referred to in the affidavit of merit actually be ATTACHED to the
affidavit. Further all of this needs to be attached to the motion for summary
judgment.

 

So many balls are being dropped by the courts, by
plaintiffs, and even by defense counsel.

 

◦ Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty – Foe of Tyranny
says:

September 21, 2010 at 12:34 am

Replying to my own reply, LOL.

 

Federal Rule 56 has this to say:

 

(e) Affidavits; Further Testimony.

 

(1) In General.

 

A supporting or opposing affidavit must be made on personal
knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that
the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated. If a paper or part
of a paper is referred to in an affidavit, a sworn or certified copy must be
attached to or served with the affidavit. The court may permit an affidavit to
be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or
additional affidavits.

 


Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty – Foe of Tyranny says:

September 21, 2010 at 11:04 am

Now a Reply to a Reply to a Reply, LOL

 

Federal Rule 6(c)(2) has this to say about attaching
affidavits to a motion:

 

(2) Supporting Affidavit.

 

Any affidavit supporting a motion must be served with the
motion. Except as Rule 59(c) provides otherwise, any opposing affidavit must be
served at least 7 days before the hearing, unless the court permits service at
another time.

 

• PJ says:

September 20, 2010 at 8:29 pm

“So what happens if these ownership documents are shown to
have been signed w/o no knowledge of the properties? It sounds like they can’t
foreclose then. Does the paperwork lead to another owner of the mortgages? Can
that owner of the mortgage foreclose? If not, can anyone foreclose on those
homes? If not, does that mean that these folks can stay in their houses w/o
making mortgage payments … essentially that they have free housing?”

 

What happens? No one pays their mortgages and you kiss the
banking system and government good bye. I do not see it coming to pass. If so
hang on to your hats..

 

• Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty – Foe of Tyranny
says:

September 21, 2010 at 12:47 am

The alternative of the foreclosure train continuing to gain
speed (which it is doing), having our middle class wiped out, and skyrocketing
rates of every bad societal malady overwhelming us, and that for the next
several decades, is even less acceptable to me.

 

It seems it is largely the “banks” that created this mess.
If there is any one/s, or any party/parties or entities that need to take the
fall I believe it to be them.

 

Besides, our current monetary system was a bad idea from
inception back in 1913. I see a reset button as a good thing. Kind of like
ripping off a bandaid.

 

• Lori Kelly says:

September 20, 2010 at 9:08 pm

Great stuff. Thanks for posting this. We have a group of
people at beingmiddleclass dot org sharing information, exchanging ideas and
will not allow the middle class to disappear.

 

I am hanging on to my hat. What a message we could send as a
group to stop paying our mortgages and let the banksters fail.

 

• MichaelC says:

September 20, 2010 at 9:11 pm

Yves

 

And so it begins. It’s worht pointing out Treas is the
majority shareholder here.

 

Can you expand on the

Can it also be a lawsuit in the making? paragraph?

 

Would the Countrywide settlement you’re referring to be a
sweep things under the carpet deal in the works, or is it a positive
development?

 

• skippy says:

September 20, 2010 at 9:35 pm

Yeah who owns…cough bailed GMAC, the government as the proxy
of US citizens…hahahahahaha…bailed out so they could finnish the screw job they
started ROFLMAO.

 

Go get them…Tea Party[!] BTW who will end up shooting them
selves in a wild orgy of gun fire…sigh….hint Wall st and its bond holders O.K.

 

• anon48 says:

September 20, 2010 at 10:00 pm

“…the securitization machinery effectively broke down on the
back end (the steps necessary to get the note, the borrower’s IOU, into the
trust …”

 

Do these circumstances now permanently void the borrower’s
note? Or does it just mean a tremendous amount of bookkeeping cleanup (e.g.
tracking down the former legal holders of the notes and properly executing the
transfer into the trust? Wow, either way, this is huge-and- a much more
upsetting scenario than what was being discussed a few days ago on NC.

 

Side note, if a large number of former liar loan recipients
hit the lottery because of this mess and somehow get their homes back or
continue to own them now debt free, just hope the lending institution that has
to write the debt off remembers to issue the 1099C’s( Cancellation of Debt
income). If the government (taxpayers) winds up having to pay for this mess it
should make sure to collect appropriate income taxes from the winners.

 

• Yves Smith says:

September 20, 2010 at 10:20 pm

Actually, I’ve been saying this for months, at least since
May. The failure to convey the note correctly has huge implications. The
problem is the lack of centralized reporting makes it hard to be definitive re
conclusions, but the evidence all points to a widespread violation of
established procedures, and it appears to have started roughly in 2004.

 

◦ Glen says:

September 21, 2010 at 1:44 am

So when these deals were set up the mortgage brokers put
unqualified people in houses they couldn’t afford, and packaged up the loans
for an investment firm to sell as a AAA CDOs to some pension fund. The brokers
and and bankers got big fat fees (fees based on loan size), and walked away
from the mess.

 

So now, are we shocked when a foreclosure mill fakes
thousands of documents probably for a FEE? Sounds sorta like the same cast of
characters that ran the first scam are back for a second cut at big fat fees
and walking away from the mess.

 

Heck, as a taxpayer, I might be one of the owners of GMAC.
What’s the transactional costs on a foreclosure and who gets the bill?

 

• Rick Halsen says:

September 20, 2010 at 11:03 pm

Well this certainly looks like an unprecedented clusterfuck
of epic and monumental proportions.

 

Move along. Nothing to see here.

 

• killben says:

September 21, 2010 at 12:23 am

Go for it .. all about-to-be-foreclosed home owners (who
have received notices)..

 

This presents a great opportunity for about-to-be-foreclosed
home owners to come together and get themselves a battery of lawyers, who might
be interested now because they can get free publicity, and go after these
fraudsters.

 

• Bill says:

September 21, 2010 at 5:10 am

Soon all the fraudsters will be “singing” on each other,
hoping the others go to “Sing Sing” and not themselves. And the owners of the
MBS that have no backing , well … if I WERE GMAC I’d be scared form my life.
Thieves are as thieves do. And our Gov’t crooks bailed out these crooks .
Crooks are as crooks do . Know them ALL by their fruits . PROSECUTE AND
IMPRISON !!!!!!!!!

 

• Richard says:

September 25, 2010 at 9:27 pm

That’s a good question – one your loan servicer probably
can’t answer. If the servicer or trustee can’t prove ownership of both the
mortgage and note, you could be off the hook entirely!

 

I am defending against a GMAC foreclosure. Check out my
attorney’s website:

http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/

 

• Chris Huntington says:

September 21, 2010 at 8:51 am

My mortgage was refinanced through GMAC back in 2003. So for
my own peace of mind, how do I go about determining who actually owns the note
on my house? If it’s not GMAC, should I be paying the other party directly?
Because when I finish paying off my loan, if GMAC does not hold the note, they
can’t convey the deed. Worse yet, how do I know that the money I did pay
actually went toward my mortgage?

 

• TaJ says:

September 21, 2010 at 4:23 pm

@Chris H – Check your local county clerk of courts website
first. If you’re lucky and live in one with electronic documents like mine
(they scan in all filed legal documents) then you may be able to search and
pull up the documentation trail. As long as it doesn’t pass through MERS at any
point you should be okay. If you’re truly concerned though I would hire a
lawyer and look into the mechanics of ‘Quiet Title’ lawsuits.

 

• Richard says:

September 25, 2010 at 9:29 pm

If the servicer or trustee can’t prove ownership of both the
mortgage and note, you could be off the hook entirely!

 

I am defending against a GMAC foreclosure. Check out my
attorney’s website:

http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/

 

• ThommyMiller says:

September 21, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Sounds like there are a lot of you who are connecting the
dots finally. The banksters (fraudsters) are in deep poop now; obfuscation as a
modus operendi is going to get rampant, as is seen with GMAC. BofA is next. I’d
like to hear more about the courts which have “connected the dots” with the
help of our attorneys and actually pinned the tail on the donkey, giving title
to the homeowner. It is becoming obvious that we can stay in our houses indefinitely
when we stop a MERS foreclosure, but what about getting the title?

 

• Harry Connor Jr says:

September 22, 2010 at 1:52 am

Lawyers are always making mistakes in the foreclosure mill
madness. Judges too are helping compound the mistakes by virtually standing on
the sidelines while they let the lawyers devour homeowners. Because of this
neighborhoods with high concentrations of foreclosures are being trashed and
this trend of the dismantling or the destruction of foreclosures by homeowners
is accelerating.

 

The banking institutions want it all. I am sure there are
people in high places that understand that the game is permanently fixed, and
becoming more so, yet do not do a thing about it.

 

This disaster is enabling the banks and other cashed up (Wall
Street) investors to pick the eyes out of the declining market which is fast
heading for rock bottom prices. Unless the banks flush the country with cheap
loans once again (don’t hold your breath) real estate prices at their peak of a
few years ago will not been seen in a decade or more.

 

What is it that the banks are so afraid of, that they must
force fraud and theft through the courts, just to clear the enormous backlog of
foreclosures? I can only guess that the two year redemption period prior to a tax
deed sale in Florida might be heavy on their minds.

 

• Tina says:

September 23, 2010 at 8:48 pm

Anyone hear or read about Mealer v GMAC, et al?

 

• Lit Gant says:

September 30, 2010 at 8:14 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naJdGaQdAls&feature=related

 

• lawgrace says:

September 30, 2010 at 10:42 pm

Commercial and residential foreclosures via deceptive and
fraudulent proceedings enable lenders to repeatedly, illegally flip properties,
and enables falsified IRS form 1099-A’s. Foreclosure fraud is the best means by
which unscrupulous FORECLOSURE MILL LAWYERS deceptively auction and bid (or
insiders bid) and acquire those properties; and some neighborhoods blighted.

 

Two particular companies “which benefit from fraudulent
foreclosures are Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac. Foreclosure fraud has far
reaching effects on people; for example: UNJUSTIFIABLE HOMELESSNESS, UNFAIRLY
answerable for IRS tax bills, and undue “deficiency judgments.” *more @
www.lawgrace.org/2010/09/30/important-facts-about-foreclosure-and-mortgage-fraud/

 

• alvaro says:

October 6, 2010 at 10:27 pm

We just went to court and need to get out by October
17,2010.Foreclosure.At firts we made to much the second we did not make enuogh
the third time, well THey said it was to late and we couldn’y do nothing that
the house went to foreclosure and went to auction and GMAC was the owner again.
Then they took us to court..after 10 years we lost our home.

 

 

Subscribe to: Post Comments

| Subscribe | Blogroll | Topics | Archives | Videos |
Contributors | Search | Tip Jar

 

Donation Amount:

 (Currency: USD)

 

         

 

 

 

 Option 1 : $5.00USD –
monthly Option 2 : $10.00USD – monthly Option 3 : $15.00USD – monthly Option 4
: $20.00USD – monthly Option 5 : $25.00USD – monthly Option 6 : $30.00USD –
monthly 

   

  

Wednesday September 26th 2012 @ 8:43pm Gmac and foreclosure fraud mess” the shit is hitting the fan”e

 Monday, September 20,
2010

More on GMAC and Foreclosure Fraud Mess: “The Shit is
Hitting the Fan” (Updated)

 

Various updates on the possible drivers of the GMAC
announcement suspending its foreclosures in 23 states. Max Gardner, a North
Carolina bankruptcy attorney who is held in high esteem and is playing a
leading role in legal efforts against foreclosure fraud, provided this comment
on our earlier post on the GMAC bombshell:

 

I believe this action relates to thousands of false
affidavits filed by an officer of GMAC Residential Funding. It is also my
understanding that this particular officer may be facing a multitude of federal
and state criminal charges. As of this date, thousands of foreclosure
affidavits have been withdrawn in Florida and a number of notices of false
evidence have been filed by the mill law firms with the Florida trial and
appellate courts. This, in my view, is the tip of the iceberg!

 

More details from Jeffrey Stephens of the Florida Default
Law Group via e-mail:

 

On September 14, 2010, Florida Default Law Group filed
“Notices” in foreclosure actions that the firm was withdrawing Affidavits it
had previously filed. The Affidavits were signed by Jeffrey Stephan of GMAC
Mortgage/Homecomings Financial in Montgomery County, PA. Stephan had previously
admitted in depositions that he signed thousands of such affidavits each month
with no knowledge of the contents and in many cases without even bothering to
read the Affidavits. In the Notices, Florida Default claimed that “the
undersigned law firm was not aware” that the Stephans Affidavits were improper
and had a good faith belief in the Stephans Affidavits. Stephans signed so many
Affidavits, however, on behalf of so many different securitized trusts, that
his lack of actual knowledge should have been obvious. Many other mortgage
servicing companies and foreclosure firms have filed thousands of other
worthless, unfounded Affidavits. Perhaps the Law Offices of Marshall Watson
will notify courts that Lost Note Affidavits signed by Linda Green, Tywanna
Thomas and Korell Harp are also improper; perhaps The Law Offices of David
Stern will notify Courts that their own office manager, Cheryl Samons, had no
knowledge and did not even read the Affidavits she signed. The dark days of the
foreclosure “robo-signers” seem to finally be coming to an end in Florida. Will
the same judges who accepted thousands of these worthless Affidavits now
believe the allegations that the foreclosure law firms acted in good faith when
they presented these documents to Courts? An example of the Notice filed by
Florida Default is available in the “Pleadings” section of this site.
Highlights from the deposition of Jeffrey Stephan are available in the
“Articles” section. Scott Anderson, Bryan Bly, Margaret Dalton, Erica
Johnson-Seck, Crystal Moore and the other professional signers may finally be
held accountable for their sworn false statements.

 

I’m also told that an Mortgage Bankers Association
conference which is in progress, is “freaking out” over this. Um, how could
they not know this dead body was in the room?

 

This analysis from Jasraj Vaidya at Barclays via Brian C (no
online source). As this alludes, this has the potential to extend/derail
foreclosures and potentially increase loss severities. Moreover, the evidence
is mounting that documentation fraud has become widespread, if not pervasive,
because the securitization machinery effectively broke down on the back end
(the steps necessary to get the note, the borrower’s IOU, into the trust, were
not completed, and after the fact forgery is used to create a legally
acceptable paper trail).

 

It was reported on Bloomberg today that GMAC has sent a memo
to all brokers suspending all foreclosure activity against delinquent borrowers
in 23 states…

 

Most likely an issue with judicial states

 

Using publicly available data from HUD and RealtyTrac, we
have created a list of judicial foreclosure states. These are states where
judicial foreclosures are most common and in which the lender has to appear
before a judge and obtain a court order before initiating foreclosure
proceedings against the delinquent borrower. Such states tend to have much
longer foreclosure timelines than non-judicial states. What is striking about
the list of states in the GMAC announcement is that all but one (North
Carolina) are judicial states. Also, all judicial states in the country but one
(Delaware) are in the GMAC list. This would hint at some potential issues with
judicial states that is driving the GMAC directive.

 

A recent news report provided some hints at the type of
issues with judicial foreclosures that servicers may look to avoid before it
become a larger issue. The Florida Attorney General recently announced an
investigation of the three largest foreclosure law firms in the state. These
firms represent the lenders, and there have been question about claims of note
ownership put forth by these firms during foreclosure

proceedings. A clean record of note ownership is lost or
hazy in many cases, due to multiple transfers of the notes. The moratorium can
be an attempt on the part of RFC to ensure that the process does not have
significant flaws that can leave it open to legal action in the future.

 

At this stage, we are unable to ascertain what that exact
issue might be. What is certain is that foreclosure timelines in those states
for GMAC loans will be extend further, potentially adversely affecting their
eventual severity.

 

Can it also be a lawsuit in the making?

 

Given that the directive spans multiple states, and given
previous experience with Countrywide, there is always the possibility of some
multi-state settlement in the works for various disclosure issues with

lending practices. However, we found some major omissions
when we compared the list of states in the GMAC announcement with those
involved in the Countrywide announcement. California, Nevada and Michigan –
three states with significant mortgage volume, as well as distressed mortgages
– are missing from the announcement. This makes us a little skeptical whether
this is indeed a class action lawsuit in the making on the lines of the
Countrywide one. On the other hand, the Countrywide list ballooned from 11
states initially to 42 states and DC finally, so one cannot yet rule out
multi-state action. However, given greater evidence about judicial states, we
still believe that to be the primary driver of

this directive.

 

Update 5:00 PM: GMAC has issued a press release denying the
Bloomberg story, which is pretty curious, given that Bloomberg cited specific
language from a memo GMAC issued last Friday and got confirmation of the memo
from a named GMAC source. As we will show further down, Bloomberg has modified
its earlier report only slightly. While GMAC asserts it it in business as usual
mode, this is hardly the case; it has most assuredly suspended evictions in the
23 states in question.

 

Note that the press release indicates that the GMAC
investigation started more than three months ago. It further indicates (at the
top, where one might not notice the timing issue) that “new foreclosures” are
proceeding. That isn’t defined, since foreclosures consists of many legal
filings, but it gives the impression of meaning newly-initiated foreclosures.
Moreover, given the apparent change in procedures, it also raises the question
of whether this change will restrict the number of properties that can be
foreclosed upon. As we have indicated, the evidence is mounting that private label
securitizations in the post 2004 era suffered from widespread, if not endemic,
failure to convey the note (the borrower’s IOU) to the trust properly, which
means the trust cannot foreclose (ie, the trust lacks legal standing), and the
time has long passed for any easy remedies to be available.

 

Note even more curiously, this memo takes the line that the
problem was “procedural”. Hhm. So they found they had an internal officer
signing thousands of bogus affidavits? He presumably would not have gone this
route if there was not an impediment (presumably failure to convey the note
through the proper chain of endorsements, as required by the Pooling &
Servicing Agreement). And what workaround have they come up with, exactly?

 

From PR Newswire (hat tip reader mezcal). I’ve highlighted
the relevant sections

 

Recent reports have stated that GMAC Mortgage instituted a
moratorium on all residential foreclosures in 23 states. This is not true. In
fact, all new residential foreclosures are continuing in the ordinary course of
business with no interruption in our usual practice.

 

The speculation likely emanates from a direction previously
given by GMAC Mortgage to certain of its outsource vendors to allow time to
address a potential issue that was raised in a number of existing foreclosures
challenging the internal procedure we used for executing one or more judicially
required forms. This direction was to suspend evictions and REO closings where
the related foreclosure could have been impacted by the same internal procedure.
We are also reviewing certain previously completed foreclosures where the same
procedure may have been used.

 

We are unable to comment on the specific merits of the
challenge because some of them are in litigation. Nevertheless, a new process
has already been developed and implemented so that though some existing
foreclosures may experience delays while corrective action is taken, there will
be no interruption in new foreclosures. These delays are expected to be
resolved within the next few weeks and certainly before year end, without
serious consequence. GMAC Mortgage has been addressing the procedural challenge
for more than three months. In all other respects, the mortgage business is
operating as usual.

 

Now contrast this release, which in isolation reads like a
denial, with the updated Bloomberg story, which shows that you can drive a
truck through “In all other respects” qualification to the “business as usual”
claim:

 

Ally Financial Inc.’s GMAC Mortgage unit told brokers and
agents to halt evictions tied to foreclosures on homeowners in 23 states
including Florida, Connecticut and New York….

 

The company has been working on the issue for “more than
three months” and expects it to be resolved “within the next few weeks,” Proia
said. She declined to provide further details, saying some of the cases are in
litigation.

 

Suspensions will occur “where the related foreclosure could
have been impacted by the same internal procedure. We are also reviewing
certain previously completed foreclosures where the same procedure may have
been used,” Proia said.

 

The lender will suspend sales of bank-owned properties and
extend closings 30 days. Buyers will be able to cancel their agreement to
purchase and get their deposit back, according to the memo

 

.

 

Topics: Banking industry, Credit markets, Legal, moral
hazard, Real estate

 

 Email This Post
Posted by Yves Smith at 3:52 pm

 

38 Comments » Links to this post

 

 38 Comments:

• zephyrum says:

September 20, 2010 at 4:45 pm

Wow. Very interesting, Yves. Thank you.

 

(I can’t help reading the post title “More on GMAC…” as
“Moron GMAC…”)

 

• ScottP says:

September 20, 2010 at 4:45 pm

Thank you for sharing this. We need to know.

 

• steven teuber says:

September 20, 2010 at 4:57 pm

check it ou

 

• mezcal says:

September 20, 2010 at 4:58 pm

GMAC is now denying the entire thing.

 

MINNEAPOLIS, Sept. 20 /PRNewswire/ — Recent reports have
stated that GMAC Mortgage instituted a moratorium on all residential
foreclosures in 23 states. This is not true. In fact, all new residential
foreclosures are continuing in the ordinary course of business with no
interruption in our usual practice.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GMAC-Mortgage-Statement-on-prnews-2558172474.html?x=0&.v=1

 

• readerOfTeaLeaves says:

September 20, 2010 at 5:08 pm

So the mortgage bankers are ‘freaking out’?

This is news to them….?

How do they get their shoes tied in the morning?!

 

• John Stark says:

September 20, 2010 at 5:52 pm

Here’s a story about Bryan Bly, mentioned in the post above.

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/when-bryan-j-bly-became-nb-did-he-know-what-he-was-signing/1103508

 

• John Stark says:

September 20, 2010 at 5:58 pm

There’s a Florida company called “Nationwide Title Clearing”
that handles lots of property reconveyance documents. Here in Bellingham,
Wash., at the opposite corner of the country, I’m finding many such documents
filed on properties here, signed by a small number of individuals identified as
“vice presidents” of various financial institutions. I’m trying to find out if
these documents, with little curlicue scribbles as signatures, are legally
valid. This is a non-judicial foreclosure state.

 

• Michael Redman says:

September 20, 2010 at 6:02 pm

Here is why they are freaking out. It is a huge issue and it
is all about to unravel…

 

http://4closurefraud.org/2010/09/14/what-what-re-jeffrey-stephan-of-gmac-florida-default-law-group-admits-to-violation-of-professional-conduct-code/

 

I just got off the phone with the Financial Times and GMAC
is saying it is just a technicality.

 

I have all the depos on the site above if interested.

 

GMAC is not the only one facing this issue…

 

• Z says:

September 20, 2010 at 6:13 pm

So what happens if these ownership documents are shown to
have been signed w/o no knowledge of the properties? It sounds like they can’t
foreclose then. Does the paperwork lead to another owner of the mortgages? Can
that owner of the mortgage foreclose? If not, can anyone foreclose on those
homes? If not, does that mean that these folks can stay in their houses w/o
making mortgage payments … essentially that they have free housing?

 

Z

 

• Z says:

September 20, 2010 at 6:22 pm

My first sentence should read as follows:

 

So what happens if these ownership documents are shown to
have been signed with no knowledge of the properties?

 

• Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty – Foe of Tyranny
says:

September 20, 2010 at 6:28 pm

This is wonderful news. For the entire country.

 

I would love to start seeing charges brought, and
convictions obtained, for: forgery, uttering a forgery, possession of a forged
instrument, perjury, subbornation of perjury, bribing a witness, bribe
receiving by witness, tampering with public records, filing of sham pleadings,
fraud on the court, etc.

 

And attorneys must needs be prosecuted as well, both
criminally and with their BAR Associations. Can you say “dibarrment” boys and
girls?

 

May this not stop with GMAC as the practice is industry
wide.

 

• mezcal says:

September 20, 2010 at 7:13 pm

ZeroHedge now has the (purportedly) actual GMAC letter up.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gmacs-full-letter-agents-something-does-not-add

 

Kind of amusing watching all these fraudsters tripping over
each others spin.

 

• F. Beard says:

September 20, 2010 at 7:13 pm

It’s kind of fun watching an inherently dishonest system,
fractional reserve lending, implode.

 

What a twisted mess we make

when we dare to fractionate

 

• MinnItMan says:

September 20, 2010 at 8:15 pm

Reading between the lines here, I think this is probably
about “true and correct copies of originals” affidavits. The people signing
them don’t ever see first hand the originals they’re making their statements to
support. Very bad for them, and the cases depending on them.

 

This will affect everybody in a by-action state all most
lenders, since the T&CC affidavit is what gets foreclosure, what’s know as
a routine “document case” into court.

 

Note: I do not think this specifically relates to MERS
assignments or assignments at all. The T&CC affidavit is a court document,
not a real estate document.

 

Go short on the E&O insurers for the law firms and
foreclosure processing companies. Ulitmately, it is really “faster, better,
cheaper” that is going to be the culprit here. ) O for 3 ain’t bad.

 

• Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty – Foe of Tyranny
says:

September 21, 2010 at 12:18 am

Not only do the rules require the affiant executing the
affidavit of merit to have personal knowledge it is also required that the
records referred to in the affidavit of merit actually be ATTACHED to the
affidavit. Further all of this needs to be attached to the motion for summary
judgment.

 

So many balls are being dropped by the courts, by
plaintiffs, and even by defense counsel.

 

◦ Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty – Foe of Tyranny
says:

September 21, 2010 at 12:34 am

Replying to my own reply, LOL.

 

Federal Rule 56 has this to say:

 

(e) Affidavits; Further Testimony.

 

(1) In General.

 

A supporting or opposing affidavit must be made on personal
knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that
the affiant is competent to testify on the matters stated. If a paper or part
of a paper is referred to in an affidavit, a sworn or certified copy must be
attached to or served with the affidavit. The court may permit an affidavit to
be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or
additional affidavits.

 


Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty – Foe of Tyranny says:

September 21, 2010 at 11:04 am

Now a Reply to a Reply to a Reply, LOL

 

Federal Rule 6(c)(2) has this to say about attaching
affidavits to a motion:

 

(2) Supporting Affidavit.

 

Any affidavit supporting a motion must be served with the
motion. Except as Rule 59(c) provides otherwise, any opposing affidavit must be
served at least 7 days before the hearing, unless the court permits service at
another time.

 

• PJ says:

September 20, 2010 at 8:29 pm

“So what happens if these ownership documents are shown to
have been signed w/o no knowledge of the properties? It sounds like they can’t
foreclose then. Does the paperwork lead to another owner of the mortgages? Can
that owner of the mortgage foreclose? If not, can anyone foreclose on those
homes? If not, does that mean that these folks can stay in their houses w/o
making mortgage payments … essentially that they have free housing?”

 

What happens? No one pays their mortgages and you kiss the
banking system and government good bye. I do not see it coming to pass. If so
hang on to your hats..

 

• Stupendous Man – Defender of Liberty – Foe of Tyranny
says:

September 21, 2010 at 12:47 am

The alternative of the foreclosure train continuing to gain
speed (which it is doing), having our middle class wiped out, and skyrocketing
rates of every bad societal malady overwhelming us, and that for the next
several decades, is even less acceptable to me.

 

It seems it is largely the “banks” that created this mess.
If there is any one/s, or any party/parties or entities that need to take the
fall I believe it to be them.

 

Besides, our current monetary system was a bad idea from
inception back in 1913. I see a reset button as a good thing. Kind of like
ripping off a bandaid.

 

• Lori Kelly says:

September 20, 2010 at 9:08 pm

Great stuff. Thanks for posting this. We have a group of
people at beingmiddleclass dot org sharing information, exchanging ideas and
will not allow the middle class to disappear.

 

I am hanging on to my hat. What a message we could send as a
group to stop paying our mortgages and let the banksters fail.

 

• MichaelC says:

September 20, 2010 at 9:11 pm

Yves

 

And so it begins. It’s worht pointing out Treas is the
majority shareholder here.

 

Can you expand on the

Can it also be a lawsuit in the making? paragraph?

 

Would the Countrywide settlement you’re referring to be a
sweep things under the carpet deal in the works, or is it a positive
development?

 

• skippy says:

September 20, 2010 at 9:35 pm

Yeah who owns…cough bailed GMAC, the government as the proxy
of US citizens…hahahahahaha…bailed out so they could finnish the screw job they
started ROFLMAO.

 

Go get them…Tea Party[!] BTW who will end up shooting them
selves in a wild orgy of gun fire…sigh….hint Wall st and its bond holders O.K.

 

• anon48 says:

September 20, 2010 at 10:00 pm

“…the securitization machinery effectively broke down on the
back end (the steps necessary to get the note, the borrower’s IOU, into the
trust …”

 

Do these circumstances now permanently void the borrower’s
note? Or does it just mean a tremendous amount of bookkeeping cleanup (e.g.
tracking down the former legal holders of the notes and properly executing the
transfer into the trust? Wow, either way, this is huge-and- a much more
upsetting scenario than what was being discussed a few days ago on NC.

 

Side note, if a large number of former liar loan recipients
hit the lottery because of this mess and somehow get their homes back or
continue to own them now debt free, just hope the lending institution that has
to write the debt off remembers to issue the 1099C’s( Cancellation of Debt
income). If the government (taxpayers) winds up having to pay for this mess it
should make sure to collect appropriate income taxes from the winners.

 

• Yves Smith says:

September 20, 2010 at 10:20 pm

Actually, I’ve been saying this for months, at least since
May. The failure to convey the note correctly has huge implications. The
problem is the lack of centralized reporting makes it hard to be definitive re
conclusions, but the evidence all points to a widespread violation of
established procedures, and it appears to have started roughly in 2004.

 

◦ Glen says:

September 21, 2010 at 1:44 am

So when these deals were set up the mortgage brokers put
unqualified people in houses they couldn’t afford, and packaged up the loans
for an investment firm to sell as a AAA CDOs to some pension fund. The brokers
and and bankers got big fat fees (fees based on loan size), and walked away
from the mess.

 

So now, are we shocked when a foreclosure mill fakes
thousands of documents probably for a FEE? Sounds sorta like the same cast of
characters that ran the first scam are back for a second cut at big fat fees
and walking away from the mess.

 

Heck, as a taxpayer, I might be one of the owners of GMAC.
What’s the transactional costs on a foreclosure and who gets the bill?

 

• Rick Halsen says:

September 20, 2010 at 11:03 pm

Well this certainly looks like an unprecedented clusterfuck
of epic and monumental proportions.

 

Move along. Nothing to see here.

 

• killben says:

September 21, 2010 at 12:23 am

Go for it .. all about-to-be-foreclosed home owners (who
have received notices)..

 

This presents a great opportunity for about-to-be-foreclosed
home owners to come together and get themselves a battery of lawyers, who might
be interested now because they can get free publicity, and go after these
fraudsters.

 

• Bill says:

September 21, 2010 at 5:10 am

Soon all the fraudsters will be “singing” on each other,
hoping the others go to “Sing Sing” and not themselves. And the owners of the
MBS that have no backing , well … if I WERE GMAC I’d be scared form my life.
Thieves are as thieves do. And our Gov’t crooks bailed out these crooks .
Crooks are as crooks do . Know them ALL by their fruits . PROSECUTE AND
IMPRISON !!!!!!!!!

 

• Richard says:

September 25, 2010 at 9:27 pm

That’s a good question – one your loan servicer probably
can’t answer. If the servicer or trustee can’t prove ownership of both the
mortgage and note, you could be off the hook entirely!

 

I am defending against a GMAC foreclosure. Check out my
attorney’s website:

http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/

 

• Chris Huntington says:

September 21, 2010 at 8:51 am

My mortgage was refinanced through GMAC back in 2003. So for
my own peace of mind, how do I go about determining who actually owns the note
on my house? If it’s not GMAC, should I be paying the other party directly?
Because when I finish paying off my loan, if GMAC does not hold the note, they
can’t convey the deed. Worse yet, how do I know that the money I did pay
actually went toward my mortgage?

 

• TaJ says:

September 21, 2010 at 4:23 pm

@Chris H – Check your local county clerk of courts website
first. If you’re lucky and live in one with electronic documents like mine
(they scan in all filed legal documents) then you may be able to search and
pull up the documentation trail. As long as it doesn’t pass through MERS at any
point you should be okay. If you’re truly concerned though I would hire a
lawyer and look into the mechanics of ‘Quiet Title’ lawsuits.

 

• Richard says:

September 25, 2010 at 9:29 pm

If the servicer or trustee can’t prove ownership of both the
mortgage and note, you could be off the hook entirely!

 

I am defending against a GMAC foreclosure. Check out my
attorney’s website:

http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/

 

• ThommyMiller says:

September 21, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Sounds like there are a lot of you who are connecting the
dots finally. The banksters (fraudsters) are in deep poop now; obfuscation as a
modus operendi is going to get rampant, as is seen with GMAC. BofA is next. I’d
like to hear more about the courts which have “connected the dots” with the
help of our attorneys and actually pinned the tail on the donkey, giving title
to the homeowner. It is becoming obvious that we can stay in our houses indefinitely
when we stop a MERS foreclosure, but what about getting the title?

 

• Harry Connor Jr says:

September 22, 2010 at 1:52 am

Lawyers are always making mistakes in the foreclosure mill
madness. Judges too are helping compound the mistakes by virtually standing on
the sidelines while they let the lawyers devour homeowners. Because of this
neighborhoods with high concentrations of foreclosures are being trashed and
this trend of the dismantling or the destruction of foreclosures by homeowners
is accelerating.

 

The banking institutions want it all. I am sure there are
people in high places that understand that the game is permanently fixed, and
becoming more so, yet do not do a thing about it.

 

This disaster is enabling the banks and other cashed up (Wall
Street) investors to pick the eyes out of the declining market which is fast
heading for rock bottom prices. Unless the banks flush the country with cheap
loans once again (don’t hold your breath) real estate prices at their peak of a
few years ago will not been seen in a decade or more.

 

What is it that the banks are so afraid of, that they must
force fraud and theft through the courts, just to clear the enormous backlog of
foreclosures? I can only guess that the two year redemption period prior to a tax
deed sale in Florida might be heavy on their minds.

 

• Tina says:

September 23, 2010 at 8:48 pm

Anyone hear or read about Mealer v GMAC, et al?

 

• Lit Gant says:

September 30, 2010 at 8:14 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naJdGaQdAls&feature=related

 

• lawgrace says:

September 30, 2010 at 10:42 pm

Commercial and residential foreclosures via deceptive and
fraudulent proceedings enable lenders to repeatedly, illegally flip properties,
and enables falsified IRS form 1099-A’s. Foreclosure fraud is the best means by
which unscrupulous FORECLOSURE MILL LAWYERS deceptively auction and bid (or
insiders bid) and acquire those properties; and some neighborhoods blighted.

 

Two particular companies “which benefit from fraudulent
foreclosures are Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac. Foreclosure fraud has far
reaching effects on people; for example: UNJUSTIFIABLE HOMELESSNESS, UNFAIRLY
answerable for IRS tax bills, and undue “deficiency judgments.” *more @
 

• alvaro says:

October 6, 2010 at 10:27 pm

We just went to court and need to get out by October
17,2010.Foreclosure.At firts we made to much the second we did not make enuogh
the third time, well THey said it was to late and we couldn’y do nothing that
the house went to foreclosure and went to auction and GMAC was the owner again.
Then they took us to court..after 10 years we lost our home.

 

 

Subscribe to: Post Comments

| Subscribe | Blogroll | Topics | Archives | Videos |
Contributors | Search | Tip Jar

 

Donation Amount:

 (Currency: USD)

 

         

 

 

 

 Option 1 : $5.00USD –
monthly Option 2 : $10.00USD – monthly Option 3 : $15.00USD – monthly Option 4
: $20.00USD – monthly Option 5 : $25.00USD – monthly Option 6 : $30.00USD –
monthly 

   

  

Wednesday September 26 2012 @ 8:42pm article from bloomberg on GMAC

Allyâ?Ts GMAC Mortgage Halts Evictions Across 23 States
(Update3)

 

 http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&sid=az86jf9Mj0dsSend
E-mailSend E-mailSend E-mailGet Quote

GM1:US

 

 

Updated:  New York,
Sep 25 23:53London, Sep 26 04:53Tokyo, Sep 26 12:53  Log In/Register FEEDBACK

 

HOME NEWS

EXCLUSIVE WORLDWIDE REGIONS MARKETS INDUSTRIES ECONOMY
POLITICS LAW ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE OPINION SPEND SPORTS ARTS AND CULTURE EDITORS’
VIDEO PICKS BLOOMBERG MARKETS MAGAZINE SPECIAL REPORT MARKET DATA

STOCKS RATES & BONDS CURRENCIES MUTUAL FUNDS ETFs
COMMODITIES ECONOMIC CALENDAR PERSONAL FINANCE

JOHN DORFMAN PORTFOLIO TRACKER CALCULATORS FINANCIAL
GLOSSARY TV and RADIO

BLOOMBERG TELEVISION BLOOMBERG TELEVISION SYNDICATED REPORTS
BLOOMBERG RADIO BLOOMBERG PODCASTS BLOOMBERG SHOWS CEO SPOTLIGHT CFO INSIGHT
PORTFOLIO MATTERS MOBILE BUSINESSWEEK BUSINESS EXCHANGE

 

Bloomberg InnovatorsTechnologyCurrenciesForex Trading
VideosETFsLeadersCommodities 

Exclusive

Worldwide

Regions

Markets

Industries

Economy

Politics

Law

Environment

Science

Opinion

Spend

Sports

Arts and Culture

Editors’ Video Picks

Bloomberg Markets Magazine

Special Report

 

 

RESOURCES

 

Bloomberg TV

Bloomberg Radio

Bloomberg Podcasts

Bloomberg Press

Find Bloomberg TV

 

 

Ally’s GMAC Mortgage Halts Evictions Across 23 States
(Update3)

Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A
A By Denise Pellegrini and Dakin Campbell

 

Sept. 20 (Bloomberg) — Ally Financial Inc.’s GMAC Mortgage
unit told brokers and agents to halt evictions tied to foreclosures on
homeowners in 23 states including Florida, Connecticut and New York.

 

GMAC Mortgage may “need to take corrective action in
connection with some foreclosures” in the affected states, according to a
two-page memo dated Sept. 17 marked “urgent.” Ally Financial spokesman James
Olecki confirmed the contents of the memo. Brokers were told to immediately
stop evictions, cash- for-key transactions and lockouts, according to the
document, addressed to GMAC preferred agents.

 

The suspensions will “allow time to address a potential
issue that was raised in a number of existing foreclosures challenging the
internal procedure we used for executing one or more judicially required
forms,” Ally spokeswoman Gina Proia said today in an e-mailed statement.
Foreclosures won’t be suspended and will continue with “no interruption,” she
said.

 

Lenders and lawmakers have been trying to slow foreclosures
and keep people in their homes as U.S. seizures set records. Bank repossessions
climbed 25 percent in August from a year earlier to 95,364, according to
RealtyTrac Inc., the Irvine, California-based data provider. Detroit-based
Ally, the auto and home lender formerly known as GMAC Inc., is 56.3 percent
owned by the U.S. after more than $17 billion of taxpayer bailouts.

 

Working on Issue

 

The company has been working on the issue for “more than
three months” and expects it to be resolved “within the next few weeks,” Proia
said. She declined to provide further details, saying some of the cases are in
litigation.

 

Suspensions will occur “where the related foreclosure could
have been impacted by the same internal procedure. We are also reviewing
certain previously completed foreclosures where the same procedure may have
been used,” Proia said.

 

The lender will suspend sales of bank-owned properties and
extend closings 30 days. Buyers will be able to cancel their agreement to
purchase and get their deposit back, according to the memo.

 

Barclays Capital analysts told clients in a note today the
action may involve issues with officials in so-called judicial states where
lenders must appear before a judge before starting foreclosure proceedings. Of
the 23 states listed in the memo, all except North Carolina are judicial
states, and the only judicial state not on the list is Delaware, the analysts
led by Jasraj Vaidya wrote.

 

‘Potential Issues’

 

“This would hint at some potential issues with judicial
states,” the analysts wrote. The moratorium may be an attempt “to ensure that
the process does not have significant flaws that can leave it open to legal
action in the future,” they said.

 

There is no public enforcement action pending against GMAC
in North Carolina, Ha Nguyen, a spokeswoman for the state’s bank commissioner,
said today.

 

Florida Attorney General William McCollum in August
announced an investigation into three law firms that represent loan servicers
in foreclosures. McCollum issued subpoenas to the firms, which are alleged to
have submitted fraudulent documents to the courts in “numerous occasions” or
failed to submit documents at all, according to an Aug. 10 statement from
McCollum’s office.

 

“Thousands of final judgments of foreclosure against Florida
homeowners may have been the result of the allegedly improper actions of the
law firms under investigation,” the statement said.

 

Ranked Fourth

 

GMAC Mortgage ranked fourth among U.S. home-loan originators
in the first six months of this year, with $26 billion of mortgages, according
to Inside Mortgage Finance, an industry newsletter. Wells Fargo & Co.
ranked first, with $160 billion, and Citigroup Inc. was fifth, with $25
billion.

 

Ally’s 8 percent notes maturing in 2031 rose $4.13, or 4
percent, today to 108.5 cents on the dollar to yield 7.21 percent, according to
the Trace bond-price reporting system.

 

Following is a table of the affected states.

 

 

 

Connecticut

Florida

Hawaii

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Nebraska

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Vermont

Wisconsin

To contact the reporters on this story: Denise Pellegrini in
New York at dpellegrini@bloomberg.net; Dakin Campbell in San Francisco at
dcampbell27@bloomberg.net.

 

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Edward
Evans at eevans3@bloomberg.net; Alec McCabe at amccabe@bloomberg.net.

 

Last Updated: September 20, 2010 15:49 EDT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rate this Page

 

NEWS | MARKET DATA | PERSONAL FINANCE | TV AND RADIO | ABOUT
BLOOMBERG | CAREERS | CONTACT US | LOG IN/REGISTER

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Trademarks | Site Map |
Help | Feedback | Advertising | 日本語サイト | Bloomberg UTV

Bloomberg New Energy Finance | Bloomberg SPORTS | Keene On
Demand

 

 

 

 

Wednesday September 26th 2012 @ 8:32pm credit reports with mortgages all wrong!

Wednesday September
26th 2012 @ 8:32pm

Three  variations of
my name on free   credit report.com

one  variation of my
name :  Maryjean   Ziska

one variation of my name: 
Mary J Ziska

one variation  of my
name:  Mary jean Ziska’s

all of these
accounts are wrong as far as most of the mortgages on my account!

Here is the
problem   at the court house you need to
actually have mortgages  with original
notes  verifications bought and sold and
legally  submitted…..   to the 
court  so they are listed in
the  documents  that are legally   on record….. otherwise it is just a bunch of
fake  documents  and fake 
lies making up a fake history of a home ownership…..

The list of
mortgages listed in the court house:

Starting
with Oakstreet 2004

Then pelican capital 2004

Then aegis 2005 0r 2006
depending on  which report you are
reading

Then option one then residential funding  the
end. 

Then  it really gets messed up   since
the  MERS 
assignment of mortgages and  false
mortgages started….. so on other credit reports it has:   items of GMAC then AEGis then American
Servcing then  American home  MTG then 
home ward then Litton Loan 
then  GMAC All wrong!

On
Transunion completely messed up and say I have both American home mtg and homeward mort. Both  with
the  exact same account number 647002252
and I have never seen in my life….  

GMAC
Mortgage in 2004 …..
WRONG!

AEGIS 2005…(who
knows…. possibly right… but still a  with  a
criminal thief….)

Then American
Servicing Co (200?) 
WRONG!

Homeward  2006  WRONG!

Litton Loan 2006
WRONG!

GMAC
2006 
WRONG!

 

ALL WRONG! From
the beginning all  wrong!

I have been
writing letters and calling (to fake criminal scum on the phone……  I guess ) and it is still all wrong! Even
worse in some cases.. I had to talk to  India
and  the Philippines for the 9 hours  trying to get into my Transunion account
and  put in disputes… and no help…. And
the items I was trying to dispute were closed and should have been removed… are
not now they are actually open again… what  hell did the idiots  do?    

How the hell
am I supposed to fix all the 
completely  wrong information when
more and more identity thieves are still screwing up my life!

I HATE EVERY
FAKE CRIMINAL PERSON I GET STUCK TALKING TO ON THE PHONE…. YOU RUINED MY LIFE…..
10-13 YEARS OF MY LIFE……… YOU PEOPLE BELONG  JAIL OR DEAD…..