When a borrower signs the mortgage
security instrument at closing, they grant and convey the legal title to the
mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS) and MERS is
the mortgagee. As the agent for the promissory note owner, upon instructions
from the owner, MERS will commence a foreclosure. The mortgage instrument
states that MERS has the right to foreclose and sell the property. Courts
around the country have repeatedly upheld and recognized this right.

In the foreclosure process, MERS has
been and continues to be an outspoken advocate for all parties, producing all
the required evidence, including the note. If that means taking more time to
gather the necessary documents before rushing in and filing a pleading, MERS
strongly recommends doing so.

It often takes time to produce the
note. Attorneys for mortgage companies usually are under very tight time
pressures from investors to act quickly. Instead of actually producing the
note, many attorneys rely on the practice of filing a “lost note” affidavit.
This is a practice that MERS does not support. When MERS forecloses, we require
that the promissory note be in our possession endorsed in blank, making MERS
the note-holder with the right to enforce it.

This isn’t the folks with the $75,000 houses squaring off
against the people with the $1,500,000 houses. It’s banks and servicers against
anybody who owns a home of whatever value.

“relieved of mortgage debt because of a sloppy assignment”
sounds a lot like the foreclosure crisis version of the old “the judge let the
guy with the bloody hands go just because we searched his house without a
warrant”. It’s not homeowners exploiting some loophole. It’s proving that you
have a legal right to take away somebody’s house before you turn them onto the
street.

Whether a foreclosure plaintiff has a proper assignment is
not a technicality. If I owe money to Chase, Citibank can’t take my house just
because it shows up and says it has an assignment.

I consider this to be the difference between “lawful and
timely execution” and “recordation.”

Failure to record an assignment of mortgage does not effect
the perfection or validity, or the lack of perfection or validity, of an
assignment.

And if all they have is an unsecured note, it is likely the
debt itself could be discharged in bankruptcy.

In such a scenario, the homeowner is in a much better
position to negotiate MEANINGFUL mortgage modification, including principal
reduction, b/c otherwise the bank is looking at getting nothing.”

In such a scenario, any homeowner/borrower/defendant that
entered into any sort of modification agreement should have his head examined.
That seems like a “give them money out of the kindness of your heart” line of
thinking. Remember, we’re talking about banks. I don’t know of anyone (outside
of our congress) that has any pity for them – and that lack thereof for good
reason.

Additionally, have you read any of such agreements? I have.
About 20 of them. Boiler plate stuff. The most disturbing parts are the
sections that have the homeowner/borrower/defendant signing away any and all
rights and defenses to any past bad deeds AND any future bad deeds on the part
of the alleged holder/owner.

OK, explain your theory to John and Jane Doe living on
Plugger Lane in their little bungalow, who have made every payment on their
$75,000 mortgage, when John and Jane Jetsetter living on Country Club Lane in
their Better Homes and Garden House with a pool in back, who have made only 10
payments on their $1,500,000 mortgage and are 6 months behind, are relieved of
their mortgage debt in a foreclosure action because of a sloppy assignment.

For those of you that this has happened to, get a forensic
audit on your loan. If it turns out you have been foreclosed on illegally, it
may be that you have rights. It is a matter of “standing” for the person
attempting to foreclose and whether they actually have legal standing to do so.
You may be able to successfully challenge that. MASS land court ruled 20 years
of foreclosures invalid. You have to get INFORMATION (sorry for shouting) you
need an attorney as well, as the issues are so complex.

The premier site for information is;
livinglies.wordpress.com/ There are links here to other sites. There are
other sites out there in your state but remember this; and sorry for shouting
again

IF ANYONE WANTS TO MODIFY YOUR LOAN, YOU ARE IN GREATER
JEOPARDY OF LOSING YOUR HOME THAN IF YOU FIGHT THEM. Real estate has not hit
bottom and now title to property is clouded so that selling it may be
impossible and you can stay in your home until it is sorted out. Without
paying.

you need to decide what situation you are in, if bankruptcy
is best, the bankruptcy court may protect your rights best from the people that
pretend to have the right to foreclose. This is still common in many states.
Some courts are rubber stamping fraud, and they will eventually have to address
their mistakes. Florida is making big strides, and angering the bankers that
tried to write a new law helping foreclosing easier for them, harder for you to
challenge.

There are a variety of remedies, but they differ for
everyone. Different states have different laws, but federal law will often
trump some of these issues.

Get help, learn what people in your state are doing

es, you are correct they f’up all the damn time. But, that
doesn’t mean the mortgagors get a free house.

The f’ups in the assigments don’t really have a damn thing
to do with the mortgagors. That fact and the fact they haven’t met the terms of
the promissory note ultimately beats them.

In saying this, I am not excusing any forgeries. People who
have done this should be prosecuted.

The thing is, oldgold, in many cases the paper trail is so
long, convoluted, and f’d up, that it is not possible to follow it; if they
can’t figure out who owned the note/mtg when, if they can’t prove who owns it
now, they can’t figure out who should make an affidavit. And, based on my short
experience in a mortgage bank trying to follow such f’d up paper trails, I
think that may happen far more often than one would think.

I really think that, at least some of the time, the would-be
forecloser will give up, leaving the borrower in place. And as Cynthia
suggested in an earlier post, the borrower could simply file a suit to quiet
title, and if he wins, that would be that.

Now, you may be trying these cases in real time, and my
experience dates from the late ’80′s savings and loan debacle. But I can’t help
thinking the bank people probably f’d up as least as badly, and in similar
ways, as before. What do you think?

“These mortgages were not actually assigned.”

Gotcha; agreed. No assignment plus no payment = zero rights
to collect.

You’re kind of muddying the waters with your reference to
the lack of recordation though. As I suspect you know, recordation has nothing
to do with the efficacy of a conveyance/pledge etc…, it only relates to the
rights/priorities of third parties.

Not recording a valid assignment doesn’t make it
ineffective, and recording a defective assignment doesn’t make it effective.

tejanarusa April 19th, 2010 at 3:21 pm

no I’m not confusing them. Maybe I did not explain myself
well enough though.

These mortgages were not actually assigned. Not where these
non -assignments recorded with the county clerks office (which would have
provided the “notice” part of a bona fide purchaser for value without
notice)–so, unless the bank can show it has an equity interest b/c it paid for
the assignment even though the assignment did not happen, it’s screwed.

No valid assignment and no proff of payment and no recording
inthe county clerks office

How does the bank prove standing?

In order for someone to acquire rights under a note, they
must be a ‘purchaser for value’.”

I think you’re confusing being an assignee with being a
holder in due course. You can have the contractual rights under a note and the
real property security interest under a mortgage assigned to you without being
a purchaser for value, you just won’t be a holder in due course. You still have
the right to demand payment on the note and foreclose on the mortgage, you’re
just in a bit less of a legally advantageous position.

In response to oldgold @ 32

    The key question
is going to be whether or not they paid the promissory note in accordance with
its terms. If not, ultimately they are going to be foreclosed.

You are wrong about that. Whether or not they paid the
promissory note = whether or not the note holder has an action against them for
the debt.

If there is no standing to foreclose, they MIGHT be able to
obtain a judgemetn against you for the debt, but they cannot take your house
away b/c they have no standing in the land.

And if allthey have is an unsecured note, it is likely the
debt itself could be discharged in bankruptcy.

In such a scenario, the homeowner is in a much better
position to negotiate MEANINGFUL mortgage modification, including prinipal
reduction, b/c otherwise the bank is looking at getting nothing.

Cynthia Kouril April 19th, 2010 at 3:01 pm

Request Received!

Thank you. Equifax has successfully received your request to
place an initial 90 day fraud alert or active duty alert on your credit file.
You should receive an email notification within 48 hours that your requested
alert has been added to your credit file. If you do not receive an email
notification within 48 hours, please contact Equifax at:

Equifax Information Services LLC

P.O. Box 105069

Atlanta, GA 30348-5069

Your Confirmation number for this request is: 2277042442

 Please print this
page and save your Confirmation Number for future reference

——————————————————————————–

No More Work For You

Your request to place an initial 90 day fraud alert or an
active duty alert on your credit file will be sent directly to both Experian
and TransUnion so you don’t have to contact them separately. If you do not
receive notification within 7 business days that they have added an alert to
your credit file, you may want to contact them directly:

TransUnion, PO Box 6790, Fullerton, CA 92634: (800) 680-7289

Experian, PO Box 9530, Allen, TX 75013: (800) 379-3742

Created Assignments and “Cloned” Officers Yield Fraudulent
Foreclosures across the Country

By: Cynthia Kouril Monday April 19, 2010 12:27 pm           

TweetTweet63

digg stumbleupon

In courtrooms across the country, judges are foreclosing on
homes based on improperly prepared documentation, some of which may even be
fraudulent. At the heart of the problem are entities like Mortgage Electronic
Registration System (MERS), which itself is owned by many of the largest
financial institutions in the U.S. If MERS and other similar firms acting as
foreclosing entity were required to show legal proof of mortgage assignment,
the documentation offered could reveal a lack of capitalization that would make
the bank bailout look like lunch money.

Imagine you are a judge in a state court mortgage
foreclosure part, or maybe in a bankruptcy court.

Your experience and training tells you what is supposed to
happen. An originator of a mortgage, with the actual wet ink documents in hand
and full knowledge of the transaction, makes MERS the nominee for the holder of
the mortgage and records the mortgage in MERS’s name and gives physical custody
of the wet ink documents to MERS. The originator then assigns the mortgage and
note to Bank. Bank, with full knowledge of the assignment transaction, may
assign it further, perhaps into a trust to back up Residential Mortgage Backed
Security (RMBS). All of this would be done with proper notice to MERS who would
always be up to date on who is the most recent assignee of the mortgage. When the
time comes to foreclose, MERS would release the wet ink documents to the
lawyers for the last assignee, who would use those original documents to
foreclose.

Now comes into your court, a party claiming to be the
lender—or at least the lender’s successor in interest—saying that it has
acquired the homeowner’s mortgage by assignment. The homeowner took out the
mortgage 5 or 6 years ago from XYZ originator, but the loan was recorded at the
county clerk’s office or local land office as being in the hands of MERS.. I
have explained about MERS and other issues relating to sloppy mortgage document
handling in prior posts.

Attached to the complaint is a document which, on its face,
appears to be an assignment of the mortgage from MERS to plaintiff. It is
signed by a person with an official looking title at MERS. So, would you be
safe in assuming that the person who signed the assignment:

1) went and fetched this mortgage out of a file room at
MERS;

2) checked it over to make sure it was properly assigned
from the originator to MERS; and

3) that the party to which the assignment was about to made
had paid for the right to own the mortgage, before executing the assignment?

No, you would not.

In the Aughts, during the rush to make loans and generate
all those origination fees, front line lenders and mortgage brokers would zoom
through paperwork and flip the mortgages immediately over to trusts and
servicers. They didn’t always complete the paperwork to assign the mortgage
over to either MERS or to the trust. The mortgage may have been filed with the
county clerk as belonging to either MERS or to some mortgage back securities
trust, but the actual assignment papers might never have been executed. And
although money moved around from the servicers, originators and investors,
paperwork indicating payment for the transfer of a particular mortgage was not
always provided.

Nonetheless, servicers acted as if the loans had actually
been paid for and properly assigned and sent out notices to homeowners saying
that payments on a particular mortgage were now to be directed to this
servicer. The homeowners paid the servicers who presumably forwarded on a net
amount, less their servicing fees, to the investors in the Residential Mortgage
Backed Securities (RMBS).

Then one day, the homeowner goes into default. The trustee
for the trust that is supposed to be holding the mortgage for the benefit of
the investors in the RMBS, springs into action and want s to foreclose. Well,
actually, the servicer springs into action using the name and consent of the
trustee — the servicer makes tons more in fees from foreclosure than it does
from mortgage modification.

The servicer hires a law firm. The law firm will need an
assignment document as proof that the trustee owns the note and has standing to
foreclose. Where does the law firm get this assignment? Does the trustee
contact MERS and ask for assignment? Does the trustee have to pay somebody to
buy the note? Does MERS prepare the document and send it over?

Nope.

In many instances, an employee of the servicer, or of a
document mill executes hired by the servicer, creates and signs the assignment
from the originator, indicating that he or she is an officer of the originator.
Sometimes an employee of the law firm executes an assignment from MERS
indicating that he or she is an officer of MERS.

In neither case, is it likely that the person executing the
assignment has ever clapped eyes on the mortgage documents. Rarely, if ever,
does the signer have any direct knowledge of whether any money has actually
changed hands to effectuate the purchase of this mortgage by the entity which
will be receiving it and foreclosing upon it. In order for someone to acquire
rights under a note, they must be a “purchaser for value”.

Let me say this again. People who are not actually employees
or officers of the originator, sign as if they are. People who don’t actually
know if a loan was ever paid for, are executing documents as if they do. They
are purporting to transfer mortgages from the originator to either MERS, or to
an entity called the “depositor” who deposits the mortgage into a RMBS trust,
or directly to a RMBS trust. People who are not employees of MERS are executing
documents purporting to transfer mortgages — which may or may not have actually
been properly transferred into MERS — from MERS to RMBS trusts.

AND NOBODY IS TELLING THE JUDGES OR THE HOMEOWNERS THAT
THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE NO ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE BEHIND THEM.

I am not accusing the people who sign these things of
deliberately lying, in the sense that you tell a deliberate falsehood knowing
it to be false. I’m sure they “hope” the documents are accurate; they just have
no way of knowing.

Click here to read about a law firm that creates, and has
its own employees sign, assignments from MERS that it uses as exhibits in the
cases it brings. Click here to read about a group of people signing on behalf
of many different originators simultaneously.

Having read these articles about created assignments and a
“clone army” of officers signing documents, courts should pay
attention to the fact that the signatories are pretending to work for the
GRANTOR — the original lender or someone in the chain. However, they are really
being paid by the GRANTEE — the mortgage servicer working on behalf of the
trust. Talk about your conflict of interest.

The signers have no personal knowledge as to the accuracy of
anything they are representing.

So, when you, the judge, are presented with this complaint
and the documents which purports to effect various assignments, how do you know
if any of it is real? You don’t.

[Earlier posts in this series and related links at Kouril’s
Foreclosure Fraud Resources]

comment on this64 Comments Recommend

Tags: foreclosure fraud, mortgage, legal battles, MERS,
foreclosure crisis, foreclosures  

64 Responses to Created Assignments and “Cloned” Officers
Yield Fraudulent Foreclosures across the Country

33-707. Acknowledgment of satisfaction; recording

A. If a mortgagee, trustee or person entitled to payment
receives full satisfaction of a mortgage or deed of trust, he shall acknowledge
satisfaction of the mortgage or deed of trust by delivering to the person
making satisfaction or by recording a sufficient release or satisfaction of
mortgage or deed of release and reconveyance of the deed of trust, which
release, satisfaction of mortgage or deed of release and reconveyance shall
contain the docket and page number or recording number of the mortgage or deed
of trust. If a mortgagee, trustee or person entitled to payment receives an
amount less than full satisfaction of a mortgage or deed of trust, but has
agreed in writing to release the mortgage or deed of trust, the mortgagee,
trustee or person shall acknowledge release of the mortgage or deed of trust by
delivering to the person making payment of the agreed amount that is less than
full satisfaction or by recording a sufficient release of the mortgage or
release and reconveyance of the deed of trust, which release or release and
reconveyance shall contain the docket and page number or recording number of
the mortgage or deed of trust. It shall not be necessary for the trustee to
join in the acknowledgment or satisfaction, or in the release, satisfaction of
mortgage or deed of release and reconveyance. The recorded release or
satisfaction of mortgage or deed of release and reconveyance constitutes
conclusive evidence of full or partial satisfaction and release of the mortgage
or deed of trust in favor of purchasers and encumbrancers for value and without
actual notice.

B. When a mortgage or deed of trust is satisfied by a
release or satisfaction of mortgage or deed of release and reconveyance, except
where the record of such deed of trust or mortgage has been destroyed or
reduced to microfilm, the recorder shall record the release or satisfaction of
the deed of trust or mortgage showing the book and page or recording number
where the deed of trust or mortgage is recorded.

C. If the record of such mortgage or deed of trust has been
destroyed and the record thereof reduced to microfilm, it shall be sufficient
evidence of satisfaction of any such mortgage or deed of trust for the release
or satisfaction of mortgage or deed of release and reconveyance to be recorded
and indexed as such. The instrument shall sufficiently identify the mortgage or
deed of trust by parties and by book and page or recording number of the
official records. Such instrument shall be treated as a release or satisfaction
of mortgage or deed of release and reconveyance and recorded.

D. If the note secured by a mortgage or deed of trust has
been lost or destroyed, the assignee, mortgagee or beneficiary shall, before
acknowledging satisfaction, make an affidavit that he is the lawful owner of
the note and that it has been paid, but cannot be produced for the reason that
it has been lost or destroyed, and the affidavit shall be recorded. If the
record of such mortgage or deed of trust has been destroyed and the record
thereof reduced to microfilm, such affidavit shall be recorded and indexed as
releases, satisfactions of mortgage and deeds of release and reconveyance are
recorded and indexed and shall have the same force and effect as a release or
satisfaction of a mortgage or deed of release and reconveyance as provided in
subsection A of this section.

E. If a full release or satisfaction of mortgage or deed of
release and reconveyance of deed of trust that, according to its terms, recites
that it secures an obligation having a stated indebtedness not greater than one
million dollars exclusive of interest, or a partial release or satisfaction of
mortgage or partial deed of release and reconveyance of deed of trust that,
according to its terms, recites that the payment required for the partial
satisfaction or release does not exceed one million dollars exclusive of
interest, or a release of mortgage or deed of release and reconveyance of deed
of trust by a mortgagee, trustee or person who has agreed in writing to release
the mortgage or deed of trust in exchange for receipt of an amount less than
full satisfaction of the mortgage or deed of trust and that, according to its
terms, recites that it secures an obligation having a stated indebtedness not
greater than one million dollars exclusive of interest, has not been executed
and recorded pursuant to subsection A or C of this section within sixty days of
full or partial satisfaction of the obligation secured by such mortgage or deed
of trust, or within sixty days of the receipt by the mortgagee, trustee or
other person of an amount less than full satisfaction if agreed in writing, a
title insurer as defined in section 20-1562 may prepare, execute and record a
full or partial release or satisfaction of mortgage or deed of full or partial
release and reconveyance of deed of trust. No earlier than sixty days after
full or partial satisfaction and at least thirty days prior to the issuance and
recording of any such release or satisfaction of mortgage or deed of release
and reconveyance pursuant to this subsection, the title insurer shall mail by
certified mail with postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the mortgagee
of record or to the trustee and beneficiary of record and their respective
successors in interest of record at their last known address shown of record
and to any persons who according to the records of the title insurer received
payment of the obligation at the address shown in such records, a notice of its
intention to release the mortgage or deed of trust accompanied by a copy of the
release or satisfaction of mortgage or deed of release and reconveyance to be
recorded which shall set forth:

1. The name of the beneficiary or mortgagee or any
successors in interest of record of such mortgagee or beneficiary and, if
known, the name of any servicing agent.

2. The name of the original mortgagor or trustor.

3. The name of the current record owner of the property and
if the release or satisfaction of mortgage or deed of release and reconveyance
is a partial release, the name of the current record owner of the parcel
described in the partial release or satisfaction of mortgage or deed of partial
release and reconveyance of deed of trust.

4. The recording reference to the deed of trust or mortgage.

5. The date and amount of payment, if known.

6. A statement that the title insurer has actual knowledge
that the obligation secured by the mortgage or deed of trust has been paid in
full, or if the release or satisfaction of mortgage or deed of release and
reconveyance of deed of trust is a partial release, a statement that the title
insurer has actual knowledge that the partial payment required for the release
of the parcel described in the partial release or satisfaction has been paid
or, if the release of mortgage or deed or release and reconveyance of deed of
trust results from a mortgagee’s, trustee’s of other person’s written agreement
to accept an amount less than full satisfaction of the obligation, a statement
that the title insurer has actual knowledge that the agreed upon payment has
been made in full.

F. The release or satisfaction of mortgage or release and
reconveyance of deed of trust may be executed by a duly appointed
attorney-in-fact of the title insurer, but such delegation shall not relieve
the title insurer from any liability pursuant to this section.

G. A full or partial release or satisfaction of mortgage or
deed of full or partial release and reconveyance of deed of trust issued
pursuant to subsection E of this section shall be entitled to recordation and,
when recorded, shall constitute a full or partial release or satisfaction of
mortgage or deed of release and reconveyance of deed of trust issued pursuant
to subsection A or C of this section.

H. Where an obligation secured by a deed of trust or
mortgage was paid in full prior to September 21, 1991, and no release or
satisfaction of mortgage or deed of release and reconveyance of deed of trust
was issued and recorded by November 20, 1991, a release or satisfaction of mortgage
or deed of release and reconveyance of deed of trust as provided for in
subsection E of this section may be prepared and recorded without the notice
prescribed by subsection E of this section.

I. A release or satisfaction of mortgage or a release and reconveyance
of deed of trust by a title insurer under the provisions of subsection E of
this section shall not constitute a defense nor release any person from
compliance with subsections A through D of this section or from liability under
section 33-712.

J. In addition to any other remedy provided by law, a title
insurer preparing or recording the release and satisfaction of mortgage or the
release and reconveyance of deed of trust pursuant to subsection E of this
section shall be liable to any party for actual damage, including attorney
fees, which any person may sustain by reason of the issuance and recording of
the release and satisfaction of mortgage or release and reconveyance of deed of
trust.

K. The title insurer shall not record a release and satisfaction
of mortgage or release and reconveyance of deed of trust if, prior to the
expiration of the thirty day period specified in subsection E of this section,
the title insurer receives a notice from the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary,
holder or servicing agent which states that the mortgage or deed of trust
continues to secure an obligation, or in the case of a partial release or
satisfaction of mortgage or deed of partial release and reconveyance of deed of
trust, a notice that states that the partial payment required to release the
parcel described in the partial release or satisfaction has not been paid.

L. The title insurer may charge a reasonable fee to the
owner of the land or other person requesting a release and satisfaction of
mortgage or release and reconveyance of deed of trust for services, including
but not limited to search of title, document preparation and mailing services
rendered, and may in addition collect official fees.

HousingWire

Published on HousingWire (http://www.housingwire.com)

Home > Florida Bar files complaint against David J. Stern
over MERS case

Florida Bar files complaint against David J. Stern over MERS
case

Author(s):

Christine Ricciardi [1]

The Florida Bar filed a complaint against foreclosure
attorney David J. Stern Friday afternoon for allegedly violating the bar’s
rules by failing to produce documents as ordered by the court in February.

One of the stated rules Stern allegedly broke: “A
lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal
except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation
exists,” the filing states.

The complaint is asking for an investigation [2] to find out
why Stern did not file the documents, and is asking for disciplinary action.
The document does not suggest what that action should be if Stern is found
culpable.

At the beginning of the year, the Law Offices of David J.
Stern represented SunTrust Bank in a lawsuit against Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, according to the complaint. The Florida district court
issued Stern’s firm an “order to show cause” on Feb. 16, which asked
him to prove why sanctions should not be entered against him after he neglected
to file certain documents “in a timely manner.” Stern allegedly
ignored this order, the complaint said.

“Respondent failed to produce the documents and has
otherwise failed to respond,” the complaint said.

On March 14, the issue was referred to the Florida Bar to
figure out why Stern did not abide by the order. Stern attained a mountain of
litigation against him and his firm during that period, as investigations into
the robo-signing scandal were well underway.

Stern lost [3] Freddie Mac’s business in November 2010 over
foreclosure documentation issues, and lost [4] Fannie Mae’s shortly thereafter.
On February 25, the Florida Attorney General launched an investigation [5] into
several real estate law firms across the state, including Stern’s. In March,
the Plantation, Fla.-based company ceased foreclosure work [6] and stopped
trading [7] on the Nasdaq.

Stern’s attorney Jeff Tew told The Palm Beach Post his
client was fired from SunTrust in mid-December 2010, before the Feb. 16 order
was issued. Tew also said it was possible Stern missed the notice among 10,000
pieces of incoming mail everyday.

Write to Christine Ricciardi [8].

Source URL (retrieved on Oct 1 2012 – 7:49pm):
 

[1] [2]
[3] [4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] mailto:cricciardi@housingwire.com

Date: Fri. September 28th 2012

Homeward Residential 
/ American Home Mortgage

P.O.  Box 631730

Irving Tx. 75063

Account number: 647002252xxxx

Attn: Customer Service

To Whom It May Concern:

On September 27th 
2012, I received a copy of my credit report from
www.freecreditreport.com

with all three  credit
reporting agency reports. Included in that report was the following incorrect
or incomplete information you reported:

Mortgage listed from:  
HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL  ACCOUNT #
647002252xxxx.

                                      For:  Mary Jean Ziska   Opened: 
11/01/2006 

                                     AMERICAN
HOME MORTGAGE # 647002252xxxx.

                                     For:  Mary Jean Ziska  Opened: 
11/07/2006

This information is not correct.

I do not… and  have
never had a mortgage with  Homeward
Residential opened 11/1/2006 Account # 647002252 nor American Home Mortgage
opened: 11/07/2006  Account#647002252. I
have enclosed copies of the following documentation supporting my claim that
the information you reported is incorrect. 

1.            Complete
copy of the Collier County Clerk of the Circuit Court reporting Results printed
September 27th 2012 with all mortgages filed at the court house in my name for
my property starting in 1999.  In this
documentation as listed on 11/21/2006 my mortgage was with Option One  and could not possibly be with Homeward
Residential or American Home Mortgage.

2.            Paperwork
documenting American Home Mortgage’s filing for bankruptcy august 6, 2007.  American Home Mortgage has the same account
number as Homeward Residential   and both
are incorrect accounts listed on my credit report.

3.            Listed
on  the credit report from
freecreditreport.com  both Homeward
Residential or American Home Mortgage are listed as having the same documented
account number so I am assuming they are referring to the  same fraudulent account.  Both need to be removed from my credit
reports and from all your company 
information no matter the claims of haveing had a mortgage in 2006. 

4.            The
mortgage  Option One paperwork to support
that I had Option One as my mortgage company in 2006 from the collier county
court house.

5.            There is
no listing of either American Home Mortgage or 
Homeward Mortgage  for owning my
original note. 

This incorrect 
information is damaging my credit. Please contact Experian, TransUnion,
and Equifax immediately and direct them to remove this information from my
credit file. Please confirm upon receipt of this letter  that you have directed these credit reporting
agencies to remove this information, and provide me a copy of the form you used
to advise them. 

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Name: Mary Jean Ziska

Address: 5632 Whisperwood Blvd. #1601

Naples, Florida  34110

Email address : whatabtmary@gmail.com

HousingWire

Published on HousingWire (http://www.housingwire.com)

Home > Florida Bar files complaint against David J. Stern
over MERS case

Florida Bar files complaint against David J. Stern over MERS
case

Author(s): Christine Ricciardi [1]

The Florida Bar filed a complaint against foreclosure
attorney David J. Stern Friday afternoon for allegedly violating the bar’s
rules by failing to produce documents as ordered by the court in February.

One of the stated rules Stern allegedly broke: “A
lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal
except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation
exists,” the filing states.

The complaint is asking for an investigation [2] to find out
why Stern did not file the documents, and is asking for disciplinary action.
The document does not suggest what that action should be if Stern is found
culpable.

At the beginning of the year, the Law Offices of David J.
Stern represented SunTrust Bank in a lawsuit against Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, according to the complaint. The Florida district court
issued Stern’s firm an “order to show cause” on Feb. 16, which asked
him to prove why sanctions should not be entered against him after he neglected
to file certain documents “in a timely manner.” Stern allegedly
ignored this order, the complaint said.

“Respondent failed to produce the documents and has
otherwise failed to respond,” the complaint said.

On March 14, the issue was referred to the Florida Bar to
figure out why Stern did not abide by the order. Stern attained a mountain of
litigation against him and his firm during that period, as investigations into
the robo-signing scandal were well underway.

Stern lost [3] Freddie Mac’s business in November 2010 over
foreclosure documentation issues, and lost [4] Fannie Mae’s shortly thereafter.
On February 25, the Florida Attorney General launched an investigation [5] into
several real estate law firms across the state, including Stern’s. In March,
the Plantation, Fla.-based company ceased foreclosure work [6] and stopped
trading [7] on the Nasdaq.

Stern’s attorney Jeff Tew told The Palm Beach Post his
client was fired from SunTrust in mid-December 2010, before the Feb. 16 order
was issued. Tew also said it was possible Stern missed the notice among 10,000
pieces of incoming mail everyday.

Write to Christine Ricciardi [8].

Source URL (retrieved on Sep 30 2012 – 10:07pm):
Links:

[1] [2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] mailto:cricciardi@housingwire.com

This is the final part – at least for now – in a series on
our nation’s current foreclosure debacle. In the first installment, I explained
what’s behind the recent headlines regarding foreclosures that are being frozen
nationwide – the fact that the mass robo-signing of legal documents deprived
homeowners of their rights, and now gives them leverage with lenders. In the
second part, I introduced you to Hugo San Martin – a homeowner who was
foreclosed on even though he’d made his payments on time. In this story, we’ll
explore other potential problems that could strengthen and lengthen what’s
starting to be called “foreclosure-gate”.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading lately on foreclosure
issues, and a lot of it takes the tack that while it was an unfortunate
procedural error that foreclosure files were signed, witnessed and notarized by
people unfamiliar with their contents, these problems should be easily sorted
out. And that in a matter of weeks the foreclosure factories can once again
start churning out the paperwork. (In fact, Bank of American has already thawed
their foreclosure freeze.)

Here’s a quote from a recent editorial in the Wall Street
Journal:

    The affidavit was
supposed to be signed by the nameless, faceless employee in the back office who
reviewed the file, not the other nameless, faceless employee who sits in the front.

    The result is the
same, but politicians understand the pain that results when the anonymous paper
pusher who kicks you out of your home is not the anonymous paper pusher who is
supposed to kick you out of your home. Welcome to Washington’s financial crisis
of the week.

In other words, this isn’t a legal problem, it’s just
liberal political squealing. The editorial goes on to say, “We’re not aware of
a single case so far of a substantive error.”

Well, maybe the author of this editorial meet Kenneth Trent,
the foreclosure defense lawyer in the following news story. Check it out, then
meet me on the other side for more.

As you saw from the video, robo-signing might be just the
tip of a rather large iceberg. Because while some might argue that people
submitting documents to a court that they haven’t read is immaterial (albeit
not exactly legal), arguing that it’s OK to take someone’s house without
properly notifying them first is something else entirely. In addition,
systemically signing someone else’s name on legal documents is another major
potential fly in the ointment – and since this story broke, that’s been born
out: see Tired Robo-signers Let Coworkers Sign Their Names.

Ads by Google

FHA Streamline Refinance

See rates, fees, & costs (if any) New Customers Saved
$181/month!

freedommortgage.com/no-lender-fees

And when you ask Kenneth Trent, the lawyer from the video
above, even these problems pale when compared to another looming issue: whether
banks can actually prove that they’re the owners of these loans in the first
place.

Last July Trent filed a suit contending that David Stern’s
law firm violated the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act
by foreclosing on thousands of homeowners on behalf of lenders who couldn’t
prove they hold the original mortgages – which means they didn’t have legal
standing to bring the suit.

When I talked to Stern’s lawyer, Jeffrey Tew, about this a
few weeks ago, he said Trent’s suit had no merit. In fact, he called it
“silly.” As you saw in my last story, Tew has also told the media that the
other issues raised by Trent were also invalid and that the Stern firm has done
nothing wrong.

What does it all mean?

This story is still unfolding, so it’s impossible to know at
this point where it will ultimately lead. But from the time I’ve put into this
story, here are some of my initial conclusions:

    This could become
a bigger issue than the banks and Stern’s representative would have you
believe, particularly in states with judicial foreclosure.

    Even as I write this, you can bet that the
ranks of foreclosure defense lawyers are swelling – and those lawyers are going
to find plenty of willing clients. Translation? Our overburdened courts may
soon experience a lot more contested foreclosures.

    If I were a
homeowner facing foreclosure, particularly if it was filed by one of the banks
that’s admitted wrongdoing or by David Stern’s firm, I’d probably at least talk
to a lawyer – especially if my goal was to negotiate a deal that might let me
to keep my house. Although I wouldn’t expect miracles. It’s unlikely, for
example, that your legal leverage would enable you to cut your mortgage in
half.

    If I were a
homeowner facing foreclosure, what I wouldn’t expect is to permanently enjoin a
lender from foreclosing. Ultimately, this will be sorted out and people who
haven’t paid their mortgages will lose their homes.

    If I were an
investor thinking about buying a foreclosure at auction, I’d wait to see how
things work out. While it’s highly unlikely that you’d lose a home purchased at
a legitimate auction, there’s no rush. Let the smoke clear. And don’t even
think of buying any foreclosure, whether at auction or through a real estate
agent, that doesn’t have title insurance.

I’ll keep following this story – you do the same by checking
back!

Subscribe by email

Like this article? Sign up for our email updates and we’ll
send you a regular digest of our newest stories, full of money saving tips and
advice, free! We’ll also email you a PDF of Stacy Johnson’s ’205 Ways to Save
Money’ as soon as you’ve subscribed. It’s full of great tips that’ll help you
save a ton of extra cash. It doesn’t cost a dime, so why wait? Click here to
sign up now.

Ads by Google

Foreclosure Law Center

Florida Foreclosure Attorneys. Find Help When You Need It
Most.

www.TheForeclosureLawCenter.com

Foreclosure King David Stern Shuttering His Law Firm

—By Andy Kroll

| Mon Mar. 7, 2011 10:35 AM PST

A caricature of David J. Stern, the once-mighty foreclosure
attorney, that he printed on T-shirts used to woo potential investors.

By the end of the month, the Law Offices of David J. Stern,
the once-mighty foreclosure mill in southeastern Florida, will be no more.
According to a terse, two-sentence filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the firm—the subject of a Mother Jones investigation published last
August—”will be ceasing the practice of law with respect to all pending
foreclosure matters in the State of Florida” by March 31.

The reversal of fortune for David Stern and his law firm has
been swift and breathtaking. A little over a year ago, the Stern’s operation
reigned king in the foreclosure business. Its clients included Wall Street
powerhouses such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citgroup; the firm was
also cozy with government housing corporations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
which hand-picked Stern’s firm operation to process foreclosure cases for them.
In 2009, the firm handled 70,000 foreclosure cases, and employed more than
1,000 people—paralegals, attorneys, paper-pushers, secretaries, and more. From
2006 to 2008, revenue generated by the non-legal, foreclosure-related parts of
Stern’s operations spiked from $40 million to $200 million. But the big payoff
didn’t come until January 2010, when Stern spun off those lucrative non-legal
operations into a separate, publicly-traded company, netting him $58.5 million.

ADVERTISEMENT

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Through the staggering success of his businesses, Stern
amassed great personal wealth. Over the years he purchased many
multi-million-dollar waterfront properties in southeastern Florida, including a
beachfront condo in the Ritz Carlton Fort Lauderdale. He bought Italian-made,
jet-powered yachts and plenty of sports cars: at the time I published my story,
he owned four Ferraris, four Porsches, a pair of Mercedes-Benzes, and a
Bugatti. While secretive in his personal and professional life, Stern’s wealth
was conspicuous enough that Fort Lauderdale’s Water Taxi boat captains made
sure to point out his $15 million, 16,000-square-foot mansion on the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway.

But last fall, the business empire that allowed Stern to
live like a king began to crumble. Days after Mother Jones published my
investigation into Stern and the world of foreclosure mills, the Florida
attorney general announced a probe into Stern’s firm and two others to
determine whether “improper documentation may have been created and filed
with Florida courts to speed up foreclosure processes, potentially without the
knowledge or consent of the homeowners involved.” It’s all been downhill since
then for Stern: Fannie and Freddie dropped him from their “designated
counsel” program, and many big banks and mortgage servicing companies
stopped hiring his firm. Citing MoJo’s reporting, members of Congress demanded
investigations into why Fannie and Freddie ever did business with Stern’s firm
and others like it. Soon, no one, it seemed, wanted to do business with the Law
Offices of David J. Stern.

The publicly traded company he helped start, DJSP
Enterprises, floundered as well. After opening in January 2010 at $9.25 a
share, DJSP’s stock has plummeted to rock bottom: At midday on Monday, it was
worth 16 cents a share. In November, facing a mountain of criticism, Stern
himself resigned as president and CEO of the company. In December, the company
received a warning from NASDAQ that it would be delisted unless it boosted its
per-share price to $1 by mid-June.

And as his business empire crumbled, so, too, has his
personal fortune. Stern is reportedly offloading a pair of prime properties in
the Fort Lauderdale area, believed to be worth tens of millions of dollars.
According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, he’s also trying to sell his
130-foot Mangusta yacht, named Misunderstood.

Stern’s law firm currently employs around 50 or so
employees, after shedding the majority of the staff over the past five months
due to the drop in referrals. It’s unclear how DJSP Enterprises, the publicly
traded company, will fare as Stern’s firm prepares to shut down; as the company
admitted in early SEC filings, Stern’s law firm was the primary source of
business for DJSP. Without it, it’s hard to see how DJSP stays afloat.

Stern is still under investigation by the Florida AG, which
is looking at the past practices of his law firm. Which is to say, while the
Law Offices of David J. Stern will soon be gone, today’s news isn’t the last
we’ll hear of David J. Stern.

Below is a letter obtained by Mother Jones that Stern sent
to Judge Lee Hayworth in Florida’s Sarasota County, outlining his law firm’s
plans to close its doors and remove itself from all pending foreclosure cases:  stern-letter-hayworth-closing

Foreclosure King David Stern Shuttering His Law Firm

—By Andy Kroll

| Mon Mar. 7, 2011 10:35 AM PST

A caricature of David J. Stern, the once-mighty foreclosure
attorney, that he printed on T-shirts used to woo potential investors.

By the end of the month, the Law Offices of David J. Stern,
the once-mighty foreclosure mill in southeastern Florida, will be no more.
According to a terse, two-sentence filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the firm—the subject of a Mother Jones investigation published last
August—”will be ceasing the practice of law with respect to all pending
foreclosure matters in the State of Florida” by March 31.

The reversal of fortune for David Stern and his law firm has
been swift and breathtaking. A little over a year ago, the Stern’s operation
reigned king in the foreclosure business. Its clients included Wall Street
powerhouses such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Citgroup; the firm was
also cozy with government housing corporations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
which hand-picked Stern’s firm operation to process foreclosure cases for them.
In 2009, the firm handled 70,000 foreclosure cases, and employed more than
1,000 people—paralegals, attorneys, paper-pushers, secretaries, and more. From
2006 to 2008, revenue generated by the non-legal, foreclosure-related parts of
Stern’s operations spiked from $40 million to $200 million. But the big payoff
didn’t come until January 2010, when Stern spun off those lucrative non-legal
operations into a separate, publicly-traded company, netting him $58.5 million.

ADVERTISEMENT

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Through the staggering success of his businesses, Stern
amassed great personal wealth. Over the years he purchased many
multi-million-dollar waterfront properties in southeastern Florida, including a
beachfront condo in the Ritz Carlton Fort Lauderdale. He bought Italian-made,
jet-powered yachts and plenty of sports cars: at the time I published my story,
he owned four Ferraris, four Porsches, a pair of Mercedes-Benzes, and a
Bugatti. While secretive in his personal and professional life, Stern’s wealth
was conspicuous enough that Fort Lauderdale’s Water Taxi boat captains made
sure to point out his $15 million, 16,000-square-foot mansion on the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway.

But last fall, the business empire that allowed Stern to
live like a king began to crumble. Days after Mother Jones published my
investigation into Stern and the world of foreclosure mills, the Florida
attorney general announced a probe into Stern’s firm and two others to
determine whether “improper documentation may have been created and filed
with Florida courts to speed up foreclosure processes, potentially without the
knowledge or consent of the homeowners involved.” It’s all been downhill since
then for Stern: Fannie and Freddie dropped him from their “designated
counsel” program, and many big banks and mortgage servicing companies
stopped hiring his firm. Citing MoJo’s reporting, members of Congress demanded
investigations into why Fannie and Freddie ever did business with Stern’s firm
and others like it. Soon, no one, it seemed, wanted to do business with the Law
Offices of David J. Stern.

The publicly traded company he helped start, DJSP
Enterprises, floundered as well. After opening in January 2010 at $9.25 a
share, DJSP’s stock has plummeted to rock bottom: At midday on Monday, it was
worth 16 cents a share. In November, facing a mountain of criticism, Stern
himself resigned as president and CEO of the company. In December, the company
received a warning from NASDAQ that it would be delisted unless it boosted its
per-share price to $1 by mid-June.

And as his business empire crumbled, so, too, has his
personal fortune. Stern is reportedly offloading a pair of prime properties in
the Fort Lauderdale area, believed to be worth tens of millions of dollars.
According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, he’s also trying to sell his
130-foot Mangusta yacht, named Misunderstood.

Stern’s law firm currently employs around 50 or so
employees, after shedding the majority of the staff over the past five months
due to the drop in referrals. It’s unclear how DJSP Enterprises, the publicly
traded company, will fare as Stern’s firm prepares to shut down; as the company
admitted in early SEC filings, Stern’s law firm was the primary source of
business for DJSP. Without it, it’s hard to see how DJSP stays afloat.

Stern is still under investigation by the Florida AG, which
is looking at the past practices of his law firm. Which is to say, while the
Law Offices of David J. Stern will soon be gone, today’s news isn’t the last
we’ll hear of David J. Stern.

Below is a letter obtained by Mother Jones that Stern sent
to Judge Lee Hayworth in Florida’s Sarasota County, outlining his law firm’s
plans to close its doors and remove itself from all pending foreclosure cases:  stern-letter-hayworth-closing