Thursday, October 27, 2011

5 Reasons Banks Would Rather Foreclose



"Why won't the bank just reduce the amount of my loan instead of taking my home and then selling it to someone else for way less than I would have been happy to pay?" It's a question that gets asked repeatedly these days, especially by people who are facing foreclosure or are upside down on their mortgages.

For the answer, we turned to Jack Guttentag, the Mortgage Professor and Inman columnist.

Guttentag believes that lenders have been too stingy when it comes to reducing loan balances. Private lenders have offered loan reductions only sparingly, he says, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac not at all.

Here's the professor's take on why homeowners can't catch a break on loan reductions.

1. The buck stops there.

The decisions to reduce principal loan amounts are made by the firms that service mortgages -- the same folks who brought the country the robo-signing scandal. As servicing firms, anything they decide must be in the financial interest of their client -- that's your lender, not you. If they depart from customary practice -- and writing down loan balances is a departure from customary practice -- the buck stops with them, Guttentag says. In other words, who's going to take the risk of reducing Joe Homeowner's loan amount and then have to explain it to the boss? To take Nancy Reagan out of context: They just say no.

2. Banks are in the business of making money.

No lender is going to write down the balance of a loan in default just because you owe more than the home is worth. Truth is, there is no benefit to the lender to helping Joe Homeowner keep his house instead of selling it to the next guy. Plus, to help Joe would eliminate the possibility that the bank could also get a deficiency judgment against him. Banks are in this for the squeeze and think of Joe as just the orange. Nothing personal, of course.

3. In this economy, you will likely default anyway.

Sure, you want to believe that the economy is going to turn around and the value of your home will again rise to what you paid for it. After all, hasn't listening to a fairy tale been a surefire way to fall asleep?

From the lender's standpoint, the only reason to write down a loan balance is that it will reduce the chance that you will default. And evidence has shown that people who are heavily underwater -- that's deep in negative equity territory -- are more likely to default than those who aren't. Truth is, negative equity discourages people from making their mortgage payments. They figure: Why keep throwing good money after bad?

4. Banks are short-staffed and the staff they do have is untrained.

Most interactions between mortgage borrowers and servicers are handled by computers or relatively unskilled employees, says Guttentag. Borrowers in serious trouble are referred to a smaller number of more skilled and specialized employees, but until you enter the red zone, you are likely to encounter frustration.

Guttentag says that at the onset of the mortgage crisis, servicers were caught short-handed and the sheer volume of foreclosures in the pipeline hasn't allowed them to catch their breath.

5. Mortgage insurance works against you.

When mortgages carrying mortgage insurance go to foreclosure, banks are protected up to the maximum coverage of the policy, which generally is enough to cover all or most of the loss. This discourages modifications, says Guttentag. Why would a bank do a modification for $15,000 if the $40,000 foreclosure cost is going to be paid by the mortgage insurer? Even if the insurance coverage falls short of the foreclosure cost, the shortfall has to exceed the modification cost before modification becomes financially more attractive.

So there you have it. A five-point plan for keeping homeowners on the hook for that hefty loan balance.

Foreclosure Sale Voided - Another Victory for Robert E. Brown, P.C.

On November 15, 2006, the defendant, Defendant (F.C) executed a mortgage and note with Amerifund Home Mortgage, LLC in the amount of $250,000. According to the Plaintiff, EMC Mortgage Corporation, Defendant failed to pay the installment due on April1, 2008. The Plaintiff failed to attach a notice of acceleration of the note, Defendant denies ever receiving a notice to accelerate the note.

It is known that foreclosure auctions in Richmond County (Staten Island) are conducted at 18 Richmond Terrace, Room 106, Staten Island, New York. The former Homeport Courthouse located at 355 Front Street, Staten Island, NY never hosted such auctions. In this case, the differential in distance between 18 Richmond terrace and 355 Front Street is approximately 1.3 miles. Therefore, the foreclosure sale that took place on May 4, 2010 must be set aside.

The court concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to submit evidence demonstrating that it had title to both the mortgage and note at the time it commenced this foreclosure action.

In a decision rendered on September 13, 2011, Justice Joseph J. Maltese of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Richmond County, vacated a foreclosure sale and dismissed the entire complaint.


FC v. EMC

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Ocwen to Buy Saxon for $59.3 Million

Ocwen has agreed to acquire Saxon for the base purchase price of $59.3 million. The deal also includes an estimated $1.4 billion for servicing advance receivables outstanding.

The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2012. According to Reuters, Morgan Stanley bought Saxon in August 2006 for $706 million.

This will mark Georgia-based Ocwen’s second major acquisition of a residential mortgage servicer in less than a year’s time. In both cases, Ocwen took the servicing businesses off the hands of investment banks.

In June, Ocwen agreed to purchase Litton Loan Servicing from Goldman Sachs.

Ocwen completed an earlier acquisition of HomEq Servicing, the U.S. mortgage servicing business of Barclays Bank, in September of 2010.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Citigroup Paying $285 Million To Settle Charges Of Misleading Buyers Of Mortgage Securities





WASHINGTON — Citigroup has agreed to pay $285 million to settle civil fraud charges that it misled buyers of a complex mortgage investment just as the housing market was starting to collapse.

The Securities and Exchange Commission said Wednesday that the big Wall Street bank bet against the investment in 2007 and made $160 million in fees and profits. Investors lost millions.
Citigroup neither admitted nor denied the SEC's allegations in the settlement.

"We are pleased to put this matter behind us and are focused on contributing to the economic recovery, serving our clients and growing responsibly," Citigroup said in a statement.

The penalty is the biggest involving a Wall Street firm accused of misleading investors before the financial crisis since Goldman Sachs & Co. paid $550 million to settle similar charges last year. JPMorgan Chase & Co. resolved similar charges in June and paid $153.6 million.

All the cases have involved complex investments called collateralized debt obligations. Those are securities that are backed by pools of other assets, such as mortgages.

Citigroup's payment includes the fees and profit it earned, plus $30 million in interest and a $95 million penalty. The money will be returned to the investors, the SEC said.

In the July-September quarter, Citigroup earned $3.8 billion. CEO Vikram Pandit this year was awarded a multi-year bonus package that could be worth nearly $23.4 million if performance goals are met.

At the height of the financial crisis in 2008, regulators worried that Citigroup was on the brink of failure. It received $45 billion as part of the $700 billion government bailout.
In the civil lawsuit filed Wednesday, the SEC said Citigroup traders discussed in late 2006 the possibility of buying financial instruments to essentially bet on the failure of the mortgage assets being assembled in the deal.

Rating agencies downgraded most of the investments that Citigroup had bundled together just as many troubled homeowners stopped paying their mortgages in late 2007. That pushed the investment into default and cost its buyers' – hedge funds and investment managers – several hundred million dollars in losses.

Among the biggest losers were Ambac, a bond insurer, and BNP Paribas, a European bank. Ambac had sold Citigroup protection against losses on the investment, allowing Citigroup to bet against it.

Hedge funds had asked Citigroup to sell them investments that would decline if the housing market crashed. Citigroup did so, and wanted to get in on the action, the SEC said.

Citigroup bet that the investments would fail, but never told investors it had done so, SEC enforcement chief Robert Khuzami said in a conference call.

"Key facts regarding how the structure was put together were not made available to (investors), and they suffered losses as a result," he said.

Even though Citigroup designed the investment to fail, it told investors it had been designed by an independent manager, the SEC said. Citigroup's marketing materials said the investments were picked by Credit Suisse. In an email about the deal, one Citigroup banker asked another not to tell Credit Suisse that it was designed for Citigroup to profit.

Credit Suisse "agreed to the terms even though they don't get to pick the assets," the email said, according to the SEC's complaint.

Credit Suisse also reached a settlement with the SEC. Two divisions of the bank agreed to pay a $1.25 million civil fine. It will also return $1 million in fees and pay $250,000 in interest. They didn't admit or deny the charges.

Credit Suisse declined to comment on the settlement.

The SEC also filed charges against Brian Stoker, a Citigroup employee it said was mainly responsible for putting together the deal. Stoker will contest the charges, according to a statement released by his lawyer.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19/citigroup-settlement-mortgage-securities_n_1019729.html?ref=email_share

Friday, October 7, 2011

Baum required to pay $2 million as a part of a settlement with U.S. Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York


Steven J. Baum, P.C., has entered into a settlement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York whereby it is required to pay $2 million and make significant reforms to its foreclosure filing practices. Strangely, the settlement agreement at ¶4 reads: “This Agreement does not constitute a finding by any Court or Agency that Baum has engaged in any unlawful practice or wrongdoing of any kind.”

$2 million is a lot of money for a law firm that has not engaged in any unlawful practices or wrongdoing of any kind.

Also noteworthy for foreclosure defense practitioners is ¶15(a):

“Baum shall provide the following notification:
a. In any pending foreclosure action where an application for a judgment of foreclosure has not been submitted to a court, if Baum has filed an assignment of mortgage as a corporate officer of MERS, Baum shall disclose that fact to the court in the application for the judgment of foreclosure, or earlier. Such disclosure shall not be required if the Baum firm does not file a proposed judgment of foreclosure (e.g. because another law firm has been substituted as counsel for the matter prior to the filing of a proposed judgment of foreclosure, because the action is dismissed, etc.)” (Emphasis supplied).

Full agreement:

Settlement Between the United States of America and Steven J. Baum

Monday, September 12, 2011

Rubin Martinez, client of the Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C., featured in AARP Bulletin for September 2011

Nicholas M. Moccia, Esq.
Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C.

Ruben Martinez, a foreclosure client of the Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C., is featured in AARP's Bulletin for September 2011.  Mr. Martinez has been living in his house for six years without paying his mortgage.  See "Living in Limbo", by Carole Fleck, for details.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Justice Thomas Whelan of Suffolk County defies the Second Department and again advocates for financial institutions in the foreclosure context

Nicholas M. Moccia, Esq.
Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C.


Justice Thomas Whelan of Suffolk County is now well-known by foreclosure practitioners to be a "bank friendly" judge.  This was particularly apparent in his recent decision, namely Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Pietra, 2011 NY Slip Op 21261 (Suffolk County July 27, 2011), wherein Justice Whelan critically and, at times, sarcastically disregards the Second Department's recent pronouncement in Bank of New York v. Silverberg, 2011 WL 2279723 (2d Dep't 2011), regarding the incapacity of MERS to transfer notes and mortgages on behalf of financial institutionsIn this vein Justice Whelan writes:

Recently, in Bank of New York v Silverberg, _AD3d_, 2011 WL 2279723 (2d Dept 2011), the Second Department, in explaining and examining the role of MERS, referenced a MERS website, About Us-Overview, MERS, http://www.mersinc.org/about/index.aspx, a particularly intemperate law review article(see Peterson, Foreclosure, Subprime Mortgage Lending, and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, 78 U Cin L Rev 1359 [2010], newspaper articles, and the holding in a Bankruptcy Court case, In re Agard, 444 BR 231 (2011). [footnote omitted]. 
In an apparent attempt to cite presumptively more disinterested sources regarding the role of MERS,  Justice Whelan sees fit to ignore, among things, the "intemperance" of Christopher Peterson (a professor of law at the University of Utah), and instead cites R.K. Arnold, the former President and CEO of MERS for a "clearer" and undoubtedly more objective understanding.  Justice Whelan proceeds to discredit the authorities cited in  or consistent with Silverberg, and off-handedly distinguishes the matter before him from Silverberg purportedly because the note and mortgage in Silverberg were the product of a mortgage consolidation and extension agreement (i.e., a CEMA). 

Bottom line:  Justice Whelan is ripe for a Second Department reversal.



Monday, August 15, 2011

MERS out of the foreclosure business? It needs to get out of the assignment of mortgage business as well...

Nicholas M. Moccia, Esq.
Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C.


John Brancato of the Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C., has brought an interesting article to my attention.  MERS is officially out of the foreclosure business.  This means that financial institutions who are members of the MERS system may not hide behind MERS' name and commence foreclosure actions with MERS named as the Plaintiff.  This was common several years ago, but, at least in New York, I have not seen MERS as a plaintiff in a foreclosure action for a long time--certainly not in recently filed foreclosures.  NY judges have been throwing out MERS foreclosures for several years now.

In the State of New York, MERS does not merely have problems with commencing foreclosures, but now the real issue is whether MERS is allowed to transfer ownership interests in mortgages, which is one of the very purposes for MERS to exist.  The NY Appellate Division, Second Department, has ruled that MERS does not, in general, have the requisite ownership interest to transfer mortgages between financial institutions unless MERS happens to be the holder of both the note and the mortgage.  MERS rarely, if ever, is the holder of the note and the mortgage, but is given the title "nominee" on behalf of some other financial institution.  As nominee, MERS is nothing more than an agent of some other entity, but is not the actual holder of the note and the mortgage.  In New York (at least in the Second Department) any mortgage that has passed through the MERS system is now tainted in the eyes of the courts, and so this may make it difficult, if not impossible, for banks to foreclose.

Link to MERS article:  http://www.dsnews.com/articles/mers-bows-out-of-foreclosure-and-bankruptcy-proceedings-2011-07-27

Monday, July 18, 2011

Banks quietly reducing principle balances for favored few while homeowners in foreclosure are denied loan modifications

Nicholas M. Moccia, Esq.
Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C.

On July 3, 2011, the New York Times reported that banks such as JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America were quietly modifying loans for tens of thousands of borrowers who were not even in foreclosure, going so far as to reduce reduce principle balances by 50%.  This is unheard of for borrowers actually in foreclosure who are purportedly given the opportunity to apply for loan modifications.  In particular, the kind of loan that seems to be getting this special attention is the so-called pay option adjustable rate loans, which were popular in the wild late stages of the housing boom but which banks now view as troublesome.  Most troubling of all is observation of Adam J. Levitin, a professor of law at Georgetown University who observes:

Loan modifications that should be happening aren't happening, while loan modifications that shouldn't be happening are.  Homeowners of any sort, whether current or in default, would rightly be confused and angered by this.
I would like to credit Paula Odellas for bringing this article to my attention.

See original article below.  There is a zoom in option at the bottom of the frame. 


NY Time Article reporting on banks reducing principle balances for at risk loans

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Judge Arthur Schack identifies three robo-signers in HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Taher and threatens to sanction HSBC CEO Irene M. Dorner!

Nicholas M. Moccia
Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C.

Judge Arthur Schack of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, has identified three individuals as robo signers in a recent foreclosure commenced by HSBC Bank and its counsel, Shapiro Dicaro & Barack, LLP.  See HSBC Bank USA NA v. Taher, 2011 NY Slip Op 51208(U)(Sup. Ct. Kings County July 1, 2011).


The three individuals identified by Judge Schack as robo signers are Scott W. Anderson, Margery Rotundo and Christina Carter.

With regard to Scott Anderson, Judge Schack notes that he is aware of at least five distinct signatures on the various documents purportedly signed by Mr. Anderson in the furtherance of foreclosures.  Judge Schack cites an article in Palm Beach Post, "State details foreclosure crisis," by Kimberly Miller, dated January 5, 2011,  wherein she reports:

As foreclosures mounted, the banks appointed people to create assignments, "thousands and thousands and thousands" of which were signed weekly by people who may not have known what they were signing . . .In another example, the signature of Scott Anderson, an employee of West Palm Beach-based Ocwen Financial Corp., appears in four styles on mortgage assignments . . .
 In addition to the signature variations, Judge Schack notes Mr. Anderson's frequent, apparent conflicts of interest by signing off on transfer documents in what appear to be arms length transactions between various financial institutions.  One day Anderson signs for MERS in an assignment to HSBC, another day he signs for HSBC in an affidavit of merit, then he signs for Ocwen which services loans for HSBC, all the while posing as a corporate officer for each of these respective entities etc.  According to HSBC, Mr. Anderson has authority to sign for all of these entities, but all too often HSBC is unable to produce the requisite power-of-attorney to demonstrate Mr. Anderson's signing authority.

Similar irregularities were noted by the Court with regard to Margery Rotundo and Christina Carter as well.

Judge Schack ultimately dismisses this action for lack of standing.  Referring to the new Second Department decision Bank of New York v Silverberg, (___ AD3d ___, 2011 NY Slip Op 05002 (2d Dep't 2011)), Judge Schack notes that MERS cannot effect a valid assignment of mortgage unless it is the holder of both the note and the mortgage.  It has become well established that, as a matter of industry practice, MERS hardly ever is the holder of the note, and is given no authority with regard to the note.  For this reason, MERS assignments are not valid for the purpose transferring the requisite ownership interest and authority to commence a mortgage foreclosure.  In the instant matter, HSBC was the purported assignee in a MERS assignment.  For this reason, Judge Schack held that HSBC did not have standing to commence this foreclosure due to MERS inability to effect a valid mortgage assignment.

Most extraordinary of all, Judge Schack issued a court order  pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 130-1.1 requiring Plaintiff's counsel, Shapiro and DiCaro, as well as the CEO of HSBC, Irene M. Dorner, to show cause why the Court should not sanction the Plaintiff's CEO and its counsel.  With regard to Irene Dorner, Judge Schack notes:

[Irene M. Dorner] should not only take credit for the fruits of HSBC's victories but must bear some responsibility for its defeats and mistakes. According to HSBC's 2010 Form 10-K, dated December 31, 2010, and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2011, at p. 255, "Ms. Dorner's insight and particular knowledge of HSBC USA's operations are critical to an effective Board of Directors" and Ms. Dorner "has many years of experience in leadership positions with HSBC and extensive global experience with HSBC, which is highly relevant as we seek to operate our core businesses in support of HSBC's global strategy." HSBC needs to have a "global strategy" of filing truthful documents and not wasting the very limited resources of the Courts. For her responsibility she earns a handsome compensation package. According to the 2010 Form 10-k, at pp. 276-277, she earned in 2010 total compensation of $2,306,723. This included, among other things: a base salary of $566,346; a discretionary bonus of $760,417; and, other compensation such as $560 for financial planning and executive tax services; $40,637 for executive travel allowance, $24,195 for housing and furniture allowance, $39,399 for relocation expenses and $3,754 for executive physical and medical expenses.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C., featured on CBS Evening News for foreclosure defense

Nicholas M. Moccia, Esq.
Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C.

Robert E. Brown, Esq., of Staten Island, New York, was featured tonight on CBS Evening News regarding the state of the foreclosure crisis.  Also featured was Robert Brown's client, Rubin Martinez, who has managed to remain in his home for six years without paying his mortgage under Mr. Brown's representation.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

The Appellate Division, Second Department, of the State of New York renders a landmark decision regarding MERS' standing to foreclosure

Nicholas M. Moccia
Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C.

The Second Department in Bank of New York v. Silverberg, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op 05002, has rendered a landmark decision regarding the ability of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems ("MERS") to effect valid mortgage assignments.  The reason why this decision is so significant is that MERS purportedly holds approximately 60 million mortgage loans, and is involved in the origination of 60% of all mortgages in the United States.   Accordingly, a fair majority of all foreclosures in the state of New York will be directly affected by the Second Department's holding in this case.

The MERS system was created by several large participants in the real estate mortgage industry in order to track ownership interests in residential mortgages, and to streamline the mortgage process by incorporating the efficiencies of information technology.  Christopher L. Peterson, who has written authoritatively on the MERS system, noted that MERS' implementation followed the delays occasioned by local recording offices, which were at times slow in recording instruments because of complex local regulations and database systems that had become voluminous and increasingly difficult to search.  See Peterson, Foreclosure, Subprime Lending, and the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, 78 U Cin L Rev 1359 (2010);  see also my previous blog post on Peterson's article, Unmasking the Masked Executioner on Wall Street (January 1, 2010).  Peterson has also suggested that MERS was created in order to help financial institutions evade filing fees that are charged by local recording offices.

The question presented in this appeal was whether a bank has standing to commence a foreclosure action when that party's assignor--in this case (and in very many cases), MERS--was listed in the underlying mortgage instruments as a nominee and mortgagee for the purpose of recording, but was never the actual holder or assignee of the underlying notes.  The Second Department answered resoundingly in the negative.

In many cases, when a bank originates a loan, it immediately assigns it (i.e. sells it) to another financial institution.  Sometimes the loan is transferred very many times.  In order to assign a loan "correctly", the assignor must transfer both the note and the mortgage (two separate instruments) to the assignee.  MERS' plays a central role in the assignment process, and acts as the mortgagee of record from the origination of the loan to act on behalf of the originating bank and its successors-in-interest to facilitate the assignment process.  Unfortunately for the banks, MERS is hardly ever the actual "holder" of the note, and is never given any rights with respect to the note--it's only given rights with respect to the mortgage.  As mentioned above, MERS cannot transfer a mortgage without the note, and it cannot transfer the note unless its is the holder of the note, and MERS almost never is.  On this theory, the majority of mortgage assignments which MERS has had a hand in are void.  That means many financial institutions, which were assignees of a MERS assignment, do not own the mortgages they think they own, and, therefore, do not have the right to foreclose on the same.  This will wreak havoc among financial institutions and their attorneys, who are already struggling through an increasingly regulated residential foreclosure process.




Tuesday, April 26, 2011

District Judge Sterling Johnson of the Eastern District of New York wallops MERS and Deutsche Bank in Tshering v. Fairfield Financial, 08-CV-2777

Nicholas M. Moccia, Esq. (of counsel)
Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C.


Nicholas M. Moccia, Esq., of counsel for the Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C., appears for oral argument in the Eastern District of New York in Yanki Tshering v. Fairfield Financial, 08-CV-2777, wherein District Judge Sterling Johnson rendered a judgment voiding a $900,000 high cost loan.  Attorneys for Deutsche Bank attempt to convince Judge Johnson to vacate the judgment and allow them to intervene as the "real parties in interest".  Judge Johnson criticizes MERS and Deutsche Bank for a troubling "lack of transparency" with regard to the transfer of notes and mortgages, and expresses concerns that MERS may be a vehicle for banks to avoid taxes and filing fees in connection with the transfer and recordation of mortgages.  As of now, Judge Johnson is reserving his decision as to whether to allow Deutsche Bank and MERS to intervene and vacate the judgment.


Context, put simply:  This office represents a homeowner with $900K mortgage given by Fairfield Financial. We convinced the judge to cancel the mortgage so that she does not owe the money anymore. A different bank comes out of the woodwork, namely Deutsche Bank, and argues that the mortgage really belongs to Deutsche, and that Deutsche did not get a chance to defend in this law suit. Accordingly, Deutsche Bank is asking the judge to let them intervene in the law suit, cancel the judgment, because our client purportedly owes Deutsche Bank the money, not Fairfield. Our position is that Deutsche should not intervene at Deutsche should sue Fairfield, its predecessor-in-interest for failing to notify Deutsche about our law suit. Basically, the judge is critical of the bank attorney's position and seems to be saying that it is too late for Deutsche to intervene, and that Deutsche should be more transparent with regard to the loans it owns at any given time.

**If you are unable to access the entire transcript on the viewer below, you can access the entire transcript by downloading it from scribd.com.

District Judge Sterling Johnson of the Eastern District of New York wallops MERS and Deutsche Bank in Tsher...

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Justice James Pagones of Dutchess County, New York, advocates for homeowners in foreclosure settlement conferences



Justice James D. Pagones of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Dutchess, has rendered an interesting set of decisions in the foreclosure practice area—see JPMorgan Chase, N.A, v. Sosa, 2011 NY Slip Op 50537[U] (Sup. Ct. Dutchess County April 8, 2011)(hereinafter “JPMorgan v. Sosa”); see also US Bank Natl. Assn. v. Padilla, 2011 (Sup. Ct. Dutchess County April 8, 2011)(hereinafter “US Bank v. Padilla”).  These decisions are of especial interest to homeowners facing the prospect of foreclosure, since they highlight some of the pitfalls homeowners may face during the foreclosure process. 

The good news for New York homeowners in foreclosure, is that the residential foreclosure process takes many months to bring to completion.  In some cases, it may take several years, if properly contested.  One of the procedural mechanisms which slows down the process for homeowners is the mandatory settlement conference pursuant to section 3408 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR §3408”) and section 1304 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL §1304”).  The legislative intent underlying these statutes is to foster early settlement of foreclosure actions as a means of preserving home ownership and to mitigate the subprime credit crises, through the auspices of the courts.  See end note 1.  To this end, every bank is required to participate in the mandatory settlement conference before it is permitted to move for a judgment of foreclosure and auction off a home.  Specifically, every bank is required, “in good faith”, to attempt to settle the foreclosure action by giving homeowners an opportunity to do one of three things:  1.  apply for a loan modification; 2.  enter into a short sale; or 3. settle by way of a “deed in lieu of foreclosure”, which ideally amounts to walking away from the home without any further liability to the bank.

It is in the context of the mandatory settlement conferences, Justice Pagones highlights some of the pitfalls homeowners regularly face when the banks and their attorneys apparently act in bad faith contrary to the requirements of CRPL §3408(f) and RPAPL §1304.  In JPMorgan v. Sosa, Justice Pagones sets forth an all-too-common scenario wherein a homeowner participates in a settlement conference but fails to contest the foreclosure action while attempting to workout a settlement.  Justice Sosa continues as follows:

Defendant Sosa contends she did not appear and answer the plaintiff’s complaint because she had been offered participation in the HAMP program and had been assured by the plaintiff that her participation would bring her mortgage back into compliance and would result in the termination of the foreclosure action…The documents submitted by both of the parties demonstrate that defendant Sosa made a down payment to the plaintiff in April 2009…Although defendant Sosa made each of the required trial period payments, she ultimately received a letter from the Plaintiff dated December 21, 2009, that she did not qualify for any loan modification programs due to her insufficient income. 

During the eight month period when the Defendant Sosa was attempting to work out a loan modification, the bank was continuing to proceed with the foreclosure.  It is noteworthy that Defendant Sosa made the mistake of failing to contest to the foreclosure action from the very beginning by neglecting to file an answer with counterclaims.  As a result, a judgment was rendered against Defendant Sosa even as she was attempting negotiate a settlement. 

Once it was clear that bank was not going to offer Defendant Sosa a loan modification, and after many months of making “trial payments”, Defendant Sosa found herself at the threshold of the foreclosure auction block.  Luckily for Defendant Sosa, Justice Pagones “in the furtherance of justice” granted Defendant Sosa’s application to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and allowed her to submit a late answer with counterclaims.  Justice Pagones was by no means obliged to vacate the judgment, but it is clear that the he exercised his equitable discretion due to the questionable of the bank during the foreclosure settlement conference.  Indeed, it is commonplace for a bank to string borrowers along for many months accepting payments during a “trial period” for a loan modification, only to renege on offering a final loan modification agreement and to proceed with the foreclosure. Had Defendant Sosa served an answer on the bank from the beginning and challenged the bank with a set of colorable counterclaims, the bank would undoubtedly have taken her application for a loan modification more seriously.  Since, however, the bank was able to get an uncontested judgment, the bank had, practically speaking, no real incentive to work with Sosa toward an reasonable settlement.

In US Bank v. Padilla, Justice Pagones again found that the bank’s “unnecessary, dilatory tactics and contradictory information [had] the inexorable effect, whether or not intentional, of plunging the homeowner deeper and deeper in arrears, raising the very real probability that she will never be able to extricate herself from this debt and work out an affordable loan modification.”  Specifically, Justice Pagones noted that the bank, even as the Defendant Padilla made her “trial period” loan modification payments, made all sorts of excuses as to why Defendant Padilla could not be offered a final loan modification.  First, the bank misplaced Defendant Padilla documents, which were submitted as a part of her application.  Defendant Padilla resent the documents.  Then the bank tells her there was a “mix-up” with her records, and that a second mortgage on her home made her monthly expenses too high to offer her a loan modification under the HAMP program.  Upon her next appearance in court, she is advised that she may be eligible for the HAMP program after all, and should resubmit all her financial documentation to be considered.  Then when Defendant Padilla resubmitted her financial documentation and confirmed that no additional documentation was needed, she was soon thereafter advised that she was rejected for a loan modification because she did not provide the bank all the information needed within the required time frame.

In response to the bank’s gamesmanship—or ineptitude, as the case may be—Justice Pagones threatened to sanction the bank with $100,000.00 in exemplary damages and to bar the bank from collecting any interest on the remainder of the principal balance for the life of the loan.  Indeed, such sanctions are not unheard of.  Justice Pagones cited Justice Jeffrey Arlen Spinner of Suffolk County, who has been known to mete out harsh penalties where a bank’s conduct had been “inequitable, unconscionable, vexatious and opprobrious” in the context of the foreclosure settlement conference.  See Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Corcione, 28 Misc 3d 161 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk County April 16, 2010).

Justice Pagones should be credited for his advocacy of homeowners; however, it should be noted that not all judges are equally solicitous of the legal rights of homeowners or the particular equities of their situation.  For this reason, it is generally recommended that individuals facing foreclosure seek counsel as early as possible in the foreclosure process—ideally, as soon as a defendant is served with a summons and complaint.


1.  See Sponsor’s Mem., Bill Jacket, L.208, ch. 472.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

Steven J. Baum P.C. makes an appearance in the NY Times


   
Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times reports that the New York State Attorney General has subpoenaed Steven J. Baum, P.C. due to alleged questionable foreclosure practices.  Steven J. Baum, P.C., has handled an estimated 40 percent of all foreclosures in the State of New York.  Many of the the irregularities--including alleged instances of robo signing and document notarization issues--have already been highlighted in previous blog posts of mine.  You're welcome, Gretchen!  Link to NY Times Article:

New York Subpoenas 2 Foreclosure-Related Firms







Friday, April 1, 2011

“Surrogate signers” signed countless foreclosure documents - with someone else’ name

Nicholas M. Moccia, Esq.
Law Offices Robert E. Brown, Esq.

Below is a great article by Christine Stapleton about the very issue I touched upon in my previous blog post.  We're on to you, Elpiniki!


“Surrogate signers” signed countless foreclosure documents - with someone else’ name

by Christine Stapleton


At Lender Processing Services workers who signed tens of thousands of sworn foreclosure affidavits with someone else’ name were called “surrogate signers”, according to Cheryl Denise Thomas, a former LPS worker who admitted to notarizing as many as 1,000 sworn affidavits daily - often without witnessing the signature.

Thomas said despite “raised eyebrows”  her supervisors never used the word “forge” and repeatedly told workers the practice of signing someone else’ name on a sworn affidavit was legal. Thomas detailed the company’s foreclosure document processing practices during a deposition in an Orange county foreclosure case on March 23.

“They didn’t say forge the name. They just said this is legal,” Thomas said. “This person is going to be this person’s surrogate signer because this person has a lot to do.”

LPS, a Jacksonville company, charges a fee to locate and assemble the documents necessary to file a foreclosure. The Florida Attorney General has received complaints about the firm and its documents preparation practices. According to the AG’s web site, LPS and a defunct subsidiary, Docx, produced documents “that to even the untrained eye, appear to be forged and/or fabricated as the signatures of the same individual vary wildly from document to document. These documents are then used to gain standing for the plaintiff in a foreclosure suit.”

When Thomas questioned her supervisors about not witnessing signatures before she notarized documents she said was told, “We’re legal. You can do it. That’s fine. Just notarize it.” Thomas said she has been questioned by FBI investigators about the document processing practices at LPS. She also said her daughter, Tywanna Thomas - whose name appears on thousands of sworn affidavits - also worked at LPS along with Thomas’ nephew.

Thomas said her supervisor was Renee Gaglione, whose name popped up in a Palm Beach county foreclosure case on Tuesday. Gaglione is also believed to have been the supervisor of Linda Green. Variations of Green’s signature appear on thousands of foreclosure documents, including the foreclosure of Lynn Szymoniak, a Palm Beach Gardens lawyer who specializes in white collar crime.

Szymoniak discovered the practice of robo-signing: employees at banks and mortgage servicing companies who sign sworn affidavits without any knowledge of the case. Linda Green is believed to be among the most prolific robo-signatures.

On Tuesday Szymoniak came to court and again, seeking permission to depose Gaglione because, as Syzmoniak’s attorney, Mark Cullen said, “we don’t even know if Linda Green is real.” Gaglione’s attorney, who asked for a protective order barring Szymoniak from deposing Gaglione, called Szymoniak’s attempt to depose Gaglione “just plain harassing.”

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Has Erica Johnson-Seck met her match in the person of Elpiniki Bechakas in the robo signer hall of shame?

Nicholas M. Moccia, Esq.
Law Offices of Robert E. Brown, P.C.

During the course of drafting a reply affirmation in support of a motion to dismiss a foreclosure action, I encountered an unusual assignment of mortgage emanating from the Law Office of Steven J. Baum, P.C.  An assignment of mortgage is a crucial document for foreclosing banks and their attorneys because this document is usually the only way a bank can prove it owns a particular mortgage and, therefore, prove it has the legal right to foreclose—i.e. that the bank has standing.  An assignment memorializes an arms-length transfer of a mortgage from one bank to another.   A sizeable portion of mortgage assignments produced by Baum’s office are executed by a certain Elpiniki Bechakas, Esq., who is an attorney from Baum’s office.  In my motion papers, I regularly question Ms. Bechakas’ legal capacity to execute mortgage assignments because, as an attorney, she should not be representing multiple parties in an arms length transaction.  It’s like having the same attorney simultaneously representing the buyer and seller of a house while having permission to sign all legal documents on behalf of both the buyer and seller.  There is an obvious conflict of interest.  The response from Baum’s office is that she has authority to sign from the various financial institutions.  Some judges agree with Baum’s position, some agree with mine—it depends on the ideology of the judge and what else is going on with the case.

However, this time something was truly amiss with the latest Bechakas assignment that came my way.  Here, the signature seemed a little too bubbly, and not the angular scrawl that I have grown to know and love.  And then it occurred to me, could it be that Ms. Bechakas is a robo signer? or better yet, could it be she now has a team of ghost signers who robo sign on her behalf? For your reading pleasure--and for those pro se defendants who have taken to plagiarizing my blog posts--I have pasted below a new, that is to say, untested point heading wherein I question the authenticity of an assignment of mortgage executed by Ms. Bechakas.  Also, included is a link to the dubiously executed mortgage assignment, and other samples of Ms. Bechakas' signature should you be inclined to make the comparison yourself.

THE ASSIGNMENT OF MORTGAGE PROVIDED BY PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL APPEARS TO BE FORGED OR IS THE PRODUCT OF A “ROBO SIGNER” AND IS THEREFORE DEFECTIVE ON ITS FACE

14.         Plaintiff, in support of its position that it does have standing to foreclose, provides an Assignment of Mortgage executed on May 11, 2010, and annexed as Exhibit C to the Plaintiff’s Aff. in Opp.
15.         The Assignment of Mortgage was purportedly executed by Elpiniki Bechakas, Esq., an attorney associated with Plaintiff’s counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C.  Remarkably, the Assignment of Mortgage does not in any way reveal Ms. Bechakas’ association with Plaintiff’s counsel.
16.         Most curiously, the signature of Elpiniki Bechakas—a signature with which I have become well familiar—is notably different than the signature of Elpiniki Bechakas on other assignments of mortgage that I have encountered.  See seven assignments of mortgage pertaining to other matters handled by this firm executed by Elpiniki Bechakas annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”.
17.         A comparison of the signatures of Ms. Bechakas on the annexed assignments of mortgage reveal a pronounced difference in the shaping and curvature of the letters as compared to the signature found on the Assignment of Mortgage proffered by Plaintiff in its Aff. in Opp. at Ex. C.
18.         The difference in form of the signatures apparently suggests that the Assignment of Mortgage supplied by Plaintiff’s counsel was forged or the product of a “robo signer”.  Accordingly, the Assignment of Mortgage is suspect and should be disregarded by the Court for determining the Plaintiff’s standing to bring this action, unless and until Plaintiff’s counsel can prove its authenticity. 
19.         To be sure, the multitude of mortgage assignments executed by Ms. Bechakas for scores of different financial institutions bears all the tell-tale signs of the notorious robo signers, who have gotten so much attention of late.[1]
20.         In Onewest Bank, F.S.B. v. Drayton, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op 20429, 29 Misc.3d 857 (Sup. Ct. Kings County, October 21, 2010), a Kings County judge wrote with reference to Erica Johnson-Seck, a notorious robo signer alluded to in footnote 1 infra, as follows:
A "robo-signer" is a person who quickly signs hundreds or thousands of foreclosure documents in a month, despite swearing that he or she has personally reviewed the mortgage documents but has not done so. Ms. Johnson-Seck, in a July 9, 2010 deposition taken in a Palm Beach County, Florida foreclosure case, admitted that she: is a "robo-signer" who executes about 750 mortgage documents a week, without a notary public present; does not spend more than 30 seconds signing each document; does not read the documents before signing them; and did not provide me with affidavits about her employment in two prior cases. (See Stephanie Armour, Mistakes Widespread on Foreclosures, Lawyers Say, USA Today, Sept. 27, 2010; Ariana Eunjung Cha, OneWest Bank Employee: 'Not More Than 30 Seconds' to Sign Each Foreclosure Document, Washington Post, Sept. 30, 2010.)

21.         There is every reason to believe that Ms. Bechakas has likewise engaged in such practices.





[1] See “Robo Signer Update List for Feb. 28, 2011”, wherein Ms. Bechakas is conspicuously included in the list along with other known robo signers, such as the now legendary Erica Johnson-Seck: http://dell.beforeitsnews.com/story/447/809/Robo_Signer_Update_List_For_Feb.28,_2011.html





Spurious Elpiniki Bechakas Assignment
Elpiniki Bechakas signature sampler

Friday, March 25, 2011

Governor Cuomo! Are you taking our Judicial Hearing Officers away?



Full disclosure:  I am a fiscal conservative and strongly supportive of our Governor’s strict budgetary measures.  “We need to make sacrifices.”  Indeed, I cheerfully applaud the sacrificial slaughter of our ponderous state bureaucracy; however, I strongly question the wisdom of discontinuing the Judicial Hearing Officer (“JHO”) program.  The JHOs are a group of retired judges who help the New York State Court system manage its heavy case load.  JHOs play an extremely important role in the foreclosure context as they facilitate the progress of cases in the foreclosure conference parts wherein homeowners are given an opportunity to settle with their banks via loan modifications.  JHOs also preside over traverse hearings and play an important role in the disposition of matrimonial matters.

I work closely with JHOs almost daily in each of the five boroughs of the  City of New York.  I find the JHOs to be essential to the efficient working of our court system.  To cut the JHO program would be catastrophic, and would probably make the system much more costly both to the State and to the people whom it serves.  Kings County in particular would fall apart without its JHOs.  Especial kudos to the Hon. Michael V. Ajello (JHO) of Richmond County and the Hon. Lewis Douglass (JHO), both of whom I find to be particularly helpful.

For more on the JHO issue, see article below.

Group of Hardworking Retired NY Judges Face Layoffs