A good read
Attorney’s Frequently Asked Questions
1 Who is Mitchell J. Stein
2 Who is Philip A. Kramer
3 Lead Attorney Phillip A Kramer Introduces The Lawsuit(s)
4 Can I get a local lawyer to sue my lender or do a lawsuit myself?
5 What are Attorney Phillip A Kramer’s qualifications?
6 How do I know if my loan is the type that can join the suit?
7 What are my possible outcomes if I become a Named Plaintiff
8 What is MERS and why is it illegal and fraudulent?
9 What is the difference between Loan Modification and this Litigation?
10 What documents do I need to provide?
11 What is the flow of communication between my attorney and myself?
12 Should I continue to make my mortgage payments if I am accepted as a plaintiff on this suit?
13 What if I’m dealing with a pending foreclosure?
14 What about those annoying calls from my lender(s)?
15 How long until I can expect resolution?
16 What is the motivation behind this law suit?
17 In a nutshell, what did the banks do wrong?
18 How did this whole mess happen?
19 What is Securitization?
20 Litigation Verses Modification In Table Format
Who Is Mitchell J Stein?
Who Is Philip A Kramer?
Lead Attorney Phillip A Kramer Introduces The Lawsuit(s)
Can I get a local lawyer to sue my lender or do a lawsuit myself?
What are Attorney Phillip A Kramer’s qualifications?
How do I know if my loan is the type that can join the suit?
What are my possible outcomes if I become a Named Plaintiff
What is MERS and why is it illegal and fraudulent?
What is the difference between Loan Modification and this Litigation?
What documents do I need to provide?
What is the flow of communication between my attorney and myself?
Should I continue to make my mortgage payments
if I am accepted as a plaintiff on this suit?
What if I’m dealing with a pending foreclosure?
What about those annoying calls from my lender(s)?
How long until I can expect resolution?
What is the motivation behind this law suit?
In a nutshell, what did the banks do wrong?
How Did This Whole Mess Happen?
To put this in perspective…the banks got greedy, really greedy. They were not satisfied with just making the 6% interest on your mortgage, they wanted more. So they chopped up their home loan portfolios and packaged them into “mortgage backed securities” (MBS) that could then be sold to Wall Street investors for even bigger profits. The only problem was, Wall Street had a huge appetite for these MBS’s and could not get enough of them. They kept demanding more of them from the banks so they did everything in their power to churn more out but unfortunately they took time to package and properly securitize. What happened next is where they went wrong. The banks decided to cut corners and avoid two critical steps in the securitization process so they could speed up the funding of these loans from the standard 45 – 60 days to as quick as 4 to 5 days. We all know time is money on Wall Street right? They committed this fraud knowingly and just kept doing it, over and over again 62 million times as shown on all of the documents being currently presented to the courts. The banks left their fingerprints on the gun, providing homeowners with the legal leverage needed to expose this fraud and use it to save their homes from imminent foreclosure.
The question is….will you choose to take action like so many have already done or will you sit back and wait to see what happens? The banks are counting on you doing nothing and going quietly? Become the “squeaky wheel” – show them you are serious about defending your home!
The Alphabet Problem – The Pooling and Servicing Agreement
The Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) is the document that actually creates a residential mortgage backed securitized trust and establishes the obligations and authority of the Master Servicer and the Primary Servicer. The PSA also establishes that mandatory rules and procedures for the sales and transfers of the mortgages and mortgage notes from the originator’s to the Trust. It is this unbroken chain of assignments and negotiations that creates what we have called “The Alphabet Problem.”
In order to understand the “Alphabet Problem,” you must keep in mind that the primary purpose of securitization is to make sure the assets (e.g., mortgage notes) are both FDIC and Bankruptcy “remote” from the originator. As a result, the common structures seek to create at least two “true sales” between the originator and the Trust. You therefore have in the most basic securitized structure the originator, the sponsor, the depositor and the Trust. We refer to these parties as the A (originator), B (sponsor), C (depositor) and D (Trust) alphabet players. The other primary but non-designated player in my alphabet game is the Master Document Custodian for the Trust. The MDC is entrusted with the physical custody of all of the “original” notes and mortgages and the assignment, sales and purchase agreements. The MDC must also execute representations and attestations that all of the transfers really and truly occurred “on-time” and in the required “order” and that “true sales” occurred at each link in the chain. Section 2.01 of most PSAs includes the mandatory conveyancing rules for the Trust and the representations and warranties. The basic terms of this Section of the standard PSA is set-forth below:
The complete inability of the mortgage servicers and the Trusts to produce such unbroken chains of proof along with the original documents is the genesis for all of the recent court rulings. One would think that a simple request to the Master Document Custodian would solve these problems. However, a review of the cases reveals a massive volume of transfers and assignments executed long after the “closing date” for the Trust from the “originator” directly to the “trust.” We refer to these documents as “A to D” transfers and assignments. There are some serious problems with the A to D documents. First, at the time these documents are executed the A party has nothing to sell or transfer since the PSA provides such a sale and transfer occurred years ago. Second, the documents completely circumvent the primary objective of securitization by ignoring the “true sales” to the Sponsor (the B party) and the Depositor (the C party). In a true securitization, you would never have any direct transfers (A to D) from the originator to the trust. Third, these A to D transfers are totally inconsistent with the representations and warranties made in the PSA to the Securities and Exchange Commission and to the holders of the bonds (the “Certificate holders”) issued by the Trust. Fourth, in many cases the A to D documents are executed by parties who are not employed by the originator but who claim to have “signing authority” or some type of “agency authority” from the originator. Finally, in many of these A to D document cases the originator is legally defunct at the time the document is in fact signed or the document is signed with a current date but then states that it has an “effective date” that was one or two years earlier. Hence, this is what we call the Alphabet Problem. In the eyes of the courts and millions of homeowners nationwide, all of this spells out the word FRAUD, and there is no legal defense for the lender on this.
THEY COULD HAVE A LEGITIMATE CAUSE OF ACTION.
THE BIG FIVE LENDERS SAT AROUND A TABLE SOMEWHERE AND PLANNED FOR THE INFUSION OF CAPITAL AND THE PUMPING OF THE REAL ESTATE MARKET IN AN UNPRECEDENTED AMOUNT. SEE THE DOCUMENTARY “INSIDE JOB” ACADEMY AWARD WINNER FOR A DOCUMENTARY. AT SOME TIME THEY KNEW THAT THEY WHERE GOING TO STOP THE MUSIC AND THERE WOULD BE NO CHAIRS TO SIT IN ONCE THE MUSIC STOPPED.
THE KRAMER LAWSUIT IS ABOUT THIS FRAUD PERPETRATED ON THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. THE PROBLEM IS IT WAS SOLD AS A FORECLOSURE DEFENSE METHOD WHICH IT IS NOT. THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT AN ATTORNEY NEEDS TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS CLIENT TO DIRECTLY REPRESENT THE CLIENTS INTEREST. WITH OVER 10,000 CLIENTS AND 55 MILLION IN FEES THIS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TASK. I BELIEVE THIS IS WHERE THE FALSE ADVERTISING ISSUE PRESENTS ITSELF.
The court in Mabry
B. Perata Mortgage Relief Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5
Plaintiffs’ second cause of action arises under the Perata Mortgage Relief Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5. Plaintiffs argue U.S. Bank is liable for monetary damages under this provision because it “failed and refused to explore” “alternatives to the drastic remedy of foreclosure, such as loan modifications” before initiating foreclosure proceedings. (FAC PP 17-18.) Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege U.S. Bank violated Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5(c) by failing to include with the notice of sale a declaration that it contacted the borrower to explore such options. (Opp’n at 6.)
Section 2923.5(a)(2) requires a “mortgagee, beneficiary or authorized agent” to “contact the borrower in person or by telephone in order to assess the borrower’s [*1166] financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure.” For a lender which had recorded a notice of default prior to the effective date of the statute, as is the case here, § 2923.5(c) imposes a duty to attempt to negotiate with a borrower before recording a notice of sale. These provisions cover loans initiated between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007. Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5(h)(3), (i).
U.S. Bank’s primary argument is that Plaintiffs’ claim should be dismissed because neither § 2923.5 nor its legislative history clearly indicate an intent to create a private right of action. (Mot. at 8.) Plaintiffs counter that such a conclusion is unsupported by the legislative history; the California legislature would not have enacted this “urgency” legislation, intended to curb high foreclosure rates in the state, without any accompanying enforcement mechanism. (Opp’n at 5.) The court agrees with Plaintiffs. While the Ninth Circuit has yet to address this issue, the court found no decision from this circuit [**15] where a § 2923.5 claim had been dismissed on the basis advanced by U.S. Bank. See, e.g. Gentsch v. Ownit Mortgage Solutions Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45163, 2009 WL 1390843, at *6 (E.D. Cal., May 14, 2009)(addressing merits of claim); Lee v. First Franklin Fin. Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44461, 2009 WL 1371740, at *1 (E.D. Cal., May 15, 2009) (addressing evidentiary support for claim).
On the other hand, the statute does not require a lender to actually modify a defaulting borrower’s loan but rather requires only contacts or attempted contacts in a good faith effort to prevent foreclosure. Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5(a)(2). Plaintiffs allege only that U.S. Bank “failed and refused to explore such alternatives” but do not allege whether they were contacted or not. (FAC P 18.) Plaintiffs’ use of the phrase “refused to explore,” combined with the “Declaration of Compliance” accompanying the Notice of Trustee’s Sale, imply Plaintiffs were contacted as required by the statute. (Doc. No. 7-2, Exh. 4 at 3.) Because Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5, U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed without prejudice.
by Chip Parker, Jacksonville Bankruptcy Attorney on October 25, 2009 · Posted in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
In my 17 years of practicing bankruptcy law, I have never been as excited by anything as the development of the individual Chapter 11 case.
Traditionally, Chapter 13 has been used for personal reorganizations while Chapter 11 has been reserved for more complex corporate reorganizations.� However, a small handful of sophisticated bankruptcy lawyers, like Brett Mearkle of Jacksonville, Florida and BLN contributors Brett Weiss and Kurt O�Keefe, are taking advantage of the debtor-friendly rules of Chapter 11, to provide more meaningful debt restructuring for individual consumers.
Before 2005, individual Chapter 11 cases were virtually non-existent. However, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which has generally been horrible for individual debtors, changed a critical rule in Chapter 11 that has made it the choice for bankruptcy lawyers seeking the best restructuring options for many middle-class Americans.� That rule, known as the Absolute Priority Rule, no longer applies to individuals filing under Chapter 11.� The result is that, unlike corporate debtors, an individual (or married couple) filing under Chapter 11 does not have to repay 100% of his unsecured debts.� Rather, the individual need only pay his �disposable income� over a 5 year period, just like in Chapter 13 cases.
The challenge for bankruptcy lawyers is streamlining the Chapter 11 case for consumers to bring the overall cost of filing down.� Currently, my firm has managed to bring down the cost of a typical Chapter 11, but even so, the individual Chapter 11 case costs $10,000 to $30,000, depending on the facts.� However, in as many as half of all consumer reorganizations, these increased fees and costs are far outweighed by the savings and convenience of Chapter 11.
These savings, like �cram down� of automobiles and elimination of the trustee�s administrative fee, will be discussed in more detail in my upcoming articles.
The change to the Absolute Priority Rule has gone widely unnoticed by consumer bankruptcy lawyers, largely because so few understand Chapter 11.� However, we are starting to realize the power of Chapter 11 for consumers, and a concerted effort is being made by many to understand this complicated area of bankruptcy law.� I’ll be in Tucson next week, attending a three day seminar conducted by The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys to learn how to identify which consumers will benefit from Chapter 11 and how to file these types of bankruptcies.� Of course a three-day seminar is really the beginning of an education in Chapter 11, and I predict there will be more advanced seminars to follow.
Be on the lookout for more articles and videos by me and other BLNers on the advantages and nuances of the individual Chapter 11.
10/26/2009 By: Darrell Delamaide
A federal bankruptcy judge in New York created new uncertainties for mortgage servicers when he expunged a mortgage debt after the servicer could not provide sufficient documentation that it had a claim on the home.
The ruling came earlier this month in bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York in a case involving Mount Laurel, New Jersey-based PHH Mortgage and a property in White Plains, the New York Times reported.
Judge Robert Drain wiped out a $461,263 mortgage debt on the property, in another case of how things can go wrong when documentation does not keep up with transfers of mortgages in a world of securitized loans.
A recent ruling by the Kansas Supreme Court similarly denied the Mortgage Electronic Registration Service (MERS) rights to recovery in a foreclosure case, even though MERS often stands in for banks that actually hold the mortgage. As a consequence, the bank holding the mortgage lost out in the foreclosure.
In the PHH case, the homeowner, who was not identified, filed for bankruptcy and PHH claimed its mortgage debt.
When attempts by the homeowner’s lawyer to get PHH to modify the debt met with no success, he asked for proof of PHH’s standing and received a letter stating that PHH was the servicer of the loan but that the holder of the note was U.S. Bank, as trustee of a securitization pool.
When he then asked for proof that U.S. Bank was indeed the holder of the note, he received only an affidavit from an executive at PHH Mortgage, the Times reported.
Among the documents supplied to the court to support PHH’s assertion was a copy of the assignment of the mortgage, but this was signed by the same PHH executive identified this time as an official of MERS, and was dated March 26 of this year, well after the bankruptcy had been filed.
In the hearing, the PHH lawyer argued that in the secondary market, there are many cases where assignment of mortgages or assignment of notes don’t happen at the time they should – that this was standard operating procedure for many years.
Judge Drain rejected that argument, the Times reported. “I think that I have a more than 50 percent doubt that if the debtor paid this claim, it would be paying the wrong person,” the newspaper quoted him as saying. “That’s the problem. And that’s because the claimant has not shown an assignment of a mortgage.”
PHH is appealing Judge Drain’s decision.
The ruling also puts the homeowner in uncharted territory. “Right now I am in bankruptcy court with a house that has no discernible debt on it,” her lawyer told the Times, “yet I have a client with a signed mortgage. We cannot in theory just go out and sell this house because the title company won’t give a clear title on it.”
The lawyer’s options are to file an amended plan or sue to try to get clear title to the property.
A Sacramento area court ruling against the plaintiff came in an unlawful detainer hearing last Friday. Lenders and servicers are taking notice of the “sale” by trustee that was set aside in favor of a loan modification. Submitted by Steve Shafer
February 5, 2009 / Sacramento California – The Bay Area Superior Court decision and judgment against the plaintiff allows the “sale” by the trustee to be set aside in favor of a loan modification.
Lenders nationwide who originate and service loans know California offers them a “safe haven” from homeowner’s who dispute a recent foreclosure. That means overwhelming odds for anyone in foreclosure who loses their home to a lender in a foreclosure. The borrower becomes a holdover and must respond to an unlawful detainer after their home is lost.
That was not the case for an El Dorado area resident at a recent hearing for an unlawful detainer matter heard in a Placerville County superior court room. The recent victory in court was in an unlawful detainer matter for the defendant Ms. Stella Onyeu and mortgage lender and securities sponsor – AURORA LOAN SERVICES v. STELLA D. ONYEU (case number PCU2008032).
AURORA LOAN SERVICES like so many other lender servicing agents has come under greater scrutiny as of late for questionable business practices. According to its web site Aurora Loan Services is operating as usual. The company is a subsidiary of Lehman Brothers Bank, and not part of the Lehman Brothers Holding Inc. bankruptcy filing.
The case was originally filed in October of last year and shortly thereafter was dismissed when the Plaintiff failed to show at a scheduled hearing. Subsequent motions were filed to vacate the dismissal in favor of a motion to dismiss by the plaintiffs. The matter was heard recently heard again by the same court and earlier mentioned presiding judge. Mark Terbeek is the attorney for the Defendant and Maher Soliman a Juris Pro witness provided case development and court expert testimony.
This judgment for the defendant is monumental given the courts limited jurisdiction related to the lenders sole focus to have the borrower removed from the home. The issues at hand are the legal procedural limitations and high attrition rate for defendants and their attorney’s. The problem is the defendant’s lack of standing for pleading a wrongful foreclosure due to jurisdiction of the court.
So what does this all mean? Many homeowners can find some hope, for the moment, in knowing the otherwise unfriendly California UD courts will now hold some promise for hearing arguments as to the foreclosure and the plaintiffs standing. According to foreclosure and REO sales analyst Brenda Michelson of Nationwide Loan Services “It’s hit or miss at this level of the law and the courts willingness to step outside of its jurisdiction.” The smaller outlying courts seem to me to be more willing to entertain defense arguments that the plaintiff may not be the holder in due course and lacks capacity throughout the foreclosure” Terbeek’s response is that if the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a logical and properly conveyed transfer of the beneficial interest – it is not entitled to possession.
After the foreclosure and conveyance back to the trustee, the homeowner is considered unlawfully occupying the dwelling as a holdover. However, the court ruled that AURORA had in fact violated its duty to show good faith and comply accordingly under the recent California statutes and amendments Power of Sale provision. The presiding judge who heard the matter ordered a judgment against the company allowed for Terbeek to enter a request for all legal fees due.
According to legal expert Soliman, “there are more attorneys willing to now jump into the wrongful foreclosure business and fight the court on the jurisdiction issue. However, it is nearly impossible to rely on the judge and courts at this level”. Soliman is an examiner with Nationwide Loan Services and has engagements in multiple cases throughout California through attorneys such as Terbeek who represented the defendant.
Jurisdiction: An Overview
The term jurisdiction is really synonymous with the word “power” and the sovereignty on behalf of which it functions. Any court possesses jurisdiction over matters only to the extent granted to it by the Constitution, or legislation of a paramount fundamental question for lawyers is whether a given court has jurisdiction to preside over a given case. A jurisdictional question may be broken down into various components including whether there is jurisdiction over the person (in personam), the subject matter, or res (in rem), and to render the particular judgment sought.
An unlawful detainer lawsuit is a “summary” court procedure. This means that the court action moves forward very quickly, and that the time given the tenant to respond during the lawsuit is very short. For example, in most cases, the tenant has only five days to file a written response to the lawsuit after being served with a copy of the landlord’s complaint. Normally, a judge will hear and decide the case within 20 days after the borrower now tenant files an answer.
The question of whether a given court has the power to determine a jurisdictional question is itself a jurisdictional question. Such a legal question is referred to as “jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction.” In order to evict the tenant, the landlord must file an unlawful detainer lawsuit in superior court. In an eviction lawsuit, the lender is the “plaintiff” and the prior borrower and homeowners become an occupant holdover and the “defendant.” Immediately after the trustee sale of the home the conveyance by the trustee is entered in favor of the lender. Until recently in most cases the lender is with in its right foreclose if a borrower has missed a number of payments, failed to make the insurance premiums or not paid the property taxes. “But sometimes a lender is wrong and you can fight foreclosure by challenging the foreclosure process and related documents” said Soliman.
As the new owner of record AURORA HOME LOAN SERVICES must follow procedures no different than that of a landlord in a tenant occupancy dispute. The next step is to remove the homeowner from the subject dwelling. If the tenant doesn’t voluntarily move out after the landlord has properly given the required notice to the tenant, the landlord can evict the tenant. If the lender makes a mistake in its filing of the foreclosure documents a court my throw out the whole foreclosure case. In the case of a wrongful foreclosure the borrower’s claims are limited to affirmative defenses.
Unlike a judicial proceeding, California lenders need to merely wait out the mandatory term for issuing default notices and ensure it has properly served those notices to the borrower. In other words the hearing and trial taken place in the above referenced matter is not subject to arguments brought by the homeowner for wrongful foreclosure versus the question as to lawful possession of the property by the lender.
California lenders are typically limited to only the defenses a landlord will face when opposed and made subject to claims of wrongfully trying to evict a tenant. Claims such as the Plaintiff has breached the warranty to provide habitable premises, plaintiff did not give proper credit before the notice to pay or quit expired or plaintiff waived, changed, or canceled the notice to quit, or filed the complaint to retaliate against defendant are often completely unrelated to the matter at hand. The courts decision to enforce the provisions of an earlier modification in lieu of a foreclosure sends a major wake up call to the lenders who are under siege to avoid foreclose and be done with mortgage mess affecting United States homeowners. Soliman says the decision is unfortunately not likely to be read into as case precedent for future lawyers and wrongful defendants seeking to introduce our case as an example of a lenders wrongful action.
Soliman goes on to say “it’s both interesting and entertaining to see experienced attorneys who jump in and immediately question the issue of the courts authority. Its reality time when they get to their first hearing and see first hand the problematic issues with jurisdiction.”
Servicing agents are never the less on notice they must be ready to defend themselves when the opportunity to argue the plaintiffs standing are allowed in an unlawful detainer motivate by a foreclosure. Therefore, the debate about what the courts hear will remain open and subject to further scrutiny by the lawyers for both sides and judges who preside over the courts at this level.
Nationwide Loan Servicing is an approved Expert Witness who provides court testimoney in matters concerning wrongful foreclosures, Federal Savings Banks regultory violations and SEC filings for private registrations.