Wells Fargo Assignment to Deutsche Bank violation CC 1095, attorney in fact violation.

Via: b.daviesmd6605

The assignment Wells Fargo did for Deutsche Bank. Note on the assignment it says, ” Wells Fargo N.A. Attorney-in-fact for New Century Mortgage Corporation” — this violated California Civil Code 1095. It is suppose to say, “New Century Mortgage Corporation, by Wells Fargo N.A. as Attorney In Fact”

California Civil Code says Civil Code Section 1095 says, ” “When an attorney in fact executes an instrument transferring an estate in real property, he must subscribe the name of his principal to it, and his own name as attorney in fact.”
There is a case, Hodge v. Hodge, 257 Cal. App. 2d 31 (1967), which says that if this is not followed exactly, the transfer is void. And obviously the judge agreed (thank goodness).

They don’t have a power of attorney to go with this assignment either! In discovery they gave us one that was done three months after the assignment; and six months after the NOD.

Davies v. NDEX WEST LLC, Uamc-uamcc Demurrers to first amended complaint- moot since Second Amended was filed

This is moot however, this is the response most lenders will file for a foreclosure complaint. Well written and good law firm. The Demurrer was helpful for filing a nearly new Second Amended Complaint. This was not heard due to the filing of the second complaint prior to the hearing date. there are cases as addendum which will be filed separately.

Davies v. Ndex West Llc, Plaintiff Notice to Court–refusal to Comply With Discovery

Plaintiff is having difficulty in acquiring any documents with the discovery process. There is a Evidence Hearing on 4-26-10. Notice refers to attached letter from Defedants counsel.

Lets make this one FAMOUS!

Why Your Lawyer May Threaten You With a Deficiency Judgment After Foreclosure

Why Your Lawyer May Threaten You With a Deficiency Judgment After Foreclosure

One of the reasons homeowners have such a fear of being sued by their bank for a deficiency judgment after facing foreclosure is that nearly any lawyer they contact will bring up this possibility. Some attorneys may even use the threat of further litigation after foreclosure as a reason to file bankruptcy prematurely or otherwise pressure borrowers into retaining legal counsel throughout the process of disposing of the home. Lawyers, though, have a vested interest in keeping clients in fear of litigation, even for such a rare case as deficiency judgments.

Many in the real estate market are aware of the fact that banks rarely, if ever, sue former homeowners after a house has been lost to foreclosure. It is simply not in the bank’s financial interests to hire local attorneys to pursue another lawsuit in the courts and obtain a judgment when it was unable to collect on the initial foreclosure judgment except by selling the underlying asset, the real estate. Lenders know that it may be difficult even to locate the borrowers after a foreclosure in order to serve them properly with the lawsuit. As well, it will be even more difficult to collect the potentially tens of thousands of dollars owed from families who just lost their largest (and sometimes only) asset and who have no respectable credit score to maintain.

But none of this common sense matters when real estate or bankruptcy attorneys are threatening foreclosure victims with the potential of such a judgment and the possibility of having their wages garnished, retirement accounts seized, or similar implausible scenarios. It would seem that this is little more than fearmongering, lawyers attempting to wring a retainer fee out of homeowners or push them into paying a filing fee for bankruptcy. But there are a number of reasons that homeowners are threatened with a deficiency judgment every time they speak with a legal professional regarding foreclosure.

Obviously, in states where deficiency judgments are allowed, there is the possibility of the bank suing homeowners to obtain one. If lawyers did not mention the possibility, and the mortgage company then sued after foreclosure, the homeowners may feel they had been improperly advised. Thus, lawyers should mention any possibility of litigation relating to the foreclosure matter at hand, including future lawsuits even after the house has been auctioned off. From the lawyer’s perspective, past behavior is no indicator of future actions, and just because few banks have ever brought this lawsuit to court in the past does not mean financial firms will never use the law to go after former homeowners for even more money.

Homeowners , though, should evaluate the potential of being sued under such a case and not be afraid to ask their lawyers how many deficiency judgments they have had direct experience with and under what circumstances they occurred. A couple of such cases in decades of practice is a strong indication that banks may still be avoiding such lawsuits against former clients. Also, if the only homeowners the attorney is aware of who were sued after a foreclosure had clearly engaged in mortgage fraud or had substantial liquid assets they bank was aware of, and the current borrowers do not fit into such categories, then the fear of a deficiency may be unfounded.

There is little debate that America is now a society paranoid about being sued and knows that there is always the potential for a frivolous lawsuit by anyone against anyone else, and that the more resources one party has the more likely that party is to win. It should be no surprise that the legal profession is filled with some of the most unhappy people in the working world. Everyone fears a group of people who spend most of their time parsing words and phrases, looking for the simplest reasons to hang others on such legalese.

In foreclosure cases, in the best case a small local bank with tens of millions of dollars is suing a homeowner with little; in the worst case a multinational corporation with over a trillion dollars in assets is suing a homeowner with little. The deck is always stacked in favor of the mortgage companies in such instances in terms of financial resources and time available to go litigating for years. Unless homeowners wish to go down fighting on their own, there may be little money with which to mount their own legal defense with legal assistance.

Attorneys often find themselves in a difficult position in terms of discussing the real possibility of litigation with clients. Although the potential to be sued in any given situation is often quite minuscule, lawyers live in a world where everyone is always trying to get an advantage over everyone else and no one can solve a problem without the fine print and a judge to interpret it. To such eyes, the possibility of a deficiency judgment is a real one and one worth losing sleep over, just because the law is on the books allowing banks to go after former homeowners. Under the circumstances, it is borrowers who need to look a little closer and analyze the reality of the situation with some common sense and from the bank’s perspective; i.e., why would the lender sue a homeowner again after foreclosure?

Source: irslawyertaxattorney

SEC Inspector General to Launch Investigation on Timing of GOLDMAN SACHS Charges…

 

E-mails show Goldman boasting as meltdown unfolds

By DAN STRUMPF, AP

NEW YORK — E-mails released by a Senate committee investigating the financial crisis show top executives at Goldman Sachs Inc. boasting about money the firm was making as the housing market collapsed in 2007.

The documents suggest that Goldman benefited at least for a time from bets that subprime mortgage-backed securities would lose value. The e-mails appear to contradict previous statements by the investment bank that it lost money on such securities.

“Of course we didn’t dodge the mortgage mess,” CEO Lloyd Blankfein wrote in an e-mail dated Nov. 18, 2007, according to the documents released Saturday morning. “We lost money, then made more than we lost because of shorts.”

Short positions, in contrast to long positions, are bets that a financial security will lose value. Goldman is also the target of a civil fraud lawsuit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which alleges that the firm misled investors about how a subprime mortgage-backed security was created. Goldman has denied the charges.

The e-mails were released by Sen. Carl Levin’s office, who is presiding over an investigation into the financial crisis. Blankfein, along with other Goldman personnel, are scheduled to testify during a Senate hearing into the crisis on Tuesday.

In another e-mail, Goldman Chief Financial Officer David Viniar says that in one day the firm made more than $50 million on bets that the housing market would collapse, according to a statement from Levin’s office.

“Tells you what might be happening to people who don’t have the big short,” Viniar writes in the message dated July 25, 2007. Viniar is also scheduled to testify on Tuesday.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

DOCS-4u ISO employees with min. 4 years of Creative Resources

Docs-4u ISO back room clerical Vice President with minimum of 4 years of Creative Resource experience.

GA, MN, TX,FL and DC are a plus.

Must know photoshop 12.0 and commercial art! Be able to create any virtually any mortgage docs requested.

Please see tutorial video below:

Honey, I Lost the House. Now It’s Time to Party

 
Caroline Baum

Honey, I Lost the House. Now It’s Time to Party: Caroline Baum

Commentary by Caroline Baum

April 22 (Bloomberg) — “What a relief, Marge, not to have that huge mortgage payment hanging over our head anymore.”

“You can say that again, Harry. Let’s celebrate. Maybe take a nice vacation. Or buy a new car.”

“What if the bank forecloses on our house? We could be living on the street next year.”

“Exactly. Which is why we need a new car. Maybe something roomy like a Chevy Suburban.”

By now you’ve probably seen the analysis, if you can call it that, on how mortgage defaults are driving consumer spending.

Yes, you read that correctly. Those deadbeat homeowners, facing possible eviction and in some cases unemployed, are throwing caution to the wind — and money at retailers.

In an attempt to explain strong retail sales in the face of high unemployment, depressed consumer confidence and declining real incomes, Paul Jackson, publisher of HousingWire, alit on an idea that he conceded might sound far-fetched: “People are spending their mortgages,” he opined in an April 5 column.

Because the consequences of missing a mortgage payment are so far in the future, thanks to the multitude of government assistance programs, consumers are behaving as if they’ve just been handed a free lunch, he said.

Other economists jumped on the bandwagon. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, told the Wall Street Journal this week that 5 million households aren’t making payments on their mortgages, giving them “as much as $60 billion to spend.”

Nonsense Exposed

Economists at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. came at it differently. In an attempt to explain how consumer spending exceeded their forecast, they acknowledged their “standard net worth model overstated savings” if households treated residential investment as just another form of consumer spending. Uh-huh.

Blogger Barry Ritholtz called the proponents of the defaults-are-good theory on the carpet, saying in an April 16 post that the analysis got it backward. “Those people voluntarily not paying their mortgages are not buying luxury goods, for the simple reason they cannot afford them,” Ritholtz wrote.

Maybe it’s my age or my upbringing, but I can’t imagine frittering away the interest payments on a delinquent mortgage when the sheriff might show up any day with an eviction notice.

Not everyone lives that way or acts rationally all of the time, the housing bubble being a case in point. After biting off more home than they could afford, consumers are more likely to compensate by being overly cautious. Once bitten, twice shy.

Just ask the banks, which, after an extended period of lax lending and big loan losses, tend to tighten credit standards to an extreme.

Double-Entry Bookkeeping

There’s an even bigger problem with the idea that mortgage defaults are driving consumer spending. When a homeowner misses a mortgage payment, “somebody’s not getting a payment” on the other side, said Thomas Lawler, founder and president of Lawler Housing and Economic Consulting in Leesburg, Virginia.

A mortgage lender or bank experiences reduced cash flow, which means less money flowing to shareholders who, the last time I checked, were consumers in their own right.

Sure, one can argue that the borrower has a greater propensity to consume than the lender, but this is a case of what Lawler calls “single-entry analysis for double-entry bookkeeping” and what I view as an example of Bastiat’s broken window. (See Bastiat, Frederic, “That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen.”)

It’s like robbing Peter to pay Paul or, more applicable to the current situation, borrowing or taxing the public and calling it “fiscal stimulus.” There is no net gain from transferring spending power from one entity to the next.

Reductio Ad Absurdum

Lawler, a man after my own heart when it comes to carrying an idea to its logical conclusion, offered the following advice to President Barack Obama:

If you believe what the economy needs is a boost to spending, “forget the stupid stimulus,” he said. “Let’s get everyone to stop paying their mortgage.”

Why stop there? Instead of sticking it to renters, who tend to be less well-off than homeowners, Obama should make the plan fairer by spreading some of the wealth around. “Nobody has to pay,” Lawler said. “Let’s have a rent moratorium as well.”

Now there’s a stimulus plan that won’t cost the taxpayer a dime!

(Caroline Baum, author of “Just What I Said,” is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

Click on “Send Comment” in sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.

To contact the writer of this column: Caroline Baum in New York at cabaum@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: April 21, 2010 21:00 EDT

Daily Inspiration:

If the mass of people hesitate to act, strike thou in swift with all boldness; the noble heart that understands and seizes quick hold of opportunity can achieve everything.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
 

 

FINED! NY Judge Spinner Orders Lender To Pay Long Island Couple $100K

NY Judge Spinner Orders Lender To Pay Long Island Couple $100G

Originally published: April 21, 2010 8:09 AM
By ELLEN YAN AND CARRIE MASON-DRAFFEN  ellen.yan@newsday.com, carrie.mason-draffen@newsday.com

Quick Summary

A state judge accused a mortgage company of premeditated attempts to destroy an East Northport couple’s chances of keeping their home.

Jane and Anthony Corcione appear

Photo credit: Kevin P. Coughlin | Jane and Anthony Corcione appear outside their East Northport home. A state judge has ordered their lender to pay the borrowers $100,000 in damages and scrapped as much as $119,330 in questionable late charges. (April 20, 2010)

A state judge accused Emigrant Mortgage Co. of premeditated attempts to destroy an East Northport couple’s chances of keeping their home, ordering the lender to pay the borrowers $100,000 in damages and scrapping as much as $119,330 in questionable late charges.

Borrower Jane Corcione could scarcely believe what she heard when a reporter broke the news by phone late Tuesday afternoon on the decision from State Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Arlen Spinner.

“Shut up. Shut up,” she said jokingly. She said she and her husband, Anthony, were ecstatic. “We have been fighting for this for almost two years.”

After a job loss, the Corciones defaulted May 1, 2008, on a $302,500 loan they got the preceding year. The mortgage had an 11.625 percent interest rate that would reset at least 6.375 percentage points higher every August from 2012 to its maturity in 2037, said Spinner’s decision on Friday on Emigrant’s request to move ahead on foreclosure.

But Emigrant waited 14 months before starting a foreclosure case, apparently to rack up penalty fees, the judge concluded. Then, two months ago, on Feb. 23, the lender offered a loan modification plan and 10 days to accept or reject a proposal whose “deplorable particulars” insulated Emigrant from any liability by violating Corciones’ state and federal rights, Spinner wrote.

“This court is driven to the inescapable conclusion that plaintiff has, by way of calculation and premeditation . . . created a scenario whereby it is a virtual certainty that defendants will ultimately be irreparably damaged,” he wrote. “In short, the conduct of plaintiff in this matter has been overreaching, shocking, willful and unconscionable.”

A spokesman for the New York-based lender said the decision was based on inaccuracies and that the lender has made many modifications: “Emigrant believes that the court’s decision in this matter is based upon an incomplete understanding of the underlying facts and certain factual inaccuracies, which Emigrant intends to address with the court as part of a motion to renew and reargue and, if necessary, through an appeal of the court’s decision.”

Spinner is the same judge who gave Greg Horoski and wife,Diana Yano-Horoski, of East Patchogue a Thanksgiving surprise last year by voiding their $292,500 mortgage. He had accused IndyMac Mortgage Services of failing to negotiate a loan modification in good faith. The lender’s appeal is pending.

This time, the judge set the Corciones’ debt at $301,721.58, the remaining principal, and “forever barred” Emigrant from “demanding, collecting or attempting to collect” any interest, default interest, legal fees, advances and other charges that may have accrued from May 1, 2008 to the date of his ruling.

That’s because Spinner did not believe the lender on several fronts, especially its list of charges. That included the lender’s claim of advancing $10,000 to pay the couple’s property taxes, despite contradictory records from Huntington Town and evidence from Emigrant’s own assistant treasurer cited in the decision.

Under Emigrant’s modification proposal, the Corciones would pay about $84,000 of the $119,000-plus arrears at 6 percent interest and have $30,000 forgiven after a year, the decision said.

But what the judge ripped into were the parts that called for the Corciones to “unconditionally” agree not to raise any challenges to Emigrant’s foreclosure actions, including filing for bankruptcy, if the couple defaults again. The agreement also seems to release Emigrant from federal truth in lending laws, the judge said.

“This court has never been presented with such a waiver, especially when accompanied by absurd representations [drafted by the lender] that amount to what could best be described as an express warranty that defendants presently are and will forever be insolvent,” the ruling read.

In the past year, almost 62,000 borrowers in the New York metro area, which includes Long Island, have gotten trial or loan modifications under the federal homeowner rescue program.

Corciones’ attorney, Sean C. Serpe of Manhattan, said any modification of their existing loan has yet to be agreed upon. But for more than a year, Serpe said, his clients had asked for a lower, fixed rate, and when Emigrant did propose a modification, it came with a threat: “If we didn’t respond, we lost any chance of a modification.”

Thank you to: b.daviesmd6605 for the doc below