ProPublica To Carefully Scrutinize the Internal Reviews of Foreclosure Servicers

ProPublica, the non-profit investigative journalism organization has promised to keep a close eye on the very weak OCC orders requiring loan servicing companies to self examine.  More to come…

Investigations Continue of Foreclosure Law Firms

While many of the largest banks in the United States have entered in to a consent decree to review millions of foreclosures to determine whether or not they had proper standing to sue, Law Firms who filed those lawsuits continue to file cases where they know or should have known that their clients didn’t have the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts in Ohio.

In New York, the Attorney General has issued subpoenas and launched an investigation of such a law firm. There is no indication that Ohio’s Attorney General has similar plans.

In Ohio on behalf of some of our clients we are actively investigating potential claims that the following law firms filed cases when they knew or should have known that their client didn’t have the right to sue.  Those firms are:

Laurito & Laurito

Shapiro Van Ness, Phillips and Barragate

Reisenfeld & Associates

Manley Deas Kochalski

Law Office of John Clunk

Reimer Arnovitz et al.

Felty & Lembright

Law Office of Steven Miles

Keith Weiner and Associates

Carlisle McNally et al.

We are anxious to hear  about foreclosure cases that have been voluntarily dismissed or dismissed by a court for lack of standing by any of these law firms.

Marc Dann

Law Offices of Marc Dann Co. LPA

Ohio Supreme Court To Address Standing in Foreclosure Cases

From Dick Davet:

About U.S. Bank  v. Duvall

The Ohio Supreme Court announced two separate decisions relating to Duvall on Wednesday, April 6, 2011.  In respect of the U.S. Bank notice of appeal and filing seeking a discretionary review, the Court dismissed the appeal in Case No. 2011-0171.  Interestingly, FOUR Supreme Court Justices dissented from the dismissal!

See:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-1618.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&year=2011&number=0171&myPage=searchbycasenumber%2Easp
But also on Wednesday, the Supreme Court DID certify the conflict previously identified by the Court of Appeals on the U.S. Bank motion in Case No. 2011-0218:

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-1618.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?type=3&year=2011&number=0218&myPage=searchbycasenumber%2Easp
The net effect of these two decisions is that the Ohio Supreme Court is going to hear and determine this certified question in respect of the U.S. Bank v. Duvall decision:

“To have standing as a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action, must a party show that it owned the note and the mortgage when the complaint was filed?”
See:  http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/tempx/187169.pdf

For More Information on Foreclosure Defense Contact:

Law Office of Marc Dann Co. LPA

216-373-0539

www.dannlaw.com

New York Attorney General Takes On New York Foreclosure Mill

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has issued subpoenas to The Baum Law Firm according to today’s New York Times

The Baum firm is engaged in the very same conduct as Ohio Foreclosure Mill Lerner Sampson and Rothfuss.  Here is how the New York Times Describes the new probe:

“Scrutiny of the Baum firm has increased in recent months after significant errors surfaced nationwide in legal paperwork used by banks to seize delinquent borrowers’ homes. For example, documents detailing how much borrowers owe have been signed by bank representatives who say they have not verified the information. Other problems involve the questionable notarization of documents, or paperwork indicating that the foreclosure process was begun without providing proof that the entities involved had the legal right to foreclose.”

Sound Familiar?

For More Information about Foreclosure Defense

Contact: Law Office of Marc Dann Co. LPA.

www.dannlaw.com

216-373-0539

DOCX Commits Serial Document Fraud Thousands of Foreclosures May be Invalid

Sixty Minutes reports on the latest fraud by Banks, Investors, Servicers and their agents. Alleged bank Vice President  Linda Green turns out to be dozens of different people.  Robosigners, making $10.00 per hour pretended to be bank officers.  One Robosigner says that he signed 4000 documents a day.

 

Law Offices of Marc Dann Co. LPA

Defects In Assignments of Mortgages and Endorsement Of Notes to Securitized Trusts May Prevent Foreclosure Actions

An Alabama Judge has ruled that defects in the transfer of a borrower’s note to a securitized trust robs that trust of the standing to sue for foreclosure.  Housing Wire reports that failure of a trust comprised of mortgage loans to comply with its own pooling and servicing agreement robs that trust of standing to foreclose. From the order:

“The court is surprised to the point of astonishment that the defendant trust (LaSalle Bank National Association) did not comply with the terms of its own pooling and servicing agreement and further did not comply with New York law in attempting to obtain assignment of plaintiff Horace’s note and mortgage,” the judge’s order, signed March 25 and filed with the court Wednesday, said. “Horace is a third-party beneficiary of the pooling and servicing agreement … without such … plaintiff Horace and other mortgagors similarly situated would never have been able to obtain financing.”

We have seen dozens of cases here in Ohio where the terms of the pooling and servicing agreements could not possibly have been met.

Yet another reason to consult an attorney immediately if a foreclosure complaint is filed against you.

For more information:

Contact:

Law Office of Marc Dann Co. LPA

Or call 216-373-0539