Countrywide, GMM, and Puida and was very deliberately limited to seven well-defined Items of potentially sanctionable conduct related to this whole matter, four directed to Countrywide and three to GMM and Puida.
Countrywide recreated letters: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/WM_CWIDE-RECREATED-LETTERS.pdf
Lender forgave payments to avert Mozilo PR crisis, borrower insists. Now BofA threatens foreclosure
Daniel A. Bailey Jr. isn’t your average homeowner. He hasn’t paid his mortgage in more than five years, and has no plans to start now.
His stance stems from a bizarre incident that thrust Bailey into the news in 2008, when he suddenly became a public relations liability for embattled home lender Countrywide Financial of Calabasas.
Bailey had blanketed Countrywide with emails begging for a mortgage modification. The reply came from none other than Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide’s chief executive, who accidentally hit “reply” instead of “forward” on a note meant for colleagues. In the misfired missive, Mozilo called Bailey’s letter a “disgusting” and “unbelievable” example of the form letters then inundating the lender from borrowers saying they couldn’t pay.
The email, which Bailey posted on a borrowers forum, went viral on the Internet and hit the news. A day after The Times reported Bailey’s exchange with Mozilo, television reporters camped outside his Wilmington, N.C., house. Countrywide staffers then rushed to appease him and keep him quiet, Bailey now says, offering him a modification and going a step further — telling him he’d never have to pay, and the bank would never foreclose.
And that’s exactly what happened since then. The mess has now landed in the lap of Bank of America, which purchased Countrywide in July of 2008 — one of the worst bank deals in history, as Countrywide would soon collapse under the weight of mass defaults on shoddily underwritten housing bubble loans. BofA has since racked up about $50 billion in loan defaults and legal costs.
BofA just caught up with Bailey’s situation in August, sending him a demand for payment of $98,462 and threatening foreclosure.
BofA spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens said a search had turned up no documentation of the deal Bailey described. She said the Countrywide official who dealt with Bailey, whom she would not identify, no longer works for BofA. Bank of America confirmed that Bailey had skipped 62 straight monthly payments, and conceded in a statement that “it is unusual” for the bank to allow a loan to go unpaid that long without moving to foreclose.
WELLS FARGO VS KAHYA, WELLS FARGO | NYSC – SUES ITSELF…PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE EVINCING THAT IT PROPERLY SERVED THE BORROWER PURSUANT TO RP APL 1304
Further, when the statute was first enacted, and when this action was commenced, it applied only to ”high cost, subprime, and non-traditional home loans (Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Weisblum, 85 A.D.3d at 104, [citing L. 2008, ch. 472, § 2] ). The moving papers fail to address whether the subject loan was a high cost, subprime, or non-traditional home loan when made. [P]roper service of RPAPL 1304 notice on the borrower or borrowers is a condition precedent to the commencement of a foreclosure action, and the plaintiff has the burden of establishing satisfaction of this condition or that service of the notice was not required under the version of the statute that was in effect at the time the action was commenced (Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 85 A.D.3d at 106, 923 N.Y.S.2d 609). Here, the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service evincing that it properly served the borrower pursuant to RP APL 1304, or in the alternative, demonstrate that the subject loan was not a high cost, subprime, or non-traditional home loan to which the former version of RP APL § 1304 applied (see id.). Thus, the plaintiff failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with the fourth affirmative defense (see Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 85 A.D.3d at 106, 923 N. Y.S.2d 609; see also Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Spanos, 102 A.D.3d 909, 911, 961N.Y.S.2d200 [2d Dept. 2013]). Since on the motion for summary judgment the plaintiff did not argue that the defendant did not reside at the subject premises when the action was commenced, and the pre-foreclosure notice requirement of RP APL § 1304 only applies to statutorily defined home loans”, and further, since the defendant did not have an opportunity to address that issue in opposing the motion, the Court likewise declines to address it here. Accordingly, that branch of the plaintiffs motion which is for summary judgment dismissing the fourth affirmative defense alleging that the plaintiff failed to comply with RP APL 1304 is denied, without regard to the sufficiency of the defendant’s opposition papers (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642). The denial is without prejudice to renew upon proper papers as indicated herein within one-hundred twenty days of the date of this order. Any renewal shall include a copy of this Order and the supporting papers on this application. The remaining affirmative defenses numbered First through Third and Fifth through Nineteenth are stricken. These affirmative defenses are not supported by any proof in admissible form sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The opposition consisted solely of the affirmation of the appointed Guardian Ad Litem and Military Attorney who has no personal knowledge of the facts (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 404 N.E.2d 718, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595  [party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegations or denials, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial]). Defenses which merely plead conclusions of law without supporting facts are insufficient and should be stricken (see CPLR § 3018(b); see also Petracca v. Petracca, 305 A.D.2d 566, 567, 760 N.Y.S.2d 513 [2d Dept. 2003]; Bruno v. Sant’Elia, 52 A.D.3d 556, 557, 860 N.Y.S.2d 589 [2d Dept. 2008]; Cohen Fashion Optical, Inc. v. V & M Optical, Inc., 51A.D.3d619, 858 N.Y.S.2d 260 [2d Dept. 2008].
Iceland jails former Kaupthing bank bosses
Four former bosses from the Icelandic bank Kaupthing have been sentenced to between three and five years in prison.
They are the former chief executive, the chairman of the board, one of the majority owners and the chief executive of the Luxembourg branch.
They were accused of hiding the fact that a Qatari investor bought a stake in the firm with money lent – illegally – by the bank itself.
Kaupthing collapsed in 2008 under the weight of huge debts.
For years, Kaupthing and other Icelandic banks had aggressively pursued overseas expansion plans, but when they went into administration, they brought the country’s economy to its knees.
Just a few weeks before the collapse, Kaupthing announced that Sheikh Mohammed Bin Khalifa Bin Hamad al-Thani had bought a 5.1% stake during the financial crisis in 2008.
The move was seen as a confidence boost for the bank.
JP Morgan to ban staff from instant messaging services
America’s biggest bank, JP Morgan, is preparing to ban staff from using any kind of online messaging service other than traditional email.
The clampdown could be formalised as soon as this week and is likely to include services such as Bloomberg’s messaging platform, which has long been a mainstay of bankers’ communication.
JP Morgan has been considering such a move following a series of thorny legal cases against banks, in which regulators have homed in on instant messaging services as potential evidence.