Daily Archives: January 22, 2014

Link

Goldman Sachs sets aside plenty of cash for mortgage lawsuits

Goldman Sachs sets aside plenty of cash for mortgage lawsuits

Goldman Sachs (GS) reported fourth-quarter revenues and profit topping Wall Street estimates, bouyed by a resurgent IPO market that boosted investment banking revenue.

Quarterly net income was $2.33 billion, down from $2.89 billion one year earlier. Earnings translated to $4.60 per share, beating analyst consensus of $4.14 per share and adding to what has been a strong quarter for financials early in the earnings season.

Primary profits at Goldman during the fourth quarter came on the back of the company’s investment banking operations, while the investment bank reported “significantly lower net revenues in mortgages.”

Revenues in Goldman’s fixed income business, which includes mortgages, came in at $1.7 billion, 15% lower than one year earlier. Investment banking revenues jumped to $6 billion for the full year, the second-best year in Goldman’s history, with $1.72 billion booked in the fourth quarter. Fourth quarter revenues in investment banking represented a 22% jump from one year earlier and were 47% higher than the linked quarter.

Link

Why Robo-Signatures Are Illegal in California and Other Non-Judicial Foreclosure States

Why Robo-Signatures Are Illegal in California and Other Non-Judicial Foreclosure States

By  On August 19, 2012 · Add Comment

With all of the press robo-signing has gotten, it is a bit surprising that everyone is having such a hard time concluding whether these practices effect California foreclosures. My assistant even said to me today, “but the banks say that it doesn’t matter because California is non judicial.” Because the topic has not gotten the treatment it deserves, I will gladly do the job.

The following are by no means a complete list, but are the most clear LEGAL reasons (setting aside pure moral questions and the U.S. Constitution) that the Robo-Signer Controversy will lead to massive litigation in California.

In short, Robo Signers are illegal in California because good title cannot be based on fraud, robo signed non judicial foreclosure sales are void as a matter of law, the documents are not able to be recorded in California if they are not notarized, which we know was often not done properly, and finally, because they robo signed forgeries ARE intended for judicial proceedings, including evictions and bankruptcy relief from stay motions.

1. Good Title Cannot Be Based on Fraud (Even as to a 3d Party).
In the case of a fraudulent transaction California law is settled. The Court in Trout v. Trout, (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 made as much plain:
“Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bonafide purchase. Consequently, the fact that defendant Archer acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief.” (Emphasis added, internal citations omitted).

This sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286 where the Court stated:
“It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties.”
(Emphasis added).
Hence, if forged Robo Signed signatures are used to obtain the foreclosure, it CERTAINLY makes a difference in California and other non-judicial foreclosure states.

2. Any apparent sale based on Robosigned documents is void – without any legal effect – like Monopoly Money. In Bank of America v. LaJolla Group II, the California Court of Appeals held that if a trustee is not contractually empowered under the Deed of Trust to hold a sale, it is totally void. It has no legal effect whatsoever. Title does not transfer. No right to evict arises. The property is not sold. In turn, California Civil COde 2934a requires that the beneficiary execute and notarize and record a substitution for a valid substitution of trustee to take effect. Thus, if the Assignment of Deed of Trust is robo-signed, the sale is void. If the substitution of trustee is robo-signed, the sale is void. If the Notice of Default is Robo-Signed, the sale is void.