Daily Archives: March 3, 2014

Ocwen: Where Cheaters Prosper

From David Dayen at The American Prospect:

Think about this: Ocwen has shown nothing but contempt for actually servicing mortgages, yet they want to securitize them. It’s like a dishwasher going to a restaurant owner to get an advance on years of salary—though the analogy only works if the dishwasher spends her days breaking every dish she washes.

Link

Glaski v. Bank of America, 5 Major Banks’ Request for Depublication Denied by Calif. Supreme Court – CA law firms, including United Law Center, helped fight depublication

Glaski v. Bank of America, 5 Major Banks’ Request for Depublication Denied by Calif. Supreme Court – CA law firms, including United Law Center, helped fight depublication

A five judge panel of the California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied the request of the five major banks to have the decision in Glaski v. Bank of America depublished. While the banks could have attempted to appeal the controversial Glaski decision, they feared a ruling upholding Glaski by the Supreme Court, and instead chose to seek depublication and lost.

Link

ACTUAL ORDER | SUPREME CT DENIAL | GLASKI V JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA — S21384 SUPREME COURT OF CA

ACTUAL ORDER | SUPREME CT DENIAL | GLASKI V JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA — S21384 SUPREME COURT OF CA

“On Tuesday, February 25, 2014, a Pinellas County (St. Petersburg) Florida Judge denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank NA in connection with a WaMu origination. Jeff Barnes, Esq. represents the homeowner and argued the Motion in person in court on Tuesday.

The 330-page deposition of former JPM and WaMu mortgage management employee Lawrence Nardi (which deposition was taken in another Florida case) was filed by the homeowner. Mr. Nardi, who was with WaMu through the time that it failed and then through the period during the FDIC 
asset purchase and thereafter remaining with JPM, testified under oath that there was never, ever, a mortgage loan schedule in connection with the asset purchase, and that it never existed. He also testified that there is no evidence of any transfer of any mortgage loans from WaMu to JPM: no assignments, no allonges, and no endorsements.

The homeowner also filed a excerpt from JPM’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case filed against it and the FDIC by Deutsche Bank in the District of Columbia Federal Court, where JPM admits that it was NOT the “successor in interest” to WaMu, and that it only purchased certain defined assets and liabilities. This admission, of course, is in direct contradiction to the position taken by JPM in thousands of foreclosures nationally where it asserts that it is the “successor in interest” to WaMu.

JPM claimed to have come into the right to enforce the Note and Mortgage through “a chain of mergers” (JPM’s Complaint, paragraph 4). As we all know, there was never any “merger” between WaMu and JPM; the deal structure was an asset purchase (and also the purchase of certain defined liabilities) from the FDIC, and that JPM acquired whatever assets the failed WaMu had in its inventory as of September 25, 2008 which were set forth in the deal documents. As we also know, WaMu had sold off almost all of its originations into securitizations prior to its failure, so the most that JPM would have acquired from the FDIC consisted of servicing rights, if that.

 

Please find attached the order from the Supreme Court of California, dated 26 Feb 2014, in S21384 Glaski v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA that denied Chase’s request to depublish the opinion of the Appeals Court. Received from the Supreme Court. Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District – No. F064556 S213814 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA En Banc THOMAS A. GLASKI, Plaintiff and Appellant, V. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant and Respondent. The requests for an order directing depublication of the opinion in the above-entitled appeal are denied. Kennard and Chin, JJ., were recused and did not participate:

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Glaski-V-Chase-Bank-order-denying-depublication-of-opinion-26feb2014.pdf

 

The Ocwen story: A non-bank nightmare to the mortgage industry and regulators

I am sure that we will hear a lot of Ocwen lawsuits and fraud, now that Ocwen, non-bank mortgage servicer and non-regulated bank, is being investigated by the New York regulator. 5 major banks own approximately 56% of the market in this country and now the non-bank like Ocwen, Nationstar and others are given more mortgage servicing rights sold by the 5 major banks. Now the non-banks’ power are now bigger than the government had never imagined. Check out this 2005 Ocwen lawsuit:

Read:  The Ocwen Story: The $11.5 million dollar verdict on a $31,000 loan.

Source: MoreLaw

Date: 11-29-2005

Case Style: Davis v. Ocwen Federal Bank, et al.

Case Number: Unknown

Judge: Susan Criss

Court: 212th District Court, Galveston County, Texas

Plaintiff’s Attorney:

Robert Hilliard of Hilliard & Munoz, L.L.P., Corpus Christi, Texas; William H. Oliver of Pipkin, Oliver & Bradley, L.L.P., San Antonio, Texas; and Edward M. Carstarphen of Ellis, Carstarphen, Dougherty & Goldenthal, P.C., Houston, Texas

Defendant’s Attorney: Unknown

Description:

In February 2002, Sealy Davis, 64, took out a $31,000 home equity loan on the Texas City residence where she had lived since 1942. Ocwen acted as the servicing agent on the loan.

In 2003, Ms. Davis became ill and spent four days in the hospital, which forced her to miss one loan payment. Ocwen told her it would put her on a payment plan, but never did. Ocwen also failed to credit Ms. Davis for the money she paid, and began to foreclose on her house while continuing to assure her she was on a payment plan.

Ocwen eventually foreclosed on Ms. Davis’ home, and she filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the hopes of ending Ocwen’s harassment. During the bankruptcy, however, Ocwen requested an additional $390 to cover its costs and fees related to the default she already cured.

“We’re pleased the jury decided that Ocwen should be held liable for what it did to Ms. Davis,” said attorney Robert Hilliard, lead counsel for Ms. Davis and name partner in Corpus Christi’s Hilliard & Munoz, L.L.P. “Home loan companies should help people own a place to live, but Ocwen apparently is more interested in taking away the homes of its customers.”

At trial, a former Ocwen employee testified to the company’s unfair practices, including paying incentives to its loan collectors for moving properties with equity into foreclosure. Evidence also showed that the company engaged in predatory servicing by not informing borrowers of how to make their loans current and failing to give credit for payments when they were made.

Outcome: In a 10-2 vote, the jury found that Ocwen knowingly and intentionally deceived Ms. Davis, and awarded her $10 million in punitive damages and $1.15 million in attorneys fees.

Plaintiff’s Experts: Unknown

Defendant’s Experts: Unknown

 

Link

Billionaire Erbey Fails to Halt Ocwen Slide on Probe: Mortgages

Billionaire Erbey Fails to Halt Ocwen Slide on Probe: Mortgages

Bernie Palmatier, who lives in a Victorian home he renovated in New Carlisle, Ohio, is one of thousands of property owners with grievances against Ocwen Financial Corp.

Ocwen, the largest non-bank mortgage servicer, sent Palmatier a letter in November saying it had taken over his loan. Palmatier, 72, said he was five months late on his payments and called Ocwen three times to find out how much money he owed to catch up. That only made matters worse.

“One person would say one number, another person would say another number, and when I called back to confirm, it was $600 higher,” said Palmatier, a self-employed job recruiter. “I had to pay whatever they told me. I still don’t know what all the extra money was for.”

Ocwen, controlled by billionaire founder William C. Erbey, agreed to a $2.1 billion accord in December to settle allegations by regulators that it had mistreated homeowners without admitting wrongdoing. Benjamin M. Lawsky, New York’s top banking regulator, said yesterday that he’s probing possible conflicts among Ocwen and four related firms that could harm borrowers and push homeowners into foreclosure. Shares of Ocwen fell almost 7 percent to $36.76 yesterday after plunging 29 percent since Jan 1.