What a tragedy….
Friday news hit of another execution-type murder in just as sleepy, if not so tax evasive, Belgium, where in the city of Vise, a 37-year-old Director at BNP Paribas Fortis was murdered alongside his wife and a 9 year old nephew in a premeditated and orchestrated drive-by shooting.
According to Marcel Neven, Mayor of Vise, nothing can yet explain what caused the violent shooting that rocked the neighborhood sports hall of his town this Friday, April 18, late at night. A man of 37 years, Benedict Philippens, bank manager Ans-Saint-Nicolas, was shot. A little 9 year old boy, living in Dolhain, was also killed. A lady, the wife of the man and the boy aunt and godmother, Carol Haid, 37 also died of his injuries on Saturday, in the morning. She was hit by three bullets in the back, said a judicial source.
According to information from the survey and some witnesses, a car waiting outside their house Berneau street near the sports hall Visé. When the victims’ car is back in the driveway, shots were fired from the car that waited patiently. The author of the shots is actively sought.
Few details about the authors
Investigators from the Federal Judicial Police (PJF) of Liège, who have taken over the investigation initiated by the local police, would have very little information to identify the author. Some suggest the presence of a single gunman with an automatic pistol, others are surprised that a bullet hole was noted in one of the windows of the sports hall. “That would mean that the author was already in the driveway of the house and waited for the victims side of the house,” says a source close to the case.
Barclays sued over loss of Sh6.3 million
A Nakuru resident has sued a local bank for the loss of Sh6.3 million allegedly wired from Europe to cater for education and living expenses for destitute children.
Josephine Nyokabi Wanjiku and her Icelandic benefactor, Gunnar Hallsson, want Barclays Bank ordered to pay back the money plus interest at the current commercial rates.In suit papers filed before the High Court, Ms Nyokabi claims a bank employee swapped her names and used her details to open an account to which the money was sent and then withdrawn.
Ms Wanjiku said the account was opened at the bank’s Queensway Branch in Nairobi with a Malindi address. The alleged holder bears a Ugandan passport identification.
She said she had forwarded her details to Barclays Bank Nakuru West branch with the intention of opening an account where Mr Hallsson would send the money.
Robosigning Woes Alive and Well In the Bay State?
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 17th, 2014 at 10:03 am
A new case came down from the state’s appellate court yesterday (it can be found here, with a couple clicks, although that’s only a temporary resting place) that looks like it could have a couple interesting wrinkles for local foreclosure law. I’m in the middle of rounding up some legal experts to run over the full implications — some of the issue discussed are bit technical — but one thing jumps out that could put some fresh grey hairs on the heads of servicers and their attorneys: Robosigning reared its ugly head.
The homeowner in the case, Joseph Sullivan, challenged the bank’s right to foreclose on his home, saying the lender involved, Kondaur Capital Corporation, shouldn’t be able to foreclose because it didn’t have proper legal title, due to problems with the legal documents used to transfer the mortgage between banks (the assignment). The Land Court judge which originally heard the case bounced it right out of court, saying that the homeowner didn’t even have standing to sue in the matter.
The Appeals Court disagreed. While it rejected some of the homeowner’s claims, it handed them a couple victories as well — first, by saying the homeowner had the right to bring the case in the first place despite the fact that they weren’t a party to the assignment. It also agreed with the homeowner that at least one of the assignments in the case was so flawed it didn’t automatically transfer good title:
“Sadly, the second assignment is further illustration of the phenomenon observed in the concurrence to [the landmark Ibanez case]… ‘what is surprising about these cases is … the utter carelessness with which the [foreclosing lenders] documented the titles to their assets,’” the Appeals Court scolded.