Tag Archives: robo-signing

Link

IN RE: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., MERS | 9TH CIRCUIT – FALSE, AND THEREFORE ACTIONABLE, A DOCUMENT THAT IS “FORGED, GROUNDLESS, CONTAINS A MATERIAL MISSTATEMENT OR FALSE CLAIM OR IS OTHERWISE INVALID….PLEADED THEIR ROBOSIGNING CLAIMS WITH SUFFICIENT PARTICULARITY TO SATISFY FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8(A)

IN RE: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., MERS | 9TH CIRCUIT – FALSE, AND THEREFORE ACTIONABLE, A DOCUMENT THAT IS “FORGED, GROUNDLESS, CONTAINS A MATERIAL MISSTATEMENT OR FALSE CLAIM OR IS OTHERWISE INVALID….PLEADED THEIR ROBOSIGNING CLAIMS WITH SUFFICIENT PARTICULARITY TO SATISFY FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8(A)

Fourth, the MDL Court held that appellants had not pleaded their robosigning claims with sufficient particularity to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). We disagree. Section 33-420 characterizes as false, and therefore actionable, a document that is “forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 33-420(A), (B) (emphasis added). The CAC alleges that the documents at issue are invalid because they are “robosigned (forged).” The CAC specifically identifies numerous allegedly forged documents. For example, the CAC alleges that notice of the trustee’s sale of the property of Thomas and Laurie Bilyea was “notarized in blank prior to being signed on behalf of Michael A. Bosco, and the party that is represented to have signed the document, Michael A. Bosco, did not sign the document, and the party that did sign the document had no personal knowledge of any of the facts set forth in the notice.” Further, the CAC alleges that the document substituting a trustee under the deed of trust for the property of Nicholas DeBaggis “was notarized in blank prior to being signed on behalf of U.S. Bank National Association, and the party that is represented to have signed IN RE: MERS 25 the document, Mark S. Bosco, did not sign the document.” Still further, the CAC also alleges that Jim Montes, who purportedly signed the substitution of trustee for the property of Milan Stejic had, on the same day, “signed and recorded, with differing signatures, numerous Substitutions of Trustee in the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office . . . . Many of the signatures appear visibly different than one another.” These and similar allegations in the CAC “plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009), and provide the defendants fair notice as to the nature of appellants’ claims against them, Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011). We therefore reverse the MDL Court’s dismissal of Count I.

 

Link

Foreclosure lawyer appeals reprimand tied to ‘robo-signing’ cases

Foreclosure lawyer appeals reprimand tied to ‘robo-signing’ cases

PORTLAND, Maine — A lawyer disciplined for not blowing the whistle loudly enough on his client’s “robo-signed” foreclosure documents is fighting the public reprimand he received from the Maine legal profession’s oversight board in April.

The Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar had determined that Drummond & Drummond lawyer Paul Peck, who led the firm’s foreclosure division, did not “ take immediate and effective action” to stop foreclosure proceedings in 2010 that were based on faulty affidavits.

James Bowie, the attorney representing Peck in the appeal, said his client is contesting the factual basis for the board’s decision.

“The panel issued the lowest level of discipline that is available if they are going to issue discipline,” Bowie said in a telephone interview. “Despite that, we feel the factual findings don’t support the imposition of any discipline at all.”

Peck is seeking to have the reprimand dismissed in favor of a warning, which two of his colleagues received; the bar overseers are seeking to have the reprimand upheld and have Peck pay its legal fees.

Link

Law Firm of Rubin & Licatesi Defends Client Against Foreclosure in Robo-Signing Case

Law Firm of Rubin & Licatesi Defends Client Against Foreclosure in Robo-Signing Case

Long Island, NY (PRWEB) April 11, 2014

The Long Island law firm of Rubin & Licatesi, PC has successfully defended their client’s property against foreclosure efforts by a lender with evidence of “Robo-Signing” practices by the bank.

In the case of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Harold Levinson [Index No: 2007-25351], Countrywide began this foreclosure action in 2007. In a recent decision before the Honorable Justice Spinner, Supreme Court, Suffolk County, the court ruled that Countrywide may not have standing to proceed in this lawsuit with its mortgage foreclosure action. The Plaintiff allegedly participated in questionable “robo-signing” procedures and may have acted “fraudulently, dishonestly, in bad faith or in an unconscionable manner,” as stated in that decision.

Countrywide’s application for judgment of foreclosure was subsequently denied.

“Our client was in default for many years and was concerned about the loss of his rights and his home. He hired our firm to defend against the foreclosure of his home in a” Robo-Signing case,” said firm partner Richard Rubin. “We are proud that our client was granted the right to voice and protect his rights and that the Robo-Signing issues will be openly brought to light.

Link

First Circuit rejects “robo-signing” allegation as basis to challenge assignment of mortgage

First Circuit rejects “robo-signing” allegation as basis to challenge assignment of mortgage

Wilson v. HSBC Mortg. Services, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2014 WL 563457 (1st Cir. Feb. 14 2014)

Mortgagors argued that they had standing to challenge the assignment of mortgage from Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc. (MERS) to HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. (HSBC) because they alleged in their complaint that the assignment was, inter alia, fraudulent and thus, void, because it was “robo-signed.”

Under Massachusetts law, a mortgagor has standing only “to challenge a mortgage assignment as invalid, ineffective or void (if, say, the assignor had nothing to assign or had no authority to make an assignment to a particular assignee).” Culhane v. Aurora Loan Servs. of Neb., 708 F.3d 282, 291 (1st Cir. 2013). Likewise, “a [Massachusetts] mortgagor does not have standing to challenge shortcomings in an assignment that render it merely voidable at the election of one party but otherwise effective to pass legal title.” Id. The Court’s own research confirmed that there is neither a definition of the term “robo-signing” nor any authority showing that the term has any legal significance under Massachusetts law or in the First Circuit. Although the mortgagors alleged, at most, that the assignment of mortgage was potentially voidable under Massachusetts law, the Court held that “the bare allegation of ‘robo-signing’ does nothing to undermine the validity” of the assignment of mortgage.

Link

Nevada AG ordered to pay Black Knight in robosigning lawsuit

Nevada AG ordered to pay Black Knight in robosigning lawsuit

Most mortgage firms sued by Nevada’s Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto decide to settle.

Deutsche Bank (DBsettled for $11.5 million. The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBSsettled for $42 million.

For Black Knight Financial Services, then known asLender Prosessing Services, the Nevada AG may end up paying them.

Cortez Masto’s office was sanctioned for failing to meet the deadline in discovery in her lawsuit against LPS for alleged robosigning.

The firm responsible for getting that information to the AG is Cohen Milstein.

Link

LPS in Robo-Signing Deal Talks Said to Exceed $200 Million

LPS in Robo-Signing Deal Talks Said to Exceed $200 Million

Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS) is in talks with regulators that could lead to a settlement of more than $200 million over improper and fraudulent foreclosure paperwork after the 2008 credit crisis, according to people briefed on the discussions.

The deal would resolve claims that LPS falsified documents related to home seizures, including through “robo-signing.” The Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have discussed directing at least some of the money to homeowners, said two people who spoke on condition of anonymity because the matter is private.

Link

Debt collectors accused of “cutting and pasting” signatures onto fraudulent affidavits

Debt collectors accused of “cutting and pasting” signatures onto fraudulent affidavits

Star Tribune, 30 October 2013:

The Minnesota attorney general is suing a Florida company that was a major buyer of overdraft debt from Minnesota banks, accusing it of churning out reams of fake bank affidavits to use in its collection from individuals and businesses. United Credit Recovery LLC was allegedly churning out computer-generated affidavits with bank logos, cutting and pasting supposedly notarized signatures of bank officials onto the documents to make them look authentic. The electronically robo-signed documents were used for years on a “mass scale,” not only to persuade people that they owed the money but also to convince courts to award judgments and to hike the value of portfolios for resale, according to a complaint the state filed Wednesday in Hennepin County District Court.
[…]
Attorney General Lori Swanson said her office doesn’t know how many Minnesotans were affected, but it’s at least several thousand. “The numbers are really astronomical,” Swanson said in an interview. The affidavits go beyond the traditional robo-signing that was a hallmark of the country’s mortgage debacle, where employees physically signed stacks of paper without regard to the facts. “Here it’s a cut-and-paste job. It takes traditional robo-signing to a whole new level,” Swanson said. “We have not seen this scale both in terms of the brazenness of it and the sheer numbers.”