Mortgage Servicing Fraud Forum

Happy Thanksgiving!

arkygirl — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:39:37 GMT

Happy Thanksgiving to all who frequent this forum and their families.

I know it is hard sometimes to find something to be thankful for as we all struggle with bad mortgages and the current bad economy.

I suggest that it may be enough to just be thankful that at this time of year we are humans and not turkeys. After all, turkeys cannot type in forums on the Internet and they get invited to dinner for all the wrong reasons....

i told you india owned our houses

krsrepos — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:43:24 GMT

Obama White House Showcases Style in First State Dinner for Indian PM

Posted:

11/24/09

Filed Under:Nation, Politics

75 Comments +

Join the discussion

TEXT SIZE:AAA
PRINT

WASHINGTON (Nov. 24) -- What a night.

Curry and glamour shared the menu at the first White House state dinner hosted by President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama.

The formal banquet honoring Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife, Gursharan Kaur, had been highly anticipated. More than 10 months into this administration, many among the city's social set had yearned for proof that the Obamas' urban, international style would measure up to the biggest social events of the glamorous Kennedy White House and spell an end to the era of the early-to-bed Bushes.

Tuesday evening's party followed a long day of pomp and ceremony. It began rather drearily when rain forced a morning welcome ceremony off the South Lawn and inside to the East Room of the White House. A planned gun salute was canceled.

White House State Dinner

AFP / Getty Images

351 photos

For their first state dinner, President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama on Tuesday welcomed Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife. The guest list was a mix of Washington wonks, Hollywood A-listers and prominent figures from the Indian community in the U.S. Click through the gallery to see more photos of the first lady's gown and the guests.

Modification Woes

Exhausted! — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:20:07 GMT

Well, my mortgage modification paperwork has finally reached my front door after an exhausting 6 months. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The past year has been an emotional nightmare for me and my family fighting Litton.

So, do I really trust these people or not? I don't know if I could ever trust another financial institution again to even have a checking account. And as far as Litton goes...well...you know...

How do we protect ourselves after we sign the (so called) modification forms? I don't really think I could go through this crap again!

Thanks for your valued opinions!

Exhausted in America

WAMU continuing foreclosure

frustrated — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:25:09 GMT

I need some advice ASAP. I have been fighting foreclosure for almost 1 1/2 years. I ended up filing BK to try to "force" the mortgage company to work with me. They (Chase - "successor in interest") filed relief from stay, which was granted.

I just found a Federal law -- Bankruptcy Procedure Code and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 - that is actually supposed to be a "check and balance", protecting creditors from fraud of the debtors, and protects the debtors from being "exploited" from the creditors. Didn't happen - I demanded the Original Mortgage Note, etc. but they responded with the "Judgement for Foreclosure and Sale" paperwork, stating "colorable claim" and that they "didn't need to prove "proof of claim".

Now, after a couple of weeks, my house is back on the docket for Dec 18th. I had requested a Motion for Injunctive Relief back in October, only to be "laughed at", and refused to be heard.

I have been reading various posts about when banks "go under" before assigning notes. WAMU filed lis pendens in July 2008. They were "shut down" by the FEDS, and was bought out by Chase in Sept. 2008. As far as I know, NO assignment to Chase was ever done before WAMU's demise. Does this mean that the note is "null and void"?

Also, how/where do I find out who/where various assignments have taken place (ie pass-thru certificates, etc.) I do know there have been at least three transfers (alll prior to the "collapse" of WAMU).

My last question is, do I file another motion for injuctive relief, or do I file an appeal (appeal has to be done before sale, as there is no recourse once it is done.) Or do I file a Motion for "discovery of sorts"? If I send a letter to them demanding to know who the owner of the note is, it will not be back until after the sale date.

The Cat Who Ate Chase Bank

Devastated — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:43:22 GMT

Thought you might like to read this:

http://thecatwhoatechasebank.blogspot.com/2009/11/be-very-afraid-of-chase-bank-very.html

Breaking up the Banks

MSFraud Admin — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:03:59 GMT

FYI

Dear MSFraud.org,

Goldman Sachs CEO said he's sorry for their role in the crisis, yet Rep. Barney Frank is ignorant about what to do about them. He said, "People have said break 'em up. Well, I don't know anybody who can tell me in the abstract how to break 'em up". At A New Way Forward, we know exactly how - it's on our front page with 50,000 signatures on it and it came from our public discussions and discussions with experts.

Write them to sign the pledge. IT IS THE PUBLIC PLAN and we don't want anyone to say they don't know.

Something effective now? Please, tell blogs, newspapers, Congress and friends that the public has the plan! Use the "Write them" center - it will send letters to the editor and Congress for you, make a FOIA request to substantiate the need for bailouts, help reach out to your favorite bloggers, allow you to post results, and reach all the angry people around the country. There's a press release below that you can use, it's on the grassroots network we have built and the all the work we have done as a group.

Our call to break up the big banks is gaining momentum. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced a bill in Congress that literally calls for the breaking up of the dangerous, too-big-to-fail banks. Pretty good, huh? It's worth rallying Congress on this one. Everyone can lead on this issue simply by talking and guiding our communities. Ramp up our PR machine and get the ones we lone on board. Every little bit has counted and continues to count.

If you're interested in becoming a project manager on this campaign, email us to get started.

Your organizing team,

A New Way Forward

For more information on breaking up the banks visit A New Way Forward for easy to understand analysis and the much needed layout for reform.

###

For Immediate Release:

November 17, 2009

Activists, internet users, lawyers and economists have solved the problem that Too-Big-To-Fail banks pose to society, while Congress is still coddling the technocrats.

It is an unlikely occurrence that an organizationless, unfunded, underresourced public leads on economic issues. Yet, activists, internet users, lawyers and economists have come together to pose the winning solution to the problem that Too-Big-To-Fail banks pose to society, while most of Congress is still living in a world run by the technocrats. It seems that policies that can help citizens thrive in a large economy must come from those not covered in the concentration of power and breaking up the biggest banks seems to be the only way forward now.

A year after the economic meltdown, the public has gotten involved with a formidable issue - economics - without any organization behind it. Activists are proposing the winning, most popular policy solutions to too-big-to-fail and with a new bill in Congress mandating a similar break up of the bailed-out banks, reform is starting to get on the right path. Yet, most of Congress seems to need more guidance. In defense of his "too-big-to-fail legislation" against criticism Congressman Barney Frank recently said, "People have said break 'em up. Well, I don't know anybody who can tell me in the abstract how to break 'em up". Tens of thousands of people have shown Rep. Frank they know exactly how - their plan is posted on the front page of ANewWayForward.org, while volunteers are spreading it on the internet. To show that breaking up the banks must get done, the public is planning to divest from the extremely concentrated financial brokers. To see the full prescription, you can visit http://www.anewwayforward.org and sign on to support breaking up the banks here: http://bit.ly/3tRhF4

Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research has contributed to the public's too-big-to-fail policy prescription on how to break up the banks, "Banks will be responsible for developing a plan to break themselves into components with less than $100 billion in assets by a fixed date, or they pay a fine or must keep higher reserve requirements. If no working plan has been reached after the first 90 day period, fines get larger.. Banks will have a very powerful incentive to come up with a good plan." Zephyr Teachout, Assistant Law Professor at Fordham University is lead writer on the prescription - "We support new, straightforward size-based laws for banks, with enforcement power given to the DOJ, which is less likely to get coopted by pressure from the industry."

There are many reasons why the largest banks need to be broken up. They have dominated the market, leading to an overconcentration of assets in just a few companies. The industry is anti-competitive with barriers to entry harder for medium to small-sized banks. And the largest banks charge the highest credt card fees and interest rates because they dominate so heabily in the market. Small banks do much of the local lending and have been doing a fine job at it -- most credit unions return the best interest on your deposits because they're not investing your deposits in risky activities and members usually vote to give back the extra profits to members instead of CEO pay and bonuses. And finally, the largest banks create an unstable market - they hold less cash to back up their risky activities leading to even riskier behavior and are so large they take taxpayer dollars to bail themselves out. Unemployment is just one result of their large and unstable market power.

People are looking for ways to realize a more equitable political economy than the one Congress has helped make, while also looking for ways to dissolve the relationship between politicians and their moneyed interests. Things have become too grim with unemployment at 10.2%, foreclosure victims in every social circle outside of Washington DC, and healthcare and credit card rates continuing to cut into the average person's standard of living, half-measures or bills in name only won't do.

"How long can Congress get away with doing almost nothing to end their addiction to their corporate giants? We're smartening up and Congress is looking more and more like a lame duck to everyone. The public has become its own watchdog over the economy and related policies, and it's on duty into the future. These public advocates are serious about pushing forward rigorous economic policy but their organizing campaigns are about public activity and discourse. They will run an anti-big bank sticker campaign and divest from Wall St. and the largest banks.

It is the public that is proposing the economic policies to rebuild a safer economy for everyone. Instead, new "systemic risk legislation" guarantees government coddling for the "too big to fail" firms to the detriment of competition. The public has to this day found just one approved measure in Congress with Senator Sanders' recently-revealed legislation to break up the largest banks, yet the public continues to disavow the biggest, most publicly-detrimental banks.

John S. Reed has recently said, "I'm sorry" for his role in creating the largest financial institution we now know of as Citigroup and that is should be broken up. "We learn from our mistakes. When you're running a company, you do what you think is right for the stockholders. Right now I'm looking at this as a citizen." Frank Banks agrees, "we can have a modernized Glass-Steagall with three classes of banking- commercial, investment, and "casino"'. It seems that policies that can help citizens thrive in a large economy must come from those not covered in the concentration of power and the public has found a platform to realize the best of their ideas.

From 3 to 10,000 in one month to 25,000 active members in two weeks, a petition to democratize the Federal Reserve, the largest national grassroots-coordinated protests in the country since the meltdown, 50,000 signatures in support of breaking up the banks, nationally-coordinated economic town halls, a policy proposal for breaking up the too-big-to-fail institutions, hundreds of coalition and aligned organizations, and hand-written letters to Congress are just a few ways the public, unified under A New Way Forward's platform, is building their new grassroots-coordinated economic network and movement. ANWF emerged as the "thinking man's" call for structural reform of the financial sector in March 2009 and has become the website for the public to become active in economics. ANWF has made the call for reorganizing and decentralizing our ailing financial system in the most coherent public policy prescription for breaking up the banks.

###

A New Way Forward is a national, public interest platform organized by the public and grassroots volunteers. For more information, please visit http://www.anewwayforward.org

a project of A New Way Forward

and ProsperityAgenda.us

Indymac takes it on the chin

The Equitable One — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:15:06 GMT

For your reading pleasure:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_52333.htm

Defective Paperwork Strips Mortgage Holder of Foreclosure Rights

Ann Holden — Thur, 19 Nov 2009 17:38:00 GMT

Defective Paperwork Strips Mortgage Holder of Foreclosure Rights

Sheri Qualters

The National Law Journal

November 19, 2009

A Massachusetts federal judge has upheld a bankruptcy court ruling allowing a trustee to treat a mortgage as an unsecured claim, which strips the mortgage holder of foreclosure rights, because of defective mortgage paperwork.

In a Nov. 17 order, District Court Judge Patti Saris affirmed a bankruptcy court order denying the plaintiffs' request to send a question of law to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The case is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS) v. Warren E. Agin, trustee.

The plaintiffs wanted the state high court's take on whether the omission of a borrower's name on an acknowledgement form, which a notary public uses to confirm the identity of the borrower, is a "material defect" that voids the mortgage.

In Massachusetts, deeds or mortgages recorded at a county registry of deeds must have a properly executed acknowledgment form.

One of the plaintiffs in the June 3 bankruptcy court appeal is MERS, which runs a national mortgage electronic registration system that simplifies the selling or trading residential or commercial mortgage loans. The other plaintiff is the actual lender, Countrywide Home Loans Inc., which Bank of America Corp. acquired in 2008.

The ruling concerned a mortgage held by debtor Mathew Giroux, who filed a voluntary Chapter 7 case in bankruptcy court in Massachusetts on June 27, 2008. The bankruptcy court granted the trustee's motion for summary judgment on May 21, which allowed him to treat the mortgage as a unsecured debt.

Saris agreed with the bankruptcy court that Massachusetts case law holds that the state "requires strict formalities in the execution of acknowledgements."

Saris also agreed with the bankruptcy court that Massachusetts courts are likely to follow a 2004 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, In re Biggs, which held that omitting the lender's name in an acknowledgement was not a "purposeless formality."

"Although the question of the acknowledgment's validity is a determinative issue, the Court finds the outcome in the state court to be reasonably clear," Saris wrote.

Cases about the issue have also cropped up in federal courts in other jurisdictions, said the trustee's lawyer, Jeffrey J. Cymrot of Boston-based Sassoon & Cymrott. Cymrot said he's also working on a similar pending case.

"It's largely due to pushing mortgages through the system," Cymrot said. "I don't think it's rare."

The case shows that sloppy execution of mortgage documents has consequences in bankruptcy cases, Cymrot said.

He also said the central question is analogous to that in cases challenging foreclosures because of defective documents that have cropped up in recent months. "It's related, but it's another type of sloppiness," Cymrot said.

Bank of America did not respond to requests to comment by deadline. MERS spokeswoman Karmela Lejarde said the company declined to comment.

Sheri Qualters can be contacted at squalters@alm.com.

source
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435636327&rss=newswire

Ass Mort. and End. Notes

sirrowan — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:25:07 GMT

According to the comments on the UCC on this page, lenders can do whatever they want under the UCC. When I read some of the UCC, it didn't come across like this. Have I lost my mind?

http://www.firstam.com/landsakes/html/email/062503assi.html

SPS/Balboa/Countrywide kickbacks?

Lionel Tribbey — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:07:05 GMT

Fairbanks/SPS, Countrywide/Balboa and Southwest Business Corporation

http://www.getdshirtz.com/GAOreview.htm

select "Exhibit T"

Also:

Countrywide/Balboa reinsurance

Alston v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al., No. 08-4334, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 23822 (3rd Cir., October 28, 2009)

Y'know what I'd like to see???

sirrowan — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:00:27 GMT

I'd like to see people being sued for foreclosure, that have these BS MERS Ass. of Mortgages in their Chain of Title (if you can call it that)....

I'd like to see these homeowners file countersuits, suing specifically the Assistant Secretaries, VP's, and other "authorized" signers on behalf of MERS.

These people have "ok" jobs. They aren't wealthy. My prediction is that when these stupid trolls begin paying out of pocket for attorneys to represent them in situations where they didn't gain a whole lot, they are going to turn on the "owners" and MERS. In turn the "owners" and MERS will turn on them......

If all the attorneys could watch for just a few cases filed with blatant assignment fraud, and then represent these homeowners, we could have some sound precidents established across the country and really put these skunks out of business!!!!

Let the back stabbing and finger pointing begin!!!!!

A BIG WIN FOR ME From Livinglies...

Ann Holden — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:14:17 GMT

HSBC Bank USA v Miller

2009 NY Slip Op 29444

Decided on October 29, 2009

Supreme Court, Sullivan County

Meddaugh, J.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 29, 2009

Supreme Court, Sullivan County

HSBC Bank USA, National Association, As Trustee for WFALT 2007-PA02 3451 Hammond Avenue Waterloo, La 50704-5400, Plaintiff

against

Jeffrey F. Miller, Board of Managers, Emerald Green Property Owners Association, Inc., JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., JOHN DOE, (said names being fictitious, it being the intention of Plaintiff to designate any and all occupants of premises being foreclosed herein, and any parties, corporations or entities, if any, having or claiming an interest or lien upon the mortgaged premises, Defendants.

4786-2008

Steven J. Baum, P.C.

By Megan B. Szeliga, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

P.O. Box 1291

Buffalo, New York 14240-1291

John S. Edwards, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant

317 Little Tor Road South

New City, New York 10956

Mark M. Meddaugh, J.

The Plaintiff filed a motion to for leave to reargue the Decision and Order of this Court, which granted the motion of the Defendant, Jeffrey F. Miller, dismissing the complaint in the above-referenced matter on the grounds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this foreclosure action.

The Court found, in its prior decision, that the Assignment of Mortgage attached to the Plaintiffs papers in opposition to the original motion only referred to the assignment of the mortgage, and made no reference to the note. The Court noted that the Assignment had only the vague reference that the said assignor hereby grants and conveys unto said assignee, the assignors beneficial interest under the mortgage which the Court found was insufficient to establish that both the note and the mortgage had been assigned to the Plaintiff.

Upon reargument, Plaintiffs counsel asserts that the Assignment provides in pertinent part that:

Said assignor hereby assigns unto the above named Assignee the said Mortgage, and the full benefit of all powers and of all covenants and Provisions therein contained, and the said Assignor hereby grants and conveys unto the Assignee, the Assignors beneficial interest under the mortgage. (Emphasis added by Plaintiffs counsel)

Plaintiffs counsel then relies on language appearing in page 3 of the mortgage as follows:

BORROWERS TRANSFER TO LENDER OF RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY

I mortgage, grant and convey the property to MERS (solely as nominee for the lender and lenders successors in interest) and its successors in interest subject to the terms of the Security Instrument. This means that, by signing this Security Instrument, I am giving Lender those rights that Applicable Law gives to Lenders who hold mortgages on real property. I am giving Lender those rights to protect Lender from possible losses that might result if I fail to:

(A)Pay all the amounts that I owe Lender as stated in the Note including, but not limited to, all renewals, extensions, and modifications of the Note;

(B)Pay, with interest, any amounts that lender spends under this Security Interest to protect the value of the Property and Lenders rights in the Property;

(C)Keep all of my other promises and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note. (Emphasis added by Plaintiffs counsel)

Plaintiff counsel also refers to Page 4 of the Mortgage in the section entitled Covenants under the Mortgage which provides:

I promise and agree with the Lender as follows:

1.Borrowers Promise to Pay. I will pay to the Lender on time Principal and Interest due under the Note and any prepayment, late charges and other amounts under the Note and any prepayment, late charges and other amounts under the Note. I will also pay all amounts for Escrow Items under Section 3 of this Security Instrument,

Payment due under the Note and this Security Instrument shall be made in U.S. Currency . . . . . (Emphasis added by Plaintiffs counsel)

Plaintiff argues when the Assignment and Mortgage are read as a totality they make clear that the Note was transferred along with the Mortgage by and through (sic) the Assignment in this matter.

It is further argued that the Note holder has standing to maintain a foreclosure action so long as the mortgage and note have been delivered to that party. It is further argued that case law provides that a mortgage can be transferred by delivery, without a written assignment.

The Defendant, Jeffrey Miller, by his attorney, argues that the prior decision was correct in finding that, in the absence of proof that both the Note and the Mortgage sought to be foreclosed have been assigned to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is without standing to maintain a foreclosure action. The Defendant further argues that the Plaintiff has again failed to establish that it is the holder of both the mortgage and the underlying debt.

In reply, the Plaintiffs counsel argues that the Court of Appeals held that where a mortgage is recorded with MERS named as the lenders nominee and mortgagee on the instrument, the beneficial ownership and servicing rights may be transferred among MERS members, and that a reading of the Mortgage, Note and Assignment make clear that both the Mortgage and Note were assigned.

Conclusions of Law

The Plaintiff herein is requesting that the Court reconsider its decision that the Plaintiff failed to establish that it has standing in this action, due to the lack of a reference to the Note in the Assignment of the Mortgage.

The Plaintiffs Counsel is apparently abandoning the arguments which she made in opposition to the Defendants prior motion to dismiss, in which she first cited nonexistent language in the Assignment, claiming that the Assignment explicitly assigned the mortgage together with the bond or obligation described in said mortgage, and the moneys due to grow thereon with interest (Emphasis added by Plaintiffs counsel) (See, Affirmation of

Megan B. Szeliga, Esq., affirmed on March 6, 2009). The second assertion made by Plaintiffs counsel was that s a matter of course, the note also follows the mortgage, and that title to the Note passed upon physical delivery from MERS to the Plaintiff (See, Affirmation of Megan B. Szeliga, Esq., affirmed on March 6, 2009, 16). The assertion that the note follows the mortgage is unsupported any law, and the assertion that the original note was transferred by physical delivery to the Plaintiff is made only in an affirmation by Plaintiffs counsel and is unsupported by any evidentiary factual support from a person with personal knowledge of the facts.

The Plaintiffs counsel acknowledges that the Note is a negotiable instrument (See, Affirmation of Megan B. Szeliga, Esq., affirmed on March 6, 2009, 19). In Slutsky v. Blooming Grove Inn, Inc., 147 AD2d 208, 542 NYS2d 721 , the Court held that when he note secured by the mortgage is a negotiable instrument ( see, UCC 3-104) requires indorsement on the instrument itself or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof (UCC 3-202 ) in order to effectuate a valid assignment of the entire instrument (cf., UCC 3-202 , ).

In the case at bar, the Note attached to the Plaintiffs papers contains the following undated, unexplained indorsement on the last page thereof, Pay to the Order of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. without recourse by: Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc., Eric Hahn, Vice President. It would appear, therefore, that the beneficial interest in the Note was transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and that it is Wells Fargo, N.A. who is entitled to receive payments under the Note. No date was provided for that transfer. By contrast, in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Coakley, 41 AD3d 674, 838 NYS2d 622 ), the Court outlined the history of indorsement from the original mortgage, to another transferee, followed by an indorsement in blank which was ultimately transferred and tendered to MERS. The Coakley Court concluded that it had been established that MERS was the lawful owner of the promissory note at the commencement of the action, and of the mortgage, that it had standing to bring the action.

The Court notes that the Lender listed on the Note is Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc. (no reference in contained on the Note to indicate that MERS has become the nominee of the lender on the note), and the Note further provides that anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under the Note is called the Note Holder.

The Court finds no proof in the papers that the Note was transferred from the Lender described on the Note to MERS as a Note Holder, and even if there was proof of an initial transfer to MERS, there was no proof that the Note was then transferred from MERS to the Plaintiff.

The documentary proof provided by Plaintiffs counsel supports a finding that the Note at issue was transferred to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., whereas the Assignment of Mortgage indicates that the mortgage was assigned by MERS, as nominee for Real Estate Mortgage Network, Inc., to the Plaintiff herein.

In Kluge v. Fugazy, 145 AD2d 537, 536 NYS2d 92 the Court held that the assignment of a mortgage without transfer of the debt is a nullity and a cause of action for foreclosure must fail. In Merritt v. Bartholick, 36 NY 44 the Court of Appeals held that as a mortgage is but an incident to the debt which it is intended to secure (cites omitted ), the logical conclusion is that a transfer of the mortgage without the debt is a nullity, and no interest is assigned by it. The security cannot be separated from the debt, and exist independently of it. This is the necessary legal conclusion, and recognized as the rule by a long course of judicial decisions. It should be noted that in MERSCORP, Inc. v. Romaine, 8 NY3d 90, 828 NYS2d 266 , Justice Ciparick, in her concurring opinion specifically notes that the Courts ruling left for another day the argument made by the County of Suffolk and various amici that MERS has violated the clear prohibition against separating a lien from its debt and that MERS does not have standing to bring foreclosure actions * * * (see, e.g., Merritt v. Bartholick, 36 NY44, 45 ).

The Plaintiffs counsel has argued that the transfer of the note to the Plaintiff is implied by a combined reading of the Assignment and the Mortgage itself, but the Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish that it is a holder of the note by indorsement at the time the foreclosure action was commenced (First Trust Nat. Assn v. Meisels, 234 AD2d 414, 651 NYS2d 121 ), nor did the language of the assignment explicitly assign the note or obligation described and secured by said mortgage(In re Stralem, 303 AD2d 120, 758 NYS2d 345 ). Accordingly, the Court shall not alter its prior finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish that it has standing to maintain the instant mortgage foreclosure proceeding.

Wherefore, based on the foregoing, the Plaintiffs motion seeking reargument is denied.This memorandum shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court. The original Decision and Order, together with the motion papers have been forwarded to the Clerks office for filing. The filing of this Order does not relieve counsel from the obligation to serve a copy of this order, together with notice of entry, pursuant to CPLR 5513(a).

Dated: October____, 2009

Monticello, New York

ENTER

__________________________________________

HON. MARK M. MEDDAUGH

Acting Supreme Court Justice

If Justice No longer Prevails

4 Justice Now — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:46:03 GMT

They have bought our Politians, our Courts and our Judges. They have destroyed countless lives, families, and entire neighborhoods. They have ruined economy of this great Nation, if not that of world. They have harmed our Countrys reputation, and the pride of its citizens. They have committed treason on a most grand scale, and destroyed the hope for many, of ever having a future that is free of agony and gloom. Yet, they have remained unfettered and have been allowed to go free about their carefree, privileged lives, untouched by all the misery and grief which they created, all in the name of greed. If our courts are no longer a means of obtaining justice and retribution then I say we must do whatever it takes to prevent these treasonous scoundrels and they families from ever having the ability and freedom to enjoy the benefits created out of their unmatched treachery and thievery. If war is ever righteous thing this would be a rightous one for certain.

IMHO

No Notice of Foreclosure

Devastated — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:32:10 GMT

I am absolutely devastated!

I have been working on a loan modification with Chase since earlier this year. NACA was helping with it. NACA and I just found out yesterday that Chase sold my home a week ago - right from under my feet.

I did get a foreclosure notice back in February but that was put on hold due to the loan modification. Chase made an offer to me in August but I didn't like one or two of the terms so they were going back to rework it.

Now they have sold my home - or what was my home. I received no notice of ANY kind. No letters, no calls, nothing pinned to my door, nothing from foreclosure attorneys. NOTHING!

What can I do?

Chase Accidentally Sells Couples Home

Chased — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:02:38 GMT

http://www.kpho.com/money/21579505/detail.html#

Bank Accidentally Sells Couples Home

Sarah Buduson
Reporter, KPHO.com

POSTED: 8:25 pm MST November 10, 2009

UPDATED: 10:21 am MST November 11, 2009

PHOENIX -- Despite being up-to-date on their modified mortgage payments, a Valley couple found Chase foreclosing on their home.

"You work so hard. Put a lot of money down on your house. You pay your taxes. You pay your mortgage, and it's all stolen from you, said Jeff Zerner, the homeowner.

He and his wife, Yanthy, found out about the foreclosure when the new owner posted a notice on their door Nov. 4.

I get this notice that says you have five days to vacate the property, he said. So I called the number (on the notice) and I say, Who are you? and they say, We're the legal owners of this house. It went up for foreclosure."

Just days before, the Zerners thought their home was safe. They had finished their trial modification with Chase and were led to believe they would qualify for a permanent modification.

We paid Chase several hundred dollars, which they accepted in good faith, said Zerner. "I feel extremely ripped off.

Chase officials admit they made an error by selling the house.

They sent CBS 5 News a statement saying, We apologize for the confusion over the modification actions and the parallel foreclosure steps Chase takes as a precaution. We have reached out to Ms. Zerner to discuss where we go from here.

Loan modifications and foreclosures are parallel processes. In the Zerners case, the sides failed to communicate with each other to halt the foreclosure until it was too late.

Banks can buy back homes theyve sold in foreclosure or rescind the sale. They can also pay to relocate a family to another home.

Video: http://www.kpho.com/video/21583335/index.html