Monday, January 14, 2008

Criminal Prosecutions Of Foreclosure Rescue Operators, Refinancing & Other Deed & Equity Scams II

This post is a continuation of the post titled Criminal Prosecutions Of Foreclosure Rescue Operators I.
.
Case # 47 - California State Court
Joint Federal, State, Local Investigation
(added 5-27-08)
.
In Southern California, The Associated Press reports:
  • Hundreds of homeowners lost the deeds to their houses and small fortunes in a scam that masqueraded as a strategy to help them avoid foreclosure, authorities said [...].

  • All [five suspects] face multiple counts of conspiracy, grand theft and deceitful practices as foreclosure consultants, authorities said.

For the longer version of this blog entry, including links to media reports and some court documents, see California Authorities Bag Five Suspects In Alleged Foreclosure Rescue Scam That Bilked 100s Of SoCal Homeowners; Both Criminal, Civil Charges Brought.

.
Case # 46 - California State Court
(added 5-21-08)
.
Re: Forgery conviction of scam operator in foreclosure rescue scam where the homeowner's signature in question is authentic & genuine
.
In April, 2008, a state appeals court in California upheld the conviction of a foreclosure rescue operator on various counts relating to forgery arising out of a transaction where the financially strapped homeowner, in the belief that the operator was there to help her avoid foreclosure, had her sign a stack of documents purportedly to that end. Unbeknownst to the homeowner, buried in the stack of papers was a trust deed to one of the homes involved.

In addressing the forgery conviction of the operator ("Defendant"), notwithstanding the fact that he didn't actually sign the homeowner's ("Michiel") name on the instruments and that the homeowner's signatures appeared genuine, the court made these comments:
  • Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for forging Michiel’s signature, because there was no evidence that her signature was not genuine and no evidence that he used any affirmative misrepresentations concerning the nature of the trust deed to procure her genuine signature. We disagree; there was evidence that defendant did make affirmative misrepresentations concerning the nature of the trust deed. In any event, he could be convicted of forgery even in the absence of any such affirmative misrepresentations.
***
  • Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for forgery of Michiel’s signature because there was no evidence that he affirmatively misrepresented the nature of the trust deed to Michiel. There was no evidence that Michiel’s signature on the La Villa trust deed was not genuine. Michiel admitted that it looked like hers. She also admitted that defendant had had her sign a number of documents. Nevertheless, a forgery conviction can be based on a document with a genuine signature. “[F]orgery is committed when a defendant, by fraud or trickery, causes another to execute a . . . document where the signer is unaware, by reason of such trickery, that he is executing a document of that nature.” (People v. Parker (1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 664, 672.)
For more, see People v. Martinez, Cal App. Ct, 4th Dist, Div. II, (April 1, 2008) (.pdf version; for Word .doc version, go here).

Case available online courtesy of FindLaw.com.

Editor's Note:

In this case, included in the foreclosure rescue operator's convictions in the trial court were a count of forgery relating to the trickery in obtaining the homeowner's signature on an instrument, and another count of forgery for forging the notary public's signature on the same instrument.

Because these two forgery convictions related to the same instrument, the court, on its own motion, in effect ruled that you are limited to one forgery conviction per forged instrument. Consequently, it found itself compelled to vacate one of the two convictions that arose out of the one instrument and therefore proceeded to vacate the conviction (not on substantive grounds and presumably arbitrarily) relating to the homeowner's signature and let stand the forgery of the notary public's signature.
.
Case # 45 - Washington State Court
(added 5-13-08)
.
In Washington State, The Bellingham Herald reports that criminal charges have been dropped against a Bellingham couple who were charged with felonies in April 2007 in connection with what state investigators called a “foreclosure rescue scheme.” In a criminal filing, the Washington Attorney General’s Office had accused Peter and Julia Torkild of:
  1. theft,
  2. forgery,
  3. money-laundering, and
  4. use of proceeds of criminal profiteering.

The Torkilds have maintained they are innocent. According to the story:

  • Skagit County Superior Court Judge David Needy ruled that the Washington Department of Financial Institutions had exceeded its legal authority in using its civil regulatory powers to collect evidence in the case. Needy then threw out that evidence. Assistant Attorney General Scott Marlow, who acted as prosecutor, said Needy’s ruling eliminated the evidence that formed the basis of the criminal case. “With the suppression of that evidence, we were unable to proceed with the criminal charges,” Marlow said.

***

  • The Torkilds entered not-guilty pleas in the criminal case, and have also denied wrongdoing in a civil lawsuit related to the same matter. In the civil case, the court has rejected plaintiffs Darcee and John Johnston’s efforts to get back the title to the home, but the Johnstons still seek civil damages in their pending lawsuit.

***

  • David Allen, the Seattle attorney who represented Peter Torkild in the criminal case, said state investigators erred in using their regulatory subpoena powers instead of going to a judge to get a search warrant in the case.

For more, see Mortgage charges against Bellingham couple are dropped (Skagit judge says evidence was wrongly obtained).

.
Case # 44 - Ohio Federal Court
(added 5-9-08)
.
In Cincinnati, Ohio, WKRC-TV Channel 12 reports:
  • A Cincinnati police officer was arraigned in federal court [...] to answer to charges he swindled homeowners facing foreclosure. Adrian Mitchell, 35, faces 12 counts, including wire fraud, mail fraud and bank fraud. He is accused of operating a real estate business, R.I.C.H. Properties and/or R.I.C.H. Investments, which allegedly offered to help people in financial distress. Authorities say he [also] used a scheme to defraud the widow of a client out of $188,327.38 in benefits of a life insurance policy.

The foreclosure rescue deals were structured as sale leasbacks of the homes of financially strapped homeowners with the view that the homeowners would buy the homes back in the future.

Source: WKRC-TV Channel 12: Cincinnati Officer Pleads Not Guilty.

Regarding the charges related to the alleged fraudulently obtained mortgages in the foreclosure rescue deals, Mitchell was indicted for (see Indictment - Counts 5-12):

  1. bank fraud, and
  2. mail fraud (multiple counts).

To view the federal grand jury charges, see Indictment - U.S. v. Mitchell.

For other media reports:

.
Case # 43 - California State Court
(added 5-8-08)
.
In Southern California, The Press Enterprise reports:
  • Ten San Bernardino County residents face criminal charges of participating in a predatory lending scheme based in Rancho Cucamonga that generated more than $2 million in fraudulent mortgages. A lawsuit filed this week in San Bernardino County Superior Court alleges that the scam was headed by Andrew Whitaker, 52, of Alta Loma, who had a prior real estate-related felony conviction for which he served prison time.

  • Targets of the scheme described by Deputy District Attorney Larry Roberts were homeowners desperately trying to save their homes from foreclosure who thought they were obtaining refinancing but wound up selling their houses to straw buyers. In the process the remaining equity in their houses allegedly was stolen through inflated commissions, escrow charges and other fees.

Those charged are Andrew Webb Whitaker, Karren Marian Whitaker, Katrina Michelle Whitaker, Heather Nicole Whitaker, Mojgan Cox, Jesse Sinclair Cox, Juleanne Le Brooks, Phillip Parker, Jason Vince Harvey, and Andre Thomas Silva.

The defendants have been variously charged with the following (in some cases, multiple) offenses:

  1. Conspiracy,
  2. Forgery of a Deed,
  3. Filing a False Document,
  4. Loan Fraud,
  5. Money Laundering,
  6. Forgery of a Check.

For more, see:

.
Case # 42 - Various Federal Courts; California State Court
(added 3-27-08)
.

(Case #42 is a longer version of Case #24, appearing in Criminal Prosecutions Of Foreclosure Rescue Operators I.

In a December press release, Gregory A. White, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, announced that a federal Grand Jury in Cleveland returned a nine-count indictment charging three individuals and one property management company with various offenses involving fraud against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
.
Among the charges was a charge of equity skimming, in which, according to the press release:

  • The indictment [...] alleges that the defendants defrauded HUD by failing to make timely payments on the HUD-insured mortgages for [two housing projects], resulting in additional multi-million dollar losses to HUD. Moreover, the defendants used project funds to pay personal expenses and other unauthorized expenditures in violation of regulatory agreements between the projects and HUD. The total loss to HUD was more than $5 million.Charged in the indictment were Martin L. Shulman, 54, his wife, Gail R. Shulman, 53, Keyetta L. Williams, 35, and S.B.G. Management, Inc., the management company that the Shulmans operated.

While the facts in this case did not occur in the context of a foreclosure rescue situation, the Federal equity skimming statute can also apply in foreclosure rescue situations in which a foreclosure rescue operator goes around aquiring low or no-equity homes from financially strapped homeowners in exchange for a promise to make the payments on the existing mortgage, only to lease out the home, pocket the rent without applying it to the house payments, and allowing the mortgage to go into foreclosure. The foregoing is illustrated in the three Federal appeals court decisions listed below.

For more, see the U.S. Attorney News Release.

-----------------

For those looking for some Federal case law applying the federal equity skimming statute in cases where Federal authorities have prosecuted landlords / property owners who collected rent from houses and stiffed FHA-insured or VA-guaranteed mortgage lenders, see:

For a California state appellate court case convicting a property owner for pocketing rent while stiffing mortgage lenders and allowing houses to go into foreclosure, in violation of the state's rent skimming statute, Section 890 through Section 894 of the California Civil Code, see People v. Lapcheske (Cal. App. Ct. 1999) (may require free registration).

Go here for Sample Indictment -- Equity Skimming, 18 U.S.C. § 157 (Source: U.S. Attorney Criminal Resource Manual - Title 9 - #882).

.
Case # 41 - Virginia Federal Court
(added 3-25-08)
.
ABC World News Tonight with Charles Gibson ran a story on the spike in foreclosure rescue scams around the country. It featues a homeowner who was screwed out of the equity in her Richmond, Virginia home and reports that the foreclosure rescue operator ended up prosecuted by the Feds. An excerpt:
  • [The homeowner] says they [the foreclosure rescue operators] told her they would buy the house and let her live in it for a year rent free until she could rebuild her credit and buy it back. She says she signed off on their paperwork, but instead of honoring their agreement with Fowler, she says they sold the house to another party and Fowler was forced out. After the property was sold, Fowler says the mortgage company kept all the equity out of the home.

  • As part of the FBI investigation into the scheme, a Virginia woman, Anna Essex Thorne, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with the mortgage documents she executed to buy the home. [... The homeowner] hopes to someday see the restitution money the defendant in the case is supposed to pay her as part of the plea agreement.

For more, see 'Mortgage Rescue' Scams Hit Close to Home (Authorities Report a Spike in Scams Targeting Homeowners Facing Foreclosure). (read story) (watch video).

For additional background on the federal prosecution of Anna Essex Thorne for conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with a foreclosure rescue scam, see:

.
Case # 40 - California Federal Court
(added 3-24-08)
.
In Sacramento, California, media reports from KNXV-TV Channel 15 (Phoenix) and KCRA-TV Channel 3 (Sacramento), as well as an announcement by United States Attorney McGregor W. Scott (Eastern District, CA) report that foreclosure rescue operator Charles Head and his brother, Jeremy Michael Head, the alleged ringleaders of what prosecutors describe as a nationwide straw buyer, equity stripping, foreclosure scam operation involving over 100 homes, have been indicted along with 17 others.

For the indictments, see:

For several of the media reports, see:

Go here for earlier posts as well as available updates on the Head nationwide foreclosure rescue operation.

.
Case # 39 - California State Court
(added 3-22-08)
.
In Stanislaus County, California, The Modesto Bee reports that a loan agent and a friend have been charged with defrauding the friend's 81-year-old mother-in-law out of her home's equity in a refinancing scheme and thousands of dollars in annuities, causing her home to go into foreclosure. Susan Faustino, 49, and Diolinda M. Machado, 50, face felony charges of:
  1. grand theft,
  2. obtaining property under false pretenses,
  3. forgery, and
  4. making false financial statements.

There are 29 counts against Machado and 12 against Faustino. Machado also has a single count of embezzlement from an elder adult, her husband's mother, Mary Machado of Newman.

An excerpt from the story:

  • According to an affidavit filed with the criminal complaint, Diolinda Machado started taking out loans in January 2003 using her mother-in-law's home as collateral. The loans were in Mary Machado's name. The home had been paid off since 1996, according to the affidavit, filed by Glenn Gulley, a criminal investigator with the district attorney's office.

  • Diolinda Machado refinanced the January 2003 loan in May 2004, March 2005 and February 2006, and then got a reverse mortgage for the home in April 2007. Every refinancing, according to the affidavit, involved a different lender and title company. Mary Machado told Gulley that she approved the first loan to help her son Frank -- Diolinda's husband -- start a trucking business. She was unaware of the subsequent refinances, according to the affidavit, even though they had her signature.

For more, see Women charged in loan scheme.

.

Case # 38 - Ohio State Court
(added 3-21-08)

In Licking County, Ohio, The Newark Advocate reports that a Newark man has been indicted for 30 felony counts related to his alleged making of criminally false promises to 15 homeowners facing foreclosure. The man, Harry W. Blausey, 66, was charged with:

  1. 10 counts of grand theft, a fourth-degree felony;
  2. 14 counts of securing writings by deception, a fourth-degree felony;
  3. five counts of theft, a fifth-degree felony; and
  4. one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, a second-degree felony.

An excerpt from the story:

  • Licking County Prosecutor Ken Oswalt declined to discuss the specifics of Blausey’s alleged actions, but did say that the defendant preyed on their foreclosure concerns. “In most, if not all, of these (charges), he accepted from (the alleged victims) a quit claim deed,” he said. “They signed their property over to him based on the representations he was making. ... They would sign there property over to him thinking they would get a significant benefit in terms of avoiding foreclosure .. or walking away from the property.”

***

  • In addition to the 30-count indictment, Blausey is involved in 17 civil cases in the Licking County Common Pleas Court. Six of those cases involve plaintiffs named in the indictment.

For more, see:

See also, WBNS-TV Channel 10: Real Estate Agent Accused In Foreclosure Scheme.

Editor's Note:

A key point to be highlighted in this case is that, like many of the other cases in this post, there were multiple (presumably unrelated, unconnected) homeowners involving multiple properties that were allegedly screwed over. I think it's reasonable to presume that it's much easier for a prosecutor to present a case to a jury if there are multiple alleged victims prepared to testify essentially the same way in describing the conduct of one operator than if there is only one alleged victim testifying.

.
Case # 37 - Florida State Court
(added 3-18-08)
.
In what appears to involve an alleged straw buyer, equity stripping, foreclosure rescue scam, the Florida Office of Financial Regulation recently announced:
  • The Florida Office of Financial Regulation, the Ft. Lauderdale Police Department, and the Office of Statewide Prosecution announce the arrest of two individuals on charges of First Degree-Organized Scheme to Defraud over $1,000,000 from mortgage loan lenders. On Wednesday, March 5, 2008, Curt D. Francis, 37 and Tashina Latouche, 25 were arrested in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

  • Curt Francis and Tashina Latouche allegedly participated in a scheme to defraud mortgage lenders by providing false mortgage loan applications that included fraudulent employment verification forms, financial statements, and bank records. The applications also included HUD-1 settlement statements that investigators allege falsely stated that the buyers were using their own money to cover the closings. Multiple properties were involved from Broward and Miami-Dade County.

  • The scheme allegedly used people’s identity and good credit (ie. straw buyers) to obtain mortgages on properties facing foreclosure (ie. foreclosure rescue). Once the mortgages were approved, the properties were quit claimed back to the original owners .

For the press release, see see Two South Florida Residents Arrested For Mortgage Fraud.

.

Case # 36 - Utah State Court
(added 2-26-08)
.
A recent story by KUTV Channel 2 in Salt Lake City, Utah reported:
  • Seeking a resolution to their mortgage troubles, [an elderly couple] eagerly paid attention to [Residential Resolve owner Jeff] Wangsgard's proposal. A short time later, Wangsgard then accompanied the couple to a bank and paid $13,000 toward their delinquent mortgage payments. After Wangsgard's grand gesture, the Mittons signed some documents on the spot without really reading over the fine print. What they didn't know was that one of the documents was an "assignment of beneficial interest and land trust" -- which essentially handed over the home and property to Wangsgard. Believing that the documents were merely an application for a new loan arrangement, the [elderly couple was] shocked when, days later, Wangsgard showed up at their home with a locksmith and demanded that they leave. "He said, 'I'm here to evict you,'" June recalled. "'I'll give you some time to pack some clothes, then we are changing the locks.'"

The foreclosure rescue operator recently appeared in Davis County, Utah court and was charged with five felonies stemming from his dealings with the elderly couple and other clients. The charges against Wangsgard include:

  1. communications fraud, and
  2. exploitation of a vulnerable adult.

One of the key factors in bringing the charges in this case appears to be that there was more than one homeowner who was allegedly screwed out of their home by the same outfit. In this case, there were three unrelated incidents of homeowners allegedly getting scammed by the foreclosure rescue operator. Another excerpt from the story:

  • "Other people came forward," said assistant state attorney general Charlene Barlow. "If you have one occurrence, maybe someone is confused. But when you have two or three different people coming forward... it's a much easier case to present to a jury." The charges against Wangsgard are a direct result from the Mittons' case and two others that are similar in nature.

For the media report in this story, see How A Utah Couple Was Kicked Out Of Their Home By Mortgage "Helper." (read story) (watch video).

For an earlier blog post on this story, see Salt Lake City Foreclosure Rescue Operator Facing Five Felonies In Dubious Sale Leaseback Deals With Financially Strapped Homeowners.

.

Case # 35 - New York State Court
(added 2-26-08)
.
Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown announced earlier this month that an international businessman who resides in Manhattan has been charged with using a forged power of attorney to unlawfully obtain a $360,000 mortgage on his mother-in-law’s condominium in the Little Neck section of Queens. The defendant is accused of perpetrating an elaborate scheme to drain the equity from his mother-law’s Queens condo – allegedly going so far as duping her to believing he knew someone in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office who could help her when she became aware of the mortgage swindle.
.
The defendant, identified as Shih Siang Shawn Liao, 31, of Manhattan, was arraigned on charges of:
  • second-degree grand larceny,
  • second-degree criminal possession of stolen property,
  • second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument,
  • first-degree identity theft,
  • first degree falsifying business records, and
  • third-degree unlawful possession of personal identification information.
.
Editor's Note:
.
A reminder to those in New York State - while it didn't apply in this case, a charge of forgery doesn't appear to require that the act of forgery be done by the hand of the person being charged; fraudulently procuring the signature of another to an instrument which the signer has no intention of signing constitutes forgery on the part of the procurer. It is sufficient that the forgerer caused or procured it to be done. Why New York authorities haven't raised this issue in the context of foreclosure rescue transactions where financially strapped homeowners are unwittingly signing over the deeds to their homes, deeds that are intentionally slipped into a stack of legal documents described as "refinancing papers" is beyond me.
.
For those who want an illustration of what I'm talking about can read the New York Court of Appeals decision in Marden v. Dorthy, 160 N. Y. 39 (NY 1899).
.
This case has been recently cited by a Brooklyn trial court in

and also by a New York intermediate appellate court in

While over a century old, Marden v. Dorthy appears to still be valid precedent, based on the two recent cases citing it. Thanks to reader Jonathan Schloss for bringing the two 2007 cases to my attention.

For those outside New York State who are having problems with foreclosure rescue operators scamming trusting homeowners by slipping instruments of conveyance into "stacks of papers" and getting the homeowners to unwittingly sign those papers, you might want to check your state's criminal statutes and case law as it relates to forgery, criminal possession of forged instruments, securing writings by deception, and other similar sounding crimes to see if the law of your state is similar to that of New York in that an instrument containing an authentic signature can still be considered a forgery if the signer was somehow tricked into signing it.

.
Case # 34 - California State Court
(added 2-26-08)
.
A Mission Hills man already facing criminal charges involving alleged real estate foreclosure and investment fraud was charged with several more felony counts, including:
  1. grand theft,
  2. identity theft, and
  3. forgery

involving many victims in Santa Clarita. James Anthony Rojas, 51, faced 82 counts, all but three of them felonies.

.
The misdemeanor counts allege rent skimming.
.
Most of the crimes involve real estate foreclosure fraud, in which Rojas allegedly forged grant deeds to take over victims’ homes. Some of the victims had gone to Rojas for help with mortgage problems; most didn’t even know him until the forged grant deeds appeared.
.
For the media report, see Real Estate Advisor Faces 82 New Felony Counts (go here for .pdf version).
.
Case # 33 - New York State Court
(added 2-26-08)
.
Two brothers are charged with fraudulently selling the Cambria Heights home out from under a retired New York City correction officer suffering from dementia. A four-count indictment charges them and his brother with:
  1. second- and third-degree grand larceny and
  2. second- and third-degree criminal possession of stolen property.
For media report, see:

.

Case # 32 - Colorado State Court
(added 2-26-08)
.
This story involves an alleged refinancing scam (that did not involve a foreclosure rescue) in which an elderly woman unwittingly signed a deed to her house that was allegedly slipped into a stack of purported refinancing papers by the suspects. Allegedly, the suspects then pulled $30,000 out of the deal, created and gave the victim phony mortgage coupons, and had her make the monthly payment to their firm, Absolute Lending Solutions.

The three charged are Scott Steven Richardson, Thomas Sarantinos and Anthony Sarantinos. Each has been charged with theft from an at-risk adult. For the media reports on this story, see:
Case # 31 - Pennsylvania State Court
(added 2-5-08)


Moments before he was to be tried on fraud charges in connection with an alleged refinancing scam to cheat an elderly couple out of their home, Pennsylvania loan officer Constantine "Dean" Gekas pleaded guilty to:

  1. theft by unlawful taking, and
  2. two counts of false swearing

in exchange for a 2-year probation sentence. According to the prosecutor, the plea deal was designed to make the elderly couple's estate financially whole.

Gekas had the wife and husband, who were in their late 70s and early 80s, respectively, unwittingly sign the deed to their home over to him in what they thought was a home refinancing. Only later did the couple, who had to pay $500 a month on the loan, realize Gekas owned their house, according to the prosecutor. Investigators said the husband sent Gekas a $103,000 check to try to pay off the loan in April 2005, but Gekas refused to accept it. The couple stopped making the loan payments, and Gekas filed a landlord-tenant action to evict them.

For the earlier blog post on this story, see Loan Officer Cops Plea In Equity Stripping Of Unwitting Elderly Couple's Home.

For the original media report, see Man takes deal for probation in house theft (no longer available online).

See also, Former banker pleads guilty in fraud case (if link expires, try here).

Case # 30 - Ohio State Court
(added 1-23-08)

Buried at the end of a recent mortgage fraud article in The Cleveland Plain Dealer is the story of one foreclosure rescue scam that ripped off approximately $56,000 from a Clevland-area homeowner and resulted in an attempt to evict the homeowner. The foreclosure rescue group, Sammy Quick, 29, of Brook Park and Brian Cicerchi, 29, of Middleburg Heights, partners in First Primary Mortgage Inc., and Lesley Loney, 34, of North Ridgeville were all arrested in the scam. According to the story, Loney pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of property and testified against Quick and Cicerchi. She was sentenced to 12 months probation and fined $1,000.

Quick and Cicerchi were convicted in a jury trial this month. Both were found guilty of:

  1. theft by deception,
  2. securing a writing by deception, and
  3. telecommunications fraud.

Quick was also found guilty of mortgage broker prohibitions and receiving stolen property. They are scheduled for sentencing next month.

Source: Loose lending rules gave criminals chance to flourish.


Case # 29 - Nevada State Court
(added 1-14-08)

A Nevada man is accused of approaching homeowners facing foreclosure, getting them to sign away their homes in exchange for a promise to square away the problems with their defaulted mortgages and pay them a few bucks on top (presumably the homeowners had little equity in their homes). The suspect reportedly then rented out the homes to tenants - at least some on a rent-to-own basis - and stiffed the lender out of its mortgage payments, pocketing the tenant rent money in the process.

He faces multiple felony counts of:
  1. offering a false document for filing or recording,
  2. theft of property by false pretenses,
  3. theft of property by false pretenses from victims over the age of 60, and
  4. forgery.
For Criminal Complaint, see State of Nevada v. Marlon.

For local Las Vegas media reports, see:

For blog post on this story, see Las Vegas Man Facing Multiple Felony Counts In Rent Skimming, Rent To Own Scam; Targeted Homeowners Facing Foreclosure & Unwitting Renters.

Case # 28 - California State Court
(added 1-14-08)

The Santa Clara district attorney obtained indictments against a Realtor and a broker with a now-defunct real estate brokerage for allegedly getting a financially strapped homeowner behind in his mortgage payments to unwittingly sign away his home in a straw buyer / refinancing scam.

According to a recent media report in the Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal:

  • [Santa Clara County] Prosecutors have filed three cases, involving eight defendants, related to the subprime real estate scandal. Other cases are being investigated, involving 26 defendants. Four of the defendants have fled and are still at large. But these three cases are just the beginning. Assistant district attorney Stephen Gibbons, who heads up the district attorney's Economic Crimes Unit, says his office has 18 more cases under investigation, involving 23 possible suspects -- and 22 victims.

For the media report, see Santa Clara district attorney targets subprime loan scandal.

Case # 27 - New Jersey State Court
(added 1-14-08)

The Burlington County Times recently reported that, according to the Burlington County, NJ Prosecutor's Office:

  • A New Jersey man is being accused of contacting individuals whose properties were in foreclosure and offered to help them save their homes through renegotiating, refinancing and reassignment of mortgages. The suspect was paid between $400 and $3,700 by each homeowner but did not do any work. As a result, the victims either lost their homes or declared bankruptcy. There are 77 victims, 55 of which were Burlington County residents.

As a result of the alleged theft from his customers, the suspect will reportedly face charges of:

  1. theft by deception,
  2. forgery, and
  3. securing execution of documents by deception.
For the media report, see Judge says businessman will face two trials.

See also, Two trials ordered in Mount Laurel fraud case (The Courier-Post Online).

For the blog post on this story, see South Jersey Upfront Fee Foreclosure Rescue Operator Facing Felony Charges.

Wednesday, January 2, 2008

California Foreclosure Investors Get Big Win In State Appeals Court

A California state appeals court in a recent decision held that, under the California Home Equity Sales Contract Act, the bond requirement under Civil Code Section 1695.17 for an equity purchaser's [foreclosure investor's] representative is "void for vagueness under the due process clause and may not be enforced."

The case involved a homeowner facing foreclosure who sued to void a deed in a transaction in which he sold his home to an investor the day before a foreclosure sale. The sale was one that fell within the scope of the California Home Equity Sales Contract Act which, among a slew of other things, requires that a representative acting as intermediary on behalf of a foreclosure investor be bonded for an amount equal to twice the fair market value of the property being sold. The trial court agreed with the homeowner, ruled in favor of voiding the deed, and the foreclosure investor filed an appeal.

In reversing the lower court decision, the California appeals court analyzed the provision in the law requiring the bond, the applicable case law, and ultimately ruled as follows:

  • We are convinced that the amorphous requirement of section 1695.17, requiring proof the representative is "bonded by an admitted surety insurer in an amount equal to twice the fair market value of the real property which is the subject of the contract," provides no guidance on the amount, the obligee, the beneficiaries, the terms or conditions of the bond, the delivery and acceptance requirements, or the enforcement mechanisms of the required bond. Instead, persons of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at what the statute requires for them to comply with its obligations. Under these circumstances, the bond requirement of section 1695.17 is void for vagueness under the due process clause and may not be enforced.

After additional analysis, the appeals court further ruled that its finding of unconstitutionality was limited strictly to the bonding requirement found in Section 1695.17. The other provisions of the statute remain unaffected.

This decision becomes effective on January 14, 2007. However, should the homeowner appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court (and the court decides to hear the case), the decision will not go into effect until the state high court rules on the matter.

To view the appeals court decision, see Schweitzer v. Westminster Investments (may require free registration; available online courtesy of FindLaw.com).

Editor's Note:

The importance of this decision to those in California can be measured by looking to those who jumped into the litigation as "friends of the court" in this case. The office of the California Attorney General filed a "friend of the court" brief supporting the homeowner's position; on behalf of those who represent foreclosure investors (ie. real estate agents) as well as the foreclosure investor itself, the California Association of Realtors filed an amicus brief.

Does this case now mean that it's "open season" on California homeowners facing foreclosure, with licensed real estate agents and unlicensed foreclosure investor "bird dogs" coming out of the woodwork on behalf of investors (both those who buy property outright, as well as the foreclosure rescue operators offering sale leaseback arrangements)?

If the California Supreme Court decides to hear an appeal (assuming one is filed), and the state legislature acts quickly enough to correct the perceived constitutional infirmities in the statute while the appeal is pending, then maybe not. Otherwise, ... ???

Thanks to Ontario, California attorney Tim Liebaert with the firm Ritchie, Klinkert, McCallion & Liebaert for the "heads-up" on this case and the input for this post. For more on Tim Liebaert, see Southern California Woman Alleged Victim Of Home Theft, Mortgage Broker Arrested.

Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Homestead Waiver Declared Invalid; Big Win For Florida Homeowners As State Exemption From Forced Sale Dodges Bullet

In Florida, The Associated Press reports:

  • A 1985 amendment to the Florida Constitution does not allow debtors to waive a long-standing ban on the forced sale of their homes to pay off unsecured creditors, the state Supreme Court ruled [last month]. The justices unanimously rejected an appeal by Miami lawyer Deborah Chames. She had obtained a $33,206.76 judgment for legal fees against a former divorce client, Henry DeMayo, and a lien against his home. The 3rd District Court of Appeal reversed the lien even though the retainer agreement DeMayo signed included a waiver of a constitutional provision exempting primary homes from forced sales.

  • For more than a century, the [Florida] Supreme Court has held that the exemption cannot be waived. In the new opinion the justices wrote the amendment that expands the exemption to any "natural person," not just heads of families, doesn't change the legal precedent prohibiting waivers.

  • Chames argued the amendment also turned the exemption into a personal right that can be waived. Justice Raoul Cantero wrote for the court that there's no indication voters intended to do that when they approved the amendment. "We find the amendment to the homestead exemption a slim reed on which to recede from 123 years of precedent," Cantero wrote.
Source: Ban remains on forced home sales by unsecured creditors.

To view the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, see Chames v. DeMayo (Fla. 12-20-07).

Go here to watch the oral arguments in the Florida Supreme Court, in which some members of the court, among other things, expressed serious concerns about the possible ethical and conflict of interest problems that may arise when an attorney asks a client to sign away their homestead rights as part of entering into a retainer agreement.

-------------

In this case, I think it is important to observe that the homeowner came very close to losing equity in his home by reason of his former attorney attempting to enforce her money judgment against him for unpaid legal fees as a lien on his home. The circuit court initially considering the matter ruled in favor of the attorney. Further, the Florida appellate court initially ruled, in a split decision, to affirm the circuit court's decision in favor of the attorney. It was only as a result of a motion for a rehearing, and a strongly worded dissent, that the appeals court reconsidered the matter, withdrew its original decision, and issued a unanimous decision in favor of the homeowner. The two judges originally voting against the homeowner joined in a concurring opinion as to result only (and which reads like a dissenting opinion) in the revised decision in which they acknowledged that they were duty bound to apply the existing Florida high court precedent, but added that they disagreed with the outcome in this case, believing that the precedent was, in effect, obsolete. They proceeded to certify, as a question of great public importance, the issue to the Florida high court, which agreed to hear the case.

See also Hold De Mayo!, in the Oct. 2006 edition of the newsletter of The Coral Gables Bar Association.

The point here is that if the homeowner didn't have the ability to appeal the erroneous circuit court opinion in the first place (homeowners asserting their homestead rights against creditors typically are in financial trouble and don't have the money to retain an attorney to represent them), DeMayo, like most financially strapped homeowners, would have been "dead in the water."

I note that the attorney of record representing the homeowner, Henry DeMayo, in both appeals (and presumably in the circuit court proceeding as well), was an attorney named Sophie DeMayo. As it turns out, attorney DeMayo is homeowner DeMayo's sister. It appears likely that homeowner DeMayo did not have the financial wherewithal to proceed in this matter if he had to retain and pay for an attorney, but may have been lucky enough to be able to seek and rely on the largesse of attorney DeMayo, his sister (who, by the way, actually "confessed" to the court at the start of her oral argument that she was not a civil litigator), to defend his homestead rights. I think it's undeniable that most homeowners in Mr. DeMayo's shoes don't have an attorney in the family, and accordingly (and as noted above), would be "dead in the water" as it relates to defending their home equity against an attempt to impose a judgment lien on their home by a creditor.

I further note that this case, once it reached the Florida Supreme Court, got the serious attention of the office of the Florida Attorney General; and both the Real Property Probate and Trust Law Section and the Business Law Section of The Florida Bar, as all three jumped into the fray by filing amicus briefs in the matter supporting the homeowner's position - (1) RPP&T Law Section amicus brief, (2) Business Law Section amicus brief, (3) Florida AG amicus brief (even some in The Florida Bar apparently had a problem with the signing away of homestead rights in the manner described in this case).

Hopefully, as a result of this case, Florida attorneys who get their clients to (unwittingly or otherwise) sign away their homstead rights as part of entering into a retainer agreement will stop the practice. If those attorneys are so concerned with whether their clients will be able to foot their legal bill, they should simply ask the clients for a mortgage on their homes as collateral for the unpaid fees that have accrued or may accrue in the future - homestead rights don't protect a homeowner against the lien of a mortgage, or a mortgage foreclosure sale. Mortgage foreclosure sales in Florida are not considered "forced sales" in the context of the homestead exemption. See Patterson vs. Taylor, 15 Fla. 336 (Fla. 1875); Hart v. Sanderson's Administrators, 18 Fla. 103 (Fla. 1881); Carter's Administrators v. Carter, 20 Fla. 558 (Fla. 1884). (On this point, I will add that, while the Florida Constitution doesn't prohbit an attorney from having a client sign a mortgage as collateral security for legal fees, there possibly could be a question as to its permissiblility in terms of professional legal ethics, judging by Justice Pariente's response during oral arguments in this case when she learned - apparently for the first time - that there were attorneys out there having clients pledging their homes to attorneys to secure payment of fees.)

I recognize that it's much easier to get homeowners to sign a waiver of their homestead rights than it is to get them to sign a mortgage to secure legal fees since most are (1) unaware of the ramifications, and/or (2) preoccupied with the specific legal problem that they are seeking legal counsel for in the first place. However, the fact that it's so much easier to get a homeowner to sign a waiver of their homestead rights is precisely the reason why Florida law has prohibited it for 120+ years, and as the Florida high court in this case has once again (and hopefully, once and for all) reminded us.

Editor's Note:

The Florida homestead exemption at issue in this case is the exemption that protects a Florida resident's home from a forced sale by an unsecured creditor who obtains and attempts to enforce a money judgment against a debtor's home. The law can be found in Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution. The implementing statute for this constitutional provision can be found in Chapter 222 of the Florida Statutes.

This exemption is often confused (by both Florida attorneys and non-attorneys alike) with a real property tax exemption available to Florida homeowners. This tax exemption provides for, among other things, the first $25,000 of assessed value in a home to be exempted from the imposition of real estate taxes. The law dealing with this exemption, which is also referred to as a homestead exemption, can be found in Article VII, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution. The implementing statute for this constitutional provision can be found in Chapter 196 of the Florida Statutes.

While the obvious common link between the two exemptions is that they are both benefits granted to Florida homeowners by the state Constitution, the exemptions, and the provisions granting these benefits, are separate, distinct, and operate completely independently of each other (ie. one exemption has nothing to do with the other - notwithstanding what more than a few Florida attorneys - and Florida circuit court judges - may say and think).

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Title Transfer To Bona Fide Purchaser Devolving From Forged Instrument Held Void; Mortgage Also Voided

In Toronto, Canada, The Toronto Star reports:

  • For Paul Reviczky, a 90-year-old victim of mortgage fraud, it's the best possible ending to a two-year nightmare. In a precedent-setting decision, Ontario superior court has taken another step toward protecting victims like Reviczky from being on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The court ruled this week that the Hungarian immigrant isn't responsible for the $300,000 mortgage taken out on his home, after it was sold in 2005 without his knowledge.

***

  • The decision is the first of its kind in the province since a landmark Court of Appeal ruling in February. That decision found that even a bona fide purchaser can't legally buy property from a fraudster.

  • This decision expands on the previous one by finding that a $300,000 mortgage, obtained by the people who purchased Reviczky's home, was invalid because the basis for the transaction was a fake power of attorney document forged by the fraudsters who sold the elderly man's home.

***

  • Justice John Macdonald's ruling hands the weighty bill back to the mortgage dispenser, which is HSBC and its insurer (presumably the title insurance underwriter).

For more, see Man, 90, off hook for loan: Court (Landmark ruling lifts $300,000 burden).

To view the decision of the Ontario Superior Court, see Reviczky v. Meleknia, et al. (pdf format; go here for html format - contains embedded links to the relevant Canadian statutes; cases available online courtesy of the Canadian Legal Information Institute).

For follow-up stories, see:

For those looking to get some idea of what the concept of "bona fide purchaser" is all about, see The Bona Fide Purchaser for Value of a Legal Estate Without Notice, and then check the case law of your home state to see how your state's judiciary has applied the legal principles that underlie "bona fide purchaser" status.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Ohio Feds Indict Landlord On Equity Skimming, Other Charges; Allegedly Pocketed Tenant Rent & Allowed HUD-Insured Mortgages To Go Into Default

In a recent press release, Gregory A. White, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, announced that a federal Grand Jury in Cleveland returned a nine-count indictment charging three individuals and one property management company with various offenses involving fraud against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Among the charges was a charge of equity skimming, in which, according to the press release:

  • The indictment [...] alleges that the defendants defrauded HUD by failing to make timely payments on the HUD-insured mortgages for [two housing projects], resulting in additional multi-million dollar losses to HUD. Moreover, the defendants used project funds to pay personal expenses and other unauthorized expenditures in violation of regulatory agreements between the projects and HUD. The total loss to HUD was more than $5 million.Charged in the indictment were Martin L. Shulman, 54, his wife, Gail R. Shulman, 53, Keyetta L. Williams, 35, and S.B.G. Management, Inc., the management company that the Shulmans operated.

For more, see the U.S. Attorney News Release.

-----------------

For those looking for some Federal case law applying the federal equity skimming statute in cases where Federal authorities have prosecuted landlords / property owners who collected rent from houses and stiffed FHA-insured or VA-guaranteed mortgage lenders, see:

For a California state appellate court case convicting a property owner for pocketing rent while stiffing mortgage lenders and allowing houses to go into foreclosure, in violation of the state's rent skimming statute, Section 890 through Section 894 of the California Civil Code, see People v. Lapcheske (Cal. App. Ct. 1999) (may require free registration).

Go here for Sample Indictment -- Equity Skimming, 18 U.S.C. § 157 (Source: U.S. Attorney Criminal Resource Manual - Title 9 - #882).

Thursday, December 20, 2007

More Publicity For NYC "Home Savers" Rescue Operator

In New York City, WABC-TV Channel 7 ran a follow-up story on Monday on the now well-known area foreclosure rescue operator, Home Savers Consulting Corp. Two separate criminal investigations are reportedly (still) underway into the rescue firm. Channel 7 investigative reporter Sarah Wallace speaks with two more homeowners who fell victim to the alleged equity stripping scam orchestrated by Home Savers' principal, Phil Simon, by unwittingly signing over their homes to a straw buyer.

Channel 7 was able to catch up with Phil Simon (I mean, they literally caught up with him - when Simon saw the Channel 7 camera, he started running away. Wallace, with microphone in hand and camera person in tow, chased Simon down a Brooklyn street before he relented and consented to speak to her). Simon had little to say, however, other than to refer questions to his attorney. Home Savers' co-principal, Garth Celestine, was conspicuous by his absence in this report.

For the transcript of the story, and the link to the Channel 7 video, see Homes stolen by 'Home Savers'? (Heartbroken people lose homes, equity to "Home Savers").

For the earlier Channel 7 report on Home Savers which aired in late November, see A Home Mortgage Mess (transcript) (video).

Go here for other posts on Home Savers Consulting Corp, including links to a couple of the civil lawsuits it has been recently facing.

For a related post, see Foreclosure Rescue - For Criminal Prosecutors Only.

Editor's Note:

According to, what at one time, was the law in the State of New York (see Marden v. Dorthy, 160 N. Y. 39 (NY 1899)):

  • fraudulently procuring the signature of another to an instrument which he has no intention of signing constituted forgery on the part of the procurer. It was not necessary that the act of forgery be done by the hand of the person being charged. It was sufficient that the forgerer caused or procured it to be done; and
  • if the scammed homeowner, during all the time covered by the fraudulent transactions, was in possession of the real property in question, the legal effect of the homeowner's possession constituted notice of the homeowner's rights to the property to all the world, including subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers.

If this is still the law in New York, state and local law enforcement authorities may have grounds to charge these foreclosure rescue operators with forgery. Further, inasmuch as it is generally considered that a forged deed is void, it conveys no title. Accordingly, the scammed homeowners would still own their homes. The burden of the foreclosure rescue scam would be borne by the foreclosure rescue operator, the straw buyer, and the financial institution who financed the equity stripping transaction (and, possibly, the title underwriter who issued the owner and the mortgagee title insurance policies).

If anyone knows for sure that Marden v. Dorthy no longer is reflective of New York law, please drop me a line at HomeEquityTheft@yahoo.com and enlighten me as to why not (while I understand that the case is over 100 years old, that in itself doesn't make the case obsolete. Unlike a loaf of bread, court decisions of the highest court of the state don't grow stale by the mere passage of time).

One final note. Even if the deed is not considered a forgery, the foreclosure rescue transaction would still have to withstand scrutiny as an equitable mortgage (and, depending on how much profit the operator pocketed, the claim may be that of a usurious equitable mortgage). Possession by the homeowner throughout the transaction would appear to, as noted above, constitute "notice to the world" of the scammed homeowner's rights in the home, thereby denying "bona fide purchaser / bona fide encumbrancer" status to the straw buyer, the lending institution financing the deal, or anyone else who subsequently acquired an interest in the home.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Bear, EMC Accused Of Race Discrimination, Civil Rights Violations In Mortgage Servicing Suit; Class Action Status Sought

A lawsuit filed in a New Haven, Connecticut Federal Court last week alleges that Wall Street investment banking firm Bear Stearns and its EMC Mortgage servicing unit engaged in:

  • "[r]acially discriminatory practices ... in servicing near-prime and sub-prime residential home loans" and claims that "EMC and Bear Stearns intentionally sought out non-prime loans, predominanly made to Hispanics and African Americans, in order to reap profits from their predatory servicing practices."

The predatory servicing practices complained of in the suit include:

  • "[t]he imposition of unwarranted fees and costs, the pyramiding of late fees, the unjustifiable force-placing of insurance, the failure to properly credit payments, the unwarranted reporting of derogatory information regarding borrowers to credit reporting agencies, and the failure to properly administer escrow accounts."

Representing the homeowners are the firms Butler Norris & Gold, Hartford, Connecticut, and James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich PA., Tampa, Florida.

To view the lawsuit:

See also, Bear Stearns Mortgage Unit Accused of Predatory Loan Servicing (Bloomberg News).

Go here for:

Monday, December 17, 2007

Mortgage Servicer Improperly Clips Consumer For $50K+ Violating Class Action Settlement, Says Lawsuit

According to a lawsuit recently filed in a West Virginia state court, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (the firm formerly known as Fairbanks Capital Corp.) is being accused of collecting over $50,000 more than what was due from a West Virginia homeowner, whose mortgage balance had been previously reduced pursuant to a legal settlement in a previously litigated class action lawsuit. The current lawsuit, filed on November 14, 2007, alleges among other things:

  • "The Defendant [Select] failed to follow the ordered new payoff schedule consistent with the reduced loan. Despite the Court Order, the Defendant continued to treat the entirety of the loan as due, and have month-by-month demanded the full payment. Since January 2001, the Defendant has sent over eighty-two demands for payment that misrepresent the total amount due."

In a procedural maneuver, counsel for Select filed a request last week to move the case from the state court to a West Virginia Federal Court.

Representing the consumer is attorney Daniel F. Hedges, Charleston, West Virginia.

To view the lawsuit, see Helen B. Moss v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. f/k/a Fairbanks Capital Corp.

To view the request to move the case, see Notice of Removal.

For posts on questionable mortgage servicing practices, go here and go here.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

CNN On Foreclosure Rescue

Some time ago, the CNN business program Open House with Gerri Willis featured a Florida couple facing foreclosure and their experience when they unwittingly signed over their home to a title-holding land trust in a deal arranged by foreclosure rescue operator Jack Moussa and his Florida Housing Council ("FHC"). Interviewed for the piece was Florida attorney David Silverstone, who represents the homeowners in a lawsuit against Moussa and FHC in which Silverstone seeks to void the deed transfer, alleging that the foreclosure rescue transaction was a disguised loan that violates the Federal Truth In Lending Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and the Florida usury statute. Based on the transaction the homeowners entered into with Moussa, Silverstone claims that the return on investment on the disguised loan was 300%, more than the maximum amount allowed by Florida law.

To watch the video, see Rescue or Ripoff? (Open House with Gerri Willis; CNN).

Go here for other posts on Florida foreclosure rescue operator Jack Moussa and the Florida Housing Council.

--------------------
Editor's Note:

There is plenty of case law in Florida (and other places as well) that can be used to support a court's decision to recharacterize sale-leaseback foreclosure rescue deals as (possibly usurious?) secured loans / equitable mortgages. Go here for more on the Florida case law on equitable mortgage (some of which also addresses usury) to consider how the case law may be applied to foreclosure rescue transactions structured as a sale leaseback, or variations thereof, with a right to buy back the property in the future.

It may only be a matter of time before the Florida Attorney General's Office "steps up to the plate" and begins to prosecute foreclosure rescue operators who offer sale leaseback programs for violating Florida's usury statutes:
  • Civil usury - Section 687.03, which currently sets a maximum 18% per annum interest, and applies to advances up to $500,000;
  • Criminal misdemeanor usury - Section 687.071(2), generally applies on interest willfully and knowingly charged in excess of 25% per annum but not exceeding 45% per annum;
  • Criminal felony usury - Section 687.071(3), generally applies to interest willfully and knowingly charged in excess of 45% per annum.
  • Debt unenforceable - Section 687.071(7) states that a loan made in violation of the Florida criminal usury statute is unenforceable.
For more on foreclosure rescue and equity stripping arrangements, generally, see DREAMS FORECLOSED: The Rampant Theft of Americans' Homes Through Equity-stripping Foreclosure 'Rescue' Scams (4.61 MB approx.). florida equitable mortgage alpha

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Ohio State Court Judge Halts Foreclosure; Lender Fails To Prove Ownership Of Mortgage Loan

In Hamilton County, Ohio, The Enquirer (Cincinnati) reports:

  • [A] Hamilton County Common Pleas Court judge ruled that Wells Fargo Bank couldn't foreclose on [ a couple's] North College Hill home because its lawyers didn't prove that Wells Fargo was the legal owner of the mortgage.

  • The judge said the foreclosure lawsuit was filed before Wells Fargo owned the mortgage - thus, the suit was premature. The ruling - the first of its kind by a state court judge in Ohio since the subprime mortgage crisis erupted this year - could have profound implications on how foreclosures are handled in Ohio, which leads the nation in the percentage of mortgages in foreclosure. The local ruling comes as three federal court judges - in Cleveland, Dayton and Columbus - have issued similar opinions in foreclosure cases in the last month.

***

  • The [legal] issue [involved] is known as the "real party in interest" rule, which says that a plaintiff must prove that it has a stake in a lawsuit in order to file it. As millions of subprime mortgages are sold and resold on Wall Street, the real "party in interest" isn't always obvious. Often, the holder of the mortgage note - the legal document that gives a lender the right to take someone's home for not making loan payments - is different from the servicing company, or the bank that takes the mortgage payments.

***

  • "It is troubling that the plaintiff has filed this case before it had any interest in it," Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Steven E. Martin said in a letter to Wells Fargo's lawyer. Martin then took the unusual step of ordering that the bank's law firm must file proof that its clients actually own the mortgages before filing any new foreclosure actions in Hamilton County. That firm, The Law Offices of John D. Clunk, based in Hudson, Ohio - is the third-largest filer of foreclosure actions in Hamilton County, with 48 properties scheduled for foreclosure sales in the next six weeks.

For more, see Judge halts foreclosures (Says banks must prove they hold mortgages) (if link expires, try here).

For other posts on this issue, either go here, or see:

------------------

Qustion for Attorneys:

Assume that there have already been foreclosure sales that have taken place (in which homeowners have already lost their homes) where the party initiating the foreclosure was not the "real party in interest" and the judge didn't catch the error.

  • Wouldn't the fact that the wrong party brought the foreclosure action make the final judgment in the case "void?"

  • If the judgment is void, doesn't that make everything that happened in the case after the judgment (including the actual foreclosure sale) void as well?

  • If the foreclosure sale in a situation like this is void, doesn't that mean that the purchaser at the foreclosure sale (and any subsequent purchaser - even a so-called "bona fide purchaser for value") acquired no title whatsoever, and that title to the home is technically still with the financially strapped homeowner (even though he or she may not realize it - yet),

  • If the answer to all of the above is "Yes," isn't there a significant problem with the real estate titles involving all these foreclosed homes in which the wrong party (one other than the "real party in interest") brought the foreclosure action?

If any attorney wants to substantively chime in on these questions (especially consumer and real estate attorneys, as well as attorneys with or representing title insurance companies), please feel free to drop me a line at HomeEquityTheft@yahoo.com. I would love to hear the observations.