December 28, 2010

_________________
_________________
_________________

Re: Fraudulent Foreclosure Affidavits

Dear Judge _________________,

On September 28, October 18, and October 29, 2010, I wrote to you and the other
presiding and administrative judges of the Ohio Courts of Common Pleas, noting widespread
questions about the accuracy of affidavits filed in foreclosure cases by GMAC Mortgage, Bank
of America, JPMorgan Chase, PNC, Wells Fargo and others. I am writing to update you on
developments in this area.

In my last letter, I asked you to send my office affidavits signed by robo-signers as well
as any motions you received from foreclosure counsel to submit a new affidavit or ratify a
foreclosure judgment. A number of you have done so, and I thank you for helping us keep track
of the situation. Our office is deciding whether and how to take action in these individual cases.

Several courts have taken their own actions to address this situation. The Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas has issued a policy on foreclosure affidavits, recommending that
its judges issue an order requiring a lender who submitted a robo-signed affidavit, pre or post-
judgment, to show cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice. In the future,
counsel for a lender in a foreclosure proceeding must sign an affidavit attesting that counsel has
reviewed the file and confirmed with his or her client that the client reviewed the file. The
policy, which is currently under review, and template affidavit are available at
http://cp.cuyahogacounty.us/internet/Foreclosure.aspx.

Judge Charles Pater of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas issued an order
denying GMAC’s motion to ratify a judgment because “neither the Ohio Civil Rules nor the
local rules of this court provide a procedure for or authorize a court to ‘ratify’ a final appealable
order” and stating that “the proper course of action would be for GMAC to first file a motion to
set aside its judgment and then, once the court grants that motion, to refile its motion for
summary judgment with a correctly executed affidavit in support.” Judge Pater’s order is
attached to this letter. As I stated in my October 29 letter, “it is improper for the plaintiff to ask
the court to ratify a foreclosure judgment based on a false affidavit after the fact by simply
substituting or supplementing what plaintiff now claims is a proper affidavit.” Rather, I believe
vacating the judgment is the proper way to handle these cases, as it removes a judgment based on
a false affidavit and gives the homeowner an opportunity to contest a new motion for default or
summary judgment.
 Judge Nancy Russo of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas has scheduled a
hearing requiring a foreclosure plaintiff “to provide the court with proof of integrity of all
documents submitted.” Our office has intervened in the case, US Bank, NA v. Renfro, Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-10-716322.

Judge John Bender of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas issued an order in a
foreclosure case requiring that foreclosure counsel “personally certify the authenticity and
accuracy of all documents submitted in support of judgment.”

Judge Andrew Logan of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas sent a letter to
foreclosure counsel requiring that affidavits state that the signatory “has personal knowledge of
the file and has personally reviewed the documents.”

On the litigation front, my lawsuit against GMAC Mortgage continues. GMAC removed
the case to federal court, and the case is now in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio. I also continue to work with the 50-state multi-state investigation of robo-
signing, and we are meeting with a number of interested parties to attempt to craft a solution that
benefits both homeowners and lenders.

As I have stated before, I urge you to review affidavits in foreclosure cases very closely.
Sanctions for filing fraudulent evidence may well be appropriate, and this financial exposure
could lead plaintiffs in foreclosure cases to seek negotiated resolutions rather than proceeding to
judgment. I will continue to keep you updated on any further developments.

Please feel free to contact me or Susan Choe, my Consumer Protection Section Chief, at
614-466-1305, if we can provide any further information about these issues. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Richard Cordray
Ohio Attorney General

CC:
Sarah Lynn, Deputy Chief Counsel, Ohio Attorney General
Susan Choe, Consumer Protection Section Chief, Ohio Attorney General