Cochrane: Deutsch Unraveled — COMPLEXITY COVERS FRAUD

Posted on May 17, 2011 by Neil Garfield

Posted on May 17, 2011 by MARIO KENNY| Leave a comment

Rate This

Via Neil Garfield of www.livinglies.wordpress.com

Now they are trying it again, with the help of the NY FED. The characterization of the loan models as
―originate and distribute‖ gives the impression that the loans were underwritten first and then
distributed pursuant to a securitization plan. They are again retreating to complexity to cover up a
simple theft. The truth is that the model was not ―originate and distribute‖ it was ―sell and originate‖
without any distribution (no transfers made) except for the distribution of cash without regard to the
documents or their actions. — Neil Garfield
Instead, borrowers are being required to rely on sources like this blog and others as well as obtaining
as much proof of the credibility of their defenses BEFORE the would-be forecloser even pleads or
proves a case. And that is why the services offered on this blog are necessary — not because the law
requires it but because the law is being applied contrary to the requirements of due process and basic
elements of jurisdiction and standing. — Neil Garfield
EDITOR‘S COMMENT: This information is valuable as it lays out much of the relationships, duties
and obligations of Deutsch in the securitization illusion. The assumption in most quarters has been
that this kind of complexity was necessary because the derivatives that were constructed were highly
sophisticated innovative instruments that called for a complex rendering of the movement of money
and the participation of parties.
When I was on Wall Street we were laying the groundwork for these instruments and I even created
them in the marketplace. This sort of complexity means only one thing: they are hiding something.
The advantage in using a structure so complex is that the Buyer of any derivative, CDO, synthetic
CDO, credit default swap, insurance contract or guarantee will have no idea what to make of the
substance and procedure that is created in these relationships. Alan Greenspan admitted in A TV
interview that with 100 of the smartest PhD‘s on his staff they couldn‘t understand these instruments
either.
In complexity the advantage is with the Seller. By creating asymmetric access to information and
intent, the Buyer is forced to rely on the Seller‘s representations and reputation as to what the
documents mean, who the players are and what they are doing. By buying off the rating agencies and
the appraisers of real property, the securitizers on Wall Street created the perfect crime. They created
the appearance of safety while they were planting demolition bombs under the structure, selling the
deal to investors and borrowers with full knowledge that the whole thing would collapse because that
was the intent.
When you don‘t need to guess what will happen next, the selling process changes. You can sell the
same thing over and over again, and bet against its success without ever having to account for the
money that was advanced by investors or the homes that were put up as collateral by homeowners —
all of whom were relying upon the expertise and sophistication of financial institutions that were
over 100 years old, combined with quasi public rating agencies and appraisals that were confirmed
by ―lenders‖ who turned out to be originators.
By retaining the power to unilaterally declare a pool in default or a loan in default or a trust to have
lost value or viability, Wall Street kept its hand on the gun and pulled the trigger as often as it
wanted. With the regulators and legislators completely bewildered and compromised by lobbying
dollars and job prospects, and the consumers (investor-lenders and homeowner-borrowers) equally
perplexed but hearing what they needed to go ahead, Wall Street was able to create the appearance of
―free choice‖ when in fact they were simply stealing through the use of fraud and deception.
Now they are trying it again, with the help of the NY FED. The characterization of the loan models as
―originate and distribute‖ gives the impression that the loans were underwritten first and then
distributed pursuant to a securitization plan. They are again retreating to complexity to cover up a
simple theft. The truth is that the model was not ―originate and distribute‖ it was ―sell and originate‖
without any distribution (no transfers made) except for the distribution of cash without regard to the
documents or their actions.
The tragedy of the American home crisis is that the burden of proof was successfully shifted to the
people with the least information and the leasts access to information — the ac tual homeonwers who
were bewildered by an array of more than 400 loan products and the invetors who were confronted
by a bewildering array of documents, relationships and contracts that inured not to their benefit but
to the benefit of those who sold them the bogus mortgage bonds that wer empty when they were sold,
are empty now, and will always be empty.
In court, the party seeking affirmative relief is the party looking to take the home away from the
owners. In all cases except foreclosure the party seeking affirmative relief is held to the standard
burden of proof — i.e., they must plead and prove their case not with representations an affidavits
from their attorneys but with real witnesses and real documents.
Instead, borrowers are being required to rely on sources like this blog and others as well as obtaining
as much proof of the credibility of their defenses BEFORE the would-be forecloser even pleads or
proves a case. And that is why the services offered on this blog are necessary — not because the law
requires it but because the law is being applied contrary to the requirements of due process and basic
elements of jurisdiction and standing.
Inside United States what‘s Deutsche Bank got to do … got to do with it? Terminator!
As Intermediary Funder ‗DB Structured Products, Inc.‘ and a registered member of MERS – DB
STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, Inc. has everything to do with it! In fact, they are the actual unrelated
third party in agreements with coconspirators who harmed economy, third element of our national
security, and our great nation. Want to know how the ‗Trust Fund‘ CAP Swap Agreement and relates
with respect to any Loan to be purchased pursuant to a Purchase Obligation, any Loan to be
purchased pursuant to Section 3.31, or any Loan to be purchased or repurchased relating to an REO
Property, and as confirmed by an Officers‘ Certificate from the Master Servicer to the Trustee and the
Securities Administrator
‗Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corp‘ Active as of 5/16/2011. No stock information for ‗profits‘ are
invested and held by holding company protecting owners. OWNERS holdings c/o Seth H Waugh, 60
Wall St, New York, NY 10005 a New York State business entity, Status is Active, County New York,
Jurisdiction Delaware. Established 7/28/1993 as ‗Deutsche Bank North America Holding Corp‘
renamed 7/26/1998
DB Structured Products Inc. registered in California doing business inter-states under UCC Codes, as
coconspirators during Origination the ‗intermediary‘ ‗funder‘ acting as a non-related third party, who
on 6/8/2006 funded a monetary transaction ordered by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage a div of Wells
Fargo Bank NA as SERVICER related to DB and Lehman and Wells Fargo and Norwest Corp and
Goldman Sachs and UBS and BOA.
On 6/5/2006 as Originator, and on 6/7/2006 as Servicer, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage a div of Wells
Fargo Bank NA c/o Wells Fargo Funding LLC and DB Structured Products Inc. all transactions
currency carried c/o Wells Fargo Bank NA.
Actual ―Cashier‘s Check Statement‖ reveals ‗WFHM‘ ordered funding on 6/5/2006 closings taking
place between originator‘s agents, brokers, dealers, distributors and non-related third parties.
Consumer unaware their ‗mortgage loan‘ was committed and sold already in secret creating a
predatory consumer mortgage that harmed the Cochrane family and the great State of New Jersey,
and the economy, third element of our national security.
As a matter of fact, follow this model and you can figure out how the economy was harmed. The
‗mortgage loan‘ approved by the underwriters was executed prior to consumer even reviewing the
transactions (HUD, TILA, mortgage loan, promissory notes) and almost a week prior to the
consumer‘s rescind period resulting in a defect at time of sale recognized to be a defect in the
financial product sold that harmed consumer and was reported to Congressman Rodney
Frelinghuysen, Office of Comptroller of Currency, US Attorney General Paul Fishman, State Attorney
General A. Milgram, Financial Crimes Unit, DOBI, NJ DOBI, Congressman Scott Garrett, Senator
Dodd, Governor Chris Christie, former Governor Corzine, Federal Trade Commission, HUD,
Qualified Written RESPA Request disclosing alleged origination and servicing acts which harmed
economy, directly to Wells Fargo & Co, c/o John Stumpf, Wells Fargo Bank NA, 420 Montgomery St,
San Francisco, CA 94163 – 415-396-5581 , Fax 415-396-2987. Appears Executive Specialist Bonnie
Schooler‘s disclosure to Mary Cochrane directly on phone that Mary was never to call Bonnie ever
again and Bonnie exclaimed ‗DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH TROUBLE YOU HAVE CAUSED? Yep
and I know how much more I‘m causing by revealing the actual facts of harm and injury and Bonnie
Schooler‘s compliance and collusion and collaboration in hiding the origination frauds reported to
the OCC who appear to be in cahoots with Wells Fargo Home Mortgage ‗their client‘ and refuse to
record consumer complaints from me period!
Since Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen ignores me, and Congressman Scott Garrett ignores me
and it appears that every government agency does not want the facts in the public domain, as a
Patriot, I reveal how the economy has been harmed and have documented in writing since December
2008 and verbally reported to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage since May 2008.
The funding from Deutsche Bank Trust America‘s closed with who? Checking Account DBT Co LTD
in NJ c/o Structured Asset Securities Corp.
The intent of the transactions recorded by DB STRUCTURED Products Inc., Deutsche Bank
Securities, Deutsche Bank Insurance Company provides valuable information to all investigating not
including the ‗intermediary‘ funder as ‗Plaintiff‘ or ‗Defendant‘
MERS as an electronic registry was intended to track the financial transactions other than ‗Retail‘
and the shareowners and shareholders are coconspirators.
The transactions are for the beneficiary of the RETAIL transactions whose name is placed on the
actual ‗mortgage‘ and the agencies and agents did not record the securitized documents in
accordance with statutes of your state so find out who they were not properly recorded.
The literal ‗mortgage‘ and ‗promissory note‘ Wells Fargo, JPM, BOA, LBHI, DB, UBS
NATIONSBANK, FOOTHILL, Norwest Asset Securities Corp and Structured Asset Securities Corp
handled.
Detusche Bank Trust Americas will be related to: DB Structured Products, Inc. a New York State
Business Entity.
See Lines of Business: https://www.mersonline.org/mers/mbrsearch/mbrsearch.htm
On the New York State Business Entity Search type: DB Structured and view record:
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/corps/bus_entity_search.html
Securitization: Margolies Exits Deutsche Bank, November 16th, 2010
Joy Margolies, former managing director in the residential mortgage finance unit at Deutsche Bank,
has left after nearly … is this the CEO of DB Structured Products Inc listed on New York State
Business Entity records which are still active.
The CEO, Joy Margolies, 60 M Wall Street, NY 10005; Principal Exec Office: Sonja K. Olsen,
Deutsche Bank, c/o 60 Wall St N4006, N NY, Registered Agent: CT Corp 111 Eight Ave NY NY 10011.
1/11/2002 today 5/16/2011 DB Structured Products, Inc. renamed 1/10/2002 – 1/7/1994 – 12002
Deutsche Bank Sharps Pixley Inc. Renamed 1/6/1994 – 4/30/1970 established as Sharps Pixley Inc.
is how you read the business certificate.
Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust/Series 2006-AR4 (8K0 10/13/06) for example, Joy
is Signatory and Mckee Nelson Filing Agent as related to Lehman Brothers. DB Structured Products,
Inc. (SPONSOR).
Registrant and Depositor: Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc. Date of Earliest Event 10/13/2006. File
Commission Number 333-131600-06. IRS# 35-2184183, 60 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005.
Registrant entered into a PSA on 9/1/2006 as Depositor with HSBC Bank USA, National Association
as TRUSTEE and Wells Fargo Bank NA as Master Servicer who is also the Securities Administrator
providing issuance of the issuance of Deutsche Alt-A Securities Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR4,
Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR4. The PSA Exhibit 4.1
http://www.secinfo.com/d13f21.v1B5.d.htm
9/1/2006 Depositor ‗at closing date‘ is owner of the loans and owner of other property being
conveyed by it to Trustee for inclusion in Trust Fund.
New York State Business Entity: Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc. 6/3/2003 Jurisdiction DE, Inactive:
Dissolution by Proclamation /Annulment of Authority 10/27/2010. Joy Margolies, 60 Wall St, New
York, NY 10005. Principal Executive Office: Deutsche Alt-A Securities Inc. 60 Wall St, NYC 60-4006,
NY NY 10005.
Trust Fund segregated pool of assets comprised of loans and subsequent loans and certain other
assets. On Closing Date, Depositor will acquire Certificates from TRUST FUND as consideration for
its transfer to TRUST FUND of the Loans and certain other assets and WILL BE THE OWNER OF
THE CERTIFICATES. The delivery by the Depositor, Deutsche Alt-A Securities, Inc.
Cap Agreement (SWAP) March 2011 will be related to Mr. Soliman‘s clues regarding IAS 39, leasing
and more. Here is great link ‗Implementation Guidance‘ IAS39 July 2001
‗Derecognize‘ If transferor has retained control, the financial asset is not derecognized. Since
Deutsche Alta Securities Inc is in agreement, and are in control to begin on March 2011…. One can
assume IAS 39.37 applies.
Why did Deutsche Bank Mortgage Capital, LLC, 40 Wall St, NY established 11/19/1996 surrender
Authority 7/28/2009? 60 Wall Street, NYC 60-4006, New York, NY 10005. Registered Agent
Revoked?
And Deutsche Bank Capital Corporation inactive as of 9/30/1993 DOS Process Agent c/o American
UBS Corporation, 40 Wall Street, New York, NY 10005. 1,000,000 shares established 5/20/1940 –
Union American Corp. 4/22/1970 renamed Amrican UBS Corp; 12/29/1971 renamed UBS-DB Corp,
renamed 3/31/1978 Atlantic Capital Corp, renamed 12/31/1984-Deutscfhe Bank Capital Corp until
9/30/1993 merged out of existence in New York.
Actual Name 11/19/1996 – Transatlantic Capital Company, LLC through 11/4/19989 when renamed
to Deutsche Bank Mortgage Capital LLC renamed 11/19/2005 to Deutsche Bank Mortgage Capital
LLC.
(1/17/1989-5/2/1990) Delaware Corp established and merged out of existence to handle mergers?
Deutsche Bank Capital Management (USA) Corp.
As reasonable people, I am able to understand employment descriptions which prove useful. For
example, look at the duties of a Joy Margolies whose LinkedIn public profile on 5/16/2011 reveals
employment duties thru 1992. Is Joy E and this Joy the same person as listed from multi sources?
I‘ve copied at the bottom for the information provides an excellent resource of what ‗DB Structured
Products Inc.‘ a special-purpose vehicle (SPV) managed and how relates to the MERS entity as an
intermediary funder of my mortgage loan on 6/5/2006 as ordered by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
employees.
The Principal Executive Office refers to a Sonja K Olsen whose business profile comes up in Wiki
working for: Deutsche Bank Insurance Agency Incorporated, located at 60 Wall St New York, NY
10005.
―The officers include Sonja, Sonja K Olsen, Terry W Nall. Deutsche Bank Insurance Agency
Incorporated was incorporated on Monday, January 15, 1996 in the State of FL and is currently
active. Registered Agent c/o CT Corp Sys, 111 Eighth Ave, NY NY 10011‖
A New York State Business Entity, Jursidiction MD County in NY Dutchess, Active 5/1y6/2011,
formerly known as ‗Alex. Brown Insurance Agency Inc. 2/5/1987 established name changed
11/3/2004. Chairman CEO ‗Terry W Nall‘ c/o 3414 Peachtree Rd NE, Atlanta GA 30326.
Principal Executive Office: Deutsche Bank Insurance Agency Inc., One South St, Baltimore MD
21202.
Disclosure: In no way does this discussion intend harm to employees of the coconspirators. Rather,
we need to understand that good people employeed by the coconspirators were harmed also. How
many brokers, dealers, distributors, agents of the SERVICER and ORIGINATORS are personally
harmed forced into foreclosures and bankruptcies. The coconspirators did not discriminate whose
properties would be taken.
Back to basic discussion how Deutsche Bank as a coconspirator harms us as ‗intermediary funder‘
during Origination through the ‗Master Servicer‘ Wells Fargo Bank NA as ‗Seller‘ of Discounted
Mortgage Loans (orchestrates over 90 days) and in one transaction sells to Master Servicer ‗Aurora
Loan Servicing‘ as Purchaser of mortgage loans through Structured Asset Securities Corp. organized
as a pass-through agency (joint venture) SPV‘s leasing agreements….
What is a conspiracy:
‗Con‘priacy‘ ‗Hand in Glove‘ Cahoots ―in League or in Partnership share equally ‗joint venture‘ origin
of ‗in cahoots‘ kajuit (Dutch) and kajut (German) ….. a joint conspirator… in agreements band
‗themselves‘ together to perform ‗alleged‘ illegal, wrongful, or subversive acts (both spoken and
unspoken).
Many employees are doing their jobs in good faith. Many are complicit and a JURY will have to
decide based upon intent of substantive omissions of material facts. Do the ‗Executive Specialists‘ of
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage ‗Institutional‘ who orchestrate the reconstitution for their client
‗Lehman Brothers‘ and ‗Deutsche Securities‘ act in collusion and collaboration to hide the deceptive
acts during origination?
Do these individual employees act on behalf of their employer, co-presidents of Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage divisions of ‗Wells Fargo Bank NA‘ of parent Wells Fargo & Co. beneficiary of the
transactions of MASTER SERVICER Structured Asset Securities Corp and Norwest Asset Securities
Corp c/o Wells Fargo Bank NA SERVICER.
Really important to comprehend and understand that many of the employees were brokers, dealers,
agents, distributors of the coconspirators who benefitted and acted with intent to hide the
documents that would reveal facts of harm and injury to consumer and those people can be named in
the lawsuits to be brought against those who have harmed the economy and your families.
Many employees of the SERVICER‘s call centers today are cooperating with consumers and
providing data facts and helping to reveal harms to consumers. Wonder how many are really
undercover? After all how are we going to penetrate cut the head of the snake and end this
nightmare?
The Master Servicers‘ reconstitution documents apply during ‗commercial clients‘ foreclosures and
bankruptcies proceeded by the very documents governance of the originations for the
ORIGINATOR‘s RETAIL transactions. Nowhere do consumers have copies of Agreement‘s between
the ‗Agent‘, ‗Broker‘, ‗Dealer‘, ‗Distributors‘ of the retail and wholesale transactions related to the
‗Servicer‘ who is attempting to taking possession of property in a larcenous manner.
Upon foreclosure, the agreements invoked by the members of the reconstitution, do implement, with
intent, the takings of property in larcenous manner and with intent created during the 90 day
origination period the takings by deception. One could wonder why no one was doing anything about
these acts if they had not been in writing. And they are in writing filed in the public domain.
, and making possible third party to take possession of consumer‘s real and personal property in
larcenous manner.
Reconstitution clearly intent contains the instructions created during the 90 days the ‗mortgage
loans‘ origination not in the pooling and servicing agreement. A 90 day pre-period loans originated
were committed. Literally, the public instructions filed in the ‗pooling and servicing agreements‘ and
unassociated documents, miscellaneous exhibits and reconstituted servicing agreements for TRUST
FUNDS filed on the SEC for use of the employees of the coconspirators.
The instructions define roles and responsibilities and in the event of foreclosures or bankruptcies.
Written ‗intent‘ of the coconspirators on the RETAIL SIDE of ‗mortgage loan‘ transaction and are
engaged in literal takings of real and personal property that do not belong to the coconspirators.
The coconspirators‘ servicers are complicity for they don‘t‘ have a legal right to the takings and don‘t
have first-hand knowledge of the document and have falsified the documents filed with the County
Clerks/Recorder, and COURTs! The FORECLOSUEGATE attorneys‘ agreements are representing
non-related third parties and the manufacturers who designed the financial products and financial
services to be placed into the public domain and sold to consumers with intent of not following the
laws of the United States of America intended to stand before the court and lie, cheat and steal.
The RETAIL TRANSACTIONS of the coconspirator‘s and their Master Servicers (Structured Asset
Securities Corp) and (Norwest Asset Securities Corp) promises to each other in writing all
transactions (movement of currency) in sale of discounted loans and purchase of discounted loans
are WITHOUT RECOURSE. Check cashed and cancelled cannot be returned to sender. So as not to
interfere in each other‘s business and to hide documents that otherwise clearly would reveal the true
owners of the unlawful acts, the private brand label ‗Wells Fargo‘ or a ‗national banking association‘
are affixed to all of the related transactions on the SERVICING SIDE.
Complicity by the Secretary Counsel of the conglomerates did create the agreements and with
understanding did sign agreements the CEO‘s and CFO‘s for all documents are reviewed and all are
in agreements as beneficiary and whether directly or indirectly the beneficiary and leases between
each other‘s senior executive management and their employees, agents, dealers, brokers, distributors
did employ workers‖ for pieces of gold and silver and promises of stocks and bonus, stipends and
rewards from the lowliest of low REO BROKERS who many coconspirators have their own divisions
such as Wells Fargo‘s ‗Home Mortgage‘ division ‗Premier Asset Services‘ (PAS) by invitation only of a
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage employee will train their own REO BROKERS who pay fees to be ‗the
one‘ to get the property and purchase the bad debt and in collusion and are complicit hide the broken
chain of title securing services of complicity title and settlement agencies to consummate the deals
and movement of ownership and resale‘s of bank owned properties. All paid pieces of silver and gold
and promises of stock rewards, bonus, stipends, and commissions do and did exchange services and
their silence did cooperate to get paid and harm the economy of the United States of America. Now
we are only speaking of the RETAIL TRANSACTIONS of the coconspirators DB, WFC, JPM, LBHI,
UBS, BOA …
Master Servicer as Facilitator (makes easier) acts of the coconspirators‘ roles defined literally by
agreements do perform together ‗alleged‘ illegal, wrongful, or subversive acts of the Underwriters.
The Master Servicer is not the ‗mastermind‘ but a pass through agency created by the coconspirators
‗Structured Asset Securities Corp‘ and ‗Norwest Asset Securities Corp‘ for example the ‗Registrant‘.
Important Notice: The ‗Issuing Entity‘ on the SEC are related to the ‗ISSUER‘ as ‗Owner‘ filed by the
Filer or Reporting Owner and is not related to the retail transactions of the ‗mortgage loan‘ as not the
‗loan trust.‘
In the beginning, Coconspirators (Parents) operating as Financial Holding Companies (Domestic
(USA) or International) are dependent upon their own Underwriters. Underwriter: a person or firm
engaged in the insurance business, who assesses the risk of enrolling an applicant for coverage or a
policy, and who guarantees the purchase of a full issue of stocks or bonds and the person and
enterprise that underwrites the insurance policies and the employees and agents of the insurance
company who assesses the risks and determines the premiums payable to themselves; e.g. payment
of commission of empty pooling and servicing agreement estimated value and ‗Master Servicer‘ paid
fee for they are the ‗handler.‘
Coconspirator (a member and one that engages in a conspiracy); co-conspirator (a group of
conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose);
underwriter, master servicer, ….Question: Can the ‗Issuing Entity‘ be a fictitious name? The name of
a file folder and scam is the Master Servicer – Structured Asset Securities Corp (SASCO) and
Norwest Asset Securities Corp (NASCOR).???
See what became the PSA‘s the Reconstituted Servicing Agreements of the Master Servicers
Structured Asset Securities Corp (SASCOR) and Norwest Asset Securities Corp (NASCOR).
For its only through an agreement or reconstitution ….
Reconstituted Servicing Agreement as related to topic ‗ Deutsche Bank/DE adding Lynn S‘s son‘s
name to Lis Pendens and specifically what does the Issuing Entity, Loan Trust got to do with
Deutsche Bank and CONSPIRACY (two or more entities …in agreement…..)
See, read, and digest the actual meanings of the words using the Free Financial Legal Dictionary:
17 C.F.R. § 229.1107 (Item 1107) Issuing entities. Title 17 – Commodity and Securities Exchanges:
http://law.justia.com/cfr/title17/17-2.0.1.1.11.12.30.8.html
See: ―(l) If applicable law prohibits the issuing entity from holding the pool assets directly (for
example, an ―eligible lender‖ trustee must hold student loans originated under the Federal Family
Education Loan Program of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)), describe the
arrangements instituted to hold the pool assets on behalf of the issuing entity. Include disclosure
regarding the arrangements taken, as applicable, regarding the items in paragraph (k) of this section
with respect to any such additional entity that holds such assets on behalf of the issuing entity.‖
ANYWAY WHAT‘S THE ‗ISSUING ENTITY‘ GOT TO DO GOT TO DO WITH IT? Since Sarbanes
Oxley they ‗bastardized‘ the intent of the SEC Regulations that the Issuing Entity would have
accountability. NOT when each ‗Issuing Entity‘ researched is nothing more than a file folder name. Is
there an SEC Regulation which allows use of fictitious names? For indeed each ‗Issuer‘ is an entity
such as Structured Asset Securities Corp or Norwest Asset Securities Corp whose ‗Owner‘ filed
documents under the fictitious entity forcing reasonable people to wear ‗horse blinders‘ and focus on
agreements that have nothing to do with the ‗loan trusts‘ and everything to do with the intent of
takings of properties and only come alive during a foreclosure and/or bankruptcy. Otherwise, these
documents as filed serve no purpose and are the SPV‘s and literal vehicle of the con-game.
‗Issuing Entity‘ file folder that contains documents, agreements, transactions, financial schedules,
related to movement of money of entity ‗Structured Asset Securities Corp‘ as Registrant over SEC
assigned the ‗role‘ and ‗responsibility‘ as DEPOSITOR for (1) big transaction (representing all of the
Originators related special-purpose vehicles (subsidiaries‘ affiliates) dealers, brokers, agents,
distributors on ‗retail side‘ as SERVICERS. Monies moved from Master Servicer on retail side as
SERVICER on retail side the parties who collect money for ‗loan numbers‗.
The ‗Reconstituted Servicing Agreement‘ on the Retail side is also known as the Pooling & Servicing
Agreement used only in the event of foreclosure, and provides instructions: who, what, when, where,
why, how the SERVICER will take property without lawfully recorded Assignment.
―The Assignment of the lien without a transfer of the debt is a nullity in law‖
―A lien is not assignable unless by express language of the statue‖
―What is the statute in your state where the property is located?
In California for example, the note and mortgage are inseparable. What about your state? Is the note
essential, and the mortgage an incidental?
For if so read further to see if the Assignment of the note carries the mortgage.
Therefore, the Assignment of the mortgage alone is a nullity?
See Carpenter V. Longan, 83 U.S> 271 (1872) US Supreme Court
https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia
Secure from LivingLies their new forensic audit which will reveal the loans are not in default! The
SERVICERS are in agreements to pay the monthly payments or forfeit the $1 Billion dollar portfolio
they get ½ percent on the principal balance of. How much is ½ percent of a $Billion dollars annually
for 30 years? Plus the chunk of change monthly x 360 months for collecting payments.
SERVICERS forced by agreement want to collect the ‗mortgage loan‘ monthly payments and move to
themselves in many related entities names a series of transactions through their own treasures and
gave themselves the short and long stick to profit during default events to themselves so move assets
around, move currency for each time you touch the entity you make money.
The Plaintiff‘s attorney who files the documents and stays in uncontested foreclosures is under
agreement and is beneficiary of transactions of SERVICERS.
Anyone discuss yet why all foreclosures and bankruptcies moved to a trustee who claims to be a
national banking association? And who claims to hold a ‗perfected lien‘ and are the owner of the
asset as the ‗current‘ beneficiary of promissory note‘ entitled to ‗Deed of Trust‘ a superior agreement
held in the name of the property owner.
When the institutions fail the FDIC allows them to repurchase their own bad debt! And FDIC pays
$.65 on the dollar! WOW! How? Not complicated all by agreement.
With Intent the related Servicer (a fictitious name and/or affiliate of itself)appears in court of equity
and claims to be the owner abusing the COURTS (spitting upon the Federal Republic) and the robo-
law firms are with intent with knowledge and coconspirators – two or more persons in agreements in
a conspiracy.
The ‗trustee‘ as a national banking association claims they have a right (and use the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency) to prevent disclosures otherwise Structured Asset Securities Corp and
Norwest Asset Securities Corp would be subjected.
Based upon the ‗Issuing Entity‘
The ‗written definition and role and related responsibilities‘ are intent.
Originator‘s subsidiaries, affiliates, third-party agents, dealers, brokers, distrutors of the (Master
Servicer as Purchaser of Loans) majority sold back the rights to SERVICE the loans.
The ‗intent‘ of the events that may happen as related to a foreclosure or bankruptcy are covered and
outlined in the reconstitution of the bad debt of the Servicer (who again as themselves represented in
the beginning at the RETAIL side of the transactions as related to creating a ‗mortgage loan‘ claim
they are with the right to collect money and takings of property.
Why the TRUST FUND of 88 individual loan trusts, in the event any of the referenced ‗mortgage
loans‘ how many loans? Are covered by (1) ‗Reconstituted Servicing Agreement‘ recognized to be the
Pooling & Servicing Agreement by ‗Loan Forensic Auditors‘ and lists SASCO 2006-WF3 ‗Trust Fund‘
of 88 Loan Trusts PSA RECONSTITUTED SERVICING AGREEMENT‘s instructions.
Unrelated third parties not included (mentioned) during Origination keep secret from consumers are
Deutsche Bank Trust of Americas whose funding deposited to ‗Wells Fargo Bank NA‘ as LENDER
merely a technicality to record a ‗mortgage loan‘ in the name of Wells Fargo Bank NA who will
present an Assignment in the event of a default event or resale.
Why do they leave out the intermediary funder? Part of the RETAIL TRANSACTIONS that the
‗Lenders‘ don‘t record inside of the MERS database that the FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS‘ beneficiaries of all these transactions along with the United States Government claim
MERS is the new ‗Vogue‘ to record electronic transactions and if you let them will like Cede & Co. c/o
SOME foreign owner have control of all the real estate of the USA! Without accountability and
responsibility to the laws of the United States of America and intent ? to make DEED OF TRUST an
inferior document.
Why does DB STRUCTURED Products, Inc. left out of the ‗named‘ parties? Why does the
UNDERWRITER not need to be listed as one of the SERVICER‘s of the RETAIL TRANSACTIOSN?
Or are they as DB Structured Asset Products MERS MEMBER ID: 1002829 who is a ‗Servicer‘, ‗Sub-
servicer‘, ‗Interim Funder‘, ‗Investor‘, ‗Document Custodian‘ but is not an eRegistry or eDelivery
Participant (Lines of Business) Member Org ID: 1002829, DB Structured Products, Inc, 60 Wall
Street, NYNY 10005 (212) 250-9340 & fax 212-797-5160 c/o MERS Department.
Wells Fargo Funding – MERS Org ID: 1010064 – Lines of Business ―INVESTOR‖ ―Third Party‖ c/o
Wells Fargo Funding Inc., Sixth & Marquette, Minneapolis MN 55479 who are eRegistry and
eDelivery Participants (Correspondent Lenders) under Agreement with Intermediary Funder DB
Structured Products, Inc.
Wells Fargo Foothill LLC c/o Lender Finance Division, 14241 Dallas Parkway Suite 1300, Dallas TX
75254 (Fax) 972-387-4054 – MERS Org ID: 1006610 Lines of Business: ‗Interim Funder‘ is not an
eRegistry Participant nor eDelivery participant.
Business Entity Search New York State: Active as of 5/16/2011: Wells Fargo Foothill Inc.
Foothill Capital Corporation 8/17/1982 – 7/11/2003 renamed to Wells Fargo Foothill Inc. –
Principal Executive Office, Peter Schwab c/o Wells Fargo Foot Hill Group, Inc., 24450 Colorado Ave,
Suite 3000 W. Santa Monica CA 90404, Jurisdiction CA, Active in New York State under Uniform
Commercial Codes as an active foreign business corporation. (Up to no good on 8/4/2009 registered
Foothill Securities, Inc. c/o National Registered Agents, Inc. 875 Ave of the Americas, Suite 501, NY
NY 10001
Of interest to research: Foothills Title Agency Inc. 3/21/1988 – County Warren NY established
3/21/1988 shares of stock 200, Dissolution by Proclamation/Annulment 1993).
For those who are not familiar with who Foothill Group know they are related to UBS, Norwest Corp,
BOA, Nations
.
‗Deutsche Bank Trust Americas‘ or leaving out the actual bank in NJ ‗DBT Co. Ltd‘ who deposited the
funding into the Corporate Treasury Securities ‗Wells Fargo Bank NA‘ in the name of the Settlement
Agent (as an individual) who is an affiliate of the Title & Settlement Agency (can be any name). At
that time all of those transactions are RETAIL with SERVICER and have nothing to do with the
LENDER, and nothing to do with Deutsche Bank the MERS ‗intermediary funding‘ as DB
STRUCTURED PRODUCTS for example.
Deutsche Bank regional corporate trust offices established inside US June 2002 in Charlotte NC,
New York, Chicago, Olive Branch Mississippi (funny ‗olive branch‘), Santa Anna, San Francisco CA
opened 1/20/2004 regional western states headquarters handling Municipal Trustee Services
(purchase of municipalities)…
Deutsche Bank Trust & Securities Services = ‗Global Provider of trust & securities administration
services‘
Deutsche Bank/AG global leader corporate banking and securities transactions: banking, asset
management, private wealth management, significant private and business banking franchise in
Germany and other selected countries in Continental Europe. In over 23 Securities Markets, as well
as trustee, agency, registrar, depository, SPV management, relates services for wide range of
financings. Products serviced include bonds, auction rate securities, medium term note and
commercial paper programs, asset backed and mortgage backed securities, CDOs, SIVs, project
financings, escrows, syndicated loans, American Depositary Receipts and German equities
Definitions Consumers must chant every day to not be confused:
‗Issuing Entity‘
‗Loan Trust‘
‗Assignment‘
‗Lis Pendens‘
‗Current beneficiary of a promissory note by way of Assignment‘
‗Perfected lien‘
‗Chain of Title‘
‗Reconstituted Servicing Agreement‘
Chairman Bair explained to the House Services Committee:
Securitization takes the role of the lender and breaks it into separate components. Unlike the more
traditional relationship between a borrower and a lender, securitization involves the sale of the loan
by the lender to a new owner–the issuer–who then sells securities to investors. The investors are
buying ―bonds‖ that entitle them to a share of the cash paid by the borrowers on their mortgages.
Once the lender has sold the mortgage to the issuer, the lender no longer has the power to
restructure the loan or make other accommodations for its borrower. That becomes the
responsibility of a servicer, who collects the mortgage payments, distributes them to the issuer for
payment to investors, and, if the borrower cannot pay, takes action to recover cash for the investors.
And she listed some of the roles in this modern mortgage transaction:
And she listed some of the roles in this modern mortgage transaction:
o Issuer – A bankruptcy-remote special purpose entity (SPE) formed to facilitate a securitization and
to issue securities to investors.
o Lender – An entity that underwrites and funds loans that are eventually sold to the SPE for
inclusion in the securitization. Lenders are compensated by cash for the purchase of the loan and by
fees. In some cases, the lender might contract with mortgage brokers. Lenders can be banks or non-
banks.
o Mortgage Broker – Acts as a facilitator between a borrower and the lender. The mortgage broker
receives fee income upon the loan‘s closing.
o Servicer – The entity responsible for collecting loan payments from borrowers and for remitting
these payments to the issuer for distribution to the investors. The servicer is typically compensated
with fees based on the volume of loans serviced. The servicer is generally obligated to maximize the
payments from the borrowers to the issuer, and is responsible for handling delinquent loans and
foreclosures.
o Investors – The purchasers of the various securities issued by a securitization. Investors provide
funding for the loans and assume varying degrees of credit risk, based on the terms of the securities
they purchase…
o Trustee – A third party appointed to represent the investors‘ interests in a securitization. The
trustee ensures that the securitization operates as set forth in the securitization documents, which
may include determinations about the servicer‘s compliance with established servicing criteria.
―Bankruptcy-remote‖. What a great adjective
Margolies Exits Deutsche Bank, November 16th, 2010
LINKEDIN PROFILE of Joyce Margolies as of 5/16/2011
As related to ‗DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS, Inc.‘ and Deutsche Bank Trust Americas c/o DBT Co
Ltd. New Jersey intermediary funding (MERS transactions) for retail mortgage loans with ‗Wells
Fargo Bank NA‘ ordered by WFHM c/o Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corp on Federal Reserve System
renamed from Norwest Asset Securities Corp
Joy Margolies: Structured Finance Professional ‗Investment Banking‘ Managing Director – Mortgage
Finance at Deutsche Bank, Vice President at ING and Vice President at Credit Suisse First Boston,
Vice President at Lehman Brothers, Audit Manager, Financial Services a div Arthur Andersen.
Managing Director – Mortgage Finance Deutsche Bank
Public Company; DB; Investment Banking industry
May 2001 – November 2010 (9 years 7 months)
- Managed a large staff responsible for contract finance, structured transactions, collateral analysis,
due diligence, default management, breach management and investigation/litigation defense.
- Executed all residential whole loan purchase, sale, servicing, joint ventures, securitizations and all
RMBS structured transactions including interaction with counsel, rating agencies, accountants,
investors, etc.
- Led a deal team including senior M&A, accounting policy and legal officers, in executing the
purchase of two mortgage companies by Deutsche Bank.
- Provided default management on large whole loan position to maximize recovery via whole loan
sale, liquidation, short sale or modifications.
- Managed rep and warrant breach work from both buyer and seller perspective
- Performed an assessment of Western European mortgage platforms which resulted in stabilization
of servicing and renegotiation of prohibitive vendor contract resulting in multimillion dollar cost
savings. Executed first UK whole loan sale of non performing portfolio.
- Originated, executed and structured asset-backed commercial paper facilities and repo financing
transactions for all mortgage related products including prime and sub-prime mortgages, home
equity loans and sub/non-performing mortgage loans and real estate.
President ING: Public Company; 10,001+ employees; Financial Services industry 1999 – 2001 (2
years)
- Originated, executed and structured asset-backed commercial paper facilities, securitizations and
other financing transactions for a wide variety of esoteric asset types including private label credit
cards, franchise fees/royalties, trade receivables and auto loans. Maintained primary contact with
customers, rating agencies and attorneys on all transactions.
Vice President Credit Suisse First Boston Public Company; 10,001+ employees; CS; Investment
Banking industry 1994 – 1999 (5 years)
- Managed all aspects of residential and auto whole loan purchase, sale, and reverse repurchase
facilities. Sourced whole loan business directly as well as through fixed income sales force. Worked
with sellers, issuers, investors, accountants, rating agencies, servicers, custodians, due diligence
firms and attorneys to ensure timely execution. Monitored existing positions through mark-to
market and delinquency analysis. Conducted pre-bid review and market value analysis of collateral
and trade terms, negotiated legal documents, prepared commitment letters, sales memorandums
and settlement letters. Maintained primary contact with reverse repurchase counterparties –
analyzing proposed purchases, sales and ongoing mark-to-market of positions.
Vice President Lehman Brothers Public Company; LEH; Capital Markets industry 1992 – 1994 (2
years)
- Supervised 8 staff people in preparation and analysis of matched book trading daily p/l. Managed
balance sheet requirements for repo desk; coordinated off-balance sheet trades with customers and
sales force.
- Coordinated daily firm balance sheet reduction process consisting of participating in balance sheet
allocation decisions, producing position reports, developing desk specific balance sheet management
strategies, approving specific transactions and coordinating the asset reduction process across the
firm. Developed and implemented numerous system enhancements that improved the firm‘s ability
to reduce balance sheet levels at minimum cost.
Audit Manager – Financial Services Division Arthur Andersen Accounting industry 1987 – 1992 (5
years).
- Planned, coordinated and supervised audits of international corporations, primarily in the financial
services industry. Drafted financial statements and footnote disclosures, including SEC filings for
registered broker-dealers.
To view a MERS MEMBER ID profile type any 0-9 and Letter A-Z and find who the intermediary
funder was of your transactions. https://www.mersonline.org/mers/mbrsearch/mbrsearch.htm
Joy E Margolies:
RMBS Management
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Financial Services
40 Wall St Fl 60
New York, NY 10005-1333
United States
Source: Jigsaw
Keep your ‗eyes‘ peeled to: Long-Term Credit Bank of Japan, LTD symbol ‗LTB‘ Successor Shinsei
BankiI Tokyo Japan acquired Greenwich Capital Markets a Connecticut-based securities firm, thus
giving LTCB a US-Based Securities Business. ‗SBC‘ now part of UBS AG began a joint venture with
LTCB during this period – NATIONSBANK OF GA (Nations) – Bank of America National Trust &
Savings Association (BOA if you please) as Agent and Agency retaining ‗NT&SA‘ and designation
until renamed to Bank of America NA as part of BankAmerica Corp‘s merger with NATIONSBANK in
1998.
Hmmmmm ‗marriage‘ at same time of another related coconspirators whose surviving corporation
took on name of valuable ‗trade name‘ of commercial bank ‗Wells Fargo & Co‘ creating a new
corporation and both existing conglomerates survived 11/2/98. The parent moved into Norwest
Corp‘s headquarters 420 Montgomery St, San Francisco CA and replaced the storefront signs with
‗Wells Fargo‘.
The Foothills group and its subsidiary Foothills Capital Group 1992/1993 acquisitions of
INDYMAC/COUNTRYWIDE FUNDING of great interest.
And Foothill Group and subsidiary Foothill Capital Group of great interest include UBS Asset
Management as investment advisor ‗UBS‘ whose agreements claim sole voting & dispositive power &
full beneficial ownership with respect to…. Recovery Equity Investors LP, whose GP is Recovery
Equity Partners LP and Pacific Crest Capital Corp, a newly formed parent of Foothill Thrift and Loan
12/23/93 (during acquistions represented NY 6% stock ownership 12/31/1993 and stock ownership
is where UBS puts its profits to protect them in preferred senior ownership transactions).
13 Registrants include: Wells Fargo & Co/MN fka Norwest Corp) and US Home Corp/DE Symbols
‗US‘ ‗UHG‘ ‗USHm‘ ‗USHe‘ Texas.
Who is Peter Schwab and his replacement. Peter retired end of 2010 after 39 years industry veteran.
H. Jordan will stand alone responsible for the very pipelines Wells Fargo‘s Foothill and subsidiary
Foothill Capital Corp. asset-based lending group? And Wells Fargo Capital Finance the trade name
for some asset-based lending, accounts receivable and purchase order finance services of Wells
Fargo.
Onewest Bank, F.S.B. v Drayton – Brooklyn Judge Arthur Schack is a Local Hero, Decision
Casts Light on Fraudulent Mortgage Paperwork
Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on October 27, 2010 · 12 Comments

First from the NY Daily News…

(Full Decision Below)
Brooklyn judge Arthur Schack is a local hero, decision casts light on fraudulent mortgage
paperwork
Brooklyn State Supreme Court Judge Arthur Schack has done it again.
The self-described “little judge from Brooklyn” has dismissed another foreclosure case, this time
in favor of an East New York homeowner who did not even have a lawyer.
Schack ruled Thursday that California’s OneWest, the last of several banks that relied on an
admitted “robo-signer” to transfer the $492,000 mortgage on Covan Drayton’s Hemlock St.
home among them, failed to prove it even owns the property in question.
“To prevent the waste of judicial resources, the instant foreclosure is dismissed without
prejudice,” Schack wrote.
His startling, 37-page decision is the latest of several that have turned him into a hero of troubled
homeowners across the nation.
With 6 million homes nationwide in foreclosure or facing the imminent risk of foreclosure, the
federal government’s response has been shamefully slow.
Only 475,000 homes are in some form of permanent modification. The Obama administration
has spent more effort bailing out a few big lenders than millions of little borrowers.
Shack’s opinion, released by the courts Tuesday, is the most detailed picture yet of the shoddy or
fraudulent mortgage paperwork too many of those lenders used.
This is not just a matter of minor technicalities, as the banks and their spin masters want us the
believe – the same ones who told us the subprime crisis would blow over.
At the heart of the Drayton case is an Austin, Tex., robo-signer named Erica Johnson-Seck. In
July, Johnson-Seck admitted in a Florida deposition in another case that she “executes 750
foreclosure documents a week; without a notary present; does not spend more than 30 seconds
signing each document; [and] does not read the documents before signing them,” Schack noted.
Johnson-Seck’s signature appears repeatedly in documents connected to Drayton’s mortgage,
and in several other foreclosure cases Schack dismissed in the past three years.
At different times, she signed notarized documents assigning the loan, claiming to be a vice
president of MERS (a private financial recording service for major banks), a vice president of
INDYMAC, a vice president of Deutsche Bank and a vice president of OneWest.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com
 Onewest Bank, F.S.B. v Drayton
2010 NY Slip Op 20429
Decided on October 21, 2010
Supreme Court, Kings County
Schack, J.

In this foreclosure action, plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. (ONEWEST), moved for an order
of reference and related relief for the premises located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn,
New York (Block 4529, Lot 116, County of Kings), upon the default of all defendants. The
Kings County Supreme Court Foreclosure Department forwarded the motion papers to me
on August 30, 2010. While drafting this decision and order, I received on October 14, 2010,
in the midst of the present national media attention about "robo-signers," an October 13,
2010-letter from plaintiff's counsel, by which "[i]t is respectfully requested that plaintiff's
application be withdrawn at this time." There was no explanation or reason given by
plaintiff's counsel for his request to withdraw the motion for an order of reference other
than "[i]t is our intention that a new application containing updated information will be re-
submitted shortly."

The Court grants the request of plaintiff's counsel to withdraw the instant motion for an
order of reference. However, to prevent the waste of judicial resources, the instant
foreclosure action is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to renew the instant motion for
an order of [*2]reference within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, by providing the
Court with necessary and additional documentation.

First, the Court requires proof of the grant of authority from the original mortgagee,
CAMBRIDGE HOME CAPITAL, LLC (CAMBRIDGE), to its nominee, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (MERS), to assign the subject mortgage and note on March
16, 2009 to INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB (INDYMAC). INDYMAC subsequently assigned
the subject mortgage and note to its successor, ONEWEST, on May 14, 2009.

Second, the Court requires an affidavit from Erica A. Johnson-Seck, a conflicted

"robosigner," explaining her employment status. A "robo-signer" is a person who quickly
signs hundreds or thousands of foreclosure documents in a month, despite swearing that he
or she has personally reviewed the mortgage documents and has not done so. Ms. Johnson-
Seck, in a July 9, 2010 deposition taken in a Palm Beach County, Florida foreclosure case,
admitted that she: is a "robo-signer" who executes about 750 mortgage documents a
week, without a notary public present; does not spend more than 30 seconds signing each
document; does not read the documents before signing them; and, did not provide me with
affidavits about her employment in two prior cases. (See Stephanie Armour, "Mistakes
Widespread on Foreclosures, Lawyers Say," USA Today, Sept. 27, 2010; Ariana Eunjung
Cha, "OneWest Bank Employee: Not More Than 30 Seconds' to Sign Each Foreclosure
Document," Washington Post, Sept. 30, 2010).

In the instant action, Ms. Johnson-Seck claims to be: a Vice President of MERS in the March
16, 2009 MERS to INDYMAC assignment; a Vice President of INDYMAC in the May 14, 2009
INDYMAC to ONEWEST assignment; and, a Vice President of ONEWEST in her June 30,
2009-affidavit of merit. Ms. Johnson-Seck must explain to the Court, in her affidavit: her
employment history for the past three years; and, why a conflict of interest does not exist
in the instant action with her acting as a Vice President of assignor MERS, a Vice President
of assignee/assignor INDYMAC, and a Vice President of assignee/plaintiff ONEWEST.
Further, Ms. Johnson-Seck must explain: why she was a Vice President of both assignor
MERS and assignee DEUTSCHE BANK in a second case before me, Deutsche Bank v Maraj,
18 Misc 3d 1123 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2008); why she was a Vice President of both
assignor MERS and assignee INDYMAC in a third case before me, Indymac Bank, FSB, v
Bethley, 22 Misc 3d 1119 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2009); and, why she executed an
affidavit of merit as a Vice President of DEUTSCHE BANK in a fourth case before me,
Deutsche Bank v Harris (Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 5, 2008, Index No. 35549/07).

Background

Defendant COVAN DRAYTON (DRAYTON) executed the subject [*3] mortgage and note on
January 12, 2007, borrowing $492,000.00 from CAMBRIDGE. MERS "acting solely as a
nominee for Lender [CAMBRIDGE]" and "FOR PURPOSES OF RECORDING THIS MORTGAGE,
MERS IS THE MORTGAGEE OF RECORD," recorded the instant mortgage and note on March
19, 2007, in the Office of the City Register of the City of New York, at City Register File
Number (CRFN) 2007000143961. Plaintiff DRAYTON allegedly defaulted in his mortgage
loan payment on September 1, 2008. Then, MERS, as nominee for CAMBRIDGE, assigned
the instant nonperforming mortgage and note to INDYMAC, on March 16, 2009. Erica A.
Johnson-Seck executed the assignment as a Vice President of MERS, as nominee for
CAMBRIDGE. This assignment was recorded in the Office of the City Register of the City of
New York, on March 24, 2009, at CRFN 200900084809. However, as will be discussed
below, there is an issue whether MERS, as CAMBRIDGE's nominee, was authorized by
CAMBRIDGE, its principal, to assign the subject DRAYTON mortgage and note to plaintiff
INDYMAC. Subsequently, almost two months later, Ms. Johnson-Seck, now as a Vice
President of INDYMAC, on May 14, 2009, assigned the subject mortgage and note to
ONEWEST. This assignment was recorded in the Office of the City Register of the City of
New York, on May 22, 2009, at CRFN 2009000155018.

Plaintiff ONEWEST commenced the instant foreclosure action on June 18, 2009 with the
filing of the summons, complaint and notice of pendency. On August 6, 2009, plaintiff
ONEWEST filed the instant motion for an order of reference. Attached to plaintiff
ONEWEST's moving papers is an affidavit of merit by Erica A. Johnson-Seck, dated June 30,
2009, in which she claims to be a Vice President of plaintiff ONEWEST. She states, in 1, that
"[t]he facts recited herein are from my own knowledge and from review of the documents
and records kept in the ordinary course of business with respect to the servicing of this
mortgage." There are outstanding questions about Ms. Johnson-Seck's
employment, whether she executed sworn documents without a notary public
present and whether she actually read and personally reviewed the information in
the documents that she executed.

July 9, 2010 deposition of Erica A. Johnson-Seck in the Machado case

On July 9, 2010, nine days after executing the affidavit of merit in the instant action, Ms.
Johnson-Seck was deposed in a Florida foreclosure action, Indymac Federal Bank, FSB, v
Machado (Fifteenth Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 50 2008
CA 037322XXXX MB AW), by defendant Machado's counsel, Thomas E. Ice, Esq. Ms.
Johnson-Seck admitted to being a "robo-signer," executing sworn documents outside the
presence of a notary public, not reading the documents before signing them and not
complying with my prior orders in the Maraj and Bethley decisions.

Ms. Johnson-Seck admitted in her Machado deposition testimony that she was not employed
by INDYMAC on May 14, 2009, the day she assigned the subject mortgage and note to
ONEWEST, even though she stated in the May 14, 2009 assignment that she was a Vice
President of INDYMAC. According to her testimony she was employed on May 14, 2010 by
assignee ONEWEST.

Then the Schack goes on to say later in the decision...

Then, plaintiff ONEWEST must address the tangled employment situation of "robosigner"
Erica A. Johnson-Seck. She admitted in her July 9, 2010 deposition in the Machado case
that she never provided me with affidavits of her employment for the prior three years and
an explanation of why she wore so-many corporate hats in Maraj and Bethley. Further, in
Deutsche Bank v Harris, Ms. Johnson-Seck executed an affidavit of merit as Vice President
of Deutsche Bank. If plaintiff renews its motion for an order of reference, the Court must
get to the bottom of Ms. Johnson-Seck's employment status and her "robo-signing." The
Court reminds plaintiff ONEWEST's counsel that Ms. Johnson-Seck, at p. 161 of the Machado
deposition, volunteered, at lines 4 - 5 to "gladly show up in his court and provide him
everything he wants."

Lastly, if plaintiff ONEWEST'S counsel moves to renew its application for an order of
reference, plaintiff's counsel must comply with the new filing requirement to submit, under
penalties of perjury, an affirmation that he has taken reasonable steps, including inquiring
of plaintiff ONEWEST, the lender, and reviewing all papers, to verify the accuracy of the
submitted documents in support of the instant foreclosure action.

Conclusion
Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that the request of plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., to withdraw its motion for
an order of reference, for the premises located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York
(Block 4529, Lot 116, County of Kings), is granted; and it is further

ORDERED, that the instant action, Index Number 15183/09, is dismissed without
prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED, that the notice of pendency in the instant action, filed with the Kings County
Clerk on June 18, 2009, by plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., to foreclose a mortgage for
real property located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4529, Lot 116,
County of Kings), is cancelled; and it is further

ORDERED, that leave is granted to plaintiff, ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., to renew, within sixty
(60) days of this decision and order, its motion for an order of reference for the premises
located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4529, Lot 116, County of Kings),
provided that plaintiff, ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., submits to the Court: (1) proof of the
grant of authority from the original mortgagee, CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL, LLC, to its
nominee, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., to assign the
subject mortgage and note to INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB; and (2) an affidavit
by Erica A. Johnson-Seck, Vice President of plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.,
explaining: her employment history for the past three years; why a conflict of
interest does not exist in how she acted as a Vice President of assignor MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Vice President of assignee/
assignor INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB, and a Vice President of assignee/plaintiff
ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. in this action; why she was a Vice President of both
assignor MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and assignee
DEUTSCHE BANK in Deutsche Bank v Maraj, 18 Misc 3d 1123 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings
County 2008); why she was a Vice President of both assignor MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and assignee INDYMAC BANK, FSB in
Indymac Bank, FSB, v Bethley, 22 Misc 3d 1119 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2009);
and, why she executed an affidavit of merit as a Vice President of DEUTSCHE BANK
in Deutsche Bank v Harris (Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 5, 2008, Index No.
35549/07); and (3) counsel for plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. must comply with
the new Court filing requirement, announced by Chief Judge [*17] Jonathan
Lippman on October 20, 2010, by submitting an affirmation,using the new
standard Court form, pursuant to CPLR Rule 2106 and under the penalties of
perjury, that counsel for plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. has personally reviewed
plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.'s documents and records in the instant action and
counsel for plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. confirms the factual accuracy of
plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.'s court filings and the accuracy of the
notarizations in plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.'s documents.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Link to full decision below...

Check it out...

It is fascinating...
Bankruptcy & Foreclosure
Thursday, November 18, 2010

Judge Schack's latest masterpiece on robo-signing

It only took two judicial foreclosure states: Florida and New York to unravel the shoddy foreclosure
practices by financial institutions that got all the bail-out money, yet did not invest a dime in the mortgages
upon which they are now foreclosing. Kudos to Judge Schack in NY and Thomas Ice, Esq. in FL. This
opinion presents a good list of things and documents many homeowners will want to request in defending
against a foreclosure.

Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
-1-
2010 NY Slip Op 20429 Onewest Bank, F.S.B., Plaintiff, v. Covan Drayton, et al., Defendants. 15183/09
Supreme Court Of New York Kings County Decided on October 21, 2010

Plaintiff Gerald Roth, Esq. Stein Wiener and Roth, LLP Carle Place NY
Defendant did not answer
Arthur M. Schack, J.

In this foreclosure action, plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. (ONEWEST), moved for an order of
reference and related relief for the premises located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block
4529, Lot 116, County of Kings), upon the default of all defendants. The Kings County Supreme Court
Foreclosure Department forwarded the motion papers to me on August 30, 2010. While drafting this
decision and order, I received on October 14, 2010, in the midst of the present national media attention
about "robo-signers," an October 13, 2010-letter from plaintiff's counsel, by which "[i]t is respectfully
requested that plaintiff's application be withdrawn at this time." There was no explanation or reason given
by plaintiff's counsel for his request to withdraw the motion for an order of reference other than "[i]t is our
intention that a new application containing updated information will be re-submitted shortly."
The Court grants the request of plaintiff's counsel to withdraw the instant motion for an order of reference.
However, to prevent the waste of judicial resources, the instant foreclosure action is dismissed without
prejudice, with leave to renew the instant motion for an order of Page 2 reference within sixty (60) days of
this decision and order, by providing the Court with necessary and additional documentation. First, the
Court requires proof of the grant of authority from the original mortgagee, CAMBRIDGE HOME CAPITAL,
LLC (CAMBRIDGE), to its nominee, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
(MERS), to assign the subject mortgage and note on March 16, 2009 to INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK,
FSB (INDYMAC). INDYMAC subsequently assigned the subject mortgage and note to its successor,
ONEWEST, on May 14, 2009.
Second, the Court requires an affidavit from Erica A. Johnson-Seck, a conflicted "robo-signer," explaining
her employment status. A "robo-signer" is a person who quickly signs hundreds or thousands of
foreclosure documents in a month, despite swearing that he or she has personally reviewed the mortgage
documents and has not done so. Ms. Johnson-Seck, in a July 9, 2010 deposition taken in a Palm Beach
County, Florida foreclosure case, admitted that she: is a "robo-signer" who executes about 750 mortgage
documents a week, without a notary public present; does not spend more than 30 seconds signing each
document; does not read the documents before signing them; and, did not provide me with affidavits
about her employment in two prior cases. (See Stephanie Armour, "Mistakes Widespread on
Foreclosures, Lawyers Say," USA Today, Sept. 27, 2010; Ariana Eunjung Cha, "OneWest Bank
Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
-2-
Employee: Not More Than 30 Seconds' to Sign Each Foreclosure Document, " Washington Post, Sept.
30, 2010). In the instant action, Ms. Johnson-Seck claims to be: a Vice President of MERS in the
March 16, 2009 MERS to INDYMAC assignment; a Vice President of INDYMAC in the May 14, 2009
INDYMAC to ONEWEST assignment; and, a Vice President of ONEWEST in her June 30, 2009-
affidavit of merit. Ms. Johnson-Seck must explain to the Court, in her affidavit: her employment
history for the past three years; and, why a conflict of interest does not exist in the instant action
with her acting as a Vice President of assignor MERS, a Vice President of assignee/assignor
INDYMAC, and a Vice President of assignee/plaintiff ONEWEST. Further, Ms. Johnson-Seck must
explain: why she was a Vice President of both assignor MERS and assignee DEUTSCHE BANK in a
second case before me, Deutsche Bank v Maraj, 18 Misc 3d 1123 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2008); why
she was a Vice President of both assignor MERS and assignee INDYMAC in a third case before me,
Indymac Bank, FSB, v Bethley, 22 Misc 3d 1119 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2009); and, why she
executed an affidavit of merit as a Vice President of DEUTSCHE BANK in a fourth case before me,
Deutsche Bank v Harris (Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 5, 2008, Index No. 35549/07).
Third, plaintiff's counsel must comply with the new Court filing requirement, announced yesterday by
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, which was promulgated to preserve the integrity of the foreclosure
process. Plaintiff's counsel must submit an affirmation, using the new standard Court form, that he has
personally reviewed plaintiff's documents and records in the instant action and has confirmed the factual
accuracy of the court filings and the notarizations in these documents. Counsel is reminded that the new
standard Court affirmation form states that "[t]he wrongful filing and prosecution of foreclosure
proceedings which are discovered to suffer from these defects may be cause for disciplinary and other
sanctions upon participating counsel."
Background
Defendant COVAN DRAYTON (DRAYTON) executed the subject Page 3 mortgage and note on January
12, 2007, borrowing $492,000.00 from CAMBRIDGE. MERS "acting solely as a nominee for Lender
[CAMBRIDGE]" and "FOR PURPOSES OF RECORDING THIS MORTGAGE, MERS IS THE
MORTGAGEE OF RECORD," recorded the instant mortgage and note on March 19, 2007, in the Office
of the City Register of the City of New York, at City Register File Number (CRFN) 2007000143961.
Plaintiff DRAYTON allegedly defaulted in his mortgage loan payment on September 1, 2008. Then,
MERS, as nominee for CAMBRIDGE, assigned the instant nonperforming mortgage and note to
INDYMAC, on March 16, 2009. Erica A. Johnson-Seck executed the assignment as a Vice President of
MERS, as nominee for CAMBRIDGE. This assignment was recorded in the Office of the City Register of
the City of New York, on March 24, 2009, at CRFN 200900084809. However, as will be discussed below,
there is an issue whether MERS, as CAMBRIDGE's nominee, was authorized by CAMBRIDGE, its
principal, to assign the subject DRAYTON mortgage and note to plaintiff INDYMAC. Subsequently,
almost two months later, Ms. Johnson-Seck, now as a Vice President of INDYMAC, on May 14, 2009,
assigned the subject mortgage and note to ONEWEST. This assignment was recorded in the Office of the
City Register of the City of New York, on May 22, 2009, at CRFN 2009000155018.
Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
-3-
Plaintiff ONEWEST commenced the instant foreclosure action on June 18, 2009 with the filing of the
summons, complaint and notice of pendency. On August 6, 2009, plaintiff ONEWEST filed the instant
motion for an order of reference. Attached to plaintiff ONEWEST's moving papers is an affidavit of merit
by Erica A. Johnson-Seck, dated June 30, 2009, in which she claims to be a Vice President of plaintiff
ONEWEST. She states, in ¶ 1, that "[t]he facts recited herein are from my own knowledge and from
review of the documents and records kept in the ordinary course of business with respect to the servicing
of this mortgage." There are outstanding questions about Ms. Johnson-Seck's employment, whether she
executed sworn documents without a notary public present and whether she actually read and personally
reviewed the information in the documents that she executed. July 9, 2010 deposition of Erica A.
Johnson-Seck in the Machado case On July 9, 2010, nine days after executing the affidavit of merit in the
instant action, Ms. Johnson-Seck was deposed in a Florida foreclosure action, Indymac Federal Bank,
FSB, v Machado (Fifteenth Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 50 2008 CA
037322XXXX MB AW), by defendant Machado's counsel, Thomas E. Ice, Esq. Ms. Johnson-Seck
admitted to being a "robo-signer," executing sworn documents outside the presence of a notary public,
not reading the documents before signing them and not complying with my prior orders in the Maraj and
Bethley decisions.
Ms. Johnson-Seck admitted in her Machado deposition testimony that she was not employed by
INDYMAC on May 14, 2009, the day she assigned the subject mortgage and note to ONEWEST, even
though she stated in the May 14, 2009 assignment that she was a Vice President of INDYMAC.
According to her testimony she was employed on May 14, 2010 by assignee ONEWEST. The following
questions were asked and then answered by Ms. Johnson Seck, at p. 4, line 11-p. 5, line 4: Q. Could you
state your full name for the record, please. A. Erica Antoinette Johnson-Seck. Page 4
Q. And what is your business address? A. 7700 West Parmer Lane, P-A-R-M-E-R, Building D, Austin,
Texas 78729. Q. And who is your employer? A. OneWest Bank. Q. How long have you been employed
by OneWest Bank? A. Since March 19th, 2009. Q. Prior to that you were employed by IndyMac Federal
Bank, FSB? A. Yes. Q. And prior to that you were employed by IndyMac Bank, FSB? A. Yes. Q. Your title
with OneWest Bank is what? A. Vice president, bankruptcy and foreclosure. Despite executing, on March
16, 2009, the MERS, as nominee for CAMBRIDGE, assignment to INDYMAC, as Vice President of
MERS, she admitted that she is not an officer of MERS. Further, she claimed to have "signing authority"
from several major banking institutions and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The
following questions were asked and then answered by Ms. Johnson-Seck, at p. 6, lines 5-21: Q. Are you
also an officer of
Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
-4-
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems? A. No. Q. You have signing authority to sign on behalf of
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems as a vice president, correct? A. Yes. Q. Are you an officer of
any other corporation? A. No. Q. Do you have signing authority for any other corporation? A. Yes. Q.
What corporations are those? A. IndyMac Federal Bank, Indymac Bank, FSB, FDIC as receiver for
Indymac Bank, FDIC as conservator for Indymac, Deutsche Bank, Bank of New York, U.S. Bank. And
that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Then, she answered the following question about her
"signing authority," at page 7, lines 3-10: Q. When you say you have signing authority, is your authority to
sign as an officer of those corporations? A. Some. Deutsche Bank I have a POA [power of attorney] to
sign as attorney-in-fact. Others I sign as an officer. The FDIC I sign as attorney-in-fact. IndyMac Bank and
IndyMac Federal Bank I now sign as attorney-in-fact. I only sign as a vice president for OneWest.
Ms. Johnson-Seck admitted that she is not an officer of MERS, has no idea how MERS is organized and
does not know why she signs assignments as a MERS officer. Further, she admitted that the MERS
assignments she executes are prepared by an outside vendor, Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS),
which ships the documents to her Austin, Texas office from Minnesota. Moreover, she admitted executing
MERS assignments without a notary public Page 5 present. She also testified that after the MERS
assignments are notarized they are shipped back to LPS in Minnesota. LPS, in its 2009 Form 10-K, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, states that it is "a provider of integrated technology
and services to the mortgage lending industry, with market leading positions in mortgage processing and
default management services in the U.S. [p. 1]"; "we offer lenders, servicers and attorneys certain
administrative and support services in connection with managing foreclosures [p. 4]"; "[a] significant focus
of our marketing efforts is on the top 50 U.S. banks [p. 5]"; and, "our two largest customers, Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., each accounted for more than 10% of our aggregate
revenue [p. 5]."LPS is now the subject of a federal criminal investigation related to its foreclosure
document preparation. (See Ariana Eunjung Cha. "Lender Processing Services Acknowledges
Employees Allowed to Sign for Managers on Foreclosure Paperwork," Washington Post, Oct. 5, 2010).
Last week, on October 13, 2010, the Florida Attorney-General issued to LPS an "Economic Crimes
Investigative Subpoena Duces Tecum," seeking various foreclosure documents prepared by LPS and
employment records for various "robo-signers." The following answers to questions were given by Ms.
Johnson-Seck in the Machado deposition, at p. 116, line 4-p. 119, line 16:
Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
-5-
Q. Now, given our last exchange, I'm sure you will agree that you are not a vice president of MERS in any
sense of the word other than being authorized to sign as one? A. Yes. Q. You are not-- A. Sorry. Q.
That's all right. You are not paid by MERS? A. No. Q. You have no job duties as vice president of MERS?
A. No. Q. You don't attend any board meetings of MERS? A. No. Q. You don't attend any meetings at all
of MERS? A. No. Q. You don't report to the president of MERS? A. No. Q. Who is the president of
MERS? A. I have no idea. Q. You're not involved in any governance of MERS? A. No. Q. The authority
you have says that you can be an assistant secretary, right? A. Yes. Q. And yet you don't report to the
secretary-- A. No. Q.--of MERS. You don't have any MERS' employees who report to you? Page 6
A. No. Q. You don't have any vote or say in any corporate decisions of MERS? A. No. Q. Do you know
where the MERS' offices are located? A. No. Q. Do you know how many offices they have? A. No. Q. Do
you know where they are headquartered? A. No. Q. I take it then you're never been to their
headquarters? A. No. Q. Do you know how many employees they have? A. No. Q. But you know that you
have counterparts all over the country signing as MERS's vice-presidents and assistant secretaries? A.
Yes. Q. Some of them are employees of third-party foreclosure service companies, like LPS? A. Yes. Q.
Why does MERS appoint you as a vice president or assistant secretary as opposed to a manager or an
authorized agent to sign in that capacity? A. I don't know. Q. Why does MERS give you any kind of a
title?
A. I don't know. Q. Take me through the procedure for drafting and--the drafting and execution of this
Assignment of Mortgage which is Exhibit E. A. It is drafted by our forms, uploaded into process
management, downloaded by LPS staff in Minnesota, shipped to Austin where we sign and notarize it,
and hand it back to an LPS employee, who then ships it back to Minnesota, up uploads a copy
Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
-6-
and mails the original to the firm. Q. Very similar to all the other document, preparation of all the other
documents. A. (Nods head.) Q. Was that a yes? You were shaking your head. A. Yes. Q. As with the
other documents, you personally don't review any of the information that's on here-- A. No. Q.--other than
to make sure that you are authorized to sign as the person you're signing for? A. Yes. Page 7
Q. Okay. As with the other documents, you signed these and took them to be notarized just to a Notary
that's outside your office? A. Yes. Q. And they will get notarized as soon as they can. It may or may not
be the same day that you executed it? A. That's true. Further, with respect to MERS, Ms. Johnson-Seck
testified in answering questions, at p. 138, line 2-p. 139, line 17: Q. Do you have an understanding that
MERS is a membership organization? A. Yes, yes. Q. And the members are-- A. Yes. Q.--banking entities
such as OneWest? A. Yes. Q. In fact, OneWest is a member of MERS? A. Yes. Q. Is Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company a member of MERS? A. I don't know. Q. Most of the major banking institutions in
the Untied States, at least, are members of MERS, correct? A. That sounds right. Q. It's owned and
operated by banking institutions? A. I'm not a big--I don't, I don't know that much about the ins and outs of
MERS. I'm sorry. I understand what it's for, but I don't understand the nitty-gritty. Q. What is it for?
A. To track the transfer of doc--of interest from one entity to another. I know that it was initially created so
that a servicer did not have to record the assignments, or if they didn't, there was still a system to keep
track of the transfer of property. Q. Does it also have a function to hold the mortgage separate and apart
from the note so that note can be transferred from entity to entity to entity, bank to bank to bank-- A. That
sounds right. Q.--without ever having to rerecord the mortgage? A. That sounds right. Q. So it's a savings
device. It makes it more efficient to transfer notes? A. Yes. Q. And cheaper? A. Yes. Moreover, Ms.
Johnson-Seck testified that one of her job duties was to sign documents, which at that time took her
Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
-7-
about ten minutes per day [p. 11]. Further, she admitted, at p. 13, line Page 8
11-p. 14, line 15, that she signs about 750 documents per week and doesn't read each document. Q.
Okay. How many documents would you say that you sign on aweek on average, in a week on average?
A. I could have given you that number if you had that question in there because I would brought the
report. However, I'm going to guess, today I saw an e-mail that 1, 073 docs are in the office for signing.
So if we just--and there's about that a day. So let's say 6, 000 a week and I do probably--let's see. There's
eight of us signing documents, so what's the math? Q. Six thousand divided by eight, that gives me 750.
A. That sounds, that sounds about right. Q. Okay. That would be a reasonable estimate of how many you
sign, you personally sign per week? A. Yes. Q. And that would include Lost Note Affidavits, Affidavits of
Debt? A. Yes. Q. What other kinds of documents would be included in that? A. Assignments,
declarations. I can sign anything related to a bankruptcy or a foreclosure. Q. How long do you spend
executing each document? A. have changed my signature considerably. It's just an E now.So not more
than 30 seconds. Q. Is it true that you don't read each document before you sign it? A. That's true.
[Emphasis added]
Ms. Johnson-Seck, in the instant action, signed her full name on the March 16, 2009 MERS, as nominee
for CAMBRIDGE, assignment to INDYMAC. She switched to the letter E in signing the May 14, 2009
INDYMAC to ONEWEST assignment and the June 30, 2009 affidavit of merit on behalf of ONEWEST.
Additionally. she testified about how LPS prepares the documents in Minnesota and ships them to her
Austin office, with LPS personnel present in her Austin office [pp. 16-17]. Ms. Johnson-Seck described
the document signing process, at p. 17, line 6-p. 18, line 18: Q. Take me through the procedure for
getting your actual signature on the documents once they've gone through this quality control process? A.
The documents are delivered to me for signature and I do a quick purview to make sure that I'm not
signing for an entity that I cannot sign for. And I sign the document and I hand it to the Notary, who
notarizes it, who then hands it back to LPS who uploads the document so that the firms know it's
available and they send an original. Q. "They" being LPS? A. Yes. Q. Are all the documents physically,
that you were
Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
-8-
supposed to sign, are they physically on your desk? A. Yes. Page 9
Q. You don't go somewhere else to sign documents? A. No. Q. When you sign them, there's no one else
in your office? A. Sometimes. Q. Well, the Notaries are not in your office, correct? A. They don't sit in my
office, no. Q. And the witnesses who, if you need witnesses on the document, are not sitting in your
office? A. That's right. Q. So you take your ten minutes and you sign them and then you give them to the
supervisor of the Notaries, correct? A. I supervise the Notaries, so I just give them to a Notary. Q. You
give all, you give the whole group that you just signed to one Notary? A. Yes. [Emphasis added] Ms.
Johnson-Seck testified, at p. 20, line 1-p. 21, line 4 about notaries not witnessing her signature: Q. I'm
mostly interested in how long it takes for the Notary to notarize your signature. A. I can't say categorically
because the Notary, that's not the only job they do, so. Q. In any event, it doesn't have to be the same
day? A. No. Q. When they notarize it and they put a date that they're notarizing it, is it the date that you
signed it or is it the date that they're notarizing it? A. I don't know.
Q. When you execute a sworn document, do you make any kindof a verbal acknowledgment or oath to
anyone? A. I don't know if I know what you're talking about. What's a sworn document? Q. Well, an
affidavit. A. Oh. No. Q. In any event, there's no Notary in the room for you to-- A. Right. Q. --take an oath
with you, correct? A. No there is not. Q. In fact, the Notaries can't see you sign the documents; is that
correct? A. Not unless that made it their business to do so? Q. To peek into your office? A. Yes.
[Emphasis added] As noted above, I found Ms. Johnson-Seck engaged in "robo-signing" in Deutsche
Bank v Maraj and Indymac Bank, FSB, v Bethley. In both foreclosure cases I denied plaintiffs' motions
Page 10 for orders of reference without prejudice with leave to renew if, among other things, Ms.
Johnson-Seck could explain in affidavits: her employment history for the past three years; why she was a
Vice President of both assignor MERS and assignee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in Maraj;
and, Vice President of INDYMAC in Bethley. Mr. Ice questioned Ms. Johnson-Seck about my Maraj
decision and showed her the Maraj decision as exhibit M in the Machado deposition. The following
colloquy at the Maraj deposition took place at p. 153, line 15-p. 156, line 9.
Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
-9-
Q. Exhibit M is a document that you saw before in your last deposition, correct? A. Yes. Q. It's an opinion
from Judge Schack up in New York-- A. Yes. Q.--correct? You're familiar with that? A. Yes. Q. In it, he
says that you signed an Assignment of Mortgage as the vice president of MERS, correct-- A. Yes. Q.--just
as you did in this case? Judge Schack also says that you executed an affidavit as an officer of Deutsche
Bank National Trust Company, correct? A. Yes. Q. And is that true, you executed an affidavit for
Deutsche Bank in that case? A. That is not true. Q. You never executed a document as an officer of
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in that case, Judge Schack's case? A. Let me just read it so I
can--I have to refresh my memory completely. Q. Okay. A. I don't remember. Most likely. Q. That you did?
A. It sounds reasonable that I may have. I don't remember, and since it's not attached, I can't say. Q. And
as a result, Judge Schack wanted to know if you were engaged in self-dealing by wearing two corporate
hats? A. Yes. Q. And the court was concerned that there may be fraud on the part of the bank? A. I
guess. Q. I mean he said that, right? A. Oh, okay. I didn't read the whole thing. Okay. Q. Okay. The court
ordered Deutsche Bank to produce an affidavit from you describing your employment history for the past
three years, correct? Page 11 A. That's what this says. Q. Did you do that? A. No, because we were
never--no affidavit ever existed and no request ever came to produce such a document. The last time we
spoke, I told you that in-house counsel was reviewing the whole issue and that's kind of where--and we
still haven't received any communication to produce an affidavit. Q. From your counsel? A. From
anywhere. Q. Well, you're reading Judge Schack's opinion. He seems to want one. Isn't that pretty clear
on its face. A. We didn't get--we never even got a copy of this. Q. Okay. But now you have it-- A. And-- Q.
And you had it when we met at our deposition back in February 5th. A. And our in-house counsel's
response to this is we were never--this was never requested of me and it was his recommendation not to
comply. Q. What has become of that case? A. I don't know. Q. Was it settled? A. I don't know.
Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
- 10 -
After a break in the Machado deposition proceedings, Mr. Ice questioned Ms. Johnson-Seck about
various documents that were subpoenaed for the July 9, 2010 deposition, including her employment
affidavits that I required in both Maraj and Bethley. Ms. Johnson-Seck answered the following questions
at p. 159, line 19-p. 161, line 9: Q. So let's start with the duces tecum part of you notice, which is the list
of documents. No. 1 was: The affidavit of the last three years of deponent's employment provided to
Judge Schack in response to the order dated January 31st, 2008 in the case of Deutsche Bank National
Trust Company vs. Maraj, Case No. 25981-07, Supreme Court of New York. We talked about that earlier.
There is no such affidavit, correct? A. Correct. Q. By the way, why was IndyMac permitted to bring the
case in Deutsche Bank's name in that case? A. I don't--I don't know. Now, errors have been made. Q. No.
2: The affidavit of the deponent provided to Judge Schack in response to the order dated February 6th,
2009 in the case of IndyMac Bank, FSB vs, Bethley, New York Slip Opinion 50186, New York Supreme
Court 2/5/09, "explaining," and this is in quotes, "her employment history for the past three years; and,
why a conflict of interest does not exist in how she acted as vice president of assignee Page 12
IndyMac Bank, FSB in the instant action, and vice president of both Mortgage Electronic Registrations
Systems, Inc. and Deutsche Bank in Deutsche Bank vs. Maraj," and it gives the citation and that's the
case referred to in item 1 of our request. Do you have that affidavit with you here today? A. No. Q. Were
you aware of that second opinion where Judge Schack asks for a second affidavit? A. Nope. Where is
Judge Schack sending these? Q. Presumably to your counsel. A. I wonder if he has the right address.
Maybe that's what we should do, send Judge Schack the most recent, and I will gladly show up in his
court and provide him everything he wants. Q. Okay. Well, I sent you this back in March. Have your or
your counsel or in-house counsel at IndyMac pursued that? A. No. [Emphasis added] Counsel for plaintiff
ONEWEST has leave to produce Ms. Johnson-Seck in my courtroom to "gladly show up... and provide
[me]... everything he wants."
Discussion
Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 1321 allows the Court in a foreclosure action,
upon the default of the defendant or defendant's admission of mortgage payment arrears, to appoint a
referee "to compute the amount due to the plaintiff." In the instant action, plaintiff ONEWEST's application
for an order of reference is a preliminary step to obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale
against defendant DRAYTON. (Home Sav. of Am., F.A. v Gkanios, 230 AD2d 770 [2d Dept 1996]).
Plaintiff's request to withdraw its application for an order of reference is granted.
Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
- 11 -
However, to allow this action to continue without seeking the ultimate purpose of a foreclosure action, to
obtain a judgment of foreclosure and sale, makes a mockery of and wastes the resources of the judicial
system. Continuing the instant action without moving for an order of reference is the judicial equivalent of
a "timeout." Granting a "timeout" to plaintiff ONEWEST to allow it to re-submit "a new application
containing new information... shortly" is a waste of judicial resources. Therefore, the instant action is
dismissed without prejudice, with leave granted to plaintiff ONEWEST to renew its motion for an order of
reference within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, if plaintiff ONEWEST and plaintiff ONEWEST's
counsel can satisfactorily address the various issues previously enumerated. Further, the dismissal of the
instant foreclosure action requires the cancellation of the notice of pendency. CPLR § 6501 provides that
the filing of a notice of pendency against a property is to give constructive notice to any purchaser of real
property or encumbrancer against real property of an action that "would affect the title to, or the
possession, use or enjoyment of real property, except in a summary proceeding brought to recover the
possession of real property." The Court of Appeals, in 5308 Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp. (64 NY2d
313, 319 [1984]), commented that "[t]he purpose of the doctrine was to assure that a court retained its
ability to effect justice by preserving its power over the property, regardless of Page 13 whether a
purchaser had any notice of the pending suit," and, at 320, that "the statutory scheme permits a party to
effectively retard the alienability of real property without any prior judicial review." CPLR § 6514 (a)
provides for the mandatory cancellation of a notice of pendency by:
The Court, upon motion of any person aggrieved and upon such notice as it may require, shall direct any
county clerk to cancel a notice of pendency, if service of a summons has not been completed within the
time limited by section 6512; or if the action has been settled, discontinued or abated; or if the time to
appeal from a final judgment against the plaintiff has expired; or if enforcement of a final judgment against
the plaintiff has not been stayed pursuant to section 551. [emphasis added] The plain meaning of the
word "abated," as used in CPLR § 6514 (a) is the ending of an action. "Abatement" is defined as "the act
of eliminating or nullifying." (Black's Law Dictionary 3 [7th ed 1999]). "An action which has been abated is
dead, and any further enforcement of the cause of action requires the bringing of a new action, provided
that a cause of action remains (2A Carmody-Wait 2d § 11.1)." (Nastasi v Nastasi, 26 AD3d 32, 40 [2d
Dept 2005]). Further, Nastasi at 36, held that the "[c]ancellation of a notice of pendency can be granted in
the exercise of the inherent power of the court where its filing fails to comply with CPLR § 6501 (see 5303
Realty Corp. v O & Y Equity Corp., supra at 320-321; Rose v Montt Assets, 250 AD2d 451, 451-452 [1d
Dept 1998]; Siegel, NY Prac § 336 [4th ed])." Thus, the dismissal of the instant complaint must result in
the mandatory cancellation of plaintiff ONEWEST's notice of pendency against the subject property "in
the exercise of the inherent power of the court." Moreover, "[t]o have a proper assignment of a mortgage
by an authorized agent, a power of attorney is necessary to demonstrate how the agent is vested with the
authority to assign the mortgage." (HSBC Bank, USA v Yeasmin, 27 Misc 3d 1227 [A], *3 [Sup Ct, Kings
County 2010]). "No special form or language is necessary to effect an assignment as long as the
language shows the intention of the owner of a right to transfer it [Emphasis added]." (Tawil v Finkelstein
Bruckman Wohl Most & Rothman, 223 AD2d 52, 55 [1d Dept 1996]). (See Suraleb, Inc. v International
Trade Club, Inc., 13 AD3d 612 [2d Dept 2004]).
Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
- 12 -
MERS, as described above, recorded the subject mortgage as "nominee" for CAMBRIDGE. The word
"nominee" is defined as "[a] person designated to act in place of another, usu. in a very limited way" or
"[a] party who holds bare legal title for the benefit of others." (Black's Law Dictionary 1076 [8th ed 2004]).
"This definition suggests that a nominee possesses few or no legally enforceable rights beyond those of a
principal whom the nominee serves." (Landmark National Bank v Kesler, 289 Kan 528, 538 [2009]). The
Supreme Court of Kansas, in Landmark National Bank, 289 Kan at 539, observed that: The legal status of
a nominee, then, depends on the context of the relationship of the nominee to its principal. Various courts
have interpreted the relationship of MERS and the lender as an agency relationship. See In re Sheridan,
2009 WL631355, at *4 (Bankr. D. Idaho, March 12, 2009) (MERS "acts not on its own account. Its Page
14 capacity is representative."); Mortgage Elec. Registrations Systems, Inc. v Southwest, 2009 Ark. 152
___, ___SW3d___, 2009 WL 723182 (March 19, 2009) ("MERS, by the terms of the deed of trust, and its
own stated purposes, was the lender's agent"); La Salle Nat. Bank v Lamy, 12 Misc 3d 1191 [A], at *2
[Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2006])... ("A nominee of the owner of a note and mortgage may not effectively
assign the note and mortgage to another for want of an ownership interest in said note and mortgage by
the nominee.") The New York Court of Appeals in MERSCORP, Inc. v Romaine (8 NY3d 90 [2006]),
explained how MERS acts as the agent of mortgagees, holding at 96:
In 1993, the MERS system was created by several large participants in the real estate mortgage industry
to track ownership interests in residential mortgages. Mortgage lenders and other entities, known as
MERS members, subscribe to the MERS system and pay annual fees for the electronic processing and
tracking of ownership and transfers of mortgages. Members contractually agree to appointMERS to act as
their common agent on all mortgages they register in the MERS system. [Emphasis added] Thus, it is
clear that MERS's relationship with its member lenders is that of agent with principal. This is a fiduciary
relationship, resulting from the manifestation of consent by one person to another, allowing the other to
act on his behalf, subject to his control and consent. The principal is the one for whom action is to be
taken, and the agent is the one who acts.It has been held that the agent, who has a fiduciary relationship
with the principal, "is a party who acts on behalf of the principal with the latter's express, implied, or
apparent authority." (Maurillo v Park Slope U-Haul, 194 AD2d 142, 146 [2d Dept 1992]). "Agents are
bound at all times to exercise the utmost good faith toward their principals. They must act in accordance
with the highest and truest principles of morality." (Elco Shoe Mfrs. v Sisk, 260 NY 100, 103 [1932]). (See
Sokoloff v Harriman Estates Development Corp., 96 NY 409 [2001]); Wechsler v Bowman, 285 NY 284
[1941]; Lamdin v Broadway Surface Advertising Corp., 272 NY 133 [1936]). An agent "is prohibited from
acting in any manner inconsistent with his agency or trust and is at all times bound to exercise the utmost
good faith and loyalty in the performance of his duties." (Lamdin, at 136). Therefore, in the instant action,
MERS, as nominee for CAMBRIDGE, is an agent of CAMBRIDGE for limited purposes. It can only have
those powers given to it and authorized by its principal, CAMBRIDGE. Plaintiff ONEWEST has not
submitted any documents demonstrating how CAMBRIDGE authorized MERS, as nominee for
CAMBRIDGE, to assign the subject DRAYTON mortgage and note to INDYMAC, which subsequently
assigned the subject mortgage and note to plaintiff ONEWEST.
Recently, in Bank of New York v Alderazi, 28 Misc 3d at 379-380, my learned colleague,
Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
- 13 -
Kings County Supreme Court Justice Wayne Saitta explained that: A party who claims to be the agent of
another bears the burden of proving the agency relationship by a preponderance of the evidence
(Lippincott v East River Mill & Lumber Co., 79 Misc 559 [1913]) Page 15 and "[t]he declarations of an
alleged agent may not be shown for the purpose of proving the fact of agency." (Lexow & Jenkins, P.C. v
Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp., 122 AD2d 25 [2d Dept 1986]; see also Siegel v Kentucky Fried Chicken
of Long Is. 108 AD2d 218 [2d Dept 1985]; Moore v Leaseway Transp/ Corp., 65 AD2d 697 [1st Dept
1978].) "[T]he acts of a person assuming to be the representative of another are not competent to prove
the agency in the absence of evidence tending to show the principal's knowledge of such acts or assent
to them." (Lexow & Jenkins, P.C. v Hertz Commercial Leasing Corp., 122 AD2d at 26, quoting 2 NY Jur
2d, Agency and Independent Contractors § 26). Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to demonstrate that
the original lender, the mortgagee America's Wholesale Lender, authorized MERS to assign the secured
debt to plaintiff. Therefore, in the instant action, plaintiff ONEWEST failed to demonstrate how MERS, as
nominee for CAMBRIDGE, had authority from CAMBRIDGE to assign the DRAYTON mortgage to
INDYMAC. The Court grants plaintiff ONEWEST leave to renew its motion for an order of reference, if
plaintiff ONEWEST can demonstrate how MERS had authority from CAMBRIDGE to assign the
DRAYTON mortgage and note to INDYMAC.
Then, plaintiff ONEWEST must address the tangled employment situation of "robo-signer" Erica A.
Johnson-Seck. She admitted in her July 9, 2010 deposition in the Machado case that she never provided
me with affidavits of her employment for the prior three years and an explanation of why she wore so-
many corporate hats in Maraj and Bethley. Further, in Deutsche Bank v Harris, Ms. Johnson-Seck
executed an affidavit of merit as Vice President of Deutsche Bank. If plaintiff renews its motion for an
order of reference, the Court must get to the bottom of Ms. Johnson-Seck's employment status and her
"robo-signing." The Court reminds plaintiff ONEWEST's counsel that Ms. Johnson-Seck, at p. 161 of the
Machado deposition, volunteered, at lines 4-5 to "gladly show up in his court and provide him everything
he wants." Lastly, if plaintiff ONEWEST'S counsel moves to renew its application for an order of
reference, plaintiff's counsel must comply with the new filing requirement to submit, under penalties of
perjury, an affirmation that he has taken reasonable steps, including inquiring of plaintiff ONEWEST, the
lender, and reviewing all papers, to verify the accuracy of the submitted documents in support of the
instant foreclosure action. According to yesterday's Office of Court Administration press release, Chief
Judge Lippman said: We cannot allow the courts in New York State to stand by idly and be party to what
we now know is a deeply flawed process, especially when that process involves basic human needs —
such as a family home — during this period of economic crisis. This new filing requirement will play a vital
role in ensuring that the documents judges rely on will be thoroughly examined, accurate, and error-free
before any judge is asked Page 16 to take the drastic step of foreclosure. (See Gretchen Morgenson and
Andrew Martin, Big Legal Clash on Foreclosure is Taking Shape, New York Times, Oct. 21, 2010; Andrew
Keshner, New Court Rules Says Attorneys Must Verify Foreclosure Papers, NYLJ, Oct. 21, 2010).
Conclusion
Accordingly, it is
Onewest Bank v. Drayton, 2010 NY Slip Op 20429 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2010)
- 14 -
ORDERED, that the request of plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., to withdraw its motion for an order of
reference, for the premises located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4529, Lot 116,
County of Kings), is granted; and it is further ORDERED, that the instant action, Index Number 15183/09,
is dismissed without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that the notice of pendency in the instant
action, filed with the Kings County Clerk on June 18, 2009, by plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., to
foreclose a mortgage for real property located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4529,
Lot 116, County of Kings), is cancelled; and it is further ORDERED, that leave is granted to plaintiff,
ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., to renew, within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, its motion for an
order of reference for the premises located at 962 Hemlock Street, Brooklyn, New York (Block 4529, Lot
116, County of Kings), provided that plaintiff, ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., submits to the Court: (1) proof of
the grant of authority from the original mortgagee, CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL, LLC, to its nominee,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., to assign the subject mortgage and note
to INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB; and
(2) an affidavit by Erica A. Johnson-Seck, Vice President of plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., explaining:
her employment history for the past three years; why a conflict of interest does not exist in how she acted
as a Vice President of assignor MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., a Vice
President of assignee/assignor INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB, and a Vice President of
assignee/plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. in this action; why she was a Vice President of both assignor
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and assignee DEUTSCHE BANK in
Deutsche Bank v Maraj, 18 Misc 3d 1123 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2008); why she was a Vice President
of both assignor MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and assignee INDYMAC
BANK, FSB in Indymac Bank, FSB, v Bethley, 22 Misc 3d 1119 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2009); and,
why she executed an affidavit of merit as a Vice President of DEUTSCHE BANK inDeutsche Bank v
Harris (Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 5, 2008, Index No. 35549/07); and (3) counsel for plaintiff ONEWEST
BANK, F.S.B. must comply with the new Court filing requirement, announced by Chief Judge Page 17
Jonathan Lippman on October 20, 2010, by submitting an affirmation, using the new standard Court form,
pursuant to CPLR Rule 2106 and under the penalties of perjury, that counsel for plaintiff ONEWEST
BANK, F.S.B. has personally reviewed plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.'s documents and records in the
instant action and counsel for plaintiff ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B. confirms the factual accuracy of plaintiff
ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.'s court filings and the accuracy of the notarizations in plaintiff ONEWEST
BANK, F.S.B.'s documents. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. ENTER HON. ARTHUR
M. SCHACK
J. S. C.
CATEGORY ARCHIVES: ONEWEST BANK SUED FOR ENCOURAGING FORECLOSURES

OneWest Bank Sued For Encouraging Foreclosures

Posted on February 22, 2010 by MARIO KENNY| 2 Comments

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/02/21/2552932….
Nineteen months after the catastrophic failure of one of Sacramento‘s top lenders, Pasadena-based
IndyMac Bank, a flurry of local lawsuits alleges that the bank‘s successor – OneWest Bank – is
systematically working to push home loan borrowers into foreclosure.
The allegations filed in the Eastern District of U.S. Bankruptcy Court claim that OneWest can make
more money by foreclosing than by keeping borrowers in their homes. That‘s due to its so-called
―shared-loss‖ agreement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., at least 10 local lawsuits allege.
A video made in Fairfield and circulating widely on the Internet also alleges that OneWest stands to
earn millions from taxpayers by foreclosing on borrowers as a result of its shared-loss agreement
with the FDIC.
The FDIC declined to comment on the Sacramento lawsuits, but it recently denounced the video‘s
―blatantly false claims.‖ The agency told The Bee that its agreement with OneWest contains
provisions to make sure the lender is taking adequate steps to modify loans.
OneWest declined to comment on either the lawsuits or the video.
The FDIC, which seized IndyMac in July 2008, sold the failed institution to Pasadena-based
OneWest in March 2009.
As part of the deal, the FDIC agreed to absorb some losses from the troubled loan portfolio. That‘s
after OneWest absorbs the first $2.5 billion in losses, the FDIC said.
But Sacramento bankruptcy lawyer Peter Macaluso claims the shared-loss agreement will reward
OneWest for foreclosing on homes. Here‘s how, he said: The company bought IndyMac‘s troubled
portfolio at a 30 percent discount. It can count on the FDIC eventually reimbursing 80 percent or
more of its losses – and also can keep proceeds from the foreclosure sales.
―They‘re deliberately blowing people out in a systematic pattern,‖ said Macaluso.
He has filed eight lawsuits in U.S. Bankruptcy Court on behalf of area IndyMac borrowers who have
filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.
Macaluso alleges that OneWest improperly boosted his clients‘ monthly loan payments – sometimes
by more than $1,000 – by doing a new escrow analysis after they had filed for bankruptcy protection.
He said his clients can‘t afford the increases and are in danger of losing their homes.
On Friday, he said OneWest has since rescinded the extra payments in three cases.
Elk Grove bankruptcy attorney Mark Wolff makes similar allegations in two lawsuits in U.S.
Bankruptcy Court.
―We made the allegations that it‘s a systematic approach they‘ve employed, and it‘s a violation of
bankruptcy code,‖ said Wolff. He said he previously filed similar actions against Bank of America and
JPMorgan Chase. His clients also are still in their homes.
A third attorney, Sean Gjerde of Elk Grove, recently filed a civil suit against OneWest in Sacramento
Superior Court. It alleges violations of the Truth In Lending Act, claiming that OneWest is
unresponsive to attempts to modify an Elk Grove client‘s IndyMac mortgage.
―As soon as OneWest took over, the communication stopped,‖ Gjerde said. ―My client has been in
default for a long time and it‘s been like heck to even get them to talk to me.‖
The local lawsuits represent another messy aftermath of IndyMac‘s implosion in July 2008, a
development that added to fears of an imminent U.S. financial collapse.
IndyMac was a leading Sacramento lender, ranking 10th in loan volume during the riskiest part of
the housing market: mid-2005 to mid-2007. Statistics from researcher MDA DataQuick show
IndyMac made 5,312 home loans worth $1.4 billion during this period in Sacramento, Placer, El
Dorado, Yolo, Sutter and Yuba counties.
A Treasury Department performance report last week showed that OneWest has temporarily or
permanently modified 25 percent of its loans that are 60 days or more late. Twelve lenders reported
higher modification rates and nine reported worse rates. The report said OneWest had permanently
modified 3,087 of its 112,000 delinquent loans by the end of January.