After numerous misrepresentations to the Court by various counsel for CHASE, it is clear that the actual BUTLER mortgage and note, given in 2007 by the defunct WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA [WAMU], was acquired in 2007 by the FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION [FANNIE MAE] from WAMU. Despite CHASE’S claims, before December 2011, to the Special Referee and the Court that it owned the subject mortgage and note, plaintiff CHASE only purchased the servicing rights to the subject mortgage and note from the FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION [FDIC] in September 2008, when WAMU was seized by the FDIC.CHASE, in the instant action, committed a fraud upon the Court by claiming to be the plaintiff. FANNIE MAE should have been the plaintiff as the owner of the note and mortgage when the BUTLER foreclosure action commenced.
Plaintiff CHASE, as will be explained, never owned the subject BUTLER mortgage and note. Therefore, CHASE had no right to foreclose on the subject mortgage and note. Moreover, the continued subterfuge by CHASE and its counsel to the Special Referee and Court that it owned the subject BUTLER mortgage and note demonstrated “bad faith” in [*3] violation of CPLR Rule 3408 (f), which requires that “[b]oth the plaintiff and defendant shall negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable resolution, including a loan modification, if possible.”
This case is troubling because various counsel for CHASE falsely claimed for almost two years, from January 20, 2010 until December 2011, that CHASE was the owner of the mortgage and note. Ultimately, in late 2011, after the subject mortgage had been satisfied, plaintiff CHASE’s counsel admitted, in opposition to defendant BUTLER’s October 26, 2011 order to show cause, that plaintiff CHASE did not own the BUTLER mortgage and note, but only the servicing rights to it. CHASE’s counsel, in its opposition papers, submitted an affidavit, dated December 9, 2011, from Greg De Castro, “Director-Servicing Management” of FANNIE MAE, claiming that FANNIE MAE acquired from WAMU the BUTLER Mortgage and Note and “Chase is the servicer of the loan.” Further, Mr. De Castro makes the ludicrous claim, in violation of New York law, that “[a]s Fannie Mae’s servicer, CHASE has authority to commence a foreclosure action on the Loan and to receive and/or collect the proceeds from the sale of the Property.”
Background
The Automated City Register Information System (ACRIS) does not show any assignments of the WAMU mortgage to FANNIE MAE or CHASE. However, a CHASE representative, Yvonne Brooks, “Home Loan Senior Research Specialist,” in her December 8, 2011-affidavit attached to plaintiff’s cross-motion, claims, in ¶ 6, that FANNIE MAE, in April 2007, purchased the BUTLER loan and WAMU retained the servicing rights. Exhibit D of the cross-motion contains a computer printout, dated April 20, 2007, showing this. Thus, plaintiff CHASE ultimately acknowledged that FANNIE MAE is the “Wizard of Oz,” operating behind the curtain, and the real owner of the subject BUTLER note and mortgage.
Then, on September 24, 2008, WAMU failed and its deposits and assets were seized by the federal government. On September 25, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision, a now-defunct federal agency, named the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) as Receiver for WAMU. WAMU had not corrected its errors by re-instituting Butler’s line of credit and correcting the erroneous reporting to credit bureaus before it was seized by the FDIC. CHASE, despite its assertions to the contrary for almost two years in the instant action, purchased the servicing rights to WAMU’s mortgages and notes, not the actual mortgages and notes.
In a letter, dated October 10, 2008, CHASE advised BUTLER that WAMU was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision and the FDIC was named Receiver. It then states that CHASE “acquired certain [*8] assets of Washington Mutual Bank from the FDIC, including the right to service your loan.”
Plaintiff CHASE’s counsel, then Steven J. Baum, P.C., commenced the instant foreclosure action on the subject premises, with the filing of a summons, complaint and notice of pendency on January 20, 2010. In the first paragraph of the complaint, Steven J. Baum, P.C., “alleges upon information and belief” that plaintiff CHASE is “the owner and holder of a note and mortgage being foreclosed.”
After plaintiff CHASE filed a Request for Judicial Intervention, an initial CPLR Rule 3408 mandatory settlement conference was held on March 22, 2010, followed by at least nine additional conferences, before Special Referee Deborah Goldstein. Defendant BUTLER appeared pro se except for the last conference, when he was represented by Yolande I. Nicholson, Esq. At the conclusion of the April 7, 2011-settlement conference, Special Referee Goldstein ordered that “Plaintiff is directed to appear by Sarah Feor, the attorney of Baum with knowledge of the standing and litigation issues. Production of all title and ownership documentation, including the note and all assignments are required to be produced in accordance [*9] with [CPLR] 3408 (e) at the next conference on 4/11/11 and Sarah Feor, Esq. must appear with a Chase rep.”
Thus, it appears to the Court that the delay by CHASE in producing the subject BUTLER Note was to give Baum and/or Cullen & Dykman ample time to temporarily borrow the BUTLER Note from FANNIE MAE for its May 2, 2011 presentation to the Court. Despite its December 2011 admission that FANNIE MAE owned the subject BUTLER mortgage and note, CHASE, prior to this, continuously presented its ownership subterfuge to Special Referee Goldstein and the Court. The Court cannot countenance the deceptive behavior of CHASE, the alleged owner of the subject BUTLER mortgage and note, its counsel, and FANNIE MAE, the real owner of the subject BUTLER mortgage and note. FANNIE MAE’s Servicing Guide, with its deceptive practices to fool courts, does not supercede New York law.
Further, Ms. Brooks explains the May 22, 2010 transaction, in ¶ 14 of her affidavit, as “an automatic cashless Fannie Mae transaction . . . which reclassifed the loan from being a schedule/schedule loan to an actual actual/actual remittance loan mortgage. See Fannie Mae 2006 Servicing Guide I, 208.06: Reclassification of Certain MBS Pool Mortgages attached hereto as [*19] Exhibit “H [sic].” This regulation, in its version of Orwellian Nineteen Eighty-Four “Newspeak,” states:
Rather than requiring the servicer to repurchase certain delinquent MBS pool mortgages that are serviced under the special servicing option – those for which we have the entire foreclosure loss risk and those for which Fannie Mae and the servicer share the foreclosure loss risk with Fannie Mae having the responsibility for marketing the acquired property – we will automatically reclassify a mortgage that satisfies our selection criteria as an “actual/actual” remittance type portfolio mortgage. Generally, we will select mortgages that have at least three payments past due for reclassification in the month when the fourth payment is delinquent.
CHASE, in the instant action, committed a fraud upon the Court by claiming to be the plaintiff. FANNIE MAE should have been the plaintiff as the owner of the note and mortgage when the BUTLER foreclosure action commenced. Thus, CHASE went to numerous CPLR Rule 3408 mandatory settlement conferences with unclean hands, falsely alleging that it was the plaintiff owner of the BUTLER mortgage and note.
In order to understand the full importance of the opinion at the
right, it’s critical to understand that in the vast majority of
foreclosure cases, the bank that is foreclosing does not own the mortgage at all. At
best, in the vast majority of foreclosure cases the foreclosing
plaintiff has, somewhere along the way, (probably) obtained the
servicing rights for the loan. Now mind you, they are never required to
prove up this essential fact, but that’s not even the issue.
The fact that a bank does not own a mortgage does not prevent them from lying to courts all across this country and falsely representing that they do in fact own the mortgage they are foreclosing on.
But courts let them get away with this lie. The biggest financial lie of the century.
There are undoubtedly big policy reasons why they have decided that they cannot be truthful and transparent about the ownership of property in this country….probably because if Americans knew that it was the federal government moving to throw them out of homes and destroying communities, it would get to be an uncomfortable dynamic.
It’s just astonishing and disturbing how long this lie has been permitted to be perpetuated…over and over…all across this country.
I remember an appellate argument had when a brilliant appellate judge asked me,
Reading this document below gives some insight…..
The fact that a bank does not own a mortgage does not prevent them from lying to courts all across this country and falsely representing that they do in fact own the mortgage they are foreclosing on.
But courts let them get away with this lie. The biggest financial lie of the century.
There are undoubtedly big policy reasons why they have decided that they cannot be truthful and transparent about the ownership of property in this country….probably because if Americans knew that it was the federal government moving to throw them out of homes and destroying communities, it would get to be an uncomfortable dynamic.
It’s just astonishing and disturbing how long this lie has been permitted to be perpetuated…over and over…all across this country.
I remember an appellate argument had when a brilliant appellate judge asked me,
“Mr. Weidner, does it matter who owns the mortgage…after all, your client isn’t paying?”
Yes judge, it mattered then and it matters
now and it will matter far more in the years to come when Americans wake
up and realize our economy has been hijacked, our property has been
stolen and our country is lost.
And our nation’s court system became complicit in the crime spree.
When will Americans wake up? When will judges wake up? Who knows…and that’s what’s scary….Reading this document below gives some insight…..
No comments:
Post a Comment