" the double-cross.”

OneWest Bank pays 7 figures in mortgage fraud case

September 11, 2013

Steve Mnuchin

By DANIEL BLACKBURN
A San Luis Obispo County couple has received a million-dollar-plus settlement and title to two houses in a case that is likely to result in more lawsuits by people who lost property to mortgage lenders after the bursting of the housing bubble.
Greg and Irene Rigali of Shell Beach sued OneWest Bank, IndyMac Mortgage Services, U.S. Bank and GSR Loan Mortgage Trust after their home and a rental property in Grover Beach were foreclosed. At the time, the Rigalis were negotiating with OneWest Bank to modify their mortgages, sources familiar with the case said.
The case turned on a mortgage practice known as “dual tracking.” Under the practice, lenders work with borrowers who are in default but, at the same time, pursue foreclosure.
At the short end of the seven-figure settlement agreement were two nationally known individuals, billionaire Steve Mnuchin, principal owner of OneWest Bank; and Rik Tozzi, a prominent Alabama attorney specializing in banking litigation and “complex cases in difficult or dangerous jurisdictions,” according to his website.

Rik Tozzi

Both Mnuchin and Tozzi came to San Luis Obispo in May for a hearing on a motion to declare OneWest Bank the winner in the Rigalis’ suit. But instead of granting OneWest’s motion for summary judgment, San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Charles S. Crandall said that the case should go to trial. The Rigalis had presented enough of a case to be able to have a jury decide their claims of fraud, wrongful foreclosure, unfair business practices, quiet title, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
After Judge Crandall ruled for the Rigalis and before the next formal court proceedings, OneWest settled. The terms of the settlement are confidential and neither the Rigalis nor their attorneys would comment for this article.
The Rigali’s case had its beginnings about five years ago. Greg Rigali, a former L.A. County sheriff’s deputy, and his wife retired to a small but comfortable and beautifully situated residence in Shell Beach after their adult children left home. A while after that, the Rigalis acquired a rental property in Grover Beach.
It was about that time, while the Rigalis began making college plans for their adopted daughter, that they got solicitations from the holder of their Shell Beach mortgage, IndyMac Federal Bank, inviting them to modify the mortgages on both the home and the rental residence.
That invitation included allowing the Rigalis to suspend or reduce payments on their properties during the run-up to the loan modification.
While the Rigalis were negotiating on the mortgage modifications, IndyMac Federal Bank failed in what would be the fourth-largest bank failure in U.S. history. What was left of IndyMac was acquired in March 2009 by a Mnuchin-led group of private investors for $1.55 billion.
The newly christened OneWest Bank picked up with the Rigalis where IndyMac Federal Bank had left off and negotiations on the modification proceeded.
“Because you are a valued customer, we want to help you stay in your home. Reduce your monthly payment of principal and interest and bring your loan current,” read the new solicitation from OneWest Bank. “We propose to permanently modify your mortgage, bring past-due payments current, and provide you with an affordable monthly payment.”
The Rigalis’ court filings “alleged they were led to believe, by representatives of several banks over a period of years, that their $560,000 loan would be modified. They believed they had entered into several forbearance agreements with several but related banks.”
And so, the Rigalis worked with bank officials for the modification, following every requirement called for by OneWest loan officers, their court filings said. But as that took place, other OneWest officials were moving toward a quiet foreclosure of the valuable beach properties.
The Rigalis were making payments in accordance with a June 2009 agreement with the bank. That included a one-time payment of $3,444.06. OneWest Bank cashed the check even as it pursued foreclosure.
A month later OneWest Bank assigned the Rigali’s trust deed to U.S. Bank.
In September 2009, to the Rigali’s complete surprise, a trustee’s sale of their beach house was conducted, with U.S. Bank the only bidder.
A notice of foreclosure was posted on the couple’s home’s door while Irene Rigali was en route home from what she thought had been a successful meeting with bank officials.
Shortly thereafter OneWest Bank refunded the Rigali’s $3,444.06 check, and the Rigalis filed their lawsuit.
The Rigalis were represented by two local attorneys, Maria L. Hutkin and Jude J. Basile. Jane Heath of San Luis Obispo teamed with Southern California lawyers Marissa Prayongratana and Thomas Agawa to present OneWest’s case.
OneWest filed a motion for summary judgment, a legal maneuver in which a judge can end a case by ruling that there are no real contested issues in the lawsuit.
Mnuchin and Tozzi then attended the May hearing to learn firsthand Crandall’s decision. Crandall, however, denied their motions, setting the stage for trial.
Crandall wrote in his denial of the motion that “the facts before the court are sufficient to defeat summary judgment” of most of OneWest Bank’s assertions, and he concluded that the Rigalis produced enough proven evidence to show that they could prevail in a jury trial.
OneWest quickly offered a settlement, sources said.
But the Rigalis did not want to settle. They wanted to take their case to trial; they wanted a public airing of their complaints, and their attorneys so informed the court.
The Rigalis felt assured the facts of their case would prevail, sources familiar with the suit said.
Recent legislative measures “provide an important lens” for the court to look through, wrote Crandall in denying OneWest’s motion.
The judge was referring to the banking practice of dual tracking, in which a borrower in default seeks a modification while the institution continues at the same time to pursue foreclosure. By the time the borrower learns what is happening, it is usually too late to prevent the foreclosure.
As a California appellate court decision several years ago noted, “For homeowners struggling to avoid foreclosure, this dual tracking might go by another name: the double-cross.”

Seriously US BANK and our Judicial System?

Occupy Leader Bratton Held on $250,000 Bail by Neil Garfield

In my judgment, based upon the scant facts and documents supplied to me this far, there is no doubt that Bratton DID own the property and probably still does if the law is applied properly.

I know of cases where probable cause was found for Murder and the bail was set less than that. The calls and emails keep coming in and I can't say that I have a total picture of what was really going on here. But, based upon what I have the current story is this:

Bratton is one of the leaders in the Occupy movement. It may be true that the Occupy movement has been put on a watch list or even the terrorist list which might account for the high bail. I have not been able to confirm that. But it seems that some inference of that sort was used in getting bail set at a quarter of a million dollars. If so, the government is confusing (intentionally or otherwise) the Occupy movement which is a political movement within the system allowed and encouraged by the U.S. Government --- with the sovereign citizen movement for which I have taken a lot of heat.

The sovereign citizen concept is a contradiction in terms. If you are a citizen you are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which you are a citizen. If you are "sovereign" then you are announcing that you are outside the bounds of the rules, regulations and laws of government. It would seem to me that the use of the word "sovereign" might be tantamount to renouncing your citizenship and making you an alien, subject to the immigration and naturalization agencies of the Federal government, which is a Federal question, not a state question.

From what I understand, Bratton acted as a pro se fighter against an illegal taking of her property by U.S. Bank, who will probably disclaim knowledge of the event when the heat turns up on this news item. My experience is that where claims of securitization are involved and U.S. Bank is a key player, virtually everything is false, fabricated and illegal --- including the notices of default, notices of sale, the "auction," the "credit bid" and the deed issued upon "foreclosure" of the property based upon the alleged sale. Judges find this hard to believe but the facts are coming out as the tsunami of whistle-blowers has just started.

My opinion is that the deed issued on foreclosure is VOID (not voidable) if there was no consideration. Check with a lawyer in your jurisdiction before you act on that. If the party submitting the "credit bid" has no proof that they paid for the origination and/or acquisition of the loan, then all their actions constitute the same value as a "wild deed" which is customarily ignored by title examiners and title agents. If in fact the situation goes to as far as establishing that no transaction occurred in which a purchase or funding of the loan occurred then fraud, utterance of a false instrument and the rest of the charges pending against Bratton now !?! It is the latter situation that in my opinion is the dominant permeating fact pattern throughout the financial industry in which they put CLAIMS of securitization ahead of proof that it ever occurred --- as a cover up for a racketeering scheme using a PONZI structure (new investments used to pay off old investors).

Based upon the facts and documents I have heard and seen Bratton went through the usual foreclosure fight where the Judge failed to apply the law properly and require proof of ownership the loan, mistakenly applying a presumption that is rebuttable, just as the Maryland Supreme Court did last week in a decision that will come back and haunt them. So needless to say she lost and the sale went forward with US bank submitting a credit bod on behalf of an asset pool that does not appear to exist in reality because it was never funded, and therefore was incapable of paying for the the funding of the origination of the loan nor the acquisition of the loan.

The usual fabricated papers were submitted and the usual untrue proffers by counsel apparently were present as well. So, like I have said on this blog, acting WITHIN THE SYSTEM, she went to the police showing them that she was alleging fraud, fabrication, forgery, and uttering an false instrument and recording it. The police refused to investigate saying it was a CIVIL MATTER.

So again, acting within the system, she went and filed a corrective deed in order to give legal notice to the world that the title was still in dispute. Meanwhile U.S. Bank allegedly sold the property to a third party who pay or may not have been a straw-man. The straw-man is attempting to get possession. Bratton is fighting it because the only basis for possession is not that she didn't pay her rent, but because title changed from her to this third party.

Despite their refusal to investigate her claims as falling within the category of a civil matter, the police then arrested Bratton for filing in the public records a corrective deed. POOF! What was a civil matter suddenly turned into a serious criminal matter, alleging, apparently nearly word for word, the allegations Bratton made against U.S. Bank, which if true would mean that any deed FROM U.S. Bank would also be a wild deed conveying no interest in the property whatsoever.

The kicker is the bail that has been set: $250,000. While I am familiar with this tactic being used around the country to scare off the leaders in the fight, this is the first time I have ever seen bail set at level that effectively puts Bratton behind bars without any hope of release based solely on what appears to be a completely unfounded accusation of criminal intent.

There are some rumors that the reason bail was set so high was because there were inferences that Bratton was affiliated with a terrorist group --- something I find hard to believe based upon the information I have received thus far. There is no evidence brought to my attention that could possibly be interpreted as coming within the scope of a definition of "terrorist." If her accusations against U.S. Bank are true, the term terrorist would more aptly apply to U.S. Bank than anything Bratton did.

My view is that the failure of the police to investigate her claims on the basis of their determination that this was a matter to be resolved in the civil courts completely undermines even the semblance of probable cause. If the police could say that they DID investigate the claims of Bratton and found them to be without merit, THEN the technical violation MIGHT apply assuming the document she filed was completely without merit --- i.e., that the content of the document was completely false.

My view is that without that investigation the best one could say about the police action in this case is that they were premature. The worst is that they were doing the bidding of the banks who have achieved a level of influence on law enforcement that is unprecedented in protecting themselves from prosecution for mass crimes against humanity AND bringing mortgage fraud and other criminal charges against those whom they are throwing under the bus or otherwise want to silence.

The police were wrong when they first told Bratton that this was a civil matter. The theft of millions of homes based upon false, fabricated, fraudulent documents corroborated by perjury and intentional misrepresentation to the court, is a big deal. It ripped open the fabric of our society and diminished respect for all three branches of government. Now that the police department has thrown its hat into the ring with this bogus criminal charge, it is time to force them politically to investigate the bank crimes (regardless of what assurances were given from the Bush and Obama administrations to the contrary).