About Me
Craig D. Robins, Esq. New York Bankruptcy Attorney, Longisland bankruptcy attorney

“ Craig D. Robins, Esq., has been a practicing Long Island bankruptcy attorney for over twenty-four years ”

Craig D. Robins, Esq.

Foreclosure Defense

Bankruptcy Strategies for Assisting Foreclosure Clients

Posted on Thursday (October 6, 2011) at 2:00 am to Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
Foreclosure Defense
Mortgages & Sub-Prime Mortgage Meltdown
Suffolk Lawyer

For Those with Mortgage Problems on Long Island, Bankruptcy Offers OptionsWritten by Craig D. Robins, Esq.
 
For Those with Mortgage Problems, Bankruptcy Offers Options
 
This post was my monthly column that was published in the September 2011 issue of the Suffolk Lawyer.  It was aimed at general practitioners and non-bankruptcy attorneys who may not be that familiar with how bankruptcy can be used to help clients with mortgage problems during these recessionary times.
 
This post should also be helpful to those consumers who are facing foreclosure and need to explore their bankruptcy options.
 
In the past two years I’ve helped a great deal of clients who were either in foreclosure or who owned homes that were very much underwater.  I am also seeing a lot of clients who have been rejected after trying to modify their mortgages, such as under the HAMP program.  Many consumers have found HAMP to be a dismal failure as I wrote in Problems with HAMP  — Too Many to Count? 
 
 
There are several bankruptcy options that can provide great relief for such clients.
 
Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
 
Consumers who have seriously fallen behind on their mortgages and who want to keep their homes, can use a Chapter 13 payment plan to cure mortgage arrears over a five-year period. 
 
However, this option is only available to those consumers who can not only afford to make their new post-petition mortgage payments, but can also make an additional monthly Chapter 13 plan payment approximately equal to 1/60th of the mortgage arrears.
 
A benefit of filing Chapter 13 is that the consumer can also resolve all credit card and medical debt as well, often paying just cents on the dollar.
 
There is a further significant benefit to those consumers who have a second mortgage that is totally underwater.  In these situations where the house is worth less than the balance owed on the first mortgage, the consumer can bring a “cram-down” proceeding and effectively “strip-off” and totally eliminate the second mortgage.   This benefit alone can often save the consumer over a hundred thousand dollars.
 
In order to qualify for Chapter 13 filing, the consumer must have a regular and steady source of income.  Some clients who would like to save their home, unfortunately cannot do so if they do not have sufficient monthly income.
 
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
 
Chapter 7 bankruptcy enables a consumer to discharge most obligations including liability on a mortgage. 
 
When I meet with a client who has significant mortgage arrears, and whose mortgage balances greatly exceed the value of their home, I discuss the concept that it may no longer be viable to save the home.  Chapter 7 bankruptcy can provide a way out of bad, highly-leveraged real estate.  A recent study indicated that one-fourth of all U.S. homes were underwater.
 
One of the judges in the Central Islip Bankruptcy Court permits Chapter 7 debtors to cram-down second mortgages.
 
 
 
Walking Away from Real Estate
 
With these clients I often recommend a two-step process to extend their ability to remain in the home for a period of time, and to discharge their liability on the mortgage and ultimately any deficiency owed after a foreclosure sale.  It is often possible to remain in the house for one to two years or more, without paying any mortgage or real estate tax payments.
 
Assuming that you can interpose one or more genuine, good faith defenses in a foreclosure proceeding in Supreme Court, you can then prevent a default judgment and take the foreclosure proceeding out of the automatic conveyor belt type of processing, effectively delaying the process by many months, or a year or more.
 
These days there are a host of possible foreclosure defenses.  These  include bringing shoddy or defective paperwork to the court’s attention; citing issues which may indicate that the lender may not have proper standing; and identifying improper mortgage assignments.
 
By defending a foreclosure proceeding, the foreclosure process can be greatly slowed down.
 
Strategic Default
 
Sometimes I come across a client who is current on his or her mortgage, but whose home is extremely underwater.  In such instances I discuss the possibility of a “strategic default” which is when the consumer stops paying the mortgage, not because he or she can no longer afford it, but because keeping the house is no longer viable or financially worthwhile.
 
A Morgan Stanley report last year revealed that about 12 percent of all mortgage defaults are now “strategic,” which is a great increase from mid-2007, when the level was only 4 percent
 
Bankruptcy Eliminates Recourse
 
By filing a bankruptcy and possibly engaging in foreclosure defense, the consumer will have to eventually walk away from the home, but they will probably be able to stay in it for several years without making any payments – all without financial recourse from the mortgage company. 
 
There is also a strategy for timing the filing of the bankruptcy.  Although the bankruptcy filing can be done at any time, doing so at the right time will get the homeowner a few extra months in the house, as the bankruptcy stay will stop the foreclosure proceeding until the lender can get permission to lift it.
 
Although most consumers are eligible for Chapter 7 filing, they must nevertheless pass the means test which Congress imposed about six years ago.  As such, this approach should work for most consumers except those with high incomes or substantial non-exempt assets.
 
If the dream of home ownership has become a nightmare, then remember that there are bankruptcy options out there.
 
————————-
 
About the Author.  Long Island Bankruptcy Attorney Craig D. Robins, Esq., is a regular columnist for the Suffolk Lawyer, the official publication of the Suffolk County Bar Association in New York. This article appeared in the October 2011 issue of the Suffolk Lawyer. Mr. Robins is a bankruptcy lawyer who has represented thousands of consumer and business clients during the past twenty years. He has offices in Mastic, Patchogue, Commack, West Babylon, Coram, Woodbury and Valley Stream. (516) 496-0800. For information about filing bankruptcy on Long Island, please visit his Bankruptcy web site: http://www.BankruptcyCanHelp.com
 
 
 
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Steven J. Baum Foreclosure Firm Being Pursued with Same Laws Used to Go After Organized Crime

Posted on Wednesday (March 30, 2011) at 11:55 pm to Current Events
Foreclosure Defense
Mortgages & Sub-Prime Mortgage Meltdown

Steven J. Baum is in the Fire

Steven J. Baum is in the Fire

Written by Craig D. Robins, Esq.

 
In March 2010, I wrote a rather detailed review of the Baum law firm as they had gained a significant amount of notoriety for not only being the largest foreclosure firm in New York but also the one most plagued by allegations of foreclosure misconduct.  See Has Steven J. Baum, P.C. Served You with Foreclosure Papers? 
 
I then provided an update with my second post about Baum in which I compared Baum, as the Foreclosure King of New York, with David J. Stern, a former foreclosure king in Florida who tumbled from grace amid robo-signing scandal.  See:  Is Steven J. Baum, the Foreclosure King of New York, Worth $50 Million?
 
Update on the Baum Firm — Foreclosure Mill Extraordinaire
 
In this post I will now provide you with an additional update on some of the ongoing trials and tribulations of the Steven J. Baum foreclosure mill. 
 
If you have been served by Baum in a foreclosure case, are in the process of litigating against that firm, or are simply intrigued, as I am, about this monster of a foreclosure factory, then read on.
 
In a nutshell, the firm has preserved its reputation for engaging in shoddy and improper foreclosure litigation as indicated in a host of court opinions, lawsuits and investigations.
 
Since my prior post about the Steven J. Baum firm, Baum has been hit with two federal class action suits, he has been sanctioned, and a Long Island judge described his conduct as “out of the Twilight Zone.”
 
new york times cover january 11 2011 with article about foreclosure lawyers 138x270 Steven J. Baum Foreclosure Firm Being Pursued with Same Laws Used to Go After Organized CrimeI Succeed In Getting Baum Foreclosure Dismissed — and Case is Discussed in New York Times Cover Story
 
I was also successful in having the Suffolk County Supreme Court toss out a foreclosure case that Baum had brought against one of my clients and this was just reported in the New York TimesCraig Robins Mentioned in New York Times Cover Story About Sloppy Foreclosure Lawyers Who Represent Lenders.
 
In that case, Baum represented mortgagee Wells Fargo, who it turned out failed to have standing to bring the case in the first place.
 
The Campbell v. Baum Class Action Suit
 
In August, a federal class action suit was filed against the Baum firm alleging that tens of thousands of New York State homeowners were victims of foreclosure fraud orchestrated by the Baum law firm.
 
The case, Connie Campbell v. Steven Baum, MERSCORP, Inc., et. al., is pending here in the Eastern District of New York.  The case alleges that the Baum firm engaged in a bevy of improprieties worthy of being sued under RICO, which is the federal criminal statute designed to permit the authorities to punish members engaged in organized criminal enterprises. 
 
The RICO statute also permits victims of organized crime to seek redress in a civil suit for acts that are orchestrated as part of a criminal enterprise.   This class action involves that type of civil suit.  RICO’s original intended use was to prosecute the Mafia.
 
MERS Allegations Are a Chief Component of the Campbell Class Action Suit
 
In the suit, Ms. Campbell, who lost her Brooklyn home in a foreclosure proceeding that the Baum firm had brought, alleged that the foreclosure filings were false. 
 
She claimed that Baum sued her, claiming that HSBC was the owner of the mortgage.  Yet, Ms. Campbell asserts that the loan was never assigned to HSBC, but instead, was assigned to MERS.
 
MERS is a very controversial, privately-held electronic registry that does not really own a mortgage, but tracks servicing rights and ownership. 
 
I previously wrote about special defenses that a homeowner can assert to defend a foreclosure action involving a MERS mortgage.  See:  A New Powerful Mortgage Foreclosure Defense — Compliments of MERS.
 
In essence, Ms. Campbell alleged that any MERS mortgagee does not have standing to sue, and the Baum firm was complicit in bringing improper foreclosure suits.
 
She also alleged that the Baum firm was in cahoots with MERS with the robo-signing of various foreclosure documents.
 
Current Status of the Campbell v. Baum Class Action Suit
 
Since New York City attorney Susan Chana Lask commenced the suit in August, 2010, she amended it twice.  You can see a copy of the Second Amended Campbell v. Baum Class Action Complaint.   The case is Campbell v. Baum, 10-cv-3800.
 
Since the class action started half a year ago the parties have been bitterly bickering about exchanging documents and information in the discovery phase of the suit.  This has resulted in Ms. Lask having to make a number of applications seeking to have the court determine that Baum’s discovery requests were unreasonably burdensome. 
 
In other words, she has claimed that Baum is papering her to death — a grossly unfair tactic that is used to abusively smother and sidetrack an opponent while draining their resources by serving an excess of papers and demands, thereby creating unnecessary legal work.  But looking at Baum’s less-than-stellar history, perhaps that could have been expected.
 
Baum also engaged in what many believe to be the dirtiest of dirty pool — he counter-sued Ms. Lask, claiming he defamed her by discussing the suit.  Yet, in interviews that she gave to the press, she insisted that everything she said was true, based on various court decisions against Baum.
 
Another Baum Class Action Suit:  Menashe v. Baum
 
More than one attorney believes Baum has violated the rights of many.  Baum must now defend against another class action suit that is now pending in the Central Islip Courthouse of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
 
In November 2010, Jacob Manashe filed a class action against the Baum firm, alleging that Baum was illegally charging homeowners for attending settlement conferences.
 
This case is Menashe v. Steven J. Baum P.C., 10-cv-5155.  The attorney for that case is New York City attorney Randall S. Newman.
 
Mr. Newman sent me a copy of the complaint which you can view for yourselves.  Click Menashe v. Baum federal class action complaint.  
 
Baum Fined and Sanctioned in Nassau County Case Containing 50% Falsities
 
It seems that New York courts regularly criticize the Baum firm for shoddy, sloppy and problematic foreclosure practices.  Last year, Baum’s firm foreclosed on a Garden City home owned by Pal Raia.
 
After Baum succeeded in conducting a foreclosure sale, he sought to evict the homeowner.    However, Baum neglected to properly identify the mortgagee owner that took over the property.
 
Nassau County District Court Judge Scott Fairgrieve dismissed the proceeding in November 2010, stating, “Falsities were contained in five paragraphs out of only ten paragraphs in the entire petition.”
 
In this case, Baum’s firm was ordered to pay about $15,000 in legal fees and costs, on top of a $5,000 fine.
 
Baum Investigated for Overcharging
 
I’ve read reports that the Baum firm is being investigated by New York’s Attorney General for overcharging, filing false documents and representing parties on both sides of a mortgage transfer.
 
Judge Arthur M. Schack Twilight Zone Case with Steven J. BaumThe Judge Schack Attack Against Baum — Not Only in the Twilight Zone
 
Arthur M. Schack, a New York State Supreme Court Judge sitting in Brooklyn, has been especially vocal with his criticisms of the Baum firm.
 
In one case he called the firm’s explanations “so incredible, outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous that they should have been authored by the late Rod Serling,” referring of course to the old, black & white classic TV show, theTwilight Zone (which I have recently been watching on the Syfy channel) about science fiction and the supernatural.
 
That case involved another improper mortgage assignment.  Judge Shack stated, “Steven J. Baum PC appears to be operating in a parallel mortgage universe, unrelated to the real universe.”
 
Judge Schack, writing in a manner that makes reading his decisions a fun and enjoyable exercise, continues, “Rod Serling’s opening narration, to episodes in the 1961 - 1962 season of The Twilight Zone, could have been an introduction to the arguments presented in support of the instant motion by plaintiff’s counsel, Steven J. Baum, P.C. - ‘You are traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, the Twilight Zone.’”
 
Read Judge Schack’s Twilight Zone case for yourself:  HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Yeasmin, 2010 NY Slip Op 50927(U).
 
Judge Arthur M. Schack has pursued Stephen J. Baum for various foreclosure irregularitiesIn Another Case, Judge Schack Accuses Baum of Engaging in a Conflict of Interest
 
In a foreclosure case last year pending in the Kings County Supreme Court, Judge Schack admonished Baum for representing two parties in the same action, which is a conflict of interest.
 
In the case, Lasalle Bank, N.A. v. Smith, Judge Schack denied the mortgagee’s motion for a judgment of foreclosure that the Baum firm had brought on the ground that they failed to provide an affidavit of facts executed by an officer of the mortgagee who had knowledge of the facts.
 
However, Schack also criticized the Baum firm for simultaneously representing both first and second mortgagees in violation of 22 NYCRR 1200.24 of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Conduct since Baum was unable to demonstrate that his clients consented to such representation after full disclosure of the risks involved.  The slip opinion was rendered on March 22, 2010.
 
Baum in Litigated Divorce Proceeding with Spouse
 
Upon searching for various Baum foreclosure cases, one other interesting case turned up:  Baum v. Baum
 
It appears that Baum is involved in a heavily litigated divorce case pending in upstate New York before Judge John O’Donnell who recently ordered Baum to pay pendente lite support.
 
More About Baum to Come
 
I’ve also prepared a rather lengthy and detailed list of various decisions that New York judges have issued in various Baum foreclosure cases, most of which have highlighted various irregularities and sloppy conduct on the part of the Baum firm.
 
I am hoping to assemble that for a future blog post.
 
This Post About Steven J. Baum Is Merely a Follow-Up – See My Prior Posts for Lots More on Baum’s Bumbling
 
If you think the above is something, you must see my first Baum Post from 2010 About the Stephen J. Baum Foreclosure Mill
 
 
 
 
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Craig D. Robins and Long Island Bankruptcy Blog Mentioned in Washington Post Article About Judges Becoming Intolerant of Mortgage Lenders in National Mortgage Debacle

Posted on Thursday (March 10, 2011) at 6:00 pm to Foreclosure Defense
In The News

washington post 300x270 Craig D. Robins and Long Island Bankruptcy Blog Mentioned in Washington Post Article About Judges Becoming Intolerant of Mortgage Lenders in National Mortgage DebacleWritten by Craig D. Robins, Esq.
 
I previously mentioned that I’ve been a little slow in writing posts about some national-level periodicals that have quoted me on various bankruptcy and foreclosure issues.
 
I’m pleased to say that on November 9, 2010, the Washington Post published an article written by their staff reporter Ariana Eungung Cha, who has been regularly covering national news about foreclosure improprieties committed by big mortgage lenders and their foreclosure attorneys.
 
The article discussed the recent revelation last fall that many foreclosure cases across the nation were based on improperly executed robo-signed mortgage documents.   
 
As New York had become a hotbed of cases in which judges have expressed their frustration with mortgage lenders who are reckless with their litigation, she asked for my comments.
 
She also highlighted the noteworthy and highly-publicized decision of Long Island Judge Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, who tossed out a mortgage because he felt that the mortgage lender wasn’t playing fair with its legal obligation to work out a resolution with the homeowner in good faith.  See Judge Cancels Mortgage Due to Mortgagee’s Shocking Behavior in Long Island Foreclosure Action .
 
 Long Island Bankruptcy Attorney and Foreclosure Defense Lawyer Craig D. Robins, Esq. Quoted in Washington Post 
 
Click to see “Some Judges Chastise Banks Over Foreclosure Paperwork” on the Washington Post website, or read the the article below:  
  
 
Some Judges Chastise Banks Over Foreclosure Paperwork
 
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 9, 2010

 

EAST PATCHOGUE, N.Y. - A year ago, Long Island Judge Jeffrey Spinner concluded that a mortgage company’s paperwork in a foreclosure case was so flawed and its behavior in negotiations with the borrower so “repugnant” that he erased the family’s $292,500 debt and gave the house back for free.

The judgment in favor of the homeowner, Diane Yano-Horoski, which is being appealed, has alarmed the nation’s biggest lenders, who say it could establish a dramatic new legal precedent and roil the nation’s foreclosure system.

It is not the only case that has big banks worried. Spinner and some of colleagues in the New York City area estimate they are dismissing 20 to 50 percent of foreclosure cases on the basis of sloppy or fraudulent paperwork filed by lenders.

Their decisions illustrate the central role lower court judges will have in resolving the country’s foreclosure debacle. The mess came to light after lawsuits and media reports showed lenders were routinely filing shoddy or fraudulent papers to seize the homes of borrowers who had missed payments.

In millions of cases across the United States, local judges have wide latitude to impose sanctions on banks, free homeowners from their mortgage debts or allow the companies to proceed with flawed foreclosures. Ultimately, the industry is likely to face a messy scenario - different resolutions by courts in all 50 states.

The foreclosure dismissals in this area of New York have not delivered free homes for borrowers. With so much at stake, lenders in this part of New York are aggressively appealing foreclosure dismissals, which is likely to keep the legal system bogged down, foreclosed homes off the market, and homeowners like the Yano-Horoski family in legal limbo for years.

“We believe the Yano-Horoski ruling, if allowed to stand, has sweeping and dangerous implications for the entire mortgage lending industry,” said OneWest Bank, the family’s mortgage servicer.

The situation in Suffolk and Nassau counties on Long Island and Kings County in Brooklyn- which have among the highest rates of foreclosure in the state and where the 81 judges handling foreclosures have become infamous over the past few years for scrutinizing paperwork for errors - provides a window into how the crisis could unfold across in the country.

While the level of tolerance for document mistakes varies from judge to judge, the group as a whole has a reputation for ruling against mortgage companies when paperwork issues or other problems arise. At least one bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, requires document processors to separate foreclosures cases from these three counties from those in the rest of the country. A high-ranking executive of the company is specially assigned to sign off on the area’s foreclosure filings.

Judge Dana Winslow of Nassau County says he’s thought a lot about why judges in his area are more apt to question filings. He said it comes down to one thing: Lack of trust for Wall Street. In this region, judges have seen a lot of inaccurate filings from the financial sector.

Trust “of the lending institutions and Wall Street has eroded in some areas of the country more than others,” Winslow said.

Craig D. Robins, a foreclosure defense attorney who authors the Long Island Bankruptcy blog, said of the Yano-Horoski case: “I think we’re going to see more decisions like this across the country. Many judges are finding their court calendars clogged with cases that have all these flaws in them that never should have been brought in the first place or should never have been brought without more due diligence.”

Going forward, mortgage companies trying to foreclosure in the state of New York will face stiffer requirements. On Oct. 20, the state’s chief judge said attorneys for lenders will have to vouch personally for the accuracy of documents.

“We can’t have the process being a fraud,” New York State Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman said in announcing the new procedure. “It has to be real and based on credible information.”

Even before Lippman’s order, however, lower court judges were already raising questions about faulty paperwork in foreclosures.

On June 17, for example, Judge Karen Murphy of Nassau County ruled that Wachovia Bank lacked standing to foreclose on a home because the document used to prove ownership of the mortgage was incomplete.

On Sept. 21, Judge Peter Mayer of Suffolk County delayed a foreclosure by Ally Financial’s GMAC mortgage unit after noticing that the paperwork transferring the mortgage to the bank was dated two days after the foreclosure was initiated.

And on Oct. 21, Judge Arthur Schack of Kings County dismissed a OneWest foreclosure motion because the bank had not adequately documented how the mortgage had been sold and resold to investors. He also questioned why the employee who signed many of the documents claimed to be a vice president of several different mortgage companies at the same time.

In a different case in May, Schack ruled that HSBC Bank could not foreclose on a home because the paperwork that assigned the mortgage to HSBC from the original lender, Cambridge, was “defective.”

That didn’t mean the borrower, Lovely Yeasmin, a 28-year-old cashier who immigrated from Bangladesh, got her three-story townhouse in Brooklyn’s Bushwick neighborhood for free. Wells Fargo, the mortgage servicer for HSBC, has not appealed the case. Instead, it has offered to temporarily lower her monthly payment from $4,700 to $3,000.

Yeasmin’s eldest brother, Mohammed Parpez, 35, said that before the judge’s order, Wells Fargo was resistent to a loan modification. “The banks are crooks. They tell everyone they are trying to help people like us, but they are really doing the opposite,” Parpez said.

Tom Goyda, a Wells Fargo spokesman, said that although the company “disagrees with the court’s findings,” it is continuing to try to work out a longer-term solution with the family.

Members of the Yano-Horoski family said they struggled similarly to get their lender to modify their loan after Greg Horoski fell ill in 2005 and his online business selling specialty dolls suffered. After he underwent a triple bypass surgery, two stents and two hip replacements, he and his wife, Diane - who teaches an online English composition course - found themselves unable to pay the bills.

Despite his pleas, Horoski said, he failed to get OneWest to come to an agreement, even though he became able to pay the debt after his company’s sales picked up.

In his November 2009 ruling, Judge Spinner of Suffolk County blasted OneWest for negotiating with an “opprobrious demeanor and condescending attitude.” He also cited the bank’s “duplicity” in offering a forbearance agreement with a deadline that had already passed and for presenting contradictory paperwork claiming different amounts for what the family owed.

With their case under appeal, the Yano-Horoskis now find themselves in a tricky position, wary of putting more money into a house that an appeals court could take away from them. While the other houses on their quiet suburban street are meticulously maintained, their front-porch light remains shattered and the paint on their house is peeling.

They’ve shelled out $3,000 for a new hot-water system. They paid $2,000 for tree trimming after a neighbor complained. But they’ve let the $10,000 property tax bill become delinquent, and they worry an appeals court could not only reverse the earlier ruling but demand that the family pay back the mortgage for every month that has passed since.

Nonetheless, Horoski remains optimistic.

“People thought people who didn’t pay their mortgages were automatically deadbeats,” he said. “People are educated now. They are realizing all of a sudden how many hundreds of thousands of these homes that were foreclosed may have been done so with fraudulent documents.”

 
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Craig D. Robins Quoted In Daily Finance Article

Posted on Wednesday (March 2, 2011) at 4:00 am to Foreclosure Defense
In The News

Craig D. Robins, Esq. quoted in Daily Finance article about foreclosure defense
 
Written by Craig D. Robins, Esq.
 
Because I’ve been so busy representing clients these past few months, I’ve been a little slow in commenting on some national-level periodicals that have recently quoted me on various bankruptcy and foreclosure issues.
 
On October 25, 2010, Abigail Field, writing for Daily Finance, discussed New York’s new rules for requiring attorneys to verify information presented to the court in foreclosure cases.  In her article, “What’s the New York State of Mind for Foreclosures Now?” I commented on the impact that this new law will have.
 
 
Click here to see the Daily Finance article:  What’s the New York State of Mind for Foreclosures Now?
 
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Craig D. Robins Quoted in Long Island Business News Article About MERS Mortgage Mess

Posted on Tuesday (February 15, 2011) at 9:15 pm to Foreclosure Defense
In The News

 

Craig D. Robins featured in Long Island Business News ArticleBelow is an article about the highly-controversial MERS — the Mortgage Electronic Registration System — which has been negatively featured in national news over the past year for contributing to the foreclosure woes of millions.  A number of my quotes are featured in the article which appeared in Long Island Business News in its January 26, 2011 edition.

The major issue with any MERS mortgage is whether the mortgagee has standing to commence a foreclosure proceeding.  See  A New Powerful Mortgage Foreclosure Defense — Compliments of MERS .

Here is the article:
 

Critics Question a Digital Financial System Web

by LIBN Staff
Published:  January 26, 2011

The lending industry launched the Mortgage Electronic Registration System in 1997 to be a centralized database to streamline the transfer of home loans among investors while making it easier for borrowers to keep track of who owns their loans.

But the system’s critics say the industry got it only half right: Loans are being transferred electronically between investors at such an alarming pace - and with so little governmental oversight - that homeowners often cannot discover the current loan owner’s identity.

This difficulty results, in large part, from a legal fiction in which MERS registers as the nominal mortgagee in county land records offices. Loan transfers under the mortgage are not similarly recorded and “transparent” but are instead handled through the electronic database.

The true lender comes to light only when foreclosure proceedings begin, when MERS reassigns the mortgage in land records to the lender, critics say. “Mortgages seem to be bought and sold at such a dizzying pace on the secondary mortgage market that frequently a plaintiff  mortgagee is no longer the proper party by the time the foreclosure is served,” said Craig Robins, a Woodbury-based attorney and writer who specializes in bankruptcy law.

But MERSCORP President R.K. Arnold said the MERS database, which his company operates, makes it easier for borrowers to track the current owner of the loan.

He referred to written testimony he gave in November to the U.S. Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee as part of its examination of the mortgage serving industry.

“MERS helps the mortgage finance process work better,” the written testimony said. “The MERS process of tracking mortgages and holding title provides clarity, transparency and efficiency to the housing finance system. We are committed to continually ensuring that everyone who has responsibilities in the mortgage and foreclosure process follows local and state laws, as well as our own training and rules.”

Robins noted that MERS, of course spins toward the positive for his company. “Although MERS claims its process is efficient, we can see that’s not the case because of all the sloppiness that’s been exposed in the way they maintain their records,” he added.

In response to claims that MERS is not a valid mortgagee, MERSCORP’s president told the Senate panel that the company clearly notes on mortgage documents signed by the borrower at closing that MERS is the mortgagee. The document is then recorded in the public land records, Arnold said in written testimony.

The lenders, under their membership agreement with MERS, state that the system serves as the mortgagee of record with regard to each loan, he added.

“What MERS does is eliminate the expense of repeated assignments, resulting in lower cost for lenders when they sell the loans … to investors,” Arnold added. “When the note is sold, MERS continues to act as the mortgagee for the new note holder because the mortgage interest follows the note when it changes hands.”

Despite this assurance, and even in the absence of a court ruling or legislation, title insurers might grow leery of underwriting home sales involving properties in which the MERS database was the mortgagee. Title insurers feel more comfortable with paper documents attesting to the ownership of property and loans. One reason for title insurers comfort level with paper is it’s easier to document a complete chain of title, assuming the mortgage instruments are properly prepared, Robins noted.

Critics of MERS say the electronic database has also enabled banks to avoid paying county recording fees whenever they assign a loan.

The banks need not record the loan transfers because on paper the same company, MERS, retains the mortgage.

University of Utah law professor Christopher L. Peterson, a critic of MERS, said the practice shortchanges counties and is presumably illegal in many jurisdictions, testifying last month before the House Judiciary Committee as it examined causes and effects of the foreclosure crisis.

Peterson, in an interview, said state lawmakers should consider passing legislation that would require mortgages and loans to be recorded with land records officials to ensure proper chain of title.

Such legislation would combat the mortgage industry’s “cavalier documentation practices” under which MERS is “pretending to own the mortgage,” Peterson said.

MERSCORP’s Arnold, in response to Peterson’s criticism, referred once more to his written Senate testimony.

“We take our role as a mortgagee very seriously and we see our database as a key to moving toward better access to information and transparency for customers,” the testimony said.

Robins sees big trouble ahead unless fundamental questions are resolved. “Until there’s some kind of resolution of the problems MERS has created, we’ll certainly see an increasing number of attorneys who are raising MERS defenses to foreclosure proceedings,” he said. “However if this is left unabated, the MERS problem will spiral out of control.”

This story originally appeared in LIBN’s sister paper, The Daily Record.

 
Long Island Business News, a weekly, is Long Island’s only publication devoted to local commerce and has been the premier source of news and data on Long Island business, economic trends and the region’s entrepreneurial sector for more than 50 years.
 
 
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Is Steven J. Baum, the Foreclosure King of New York, Worth $50 Million? Let’s Look at Pillar Processing and the Foreclosure King of Another Kingdom — David Stern

Posted on Thursday (February 3, 2011) at 5:00 pm to Creditors Engaging in Abusive Bankruptcy Practices
Current Events
Foreclosure Defense
Mortgages & Sub-Prime Mortgage Meltdown

     What will become of Steven J. Baum -- the reviled King             of Foreclosures in New York

What will become of Steven J. Baum -- the reviled King of Foreclosures in New York

Written by Craig D. Robins, Esq.

 
Will Steven J. Baum, King of New York Foreclosures, Lose His Crown?
 
Foreclosure entrepreneur Steven J. Baum is somewhat of a curiosity here in New York.
 
I, for one, have my own fascination of the man and his law firm, as evidenced by having written three lengthy blog posts about his escapades, dealings and bungling in the New York court system.
 
Why?  For starters, Baum has filed more foreclosure proceedings against New York homeowners than any other attorney in our state’s history.  See my detailed post on him –  Has Steven J. Baum, P.C. Served You with Foreclosure Papers? 
 
As a foreclosure defense attorney, I regularly defend clients who were served with foreclosure pleadings that his firm prepared.
 
Secondly, Baum has developed a reputation for not being a good king, but rather, a wicked king.  To me, taking illegal shortcuts to evict people from their homes is truly heinous.
 
Constantly criticized by the courts for sloppy and shoddy foreclosure practices, he does not enjoy a stellar reputation.  He has been sanctioned, criticized and lambasted by the courts.  A Long Island judge recently described his conduct as “out of the Twilight Zone.”  
 
But if Baum is King of Foreclosure here in New York, he should take heed of the fate of David J. Stern, the King of Foreclosure of Florida, who is currently in a viscous free fall from grace, and in the process of losing his crown in the Sunshine State.
 
Before addressing Baum, lets look at his brethren King in Florida.
 
Florida King of Foreclosure – David J. Stern – Loses His Kingdom
 
David J. Stern, for a time, seemed to have it all.  In 2009, his Florida firm handled an incredible 70,000 foreclosures – about five times more than Baum here in New York.  The Stern firm brought in $260 million in revenue that year.
 
The firm had 1,200 employees which enabled Stern to enjoy a lifestyle that included grand mansions, flashy sports cars and a yacht named Misunderstood.  Money was flowing big-time.  It was reported that one of his 13 or so exotic luxury cars is a $1.85 million 2008 Bugatti Veyron.
 
Stern owns a $15 million mansion on an island in Fort Lauderdale, a $6 million beachfront condominium in the city, and another $6 million home.
 
But here’s some news most people did not know, as reported in this week’s New York Times.  Stern actually took his foreclosure mill public by selling his foreclosure operations to a newly-formed, publicly-traded corporation, set up by investors just to securitize Stern’s business of providing foreclosure services.  The company is listed on NASDAQ. 
 
Stern pocketed about $60 million from this transaction and still retains a large percentage of stock in the newly-formed company, known as DJSP Enterprises.  Stern became chairman of the new company and still receives a handsome salary.  The company even has a fancy website:  http://www.djspenterprises.com/.
 
Here’s the Working Relationship Between the Public Corporation, DJSP, and Stern’s Foreclosure Law Firm
 
The corporation now owns the law firm’s “back office operations.”  The corporation then sells these services back to the law firm.  The law firm’s clients, consisting of big banks with large mortgage portfolios, then pay fees to the law firm to bring foreclosure proceedings.  Finally, the law firm shares these fees with the corporation.  Investors who have invested in the corporation receive dividends on their stock, and the value of the stock can rise or fall.
 
If that sounds weird, it should.  Imagine if I took my law firm’s paralegals, sold them to a company for a profit, and then bought back their services, this time from the company.  What kind of investors would be foolish enough to fall for something like that, especially when one can argue that such an unconventional arrangement constitutes an illegal splitting of legal fees?
 
Incidentally, DJSP states that it out-sources a large part of its paperwork and document preparation services to the Philippines.  So, many of those who were foreclosed upon in Florida were served with foreclosure pleadings that were prepared in Manilla.
 
Stern must feel that there’s nothing like enlisting help from foreigners abroad to assist in evicting our own citizens.
 
The Kingdom Comes Crashing Down
 
We are all aware that our country’s mortgage meltdown mess was created by the securitization of mortgages that were sold and traded like stocks on the secondary mortgage market.  Now we have one of the country’s largest mortgage foreclosure law firms going public by securitizing itself into publicly-traded stock.
 
However, in the past few months, there have been revelations that the Stern foreclosure mill had engaged in what appeared to be a massive, wholesale robo-signing foreclosure enterprise involving documents that were falsified to speed up the foreclosure process.  Not exactly good news for the corporate investors or Stern.  The business is now under major scrutiny.
 
The Florida Attorney General began an investigation into possible mortgage foreclosure fraud.  Numerous homeowners began asserting various fraud and robo-signing defenses.  Several foreclosure defense attorneys brought class actions against the firm.  Embarrassing videos of depositions of foreclosure mill employees admitting to robo-signing went viral on Youtube.
 
To add to Stern’s woes, here’s some recent happenings: 
 
● The Stern firm lost its biggest clients – Citibank and Fannie Mae
● Many of the firms’s executives left
● The firm laid off 80% of its employees (that’s 800 people)
● Shares in the company went from $14 to 50 cents
● The company is facing lawsuits from its investors alleging they were defrauded and misled
● Employees who were laid off have sued, arguing the company broke federal laws
● There may be issues as to whether the scheme to sell the company is really an illegal scheme to split profits, which attorneys are prohibited from doing
● It has been revealed that some of the ”consultants” and investment bankers who developed this deal have a history of run-ins with regulators and the S.E.C., and previously settled charges of engaging in fraudulent transactions in other deals.
 
Will Baum Lose His Crown Too?  How Much Is At Stake?
 
First, let’s put a value on Baum.  If Stern received $60 million for his law firm and still retained a substantial interest, not to mention an impressive salary, and also knowing that he made many, many millions before that time, then by my most unscientific measure, Steven J. Baum has got to be worth at least $50 million or more – money that he made by evicting New Yorkers from their homes.
 
Now, let’s ponder if Baum could be headed into similar trouble.
 
Baum, too, has a production-line foreclosure mill, more similar to a factory than a law firm.
 
The Baum Firm Has Placed Some of Its Back-Office Operations into a Separate Legal Entity – Pillar Processing, LLC
 
Like Stern, Baum, too, appears to have turned a large part of his back-office operation into a separate, but private company – Pillar Processing, LLC.  However, no one seems to know how many millions of dollars Baum received for selling it.
 
Since Pillar Processing is not a publicly-traded corporation, there is little info about this company.  What we do know is who purchased it – Manhattan heavy-hitter private-equity firm Tailwind Capital LLC.  This is an independant private equity firm, which, according to its website, is focused on controled investments in middle-market healthcare, media/communications, and business services companies.
 
The firm, which was founded in 2003, manages about $2 billion. 
 
As a bicycle racer, I’ve heard of the firm before.  A former partner of Tailwind Capital, Thomas Weisel, started Tailwind Sports, which was one of the sponsors of the United States Postal Service Bicycle Team – the world-famous team of Lance Armstrong who won the Tour de France seven times, several of which he was wearing a jersey that listed Tailwind Sports as one of the sponsors.
 
Like Stern’s corporation, DJSP Enterprises, Pillar Processing has its own website – http://www.pillarproc.com/.  The website states:  Pillar Processing LLC is a leading provider of business process outsourcing services to the default management sector of the residential mortgage industry.
 
Also, doing a quick WHOIS internet domain search reveals that Pillar Processing is the registrant of the Baum Law Firm website.
 
The Baum relationship with Tailwind is not necessarily good for homeowners, as it means that there is now $2 billion of muscle behind the drive to evict New York homeowners from their homes.
 
Baum, Pillar Processing and Chase Mortgage Get in Trouble
 
In a 2007 bankruptcy case pending in New York City (SDNY) before Judge Cecelia G. Morris, Baum’s firm brought a motion for relief from the stay.  After the court raised some issues with the mortgage and scheduled an evidentiary hearing, Pillar Processing filed a letter with the court advising the court that the lift-stay motion “has been withdrawn.”
 
Judge Morris was understandably quite upset as Pillar Processing was a total stranger to the court.  The letter did not identify or explain its relationship with the Baum firm, nor was it a part of any court record for any case.  The letter was filed by a Baum attorney.
 
Judge Morris refused to recognize the letter and instead denied the pending lift-stay motion.  She also issued a decision as a warning that the conduct here amounted to an abuse of process and she sanctioned the mortgagee (Chase) for the debtor’s actual expenses incurred in response to the motion.  (In re: Schuessler, SDNY 07-35608).
 
What Will Be the Fate of the Baum Firm and Pillar Processing?
 
Will Baum suffer the same fate as the fiendish Florida Foreclosure King? 
 
Stay tuned.  At the rate his firm is going, with class action suits, ongoing criticisms from the courts, new revelations about possible robo-signing conduct, and more, the answer is possibly yes.
 
Read More About the Steven J. Baum and his Foreclosure Mill
 
I discussed many of these issues in my prior post:    Has Steven J. Baum, P.C. Served You with Foreclosure Papers?
   
In that post I discussed the numbers of foreclosure cases he filed, the concept that his firm is really a factory, and some of the questionable conduct that he has engaged in including filing botched papers and failing to divulge information.
 
Also see my continuation of this article — Steven J. Baum Foreclosure Firm Pursued with Same Laws Used to Go After Organized Crime.
 
In this other post, I reviewed many of the court decisions that have criticized Baum’s practices including the now famous Judge Schack Twilight Zone case.
 
 
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Pressuring Lenders to Modify Mortgages in Bankruptcy Cases — New Legislation

Posted on Tuesday (February 1, 2011) at 8:30 pm to Bankruptcy Legislation
Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
Foreclosure Defense

modifying mortgages in bankruptcyWritten by Craig D. Robins, Esq.
 
Forcing lenders to work out settlements with homeowners in bankruptcy is the subject of a bill that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) introduced last week.  Today there were hearings on the bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
 
The ideas under the proposed law, which would permit homeowners to modify their mortgages through bankruptcy proceedings, have been tossed around before and at times have been quite controversial.
 
Mortgage Cram-Down in Bankruptcy is the Bill’s Objective, But In a Voluntary Manner
 
 
 
Cramming down a mortgage in bankruptcy is not the essence of Senator Whitehouse’s bill; getting the lender to voluntarily agree to it, however, is.
 
The current bill would give bankruptcy judges the power to require foreclosure mediation between banks and homeowners.
 
The bill creates a mechanism for judges to supervise talks between homeowners and their lenders.  This could address the problem where a homeowner makes a reasonable settlement proposal to the mortgage lender, but the lender or its servicer rejects it — a rather common occurrence.
 
The Proposed Bill Permitting Bankruptcy Modification Would Help Cut Through the Bureaucratic Red Tape
 
One of the biggest obstacles in seeking a mortgage modification is the difficulty in getting though to individuals at the lender who have the authority to negotiate terms.  Take it from me, this can be a fruitless exercise in frustration.
 
The proposed bankruptcy modification bill would require that an individual with full settlement authority for the bank must show up for the mediation proceeding.  In addition, the bill requires the lender to be open to good-faith negotiations.
 
Senator Whitehouse believes that court-ordered talks could pressure mortgage servicers to modify mortgages that they wouldn’t otherwise agree to modify.
 
During the hearings, Senator Whitehouse also criticized the HAMP program which has not succeeded as intended — Something I’ve written about extensively.  See Problems with HAMP — Too Many to Count?
 
Legislative Action is Needed to Curb the Number of Foreclosures
 
This is now more important than ever as foreclosures are expected to climb to 12 million by the end of 2012 and Long Island will certainly have its fair share of that number..
 
I’ve also written extensively before about the frustrations in persuading lenders to modify a mortgage.  See Why I Won’t Negotiate Loan Modifications and Loan Modification Industry is a “Sham” Says Attorney General Cuomo !
 
New York Bankruptcy Judge Drain Testifies at Hearing
 
The New York Bankruptcy Courts in the Southern District have a pilot loss-mitigation program that enables debtors to confer with their mortgagees.
 
Judge Robert Drain, sitting in the Southern District of New York, testified that half of the mediations that take place in his court end in an agreement which is often a modification.  He said that the other half at least give the homeowner a clear understanding for why they are losing their home.
 
Judge Drain said that such programs are vital to sorting out the foreclosure issue.
 
Seeking Mortgage Modification in Long Island Bankruptcy Cases
 
There is currently an underutilized loss-mitigation pilot program here in the Eastern District of New York that has been in existence for just over a year.
 
I will discuss this program in a future blog post.
 
 
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Craig D. Robins and Long Island Bankruptcy Blog Mentioned in Boston Globe Article

Posted on Wednesday (January 26, 2011) at 8:00 pm to Foreclosure Defense
In The News

Craig D. Robins, Esq. quoted in Boston Globe on Foreclosure Defense Issues

Craig D. Robins, Esq. quoted in Boston Globe on Foreclosure Defense Issues

Written by Craig D. Robins, Esq.

 
Because I’ve been so busy representing clients these past few months, I’ve been a little slow in commenting on some national-level periodicals that have quoted me on various bankruptcy and foreclosure issues.
 
On November 12, 2010, Rachel Beck, writing for AP in an article that appeared in the Boston Globe and several other newspapers, discussed the recent revelation that many foreclosure cases across the nation were based on robo-signed mortgage documents.   
 
As New York has become a hotbed of cases in which judges have expressed their frustration with mortgage lenders who are reckless with their litigation, she asked for my comments.
 
Here is the article as it appeared:
 
 
 
By Rachel Beck
AP Business Writer / November 12, 2010
Boston Globe
 
NEW YORK—It isn’t just Justin Bieber videos or stunning plays in a middle-school football game that are getting attention on YouTube these days. Add to the list a former hotel maid explaining how she signs thousands of mortgage documents a year without a clue to what she’s putting her name on.

“I don’t usually read the docs when I sign,” says Dhurata Doko, an employee of Nationwide Title Clearing, a mortgage services company.

“So it is not part of your job to review the document? Your job is just to sign it?” asks Florida foreclosure defense attorney Christopher Forrest during a videotaped deposition of Doko earlier this month.

“I just look for my name and then sign,” she says.

Robo-signing mortgage document handlers have found their way to YouTube, giving a rare live view into the latest mess to rock the troubled housing industry.

The nation’s foreclosure crisis took a turn six weeks ago when it became clear that banks and processing firms had employees sign court documents that had information that was unverified or even false. The reason — or at least the reason lenders give for the sloppy work — is that they are drowning in foreclosures.

Banks have seized more than 909,000 homes through the first 10 months of the year and are on pace to take back more than 1 million homes this year. Now, foreclosures are being challenged in court because of the allegations of fraudulent documents.

Lenders say that this mess has been overblown. Some paperwork might be flawed, the banks acknowledge, but delinquent borrowers still deserve to lose their homes. The depositions say otherwise.

Doko worked as a maid and assembled electronics before joining Nationwide Title Clearing six years ago. She is one of three NTC employees whose video depositions were posted on YouTube by Forrest as part of a foreclosure case he is handling in Florida.

She and her colleagues tell of signing thousands of mortgage documents a day. One worker estimates signing 5,000 documents a day on average, another says she signs her name every 2 seconds. They acknowledge their signatures differ on certain documents.

The videos show that employees didn’t even know the most basic mortgage terminology. For instance, they don’t know what an “assignment of mortgage” is, even though that is crucial in a foreclosure case because it establishes who the final holder of the loan is.

Doko says she only signs documents as a witness. She says she never signs under the title of vice president. Forrest then shows her a document with her name on it. “Beneath your name it says vice president?” Forrest asks.

“I don’t pay attention to that,” responds Doko, looking uncomfortable as she answers.”

But you do agree with me, beneath your name it says vice president … and above your name it says Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp. So when you sign this document, do you know whether you are signing as vice president of this company or as a witness?” asks Forrest.

“I just sign my name,” Doko says.

Courts, state financial regulators and attorneys general nationwide are investigating whether lenders violated the law by submitting fraudulent documents, often prepared by robo-signers.

The fact that delinquent borrowers face foreclosure is not the issue, but whether the documents used to get them out of their homes are signed by compromised witnesses, says Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney in Miami and author of the book “Foreclosures in Florida.”

“You still need truthful witnesses. Robo-signers aren’t. They are impostors,” Coffey says.

NTC said in a statement to The Associated Press that its employees had been deposed but criticized the placement of the depositions on the Internet.

“It is unethical to imply that long-standing industry practices, which have been found in court to be legal methods of preparing common mortgage related documents, are somehow harmful to consumers,” NTC said.

The big mortgage lenders have been doing their own investigations regarding the entire foreclosure process. Some, including Bank of America and Ally Financial Inc.’s GMAC Mortgage, have started processing foreclosures again, after calling a temporary halt while they reviewed documents.

The courts will have the ultimate say over what happens next. If judges feel that borrowers have been wronged, they can halt the foreclosure process. An Ohio judge ruled on Tuesday that a state challenge to the validity of lender foreclosure documents will be heard in court early next year in Cleveland.

Attorney Craig Robins of Woodbury, N.Y., says he is already seeing some judges taking a stand.

“Many judges have seen so much sloppy and careless paperwork (from lenders) that they are saying ‘enough is enough’,” says Robins, a foreclosure defense attorney who writes the Long Island Bankruptcy Blog. “They won’t rubber-stamp the foreclosure proceedings.”

As the YouTube videos show, there already has been enough rubber-stamping.

 

 
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Ever Wonder Why Mortgage Documents Disappear? About 80,000 American Home Loan Files Are About to be Destroyed

Posted on Tuesday (January 25, 2011) at 11:15 am to Bankruptcy and Society
Current Events
Foreclosure Defense
Mortgages & Sub-Prime Mortgage Meltdown

This is what shredded mortgage files look like

This is what shredded mortgage files look like

Written by Craig D. Robins, Esq.

 
In the news this week was an interesting convergence between the need to investigate mortgage fraud and the desire to maximize the distribution to creditors of a defunct mortgagee.
 
I first wrote about American Home Loan Mortgage Company in 2007, which was based on Long Island.  At the time they were one of the country’s largest mortgage lenders and they quickly and utterly collapsed as one of the earliest victims of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown.  (see: The Sub-Prime Mortgage Meltdown ).
 
In 2009, I wrote how the CEO of the company had engaged in fraud — Ex-CEO Of American Home Mortgage Settles SEC Fraud Charges .
 
Now we have an issue of what will happen to the many thousands of sub-prime mortgage files sitting in a storage room of the now-abandoned company’s Melville, Long Island headquarters — a five-minute drive from my Woodbury office.
 
What Happens to Mortgage Files When a Mortgagee Goes Out of Business?
 
American Home Loan, which hasn’t operated since it collapsed in 2007, has been in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation proceeding for several years now.  Earlier this week, the operating trustee asked the bankruptcy court for permission to destroy 4,100 boxes of loan documents.
 
The trustee is arguing that the local fire marshal wants the boxes of mortgage files removed as it is posing a fire hazard.  The trustee is also complaining that it will cost too much to move them and that they should instead be destroyed.
 
Paying to remove the file boxes to a storage facility costs money — money that would have gone to the creditors of American Home Mortgage who filed claims in the bankruptcy proceeding.  The cost of having maintained storage of the files was approximately $15,000 a month.
 
Two years ago, the trustee had made a similar request which was approved, and several thousand boxes were destroyed at that time after banks and other loan servicers had been given a chance to pick up the files but neglected to do so. 
 
Now there are 4,100 boxes left.  My guess is that each box contains 20 files, meaning that the boxes contain the records of nearly 80,000 sub-prime mortgages.
 
Is Evidence of Mortgage Fraud Being Destroyed by Destroying the Mortgage Files?
 
Since the earlier batch of files was destroyed, the subject of mortgage fraud has risen to become major headline news. 
 
The robo-signing scandal only became national news this past October when it was revealed that incredible numbers of original mortgage documents were missing and new documents were created for the purpose of bringing foreclosure proceedings.  See:  New Forelosure Law in New York Requires Attorneys to Verify Foreclosure Papers .
 
That led the attorneys general in all 50 states to immediately begin investigations into foreclosure procedures, improper mortgage assignments, and all sorts of other mortgage document deficiencies.   
 
Also in the past few months, we have seen massive amounts of evidence turning up all around the country showing that original mortgage loan documents were never transferred as required when the mortgages were securitized and sold to investors.
 
Now, these ever-so important mortgage files are about to be destroyed.  Yesterday the Delaware Bankruptcy Court approved the trustee’s document destruction request.
 
However, a Legal Aid Society attorney, who also appeared in the proceeding, was successful in requiring the trustee to set aside several hundred of the storage boxes which may contain records still relevant to some pending foreclosures.
 
She argued that many low income homeowners were victims of deception about how much their mortgage loans would cost, and that the original mortgage files could contain evidence that they had been defrauded.  This is another concept I previously wrote about in The Sub-Prime Mortgage Meltdown 
 
Who Benefits When Mortgage Files Are Destroyed?
 
As I mentioned, the creditors of the defunct mortgage company stand to receive a (very slightly) larger distribution.
 
But what about the hapless homeowners who are defending foreclosure proceedings?  Perhaps this could be good news for them.  Judges are becoming more and more willing to toss out foreclosure suits when the mortgagee is unable to produce various original mortgage documents.
 
The defense du jour is “show me the note!”  A series of recent decisions in foreclosure cases emphasizes the importance of producing original loan documents, holding that they are essential for investors to prove ownership of the mortgages and that the have the right, known as “standing’” to pursue foreclosure.  This is something I wrote about a year ago:  Mortgage Companies Entitlement to Bring Foreclosure Proceedings: Prove It or Lose It .
 
If a mortgage which was originated by American Home Mortgage is foreclosed upon (and many tens of thousands are in the foreclosure process now), then it may become easier for the homeowner to defend if the current mortgagee is unable to adequately produce sufficient paperwork.
 
On the other hand, such document destruction can be the equivalent of a get-out-of-jail card for those business executives in the mortgage industry who took illegal shortcuts.  Destroying thousands of files means that valuable evidence that can be used in criminal investigations will be forever gone.
 
The wholesale destruction of mortgage files has become big news in several other areas of the country this week.  A Bankruptcy Judge temporarily blocked the trustee of sub-prime lender Mortgage Lenders Network USA from destroying 18,000 boxes of original loan files after federal prosecutors pleaded that they may be needed as evidence in more than 50 criminal investigations.
 
 
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon

Foreclosure Rage: Homeowner Retaliates Against Bank but Pays the Price

Posted on Wednesday (January 19, 2011) at 3:00 pm to Bankruptcy and Society
Foreclosure Defense
Recent Bankruptcy Court Decisions

foreclosure rageWritten by Craig D. Robins, Esq.
 
Being in Foreclosure is Bad Enough but Don’t Compound Problems by Damaging House in Retaliation
 
Public sentiment these days is that mortgage banks are evil for bringing so many foreclosure proceedings against suffering homeowners in a difficult economic climate, especially when there are frequent headlines about lenders engaging in shoddy and improper foreclosure tactics.
 
So whether justified or not, many homeowners are angry that the big banks are seeking to foreclose on their homes when times are tough.  Some of these angry homeowners  want to “get back” at the bank.  However, if you are a homeowner in a foreclosure situation, be careful how you vent that anger.
 
Foreclosure Rage Becoming More Prevalent 
 
There are numerous stories of homeowners in foreclosure who have intentionally damaged their homes upon moving in an effort to punish the bank — something we can call “foreclosure rage.” 
 
Some homeowners are taking out their frustration on the lender in an effort to get even by vandalizing their own home.
 
While it is usually acceptable to take items of reasonable value, such as appliances, others, in an act of foreclosure rage, totally gut the home, strip it of almost everything, including flooring and plumbing, and then maliciously inflict serious damage by destroying walls, pouring cement down the toilet, creating floods by leaving the water on, and exposing the house to the elements and vermin by removing windows and doors.
 
However, as one recent case shows, the immediate emotional relief that damaging the house brought was certainly not worth it.
 
One Homeowner Goes on the Foreclosure Rage Rampage
 
A homeowner who went on the war path against the mortgagee in a fit of foreclosure rage recently paid the price. 
 
Michael  Zahniser of Illinois had just been served with foreclosure papers.  The next day he removed the back door of his house and stripped the interior.  He also removed cabinets, countertops, doors, light fixtures, gutters, pieces of siding, and tile floors.  He left the house with no door and a gaping hole in the wall.
 
He subsequently filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy to eliminate any obligation on the mortgage deficiency, and presumably to eliminate other obligations like credit card debt.
 
The mortgage lender, Byron Bank, was not amused and brought an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court arguing that Mr. Zahniser should not be able to discharge his obligation to the bank under Bankruptcy Code section 523(a)(6).  That section provides that debtors who willfully and maliciously injure someone’s property cannot escape liability for doing so.
 
Last month, the bankruptcy court found that the bank proved that the debtor intended to cause injury to the bank’s interest in the house and that the debtor acted willfully and maliciously.
 
The bankruptcy court also determined that the items that the debtor took and the state that he left the house in demonstrated that he was not merely trying to collect what would have been valuable for himself, but rather, that he was trying to deny value to the mortgage bank.
 
In determining what part of the bank’s deficiency claim should be non-dischargeable, the court ascertained the amount necessary to rehabilitate the house, and that amount was $50,000.  The court also added $19,000 in attorney’s fees to that.  The case is Byron Bank v. Zahniser, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 4623 (Bankr. N.D.Ill, December 13, 2010).
 
In some ways the homeowner here was lucky.  The bank sought to have the entire deficiency held non-dischargeable.  However, the court only permitted that part which was caused by the malicious injury to be non-dischargeable.
 
Almost all mortgages have boiler plate language that prevents a homeowner from engaging in this type of conduct.  If you are a homeowner in foreclosure, think twice as to how you should vent your frustration and anger against the bank.
 
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next

About Us

Craig D. Robins, Esq. is a Long Island bankruptcy lawyer, who is focused primarily on helping individuals and families, find solutions to their debt problems. Read more »

Subscribe

Subsribe via RSS Feed Reader

Contact Us

Craig D. Robins, Esq.
180 Froehlich Farm Blvd, Woodbury, NY - 11797.

Tel : 516 - 496 - 0800

CraigR@Craigrobinslaw.com