Archive for December, 2011
Orange County Bankruptcy Chapter 13
Orange County Bankruptcy Chapter 13-Bankruptcy Chapter 13 Orange County-Call 949-579-2217 for a FREE phone consultation. Get a FREE bankruptcy guide and learn how Chapter 13 works to protect you.
Video Rating: 5 / 5
www.burrlawoffice.com Call Today (262)827-0375 – Foreclosure defense attorney, Filing Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 Discharge, Chapter 7 discharge, South Milwaukee
Video Rating: 0 / 5
Robosigning
Attorney Hugh Fitzpatrick discusses “robosigning” along with a recent opinion issued by a New York judge regarding this process of signing documents without even looking at what they are signing. judge schack issued the opinion in this new york case.
Video Rating: 0 / 5
This is some admittedly not top-notch raw footage shot towards the end of an Occupy Wall St march on Foley Square to tell Pres. Obama not to cut a “backroom deal that would give bankers broad immunity for illegally throwing tens of thousands of Americans out of their homes. The administration is pressuring state Attorneys General to undermine an ongoing investigation into the massive “robosigning” fraud, in exchange for a payoff by the banks”. Taken from the occupywallst.org Agenda for Saturday, November 5. By the time this video was shot, police were making the final push to forcibly move protesters away from the front of the NY County Clerk’s building. During this march, protesters were split by Centre St, and I was among those on the Foley Sq side denouncing Obama’s deal and later, the police’s actions. Using the distraction provided by their forcible removal of the nonviolent protesters on the other side of Centre St, police quietly cuffed and arrested several protesters, some with the aid of plainclothes officers, and some simply from the other end of the protests. These people were taken into custody and put in vans that quietly drove away, down Pearl St (which is right off Foley Sq). Most of the OWS core protesters had returned to Zuccotti Park, but I along with the more incensed of the protesters stayed to lend our support to those being forced off the sidewalk.
Jefferson County Fights to Keep Scandal Settlement Money
- Reuters
Jefferson County, Ala., is rallying to protect the settlement it received as a result of its disastrous sewer-debt deal from flowing back to Wall Street.
And it’s the type of dispute that has potential to draw more ink from the same kind of vampire squid furor that’s fueling anti-Wall Street protesters.
At issue is a bid by the financial expert who’s running the county’s debt-clogged sewer system for a piece of a $ 75 million settlement that J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. was forced to pay in the aftermath of the $ 3.2 billion deal.
J.P. Morgan officials wrote that check after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused it of improperly courting Jefferson County elected officials, some of whom ultimately went to jail.
The request from sewer controller John Young has been gnawing at the nerves of county officials who fear the settlement money will flow back to the community of financiers that helped get them into such hardship.
“The bottom line behind all this is what the Occupy Wall Street people would call greed,” said attorney Kenneth Klee, who represents the county in what’s now the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. “From the perspective of more conservative people, this is maximizing return on investment. One person’s greed is another person’s clever dealings.”
Young’s request is a top reason why the county filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in November, Klee said. That filing empowered the county, which encompasses the city of Birmingham and roughly 658,000 residents, to ask a bankruptcy judge to oust Young, who has managed the wastewater treatment system’s finances for more than a year. With Young out of the picture, the settlement money would remain safely in the county’s coffers.
Judge Thomas Bennett of U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Birmingham, Ala., has already heard both sides of the argument over who should run the sewer system throughout the bankruptcy case. He’s expected to reveal his decision by early January.
County leaders have butted heads with Young since his appointment, accusing him of favoring Wall Street financial titans over residents. In June, Young suggested that the county should raise its sewer rates by 25% to help repay bondholders—an amount county officials said was far too high.
Young’s specific request for the settlement money is a bit nuanced. He explained that he wants a piece of that settlement to create a pool of money that low-income residents could tap to pay sewer bills they can’t afford.
Under the airtight restrictions, Young said he’s barred from creating that fund himself using revenue that trickles in as residents pay their bills.
As trustee for some of the county’s sewer debt, Bank of New York Mellon Corp. distributes the money the sewer system collects. From there, presumably all types of folks—pension funds, investment funds and individual investors—sit at the end of the payment line.
“These bondholders are not all banks. There are people who need this money,” Young said at one point when debtholders were at risk of missing out on a payment.
Jefferson County commission president David Carrington still calls it a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, pointing out that the money would still circulate back to sewer debtholders. And that settlement money was throwing the cash-starved county a bone after it was put through debt-swap hell.
“It’d be like I’m going to penalize you for something you did wrong, but take [the money] out of your pocket,” Carrington said.
County leaders have found other ways to ruffle debtholders since the bankruptcy began. In general, municipal financiers who put up money to pay for projects like sewer upgrades and parking garages expect their repayment money to trickle in even if the borrowing municipality files for Chapter 9 protection.
If the Jefferson County’s sewer overthrow works, they’d put all of that sewer repayment money in a pool and set it aside until they’re finished drafting a plan that sets out how creditors will be repaid.
Lehman bankruptcy judge denies Morgan Stanley customer status
Morgan Stanley fails to qualify as a customer for the “to-be-announced” forward contracts it negotiated with Lehman Bros. Inc. because the investment bank never entrusted any property to the bankrupt brokerage, a New York federal judge has ruled.
Thomson Reuters News & Insight: Bankruptcy Law – Insight
PRETENDER LENDERS SQUIRMING AS RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD IN ARIZONA
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT
Interesting procedural issues coming up in Arizona Courts. First WAMU asks the Court of Appeals to depublish its decision that possession of the note was not necessary, meaning that the decision would apply ONLY to that one case and not serve as precedent for other cases. That is a pretty favorable ruling for the Banks. WAMU doesn’t exist anymore. Why would they want it depublished? People should realize this is oral argument, not a decision, which could come in weeks or months.
My guess is that they don’t think it will withstand the test of time or a Supreme Court review or the review of any other court. If the party foreclosing doesn’t have the original note than anyone could have it. You can’t pick up one end of the stick without picking up the other. If anyone could have it then anyone could foreclose based solely on instructions to the trustee on the deed of trust or the filing of a foreclosure lawsuit.
If anyone could foreclose then anyone has a right to title — ANYONE. This opens the door for some creative procedural issues that could be raised by homeowners or friends of homeowners. The specifics of those strategies I don’t write about. That is why I have One on One time conferences for one hour with lawyers and their clients. So on reflection then maybe the lawyers and the Banks realized that the decision fell into the category of “be careful what you wish for.” So they could be thinking that this decision is an eventual win for borrowers regardless of how it ends up — overruled or followed by other courts.
The other move was rebuffed by the Arizona Supreme Court. The certified question for review in Hogan v Washington is “Can a lender foreclose its deed of trust without owning the note which the deed of trust secures.” Now THAT is a bit of a sticky wicket and could account for the move by WAMU to have its winning decision in appellate court depublished. There are many issues that could be discussed deriving their interest and value from the question itself. I’ll discuss a few of them.
- The meaning of “lender.” It is unclear whether they are presuming that the forecloser is a “lender.” Or perhaps the homeowner already waived that issue by accepting the forecloser as a “lender.” That would make the forecloser a creditor. Thus the issue of whether they can foreclose without some documentation might be moot. But we know that they are not assuming the forecloser is a creditor because a creditor would have and own the note. In turn, that would appear to eliminate referring to the forecloser as a “lender.” That is what the appeal is about. So why do they refer to the forecloser as a “lender?” Is it because they just using a shorthand way of referring to the forecloser? If so it is either misleading or it is telegraphing that they intend to rule for the forecloser because they are presuming factually that the forecloser is the lender or creditor and simply does not have the paperwork. By reducing it to a paperwork issue it is easier to say that we are not going to hold up an orderly system of disposing of distressed properties because of minor deficiencies in paperwork.
- What it means to have possession of the original note. The possessor could be a bailee, holding it for someone else with no powers to do anything but deliver it, or a holder by virtue of some agreement or a holder in due course in the case of a sale of the note. The real issue is is the money. If the facts as presented or presumed have the forecloser losing money as a result of the borrower not paying, then the decision is most likely going to run in favor of the forecloser and could be worse: the court may state a presumption that the party who gives an instruction to the trustee on the deed of trust or who files suit is in fact the holder in due course. That would make the possession of the note irrelevant unless the homeowner could show that the actual possessor was not a bailee but was a party claiming rights under the note — something that actually isn’t so hard to do as it might sound in the case of securitized loans.
- What it means to not have possession of the original note. If the forecloser does not have physical possession of the note the forecloser, at a minimum, is obligated to tell the court where it is and why it isn’t in the forecloser’s possession. In fact the trustee’s obligation of due diligence requires it to have this information before obeying instructions to send out a notice of default and notice of sale. Further, the failure of the forecloser to have physical possession of the note gives rise to a question of fact. This brings up the thorny issue of whether loans claimed to be securitized CAN be foreclosed using the power of sale in a deed of trust or if they MUST be foreclosed judicially by a lawsuit. How would the trustee, exercising due diligence determine who was right, who was credible and who was lying through their teeth. Is the trustee empowered to conduct some sort of hearing? What are the rules?
- What it means to own the note. If the forecloser actually owns the note, then the likelihood is that the forecloser has every right to foreclose or sell the property by whatever means are legally provided in the state in which the property is located. The issue of fact is whether the forecloser is the owner and that is determined by whether there was a sale of the note or if the note is still owned by the party that originated the mortgage and whose name is shown as payee on the note. My review of hundreds of these chains of documents reveals thousands of documents referring to a transaction that never occurred. Transfer of the note without consideration (payment) is a transfer of convenience and creates a bailee rather than an owner — unless the recipient receives the note to secure yet another loan to the transferor, in which case it is a bailee with an interest which might be the same as a holder but not be the same as a holder in due course.
- What it means to not own the note. If the forecloser does not own the note, it is possible to construct a scenario in which the property could be foreclosed but it seems unlikely that the procedures contained in the power of sale would be sufficient to cover that situation. Hence, in my opinion, a forecloser who does not own the note might initiate foreclosure proceedings, but only by disclosing the principal for whom the forecloser is acting. This assumes that the non-owning forecloser has possession of the note. If the non-owning forecloser does not have possession of the note and they cannot account for where it is, the foreclosure dies right there and then. The sticky wicket here is who can bid as creditor at auction? The answer is always the creditor. If the creditor does not submit the credit bid, and the forecloser does so instead without the bid being on behalf of the creditor and the deed issued to the creditor (assuming the identity of the creditor has been established) then there is no valid sale unless the bid is paid in cash.
- What it means to foreclose the deed of trust. Most courts say that a deed of trust is no different than a mortgage. And indeed the terms are often used interchangeably. But in Arizona and other states some distinctions have been drawn, making the foreclosure a private sale to which the homeowner agreed and therefore there is no requirement of due process. Such decisions in my opinion are wholly wrong and unconstitutional. I predict that at some point Arizona or some other non-judicial state is going to state unequivocally that the power of sale does not take precedence over due process and that if the forecloser cannot demonstrate a prima facie case in judicial foreclosure, then the notice of default and notice of sale are invalid, as is the auction and any deed ensuing from the bogus auction.
- What it means that the deed of trust secures the note. This seemingly innocuous and obvious question leads to some very thorny issues that the courts so far have been loathe to consider. The fact is that under all laws, the obligation of the borrower arises upon receipt of the loan whether documented or not. A borrower cannot escape repayment simply because it wasn’t in writing but the terms that a court might impose might not be what the lender had in mind. Notes are not actually secured even though we say they are. It is the obligation that is meant to be secured. The note is evidence of the obligation and is presumed a true and correct representation of the agreement of the parties unless challenged for good cause. The problem is in the wording of the deed of trust or mortgage. The mortgage is incident to the note, it is often said and so stated in the mortgage or deed of trust. But what is obviously meant is that it secures the obligation by collateralizing through a lien on the home. The reason there is a problem is that the obligation in most cases arises between the party who loaned the money (an undisclosed remote investor) and the borrower, while the note refers to a transaction in which the loan originator loaned the money to the borrower. Thus the note is incorrect in its identification of the lender. The novel issue that will eventually be presented and considered by the court is whether the obligation is secured by the mortgage or deed of trust or if the security agreement has been eviscerated by the incorrect identification of the lender (which is a violation of the Truth in Lending Act). Another possibility is that the parties might be given the opportunity to reform the instruments to conform to the facts. The sticky wicket there is the effective date of that new instrument as amended by a court of law in a venue of competent jurisdiction. At a minimum, this would mean that the entire process would be renewed from scratch including the right to rescind.
- Where is the obligation in this discussion? THAT is the essential question. In the end the only thing that matters in commerce is getting paid. If the party who loaned the money does not get paid that party in our system of government has an absolute right to get a judgment for that money which is unpaid upon presenting proof that they are a creditor, that the loan was made, that they are going to lose money if the home is not sold for their benefit and that they can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the balance owed after all appropriate credits is $ X, for which they demand judgment and sale. The sticky wicket here is that the parties to whom the obligation is owed have mostly abandoned their claims against homeowners and are pursuing claims against the investment bank that sold them the certificates that gave them an undivided interest in the loans. Eventually the Courts will come to terms with this fact and determine how or whether there should be any right to collection for or on behalf of a creditor who has not asked for affirmative relief but upon request from a third party who has their own reasons for demanding the relief sought (foreclosure). And lastly, the Courts will be required to deal with the definitions and procedures for allowing a “credit bid” under such circumstances where the creditors do not want the property and do not authorize that the property be taken in their name or on their behalf. This will probably lead to cash bids that will be very low and start rising as homeowners realize that there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: bankruptcy, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, HOGAN, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WAMU, WEISBAND 
Livinglies’s Weblog
Lastest Bankruptcy Advice auctions
bankruptcy advice eBay auctions you should keep an eye on:
Lawyer Advice.com Lawyers Dui Car Accident Bankruptcy Legal Office Website Civil | US $6,995.00 End Date: Monday May-21-2012 6:02:14 PDT Buy It Now for only: US $6,995.00 Buy it now | Add to watch list |
What is a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy? Seattle Bankruptcy Lawyer Eric Engel Explains
www.engellawgroup.com Seattle bankruptcy lawyer Eric Engel explains a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. There are several different types of bankruptcy someone can file for. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy is called a fresh start, meaning you can walk away from all your debts. This can be your credit card, mortgage, or automobile debts. In exchange for that, you have to be willing to give up all your assets. However, we can help you navigate the exemptions to this with Washington state and federal laws. Watch the video now to learn more. For more information about bankruptcy law and my firm, visit our educational website at http where we discuss our aggressive representation and our strong advocacy. If you have legal questions, I want you to call me at (206) 625-9800. I welcome your call. Engel Law Group, PS Office Address: One Union Square 600 University St, Suite 1904 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-315-6183 Fax: 206-243-8177 Everett Office: 1610 Broadway Ave Everett, WA 98201
Video Rating: 5 / 5
Toxic Planet, Toxic Birds – Toxic People?
Toxic Planet, Toxic Birds – Toxic People?
No matter where we turn or what we study, we keep coming to the same conclusion; we are poisoning the planet and all that dwells here. The recent study by the Biodiversity Research Institute in Gorham, Maine found that bird eggs for “every” part of the state contained a virtual cornucopia of toxic chemicals. This was found in every habitat from city to remote forests. Chemicals found included those from stain resistant carpets (PFCs) to DDT which was banned decades ago. One researcher said, “I am absolutely convinced that I have all these toxins in myself. I’m starting to really wonder what other compounds are out there.”
Other recent reports have cited the dangers of plastic bottles to the health of children and adults leading to places like San Francisco trying to ban certain plastics found in children’s toys and drinking bottles. A study conducted in 2005 in Washington found, “Every person tested had at least 26 and as many as 39 of the toxic chemicals we looked for in his or her body.
This pollution in people came from everyday activities and products.” The recent debated safety of Phthalates comes to mind as this substance was found in the test subjects. One of the conclusions reached was that, “… the toxic chemicals in our bodies are cause for concern because they can lead to health problems such as infertility and learning deficits.”
A similar 2007 study in Maine reached the same conclusions as those on the opposite side of nation. According to the Lewiston Sun Journal article in June of 2007, “The chemicals that found their way into people included phthalates, used to soften hard plastics; PDBE, a widely used flame retardant; and perfluorinated chemicals, used in protective and stain-free coatings.
Three of the chemicals – arsenic, lead and mercury – are known to be toxic to humans, but others like phthalates are unregulated. Thus, it’s unclear what level is considered safe.”
Recently women in Washington, Montana, British Columbia and Oregon were studied to determine the levels of flame retardant PBDE’s in their breast milk. Levels found ranged “from 6 to 321 parts per billion – and the numbers are thought to be doubling every two to five years.” An article on the study noted that, “The problem is there are 80,000 to 100,000 chemicals placed in the marketplace without any testing to determine their effects on humans; PBDEs replaced a chemical previously found to be toxic.”
Stories continue to emerge regarding toxins in shellfish and sea mammals and there are the never ending articles about chemicals and hormones found in our food and the toxic toys from China. From a health viewpoint, it is clear that we are filling our bodies and those of our children with chemicals which are responsible for a wide ranging list of diseases and symptoms. It is known in biology that one of the leading causes of biological mutation is environmental stress on an organism. We are obviously being stressed and it is anyone’s guess as to the impact that these toxins will have on the future health of humanity. Conclusions are not encouraging and it should be clear that if you poison the planet, its vegetation and wildlife, there can be little doubt about what we are doing to ourselves.
Mr. Harris was born in Massachusetts. He attended The American University in Washington, D.C. and received his degree in Political Science. His graduate work was done at the University of Northern Colorado and Howard University. He spent several years working for local and regional and state government agencies. He worked on a White House Task Force and served as Rural Policy Coordinator at the FRCouncil of New England.
Mr. Harris is co-author of the novel WAKING GOD and is a nationally syndicated / featured writer for The American Chronicle. His second novel, A MAINE CHRISTMAS CAROL was released by Cambridge Books, his third book, JESUS TAUGHT IT, TOO: THE EARLY ROOTS OF THE LAW OF ATTRACTION (ATTMP). He is author of the book, RAPING LOUISIANA: A DIARY OF DECEIT and his two most recent self-growth titles, the “MESSAGES” series were just released by ATTMP.
On Thursday, Sept. 18, 2008, the astonished leadership of the US Congress was told in a private session by the chairman of the Federal Reserve that the American economy was in grave danger of a complete meltdown within a matter of days. “There was literally a pause in that room where the oxygen left,” says Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.). As the housing bubble burst and trillions of dollars’ worth of toxic mortgages began to go bad in 2007, fear spread through the massive firms that form the heart of Wall Street. By the spring of 2008, burdened by billions of dollars of bad mortgages, the investment bank Bear Stearns was the subject of rumors that it would soon fail. “Rumors are such that they can just plain put you out of business,” Bear Stearns’ former CEO Alan “Ace” Greenberg tells FRONTLINE. The company’s stock had dropped from 1 to a share, and it was hours from declaring bankruptcy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke acted. “It was clear that this had to be contained. There was no doubt in his mind,” says Bernanke’s colleague, economist Mark Gertler. Bernanke, a former economics professor from Princeton, specialized in studying the Great Depression. “He more than anybody else appreciated what would happen if it got out of control,” Gertler explains. To stabilize the markets, Bernanke engineered a shotgun marriage between Bear Sterns and the commercial bank JPMorgan, with a promise that the federal government would use billion to cover Bear Stearns …
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Find More Toxic Mortgages Articles
Birmingham Bankruptcy: The difference between Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Debtor’s Court
A brief discussion about the differences between Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Chapter 13 Debtor’s Court
DOJ HUNTING 210,000 VICTIMS OF COUNTRYWIDE FRAUD
MOST POPULAR ARTICLES
CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT
EDITOR’S COMMENT: They are missing the point in many cases. It is not the the monetary settlement that these people are entitled to so much as the house itself because the foreclosure was wrongful. If the amount demanded was wrong, then the right amount should be computed and determined whether the borrower had a right to request a modification. These extra fees and charges were the reason that people gave up and left homes that are rightfully still theirs to occupy and own.
SEE FULL ARTICLE IN WALL STREET JOURNAL
By BRENT KENDALL
The Justice Department faces the daunting task of tracking down more than 210,000 alleged victims and determining how to compensate them, following last week’s $ 335 million fair-lending settlement with Bank of America Corp.’s Countrywide unit.
Minority borrowers who suffered the greatest harm from Countrywide’s allegedly discriminatory mortgage-lending practices could be the most difficult to locate, observers say, because they are the victims most likely to have lost their homes to foreclosure and subsequently moved several times.
The landmark case is also the first by the Justice Department that accuses a lender of steering borrowers to more costly mortgages, creating novel and possibly difficult questions on setting monetary payments for some victims. For example, how should the government compensate a family that both lost its home and was unfairly steered into a more costly subprime loan?
The agreement, announced last Wednesday, was the largest residential fair-lending settlement in history. It resolved allegations that Countrywide and its subsidiaries engaged in a widespread pattern of discrimination against black and Hispanic borrowers from 2004 to 2008.
Some borrowers allegedly were charged higher fees and costs. Others allegedly were steered into costly subprime loans, even though they could have qualified for a prime mortgage, the type of loan offered to borrowers with the best credit histories.
As the Justice Department’s settlement administrator begins to track down victims, the recent experience of the Federal Trade Commission, which inked its own settlement with Countrywide last year, offers a possible road map. Bank of America paid the FTC $ 108 million to settle charges that Countrywide took advantage of more than 450,000 distressed homeowners by inflating the cost of services relating to their defaults.
The FTC began mailing refund checks this summer, but 18 months after the agreement, the agency still holds about 25% of the money because it can’t find some people. Officials there are also concerned that at least some victims haven’t cashed the checks out of worries the refunds are part of a scam. The agency is preparing to conduct another round of searches for remaining victims.
The Justice Department is confident its settlement administrator “will be successful in locating the vast majority of the victims and is committed to ensuring that best efforts are made to do so,” spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said.
Once all found victims are paid, any remaining money won’t be returned to the bank or transferred to government coffers. The funds instead will be distributed to organizations that provide credit and housing counseling in minority communities, Ms. Hinojosa said.
The Justice Department last year reached a far smaller fair-lending settlement with two American International Group Inc. subsidiaries, for $ 6.1 million, and 78% of the victims received and cashed checks.
Department officials estimate it could take as long as two years for Countrywide borrowers to receive compensation, but they hope to mail payments sooner. Officials cautioned it would take time to locate victims and determine damages.
Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, speaking last week, said roughly 10,000 victims allegedly steered into subprime loans will receive more compensation because they suffered the greatest harm, potentially paying tens of thousands of dollars more for their loans.
Other victims charged higher prices or fees will receive compensation that could range from a few hundred dollars to “a couple thousand dollars,” Mr. Perez said.
Write to Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@dowjones.com
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: bankruptcy, BOA, borrower, countrywide, disclosure, DOJ sanctions, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND 
Livinglies’s Weblog