18 July 2013

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Celebrate as Bank of America Slammed to Settlement in Texas and Sued in RICO in Colorado!

Also a new lawsuit is coming, Rob Somerton and his attorneys are gathering empirical pattern and practice evidence:

Our attorneys are exploring a new lawsuit against Bank of America over mortgage fraud, they've ask me to handle the initial intake because of my extensive online social network. They're asking for a ONE page description/timeline of YOUR Countrywide/BoA Modclosure (modification/foreclosure) experiences. We are taking in stories from all 50 states, still working out the parameters/details.
Folks can pm me here on fb or e-mail
Rob - rpsomerton@gmail.com
 — with Lainey Hashorva and 50 others inUnited States.

Note: In the above thumbnail see how the Chicago Tribune is reading along about the corruption in Maryland. Not the first time they have followed me; my idol Mike Royko wrote not one but two stories about one of my First Amendment Tattoo cases when I was a practicing Civil Rights lawyer. Today they were reading this journal entry and that journal entry about twice-sanctioned Teflon Don Thomas P. Dore.

Note: I have downloaded all the relevant docs from Pacer and will post by tomorrow morning. The video is not directly related to either of these cases but serves as a good primer on the over-arching aura of skullduggery practiced by Bank of America.

The Plaintiff-based Seattle law firm of Hagens, Berman, Sobol & Shapiro (no relation to THAT Shapiro, ahem) has sued in RICO in the Colorado case of George et al. v. BoA and Urban Settlement Services 13-CV-01819 PAB/KLM. The scope of Bank of America’s illegality vis a vis America’s mortgage crisis knows no bounds. Just this month a class action lawsuit was filed in Colorado because of Bank of America’s systemic fraudulent conduct: 
The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Colorado on July 10, alleges that Bank of America masterminded a scheme which allowed it to deny help it had promised to give thousands of its customers in exchange for $45 billion it took in bailout funds.
“We believe that Bank of America gamed the system, perpetrating a fraud on both its customers and American taxpayers,” said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit. “BofA promised that it would work with homeowners to modify their mortgages under the HAMP program. Instead it took $45 billion in taxpayer money and fought as hard as it could to avoid granting modifications, squeezing every last dollar from its customers and wrongfully foreclosing thousands of people’s homes in the process.”
Meanwhile McCarthy v. Bank of America 411-CV-356 (ND Texas Forth Worth) (Memorandum and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract/Deceptive Trade and Collection Practices suit December 22, 2011)(Order to Produce Proof of Ownership of Note July 1, 2013) (Settled July 9 2013). Excerpt from the December, 2011 ORDER:

………..As the United States Supreme Court so clearly explained approximately 140 years ago:

The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential[ the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it while an assignment of the latter alone is nullity. Carpenter v. Longan[ 83 U.S. 271[ 274 (1872) (citations omitted).

If the holder of the deed of trust does not own or hold the note, the deed of trust serves no purpose, is impotent, and cannot be vehicle for depriving the grantor of the deed of trust of ownership of the property described in the deed of trust. The sole purpose of the deed of trust is to secure payment of the note. The very, and sole, purpose of foreclosure sale pursuant to the deed of trust is to obtain funds for payment of the note. If the holder of the deed of trust does not own or hold the note, and there were to be foreclosure under the deed of trust, there is no assurance that the proceeds of the foreclosure would be used for the purpose intended by the deed of trust, i.e., to be applied as payment of, or on, the

As the Missouri Court of Appeals so cogently explained in Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC:
Generally, mortgage loan consists of promissory note and security instrument, usually mortgage or deed of trust, which secures payment on the note by giving the lender the ability to foreclose on the property. Typically, the same person holds both the note and the deed of trust. In the event that the note and the deed of trust are split, the note, as practical matter becomes unsecured. Restatement (Third) of Property (Mortgages) § 5.4. Comment.

The practical effect of splitting the deed of trust from the promissory note is to make it impossible for the holder of the note to foreclose, unless the holder of the deed of trust is the agent of the holder of the note. Without the agency relationship, the person holding only the note lacks the power to foreclose in the event of default. The person holding only the deed of trust will never experience default because only the holder of the note is entitled to payment of the underlying obligation. The mortgage loan became ineffectual when the note holder did not also hold the deed of trust.

……there is nothing in the record before the court at this time establishing that plaintiff cannot prevail on her theory that the foreclosure on her property was improper because it was conducted by, or at the behest of, BOA at time when BOA did not own or hold the note that was secured by the deed of trust pursuant to which the foreclosure was conducted.
The court ORDERS that such motions to dismiss be, and are hereby, denied.
SIGNED December ~2011. 

No comments: