Matt Weidner – Fighting With The American People

Archive for February, 2010

Scridb filter

The cat is way out of the bag.  The lenders and banks that brought our country to the verge of collapse with fraud, misrepresentation and lies have now brought these same practices into local courtrooms.  Every day judges who sign foreclosure orders are confronted with legal pleadings that do not conform to the most basic requirements of professional standards, but who really cares about that…the real issue is that because the lenders cannot produce the evidence they need to proceed with their cases, they….produce the evidence they need to proceed with their cases.

I’ve previously posted about affidavit and assignment fraud..it comes in three areas:

1) False Affidavits of Service or False Affidavits That We Could Not Serve the Defendant. (See Sewer Service);

2)False Assignments of Mortgage (MERS assigns this Mortgage to Deutsche Bank who now has the right to foreclose);

3)False Affidavits of Amounts due and owing.

A Subpoena for Every Foreclosure!

Many times these documents are false on their face, but sometimes it takes a little digging to uncover the lies and misrepresentations….that’s where a subpoena comes in.  The following is text of a subpoena I use.  Next is a Motion to Strike Affidavit.  Now there are going to be foreclosures that are proper (such as when original lenders foreclose) but in virtually every other case (especially when a pretender lender is a Plaintiff), when pressed, you’re going to find that the evidence submitted to the court is filled with mistakes lies or outright misrepresentations.  Given what we’re learning about the scope of this problem…subpoenas should be dropped in every case for every fact witness, assignor, assignee and affiant. Please share results of your work with me!  Together we’ll take my beloved courts back.

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR RECORDS WITH DEPOSITION

STATE OF FLORIDA:

TO:

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear before a person authorized by law to take depositions at the law offices of MATTHEW D. WEIDNER, P.A., 1229 Central Avenue, St. Petersburg, Florida 33705, on MONTH DAY, 2010, for the taking of your deposition in this action and to have with you at the above time and place the following:

1.                  All books, papers, records, documents and other tangible things kept by LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP concerning the transactions alleged in the complaint against Annabel E. Montgomery.

2.                  Any and all other books, papers, records, documents or tangible things that relate to HSBC BANK, USA, ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ACE SECURITIES CORPORATION HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2005-AG1, ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES’ claim against ANNABEL E. MONTGOMERY.

3.               All employment records that exist between Christopher Spradling and any employer who has employed Spradling within the last three years including current employers.

4.            All records that purport to give Christopher Spradling the authority to sign or execute any documents on behalf of any person or entity.

5.         All documents, records, books, evidence or instructions that you reviewed or relied upon in order to prepare the affidavit or assignment executed in this case.

These items will be inspected and may be copied at that time.  You will not be required to surrender the original items.  You have the right to object to the production pursuant to this subpoena at any time before production by giving written notice to the attorney whoose name appears on this subpoena.  You may condition the preparation of the copies upon the payment in advance of the reasonable cost of preparation.

If you fail to: (a) appear as specified, or (b) furnish the records instead of appearing as provided above; or (c) object to this subpoena you may be in contempt of Court. You are subpoenaed by the attorneys whose names appear on this subpoena, and unless excused from this subpoena by the attorney or the Court, you shall respond to this subpoena as directed.

DATED on XXXX X, 2010.

FOR THE COURT

Matthew D. Weidner, P.A.

1229 Central Avenue

St. Petersburg, FL 33705

By: ________________________________

Matthew D. Weidner

FBN: 0185957

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Affidavit of Christopher Spradling and for attorney’s fees and costs

COMES NOW, the Defendant Annabel E. Montgomery (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and through the undersigned counsel MATTHEW D. WEIDNER, and respectfully MOTIONS THIS COURT TO STRIKE AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER SPADLING AND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.510, and in support thereof states as follows:

FACTS

1. This is an action for foreclosure of real property owned by the Defendant.
2. The named plaintiff in this case is HSBC BANK, USA, NATIONAL ASSOCATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ACE SECURITIES CORPORATION HOME EQUITY TRUST, SERIES 2005-AG1, ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATE (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
3. On February 2, 2010 Plaintiff, by and through its counsel Florida Default Law Group, P.L. (hereinafter “Florida Default Law Group”), gave Notice of Filing of Affidavit as to Amounts Due and Owing and the accompanying Affidavit (hereinafter “Affidavit”).
4. The Affiant of the above-mention Affidavit was identified as Christopher Spradling (hereinafter “Spradling”).  Spradling identified himself as a “Foreclosure Manager” for LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP (hereinafter “Litton”).  Litton, in turn, was identified as “the servicer of the loan…[Litton] is responsible for the collection of this loan transaction and pursuit of any delinquency in payments.”[1]
5. Spradling, based upon his personal knowledge, averred in the Affidavit that: (1) the Plaintiff or its assigns was owed a total of $408,809.30; (2) the Plaintiff was entitled to enforce the Note and Mortgage; and (3) Plaintiff was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.[2] The Affidavit does not contain any mention as to who owes the Plaintiff the sum alleged save for one sentences line which cryptically state “[s]pecifically, I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the sums which are due and owing to Plaintiff or its assigns pursuant to the Note and Mortgage which is the subject matter of the lawsuit” and a second which states “I am familiar with the books of account…concerning the transactions alleged in the Complaint.”[3] Emphasis added.
6. Nowhere in the Affidavit was either Litton or Spradling identified as either the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s authorized agent.
7. Upon information and belief, Litton is simply a “middleman” of sorts who is responsible for the transfer of funds between the various assignees of the underlying Mortgage and Note and has no knowledge of the underlying transactions between the Plaintiff and Defendant.
8. Upon information and belief, Spradling, as employee of Litton and not the Plaintiff, has no knowledge of the underlying transactions between the Plaintiff and Defendant.

LEGAL REASONING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

1. I. Plaintiff Failed to Attach Documents Referred to in the Affidavit
   1. a. Failure to Attach Documents Violates Fla. Stat. §90.901 (1989)

Florida Statue §90.901 (1989) states, in pertinent part, that “[a]uthentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility.”  The failure to authenticate documents referred to in affidavits renders the affiant incompetent to testify as to the matters referred to in the affidavit.  See Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.510(e) (which reads, in pertinent part, that “affidavits…shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein”); Zoda v. Hedden, 596 So. 2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding, in part, that failure to attach certified copies of public records rendered affiant, who was not a custodian of said records, incompetent to testify to the matters stated in his affidavit as affiant was unable to authenticate the documents referred to therein.)

Here, Spradling affirmatively states in the Affidavit that he is “familiar with the books of account and have examined all books, records, and documents kept by LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP concerning the transactions alleged in the Complaint.”[4] Furthermore, Spradling averred that the “Plaintiff or its assigns, is owed…$408,809.30.”[5] Nevertheless, Spradling has failed to attach any of the books, records or documents referred to in the Affidavit.  In addition, Spradling does not meet the definition of “custodian,” which is “a person or institution that has charge or custody (of…papers).”  See Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed. 2004, custodian.  By Spradling’s own admission “[t]he books, records, and documents which [Spradling] has examined are managed by employees or agents whose duty it is to keep the books accurately and completely.”[6] Emphasis added.  Thus, Spradling has only examined the books, records, and documents which he refers to in the Affidavit while the true custodians of these documents are the employees or agents whose duty it is to keep the books accurately and completely.  In essence, Spradling averred to records which he did not submit nor could he testify for the authenticity of just as the affiant in Zoda did.

Spradling’s failure to attach the documents referred to in the Affidavit without being custodian of same is a violation of the authentication rule promulgated in Fla. Stat. §90.901 (1989), which renders him incompetent to testify to the matters stated therein as the Second District in Zoda held.  Therefore, the Affidavit should be struck in whole.

1. b. Failure to Attach Documents Violates Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.510(e)

Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.510(e) provides, in part, that “[s]worn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith.”  Failure to attach such papers is grounds for reversal of summary judgment decisions.  See CSX Transp., Inc. v. Pasco County, 660 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (reversing summary judgment granted below where the affiant based statements on reports but failed to attach same to the affidavit.)

As previously demonstrated, Spradling referred to books, records, and documents kept by Litton which allegedly concerned the transaction referred to in the Complaint against the Defendant.  Nevertheless, as previously demonstrated, Spradling has not attached any of these books, records or documents.  This failure to do so is a violation of Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.510(e) and is grounds for a reversal of a summary judgment decision in favor of the Plaintiff.  Therefore, the Affidavit should be struck in whole.

1. II. Affidavit Was Not Based Upon Spradling’s Personal Knowledge

As a threshold matter, the admissibility of an affidavit rests upon the affiant having personal knowledge as to the matters stated therein.  See Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.510(e) (reading, in pertinent part, that “affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge”); Enterprise Leasing Co. v. Demartino, 15 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); West Edge II v. Kunderas, 910 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); In re Forefeiture of 1998 Ford Pickup, Identification No. 1FTZX1767WNA34547, 779 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).  Additionally, a corporate officer’s affidavit which merely states conclusions or opinion is not sufficient, even if it is based on personal knowledge.  Nour v. All State Supply Co., So. 2d 1204, 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

The Third District, in Alvarez v. Florida Ins. Guaranty Association, 661 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), noted that “the purpose of the personal knowledge requirement is to prevent the trial court from relying on hearsay when ruling on a motion for summary judgment and to ensure that there is an admissible evidentiary basis for the case rather than mere supposition or belief.”  Id at 1232 (quoting Pawlik v. Barnett Bank of Columbia County, 528 So. 2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)).  This opposition to hearsay evidence has deep roots in Florida common law.  In Capello v. Flea Market U.S.A., Inc., 625 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the Third District affirmed an order of summary judgment in favor of Flea Market U.S.A as Capello’s affidavit in opposition was not based upon personal knowledge and therefore contained inadmissible hearsay evidence.  See also Doss v. Steger & Steger, P.A., 613 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Mullan v. Bishop of Diocese of Orlando, 540 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Crosby v. Paxson Electric Company, 534 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Page v. Stanley, 226 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).  Thus, there is ample precedent for striking affidavits in full which are not based upon the affiant’s personal knowledge.

Here, the entire Affidavit is hearsay evidence as Spradling has absolutely no personal knowledge of the facts stated therein.  As an employee of Litton, which purports to be the servicer of the loan, he has no knowledge of the underlying transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.  Neither Spradling nor Litton: (1) were engaged by the Plaintiff for the purpose of executing the underlying mortgage transaction with the Defendant; or (2) had any contact with the Defendant with respect to the underlying transaction between the Plaintiff and Defendant.  In addition, the Affidavit fails to set forth with any degree of specificity what duties Litton performs for the Plaintiff, save for one line which states that Litton “is responsible for the collection of this loan transaction and pursuit of any delinquency in payments.”[7] At best, Litton acted as a middleman of sorts, whose primary function was to transfer of funds between the various assignees of the underlying Mortgage and Note.  Litton is not the named Plaintiff in this case, nor does the Affidavit aver that either Spradling or Litton is the agent of the Plaintiff.

Because Spradling has no personal knowledge of the underlying transaction between the Plaintiff and Defendant, any statement he gives which references this underlying transaction (such as the fact that the Plaintiff is allegedly owed sums of monies in excess of $400,000) is, by its very nature, hearsay.  The Florida Rules of Evidence define hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”  Fla. Stat. §90.801(1)(c) (2007).  Here Spradling is averring to a statement (that the Plaintiff is allegedly owed sums of money) which was made by someone other than himself (namely, the Plaintiff) and is offering this as proof of the matter asserted (that Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the Note and Mortgage and that Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.)  At best, the only statements which Spradling can aver to are those which regard the transfer of funds between the various assignees of the Mortgage and Note.

The Plaintiff may argue that while Spradling’s statements may be hearsay, they should nevertheless be admitted under the “Records of Regularly Conducted Business Activity” exception.  Fla. Stat. §90.803(6) (2007).  This rule provides that notwithstanding the provision of §90.802 (which renders hearsay statements inadmissible), hearsay statements are not inadmissible, even though the declarant is available as a witness, if the statement is

[a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinion, or diagnosis, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make such memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or as shown by a certification or declaration that complies with paragraph (c) and s. 90.902(11), unless the sources of information or other circumstances show lack of trustworthiness.  Emphasis added.

There are, however, several problems with this argument.  To begin, and as previously demonstrated, no memorandums, reports, records, or data compilation have been offered by the Plaintiff.  Furthermore, the books, records, and documents referred to by Spradling in the Affidavit (which, of course, were not attached) were kept by Litton, who cannot be a person with knowledge as Litton does not have any personal knowledge of underlying transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.  Finally, Litton, as the source of this information, shows a lack of trustworthiness because Spradling failed to attach the books, records, and documents to the Affidavit and because neither Litton nor Spradling have knowledge of the underlying transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Because Spradling’s statements in the Affidavit are not based upon personal knowledge, they are inadmissible hearsay evidence.  As no hearsay exception applies to these statements, the Affidavit should be struck in whole.

1. III. Affidavit Included Impermissible Conclusions of Law Not Supported by Facts

An affidavit in support of a motion for summary judgment may not be based upon factual conclusions or opinions of law.  Jones Constr. Co. of Cent. Fla., Inc. v. Fla. Workers’ Comp. JUA, Inc., 793 So. 2d 978, 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).  Furthermore, an affidavit which states a legal conclusion should not be relied upon unless the affidavit also recites the facts which justify the conclusion.  Acquadro v. Bergeron, 851 So. 2d 665, 672 (Fla. 2003); Rever v. Lapidus, 151 So. 2d 61, 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).

Here, the Affidavit contained conclusions of law which were not supported by facts stated therein.  Specifically, Spradling averred that the Plaintiff was entitled to enforce the Note and Mortgage and that the Plaintiff was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, two legal conclusions, but did not support this conclusion with statements which referenced exactly who the Plaintiff was entitled to enforce the Note and Mortgage against.  In fact there is no mention of any of the parties in question save for one cryptic line in where Spradling states that “[s]pecifically, I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the sums which are due and owing to Plaintiff or its assigns pursuant to the Note and Mortgage which is the subject matter of the lawsuit” and another which states “I am familiar with the books of account…concerning the transactions alleged in the Complaint.”[8] Nowhere in the Affidavit does Spradling state that the Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the Note and Mortgage against the Defendant nor does Spradling state that the Plaintiff is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because the Defendant owes the Plaintiff money.  At best the Affidavit accuses someone of owing the Plaintiff $408,809.30 and that the Plaintiff should be able to enforce some Note and Mortgage against that particular someone.  By not clearly identifying the parties in question, Spradling has not adequately supported his two legal conclusions.

Because the Affidavit contained impermissible conclusions of law which were not supported by facts stated therein, the Affidavit should be struck in whole.

1. IV. Sanction of Attorney’s Fees is Appropriate

Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.510(g) reads, in full, that

[i]f it appears to the satisfaction of the court at any time that any of the affidavits presented pursuant to this rule are presented in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay, the court shall forthwith order the party employing them to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses which the filing of the affidavits caused the other party to incur, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, and any offending party or attorney may be adjudged guilty of contempt.  Emphasis added.

The undersigned counsel has expended considerable time and resources preparing to defend against an affidavit which has, on its face, no basis in law.  Both Florida Default Law Group and the Plaintiff both knew that Spradling’s affidavit lacked authenticity and reliability yet still chose to file it with the Court.  In addition, this is not Florida Default Law Group’s first time filing affidavits in bad faith.  Recently, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida sanctioned both Florida Default Law Group and its client, WELLS FARGO, $95,130.45 for false representations made in affidavits in that court as well as other bankruptcy courts in Florida.  See In re: Fazul Haque, Case No. 08-14257-BKR-JKO (Order Granting Wells Fargo, N.A.’s Motion for Relief from Stay and Imposing Sanctions for Negligent Practice and False Representations, Oct. 28, 2008).  This is indicia of a modus operandi on Florida Default Law Group’s part to present misrepresentations and false affidavits to the Court which make an award of attorney’s fees and costs an appropriate sanction.

WHEREFORE, Defendant asks this Court to GRANT its MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER SPRADLING and enter an ORDER granting ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

---

[1] See Affidavit As to Amounts Due and Owing, pg. 1.

[2] Id, pgs. 1, 2.

[3] Id.

[4] See Affidavit As to Amounts Due and Owing, pg. 1.

[5] Id, pg. 2.

[6] See Affidavit As to Amounts Due and Owing, pg. 1.

[7] See Affidavit As to Amounts Due and Owing, pg. 1.

[8] See Affidavit As to Amounts Due and Owing, pg. 1.

Scridb filter

This disgusting story was first reported in the Sarasota Tribune then on 4closurefraud

By Todd Ruger

Scridb filter

I’ve been yammering on for months now about how Plaintiff’s law firms are engaging in widespread fraud and misrepresentations as they improperly create and submit documents to courts across the state that purport to support their right to take a homeowner’s home.  This widespread problem has only recently become apparent but attorneys and judges are becoming more aware of the epidemic.  One problem is there have been very few depositions of the robo signers who improperly execute the documents that purport to give a faceless lender the right to proceed in a foreclosure case.  A champion and pioneer of foreclosure defense, Thomas Ice from the Ice Law firm in West Palm cared enough to take a deposition….a great effort for him, but the results are so valuable.  This is totally unsolicited advertising, but if you’re in foreclosure anywhere in Florida and you need an attorney….Put ICE on your short list!

I attach here all 138 pages of a deposition that was taken of Cheryl Sammons.  Ms. Sammons may personally be responsible for more Floridians losing their homes than any other single person in this state.  I say this because, according to her deposition, she has been employed by David Stern’s office for more than 14 years.  David Stern’s office has probably processed more foreclosures in the State of Florida during the 14 year period than any other office.  When Sammons’ depo was taken in 2009, she estimated that Stern’s office employed more than 900 people.  Sammons couldn’t come up with any reliable estimate of how many official documents she signed as an employee, but she estimated that she spent an average of two hours a day signing assignments of mortgage, five days a week and sometimes on the weekend.  Apparently, Stern’s office has several floors and Sammons would just walk from floor to floor where she would be confronted with stacks of documents that she would sign…as you read below, she admits to having no knowledge whatsoever of what she’s signing.

Now keep in mind as you read the complete deposition and the excerpts below that every document she signs is one the document that a judge relies upon to take a home from a consumer.  As the homeowner or consumer is thrown out (based on this document) the order also grants a final judgment for hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars to the nameless, untraceable entity that Ms. Sammons alone says is entitled to collect this money.  Amazingly, in her more than 14 years of dedicated service creating documents to take people’s homes, she’s only been deposed on this matter once.

The formatting here is bad, but struggle through it and read the full deposition.  When you need support for arguments that lenders and their attorneys are engaging in widespread fraud, print this depo out, along with that of Erica Seck Johnson and share it with your judge….read and weep….

How much time do you spend examining each
11    document before you sign them?
12            A.    Very little.
13            Q.    Do you read the document?
14            A.    No.

Right, because we’re
8            specifically talking about my understanding on
9            these is what I do as far as assignments for MERS,
10            and that’s a different capacity than an affidavit
11            or something.
12          Now, the assignments are reviewed by an
13            attorney before they come to me.  I do not review
14            them for errors.  I simply sign them.

23            Q.    I understand.  So is it fair to say that if
24    it’s an assignment you don’t read it, correct?

25            A.    I only make sure it’s from MERS and that Ihave signing authority for that client.

Q.    And then you sign it?      A.    Yes, sir.

Q.    Why does MERS appoint you as a vice
8    president or assistant secretary as opposed to some other
9    thing like a manager or an authorized agent?
10            A.    I don’t know.
11            Q.    Why would MERS give you a title at all?  In
12    other words, why not just give you the authority to sign
13    a mortgage from MERS?
14                  MR. BAKALAR:  Objection.  Are you asking
15            her to speculate?
16                  MR. ICE:  Just if she knows.
17                  THE WITNESS:  I don’t know.

Q.    Down in the jurat I think it calls you a
19    vice president of Amro, correct?
20            A.    Yes, it does.
21            Q.    Are you either of those things?
22            A.    No, I’m not.
23            Q.    Do you have any explanation for that
24    document?
25            A.    Well, this document is obviously incorrect

Q.    Do you have any involvement in the process
9    of creating the assignment of mortgage before it gets to
10    the table where you walk in and sign it?
11            A.    No, sir.
12            Q.    So you wouldn’t be able to comment on how
13    information gets into the assignment, like who is the
14    assignee or assignor?

Q.    Following the date of October 20th, 2008,
23    there is another date where it says, “But effective as of
24    the 4th day of September, 2008?”
25            A.    Uh-huh

Q.    Who puts that date in there?
4            A.    That is typed in by the processor.
5            Q.    Who tells the processor or how does the
6    processor decide what date to put in there?
7            A.    We train them to put in that date.
8            Q.    In your training, what do you tell them to
9    do?
10            A.    To put in the date that the file was
11    referred to us for foreclosure.

Q.    You don’t actually swear to anything that’s
10    in this assignment, correct?
11            A.    Correct.
12            Q.    All you’re doing is acknowledging that you
13    are executing this as an officer of MERS?
14            A.    Correct.
15            Q.    You have no personal knowledge that
16    anything happened with respect to the transfer of this
17    mortgage on September 4th, 2008?
18            A.    No, sir.
19            Q.    No, sir meaning you don’t have any personal
20    knowledge?
21            A.    No, sir, I don’t have any personal
22    knowledge.

Q.    So your firm, the firm you work for, is

23    pursuing a case on behalf of Deutsche Bank against MERS
24    while, at the same time, you are signing an assignment as
25    a MERS officer to help Deutsche Bank win the case againstMERS, correct?
2            A.    Yes.
3            Q.    Do you see any conflict there?
4                  MR. BAKALAR:  Objection.
5                  THE WITNESS:  No

Q.    Does David J. Stern, P.A. have any
8    agreement in writing from MERS waiving that conflict?
9            A.    I don’t know.
10

There’s no rhyme or reason for
16    what day anybody signs or notarizes for me.  It’s whoever
17    I find.
18

.    That’s your signature?
4            A.    Yes.
5            Q.    And it’s witnessed by Michelle Camacho
6    again?
7            A.    Yes.
8            Q.    And notarized by Michelle Camacho?
9            A.    Yes.
10            Q.    On December 14th of ’07?
11            A.    Yes.
12            Q.    Again, she or someone handwrote in those
13    dates, correct?
14            A.    Yes.
15            Q.    And once again, that would be before her
16    commission was ever issued?
17                  MR. BAKALAR:  Objection.  Are you asking
18            her to testify when someone’s notary commission
19            was issued?
20                  MR. ICE:  No.  The question is the date
21            that’s on this assignment predates her commission
22            by a little under three months.
23

Q.    Do you see that date?
14            A.    Yes.
15            Q.    So, once again, the date of the assignment
16    is prior to the date of filing, correct?
17            A.    Yes.

Do I have to say the same
3            thing on every single assignment?  I’m just
4            asking.  Because I can tell you I don’t remember.
5            I sign a lot.  You’re going to ask me if I think
6            it was backdated.  I’m going to tell you no.  I’m
7            going to tell you I don’t know what the mistake
8            is.  I don’t know if I want to answer the same
9            question every single time.
10                  MS. EVERTZ:  It seems redundant.  Say how
11            many are there.  Same answer as to all.
12                  THE WITNESS:  Right.  I don’t have an
13            explanation for you other than mistake

:               If you will stipulate that all 21
18            of these are executed with a date that is before
19            the notary’s commission was ever issued –

20                 If you just look at the document itself,
21    you will see that the expiration date is more than four
22    years after the execution date.
23            A.    Okay.
24            Q.    Which means that unless they are capable of
25    time travel, they couldn’t have used that stamp that wasn’t going to be issued until after this document was
2    executed?
3            A.    Okay.
4            Q.    Will you stipulate that that’s the case in
5    all 21 of these assignments?

(With a lot of detail, the attorneys for the witness stipulate that many of the 21 documents were executed before the notary’s commission was executed.)

Q.    Would you say because they are all recorded
on the same day and all notarized and witnessed by the
same two people that it’s likely that they were all
executed on the same day?
A.    It’s a possibility.
Q.    Yet the execution dates vary for a whole
year from February of ’07 all the way to February of ’08?
A.    Yes.
Q.    Do you have any explanation for that?
A.    No, sir, I don’t.

Q.    Now, this problem of notarizing with stamps
that haven’t been issued yet, that’s been brought to your
attention before this deposition, correct?
A.    Correct.

Q.    But as far as the others, you are aware
11    that this issue had come up about assignments executed
12    with stamps that didn’t exist yet?
13            A.    Correct.
14            Q.    Are all of these notaries still notarizing
15    documents here at David J. Stern, P.A?
16            A.    Yes.
17            Q.    Has the firm done anything to discipline
18    any of these notaries?
19            A.    Discipline, no.
20            Q.    Reprimand?
21            A.    I would not use the word reprimand, no.

Q.    Were you aware of an occasion when David
12    Stern was reprimanded by the Florida Bar for professional
13    misconduct regarding potentially misleading affidavits?
14            A.    Yes.
15            Q.    What is your knowledge about that?
16            A.    My knowledge was that there was a case and
17    there was a Florida Bar reprimand.  That’s all I know.

Scridb filter

Contrary to some widely held and vague opinions from lender’s attorneys and banks, the banks and lenders that engaged in widespread fraud, misrepresentation and other problematic conduct are not exempt from state laws and regulations that will help local judges to get a handle on the cases in their courtrooms.  For years I’ve been arguing that Plaintiffs in foreclosure case need to plead their capacity.  Banks used to argue this point, but the lose every time the argument is made and now I’ve got reported cases to support the argument.  The next argument banks will make is that they are exempt from state laws that relate to capacity or that those laws are preempted by federal law….WRONG!

Give Comfort to Your Circuit Court Judge

I believe local judges do not want to throw their neighbors out of their homes.  I believe judges have grown tired of the lies, misrepresentations and outright fraud being perpetrated before them by the lenders and their attorneys.  Having said that, your good local judges have a job to do and they do not want to be on the losing end of an appeal.  That’s why it’s important that they be provided with good case law that supports the Orders we want them to issue.  A key concern judges have is the belief that all banking and lending activities are regulated by federal laws. While most activities are regulated by federal law, there are important areas of law that are not preempted by state law.  These areas that are described more particularly in two US Supreme Court cases,

CUOMO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK v. CLEARING HOUSE ASSOCIATION, L. L. C., ET AL. ,

and

WATTERS, COMMISSIONER, MICHIGAN OFFICE OF INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES v. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A., ET AL.

(Click the case name to be directed to a syllabus of the case.)

Highlights from Cuomo:

• Evidence from the time of the NBA’s enactment, this Court’s cases, and application of normal construction principles make clear that the NBA does not prohibit ordinary enforcement of state law.
• The NBA provides: “No national bank shall be subject to any visitorial powers except as authorized by Federal law, vested in the courts . . . , or . . . directed by Congress.”  12 U. S. C. §484(a).  There is some ambiguity in the NBA’s term “visitorial powers,” and the Comptroller can give authoritative meaning to the term within the bounds of that uncertainty.  Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837.
• This Court’s consistent teaching, both before and after the NBA’s enactment, is that a sovereign’s “visitorial powers” and its power to enforce the law are two different things.  See, e.g., Trustees
  of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 676, 681; Guthrie, supra, at 159, 157; First Nat. Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U. S. 640, 660.  Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N. A., 550 U. S. 1, 21, distinguished.  And contrary to the Comptroller’s regulation, the NBA preempts only the former.
• Under the foregoing principles, the Comptroller reasonably interpreted the NBA’s “visitorial powers” term to include “conducting examinations [and] inspecting or requiring the production of books or records of national banks,” when the State conducts those activities as supervisor of corporations.

Highlights from Watters:

• State law (in this case, North Carolina law), all agree, governs incorporation-related issues, such as the formation, dissolution, and internal governance of operating  subsidiaries.  And the
  laws of the States in which national banks or their affiliates are located govern matters the NBA does not address.
• But state regulators cannot interfere with the “business of banking” by subjecting national banks or their OCC-licensed operating subsidiaries to multiple audits and surveillance under rival oversight regimes.
• (It comes in footnote 14)Watters does not assert  that Wachovia Mortgage is out of compliance with any North Carolina law governing its corporate status.

What these cases represent is that banks and lending institutions are not totally exempt from necessary and proper state laws and regulation that help to protect local states and their citizens.  It is important to keep this in mind as we help local judges understand that they do have the power to inquire and exercise control over the corporate entities that appear before them!

Scridb filter

Courts across the country have been granting banks foreclosure when they have scant evidence or documentation to support the granting of foreclosure.  Let’s be clear what’s happening here.  When a judge grants a Plaintiff foreclosure, that’s a claim that potentially puts hundreds of thousands of dollars in that Plaintff’s pocket.  Not so long ago, it was relatively clear that the Plaintiff was the party entitled to collect the money–their name was on the loan docs and the borrower made their payment to that lender over the course of the loan.  It was also relatively clear how much the Plaintiff was owed.  The Plaintiff kept the books and they largely did a fair job in keeping and presenting those records to the court in order to get their judgment

An On-Going Epidemic of Affidavit, Assignment and Evidence Fraud on The Court.

In response to the massive wave of foreclosure business, Plaintiffs and lenders have started churning out completely improper work product that does not fulfill the basis requirements of competent legal practice.  They are also churning out work product that is fraudulent and completely without any factual basis…i.e.

• If the Plaintff’s firms need an assignment of mortgage to give their Plaintiff the right to foreclose, they don’t bother getting it from the party that owns the mortgage, they simply create a fraudulent document and file it with the court;
• If the Plaintiff’s firm needs an affidavit to support how much they claim to be owed by the Defendant they do not get it from a source that is competent to provide that testimony and they do not attach any documents to support the amount claimed due as required by law, they merely have a nameless face sign an affidavit that says any old thing and submit that to the court;
• If the Plaintiff’s firm needs to get formal service on a Defendant, sometimes they don’t wait around for the process server to actually track that person down, they just lie say they attempted to get service on the person and file that lie to the court. (And when the process service company is owned by the Plaintiff’s firm, they’ll charge exorbitant fees for doing so.)

An Unfair Burden on The Judiciary

Anywhoo, the point is we’re all aware of all this conduct….and so much more.  Unfortunately the judiciary is just bursting at the seams with so many new cases that they just cannot keep up.  Their staff are just overwhelmed…the judges cannot possibly be expected to render the best legal work they expect of themselves, but they’re trapped in an uncomfortable and untenable situation.  In partial response, the courts are adopting new procedures that will be very damaging in the long run….like summarily passing cases through without much actual review or consideration.

The Result of The Unfair Burden on the Judiciary- Unsupported Judicial Opinions

The net result of the pressure placed on the judiciary is bad orders and bad title work and opinions coming out.  The Second DCA just released their BAC Funding v. US Bank opinion.  That opinion shuts the door on many of the bad processes and procedures that are now plaguing courts in this circuit and others.  The reply brief that was submitted in that case illustrates what harm can come when Orders of the court are issued without proper hearing.  In this case a Summary Judgment of Foreclosure was entered without a hearing.  Although there were many problems with the file from the outset and both sets of attorneys new this, the trial court had instituted a process of not bothering to hold hearings on these cases.  The results are the trial court entered judgment when they should not have…and now we’ve got a wonderful appeal.

The entire BAC Funding Brief can be found here it is a clear and concise illustration of what goes wrong when courts engage in summary procedures without considering important facts. I’ve previously complained about ex-parte Motion to Dismiss Denial practice because I’m concerned that our courts will face much greater problems going forward if they respond to the overwhelming increase in case loads with summarily dismissing cases.  I have profound respect for our courts and want to help them work though this crisis without causing greater problems down the road.

Scridb filter