WOW! Indymac No Longer Able to Pursue Foreclosures?
Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.
So I’m preparing for a foreclosure trial that involves Indymac as the originator of the loan and they are also the Plaintiff named in the complaint. Because the originator of the loan was the one suing, I was thinking we didn’t have many issues to work with. Then a colleague shared with me the agreement attached to this email.
The attached agreement is the Asset Purchase Agreement executed between the FDIC and OneWest Bank. I’m still mulling over the details, but it this agreement is in fact the binding agreement, I don’t see how Indymac is able to continue with their pursuit of foreclosure cases anywhere across the country.
And yet in my case and in many others, the foreclosure mills just seem to be chugging right keeping Indymac as the Plaintiff instead of substituting OneWest as the Plaintiff, as the agreement apparently requires.
I will certainly update as I find more information, but I’m curious what others have found regarding this very interesting issue. Read on and please share any info and insights.
11 Responses to “WOW! Indymac No Longer Able to Pursue Foreclosures?”
Leave a Reply
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Real Estate Tips, Matt Weidner. Matt Weidner said: blogged: WOW! Indymac No Longer Able to Pursue Foreclosures? – So I'm preparing for a foreclosure trial that i… http://tinyurl.com/2gxvdy5 [...]
In my instance “MERS as nominee for EMC Mortgage” was listed as a defendant in the complaint. No other business entity is listed as Defendant on the complaint or anywhere else in the court docket.
Ours was an 80/20 so I think the attempt is to show MERS as nominee for EMC Mortgage as Plaintiff wiping out the second.
Anyway there’s more;
THE ACTUAL COURT DOCKET LISTS THE FOLLOWING PARTY INFORMATION
Defendant #3 is listed as
“MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC” but does not appear on the complaint. Under the address line for MERS they list “CIMARRON MORTGAGE COMPANY DBA MORTGAGE WAREHOUSE” which also does not appear on the complaint.
Wait, still more…
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION is listed as Defendant #4 but doesn’t show up on the complaint. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK C/O CT CORPORATION SYSTEM is listed as a separate entity in the address line for EMC but it also is not listed in the complaint.
The response to my qualified written request said BONY & LaSalle were investors. But the note was endorsed to Suntrust at closing.
MERS was listed as MORTGAGEE on my MORTGAGE & MERS was also insured as lender on my TITLE INSURANCE POLICY.
Plaintiff’s MILL law firm filed 1st foreclosure complaint with count II for lost note, then submitted a copy of the note as an exhibit. That exhibit had three endorsements – one “void” one payable to the order of Suntrust and one Suntrust “blank” endorsement.
Second time Plaintiff files they claim to have possession of the original note & mortgage. They attest copies are attached to complaint. This time the note only has 2 endorsements – the blank endorsement was missing.
I went to court today in Viera to try and observe foreclosure hearings in the 18th Circuit. Showed up and requested permission to observe the hearings because they are held in chambers. I was told it was a “security” risk. So not only do I have problems with the fact that
a) originator placed a figure of $0 as income on our loan app
b) servicer never was able to explain how our escrow acct was zapped and shortage occurred – no increase in tax or insurance by the way
c) refused to disclose the identity of the real creditor upon my multiple requests
d) failed to explain MERS at any time before closing & sold us (and our rights) out for a mere $3.95 registration fee
e) MERS is not licensed as a lender in any state, lost my note, now is my co-defendant
f) fake AOM
g) completely ignored my TIL rescission
h) can’t explain why the other 4 defendants do not show on my complaint &
i) can’t get in to observe foreclosure hearings
…and I’m worried that I may never get more than 2 minutes to explain my findings in court and that I’ll be out on my tail in no time flat and the frauds that have been perpetrated (en masse) will continue. I would think they’d make accommodations for citizens who wish to observe these foreclosure hearings.
If you will delete these comments I can repost w/out the confusing first paragraph (above)
Correction;
No other business entity is listed as Defendant on the complaint or anywhere else in filings, pleadings, motions, etc.
Matt,
When the FDIC takes over a bank and sells its assets they usually require the purchaser of loans to modify delinquent loans either using HAMP or the FDIC’s modification program. They also allow the purchaser to put back to FDIC any loan they do not want. Your client’s loan might now be owned by the FDIC. They also usually have a loss sharing agreement in which the FDIC pays most of the loss. Your client’s loan might have been paid off by the FDIC.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssl5yb7FewA&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0]
In my instance “MERS as nominee for EMC Mortgage” was listed as a defendant in the complaint. No other business entity is listed as Defendant on the complaint or anywhere else in filings, pleadings, motions, etc.
Ours was an 80/20 so I think the attempt is to show MERS as nominee for EMC Mortgage as Plaintiff wiping out the second.
Anyway there’s more;
THE COURT DOCKET LISTS THE FOLLOWING for
“PARTY INFORMATION”
Defendant #3 is listed as
“MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC” but does not appear on the complaint. Under the address line for MERS they list “CIMARRON MORTGAGE COMPANY DBA MORTGAGE WAREHOUSE” which also does not appear on the complaint.
Wait, still more…
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION is listed as Defendant #4 but doesn’t show up on the complaint. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK C/O CT CORPORATION SYSTEM is listed as a separate entity in the address line for EMC but it also is not listed in the complaint.
The response to my qualified written request said BONY & LaSalle were investors. But the note was endorsed to Suntrust at closing.
MERS was listed as MORTGAGEE on my MORTGAGE & MERS was also insured as lender on my TITLE INSURANCE POLICY.
Plaintiff’s MILL law firm filed 1st foreclosure complaint with count II for lost note, then submitted a copy of the note as an exhibit. That exhibit had three endorsements – one “void” one payable to the order of Suntrust and one Suntrust “blank” endorsement.
Second time Plaintiff files they claim to have possession of the original note & mortgage. They attest copies are attached to complaint. This time the note only has 2 endorsements – the blank endorsement was missing.
I went to court today in Viera to try and observe foreclosure hearings in the 18th Circuit. Showed up and requested permission to observe the hearings because they are held in chambers. I was told it was a “security” risk. So not only do I have problems with the fact that
a) originator placed a figure of $0 as income on our loan app
b) servicer never was able to explain how our escrow acct was zapped and shortage occurred – no increase in tax or insurance by the way
c) refused to disclose the identity of the real creditor upon my multiple requests
d) failed to explain MERS at any time before closing & sold us (and our rights) out for a mere $3.95 registration fee
e) MERS is not licensed as a lender in any state, lost my note, now is my co-defendant
f) fake AOM
g) completely ignored my TIL rescission
h) can’t explain why the other 4 defendants do not show on my complaint &
i) can’t get in to observe foreclosure hearings
…I’m worried that I may never get more than 2 minutes to explain my findings in court and that I’ll be out on my tail in no time flat and the frauds that have been perpetrated (en masse) will continue. I would think they’d make accommodations for citizens who wish to observe these foreclosure hearings.
Not only can Indy Mac state a claim becaseu they hold no mortgages the FDIC guarenteed West they would sustain no lose. West bought note for 70% of value .
were do i learn more about this im fighting for my home now.indymac will not work with me at all.the basterds need to burn in hell for what they are doing to familys.
I just spoke with an atty today about potentially going through litigation against Indymac for mishandling two loan mods, and two short sales over the past two+ years of my life! My unit is completely upside down and I thought they foreclosed… come to find ‘sale date for fc is on hold’… I make it a point to video tape every conversation and keep much better notes since as you know every time you call or receive a call from those heathens its someone knew and hours of time wasted getting NOTHING ACCOMPLISHED. At this point I feel I can and should get the loan mod I expected in 08. If it weren’t for the BBB complaint I filed they would’ve said they had nothing in the go* dam#ed NOTES about me submitting paperwork for it! (Which mysteriously vanished …) I’m glad to find more info about this so please keep me informed! Good luck to everyone going through this nightmare!