Remember first of all that the banks are not private corporations, at least not in any true sense of the word.
The banks, by virtue of the extraordinary bailouts and taxpayer funding that every man woman, child, grandchild and great grandchild living in this country or that will be born for generations, are effectively wards of the state…..and by extension of The People.
How is it that we as taxpayers shoveled trillions upon trillions of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars at these institutions and we don’t so much as get a puny stock certificate or anything?
Instead, the banks continue to kick the American people straight in the face…they continue punching us all
directly in the gut. But some state attorney generals are not putting up with it any longer……
California’s AG tells the banks to treat homeowners fairly.
Nevada’s AG indicts robosigners.
Michigan’s AG issues subpoenas to document processors.
New York’s AG opens major investigations…..
THEN>>>>>>>>
Massachusetts AG drops a nuclear bomb of a major lawsuit against ALL THE MAJOR BANKSTERS….. I love the way it starts out:
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by and through its Attorney General,
Martha Coakley, brings this enforce me t action to hold multiple banks accountable for
their rampant violations of Massachusetts law and associated unfair and deceptive
conduct amidst the foreclosure crisis that has gripped Massachusetts and the nation since
2007.
In or around October 2010, evidence of the Bank Defendants’ failure to
comply with the strict requirements of the affidavit and notary procedures became widely
known Proceedings in state and bankruptcy courts as well as filings with various
registries of deeds revealed the pervasive use of mortgage servicer employees to sign
hundreds “” in some eases thousands “” of affidavits and other sworn statements without
any personal knowledge of the information contained in the affidavits.
Further flouting the affidavit and notarization, requirements, the affiiant’s
signature was frequently notarized on foreclosure documents without any verification by
the notary as to the affiants identity and without the affiant even being present.,
Evidence has since indicated that these practices were not confined to the
foreclosure context, but were also employed for documents concerning the creation,
assignment, transfer, modification, and discharge of mortgages secured by property in
Massachusetts,
The Bank Defendants knew or should have known that their failure to
comply with Massachusetts foreclosure law, including, without limitation, initiating and
conducting foreclosures without being the present holder of the m rtgage and the use of
false documentation practices to facilitate foreclosures, was unfair and deceptive.
Each of the Bank Defendants, through their employees and/or agents, filed
or caused to be tiled with registries of deeds and courts, documents that w re false, failed
to comply with the requirements for affidavits concerning personal knowledge, and failed
to conform to the law governing notarization. Discovery in this action will identify the
precise number of violations by each Bank Defendant.
The Bank Defendants frequently represent to borrowers and the public that
they are actively assisting distressed borrowers. Each of their websites contains links for
“Help for Homeowners” or “Homeowner Assistance,” and include promises such as that
on the Bank of America website, which states: “Let’s work together; Help is available for
homeowners experiencing payment difficulties. We’ll do everything possible to come up
with a solution to help you. No matter what your situation is, we’re here to help;” or, as
the Citi website states, “if you are having trouble making payments on your mortgage,
CitiMortgage will work with you to find a mortgage solution;” or, as the Wells Fargo
website states, “Count on us to work with you.”
Instead, however, upon information and belief, each of the Bank. Defendants
has deceived Massachusetts borrowers about loan modification requirements, by, without
limitation., misrepresenting that:
Borrowers must be over sixty days.. delinquent to get a loan modification,
When in fact actual delinquency is not required. Borrowers may be eligible
even if they are at simply at risk of imminent default. Such
misrepresentations resat in increased and unnecessary defaults.
If borrowers are over ninety days delinquent they will receive priority
treatment,. which is false; and which results in unnecessary additional
defaults and extended delinquencies.
Certain borrowers cannot be – considered based oil the type or seasonal,.
nature of their income, When in fact such factors are not determinative of
eligibility. This -results in borrowers who otherwise may qualify for a loan
modification being improperly denied Or dissuaded from applying.
Each of the Batik Defendants knew or should have known that its
misrepresentations regarding its loan modification programs are deceptive and unfairly
disqualify borrowers from obtaining loan modifications.
The Bank Defendants routinely make misrepresentations to borrowers
and/or their counsel regarding pending foreclosure proceedings, including, among other
misrepresentations, that while loan modification negotiations are occurring, foreclosure
proceedings will not continue and/or that foreclosure auctions will be postponed. As
negotiations progress, however, borrowers and/or their counsel often learn, whether
through public notices or communications with other employees or agents of the relevant
Bank Defendant, that the foreclosure auctions are continuing as scheduled.
Each of the Bank Defendants knows or should know that its
misrepresentations regarding foreclosure proceedings are deceptive and misleading, and
result in harm to borrowers.
Read the full Massachusetts Complaint
