Foreclosure Defense FloridaGeneral Information

The Banks….At War With Themselves….And Their Federal Governemnt Partner……FHFA…..WOW….

They are a squirming bunch of lies and fraud….and they don’t want the full story to be told…..
Petitioners are defendants in 15 separate actions (the ” Actions”)
commenced by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (” FHFA“) as purported con-
servator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, the Government Sponsored
Entities or ” GSEs”), the largest participants in the mortgage loan business. These
Actions involve statutory and common law securities claims arising from the
GSEs’ purchase of approximately $200 billion in residential mortgage-backed se-
curities (” RMBS”) sold in approximately 500 securitizations, and represent per-
haps the largest collection of securities litigations ever filed in the United States.
The District Court denied Petitioners’ motions to dismiss on the ground that
FHFA’s core allegations of” pervasive and systematic breaches” of loan underwrit-
ing guidelines were ” sufficient to render plausible FHFA’s assertion that the mort-
gage originators serially deviated from their mortgage originating standards.” (A-
129, 151-52.)
However, the District Court has foreclosed discovery into the
GSEs’ extensive business dealings with those same originators and types of mort-
gages during the relevant timeperiod. In so doing, the District Court has deprived
Petitioners of their right to obtain evidence that the GSEs either knew the extent to
which those mortgage originators had abandoned their guidelines or, more likely,
had concluded that originators did notmaterially deviate from the guidelines dis-
closed in Petitioners’ offering documents. The District Court has also barred dis-
covery on other important issues ““ including statute of limitations, loss causation,
the materiality of any alleged defects, the adequacy
of Petitioners’ due diligence, and justifiable reliance ““ on the grounds
that any discovery beyond the business units that purchased the secu
ritizations at issue is irrelevant and burdensome.





  • Attorney Wendy Alison Nora says:

    Observing the outcomes of pro se cases in Wisconsin: There is collusion between the GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and its servicers to the extent that the servicers will foreclose against homeowners with forged endorsements on notes and forged mortgage assignments to themselves from defunct entities which previously nominated MERS or from themselves as originator to a REMIC trust to which the note was never delivered, litigate the fraudclosure to judgment (and even through the appeal in which the courts are preventing us from presenting evidence of forgery and refusing to consider the unclean hands defense to foreclose,) the Sheriff’s sale will be held, the servicer bids in the amount of the debt claimed owed on its false claim of a secured loan (Fannie and Freddie are unsecured), the sale to the servicer claiming to be the secured party is confirmed, which can also be appealed on narrow grounds and then, the winning bid at the foreclosure sale is “assigned” to the otherwise unsecured GSE.
    I know that you have been writing for some time now about the fact that Fannie and Freddie are the real parties in interest behind many Florida foreclosures. I was naive enough to think that the GSEs would be honest enough to appear in their own names even if they had to forge the mortgage assignments in my cases, but lately I have discovered several loans all claimed to be owned by Freddie being serviced by claimants which pretended to own the note and mortgage in the court action in my own files. Reading the Writ of Mandamus by the loan originators, it is clear that the GSEs and the originators (which often became servicers or successors to servicers) were likely collaborating at the time of the sales of the loans to the GSEs and the GSEs knew they were buying loans designed to fail. (See the uncontroverted claim of destruction of Freddie’s e-mails.) I do not buy the defense of the market collapse being unforeseen anymore. The GSEs and the originators collapsed the market preventing the refinancing of the loans designed to fail but sold to homeowners as being capable of refinance prior to the ARMs resetting, the interest only payment being amortized or any other of a myriad of cons presented at closing. FHFA is in trouble here but so are the homeowners struggling for justice. There is more to Judge Cote’s discovery bans than just favoring the FHFA. It prevents homeowners and their counsel from discovering the extent of the collusion which is still ongoing.
    In one of my cases, I discovered that Freddie bought the loan in 2004 because I could not trace the bizarre paperwork through Countrywide to BAC Home Loans Serving, LP to Bank of America through the name changes and merger. I produced the Freddie Mac claim to own the loan in evidence in pre-trial proceedings and, as trial became a real possibility, Bank of America moved to stay discovery. In preparing my response, I checked the Freddie Mac website again and–PRESTO–Freddie Mac suddenly claims to NOT own the loan. I believe that the information was simply changed on the website to aid Bank of America in the bankruptcy case where it was confronted as being the servicer for Freddie Mac, an unsecured claimant. Otherwise, Bank of America repurchased the loan on the eve of trial to make its paperwork look real, even though BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP never owned any loans and was always a servicer for the real loan owners, just as MERS never held the notes and was merely the nominee for the mortgage recorded in the public records to conceal the GSE or REMIC ownership.
    By the time the FHFA lawsuits go to trial, homeowners will be told that they lost by not discovering the frauds earlier and that they had one chance to discover all the frauds in their case unless we get some honest rulings from our state and federal courts up here in the far North.
    Fraud, Collusion, Cover Up between the GSEs, the servicers and,it appears, the originators is being ignored or ratified in many of our courts. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has not yet weighed in. . .
    I await the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Southern District of New York.

  • Bob Hurt says:

    The article also blasts foreclosure defense attorneys who postpone the inevitable with losing arguments.

Leave a Reply