HSBC – Litton Loan Serving – MERS: Caught with multiple notes and conflicting “original signatures” in court.
Another case of fraud on the lender’s part.
Here’s another example of how messed up the paperwork is when it comes to our mortgages. Most mortgages were sold off as securities in the last 10 years, and servicing rights assigned to third parties, as described in the article below. When it comes to who owns the actual debt, unwinding the system has led to inconsistencies, and the servicers, lenders, and any potential parties of interest forging signatures and making up documents. As these come out in the court system, judges are beginning to take notice of these inconsistencies and foreclosures are being stopped in their tracks. The case below depicts just one example of the fraud coming out into the public’s eye.
Yes, you can do something about this. People are winning against the lenders!
A forensic loan audit does the research on who owns your note, as well as investigates if the banks have been complying with federal law as it relates to your mortgage.
The evidence is there – banks and servicers are being caught red-handed lying, creating documents, and whatever it takes to take your home. A Class Action Lawsuit is being formed for all homeowners. Find out more by submitting your details. Class Action Lawsuit Video.
Daily Finance | Why Paperwork Matters: Consider This Mortgage Mess
Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on January 20, 2011
Why Paperwork Matters: Consider This Mortgage Mess
By ABIGAIL FIELD – Daily Finance
Judge Shelley C. Chapman, of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, has ordered HSBC and Litton Loan Servicing (a Goldman Sachs subsidiary) to send officers with some juice — and not low-level types — to her Manhattan courtroom on Feb. 10 to explain themselves. More specifically, to explain their failure to provide adequate documentation about a mortgage they claim to own and service. Judge Chapman also ordered the Texas attorney who signed the documents to show up.
At issue is the fact that HSBC (HBC) hasn’t come close to proving it owns the loan, and the documents it has submitted look funny. It also doesn’t appear to have been acting in good faith when it comes to trying to modify the loan (also known as “loss mitigation”). So, the judge wants to talk to people who actually know things and can make decisions.
How Did HSBC Get the Note?
Here’s the story:
In 2004, Miguelito and Jacqueline Garcia bought a property in New York City’s borough of the Bronx, using a mortgage from Fremont Investment & Loan. Shortly afterward, that mortgage was apparently securitized, and HSBC became the trustee for securitized trust. HSBC hired Goldman Sachs’s (GS) Litton Loan Servicing to service the trust loans.
Last summer, the Garcias declared bankruptcy, and Litton Loans told the court the Garcias owed HSBC some $3,600 in missed principal, interest and fees. (This isn’t a foreclosure case, at least not yet.) To back up its claim, Litton gave the court the note — stamped “Duplicate Original” (starting on page 3 of the linked document) — and the accompanying mortgage (starting on page 10).
But the Garcias’ lawyer, consumer bankruptcy attorney David Shaev, pointed out in a letter to Litton that the note was made out to Fremont Investment & Loan, and the mortgage was made out to MERS — the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems — as nominee for Fremont. Litton didn’t give the court any evidence that either document was transferred to the trust HSBC represented. In the first place, Fremont hadn’t endorsed the note to anyone, and second, HSBC hadn’t submitted an assignment of the mortgage to anyone.
Two Different Notes
Shaev didn’t get a meaningful reply from Litton, so he formally objected to HSBC’s claim. When Litton replied, it submitted a new note that was endorsed. But Litton’s filing didn’t address the fact that the first note it submitted wasn’t endorsed, while it now it offered one that was. Nor did Litton mention several other oddities, such as the initialing by the borrowers on the new note is in a different order and position on each of the first two pages. Even the signatures on page 3 of the note look different — for example, look at the “J,” “a” and “q” in Jacqueline.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/fYURAC



Connect With Us!