5 BANKS SUED FOR ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES- READ STORY AND COMPLAINT HERE!!! ATTORNEY GENERAL COAKLEY SUES FIVE BIG BANKS IN CONNECTION WITH ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES AND LOAN SERVICING DEC

8/3/2019 5 BANKS SUED FOR ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES- READ STORY AND COMPLAINT HERE!!! ATTORNEY GENERAL COAKLEY

1/62

Photo by Josh ReynoldsMassachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley speaks to reporters at a news conference in Boston, Thursday,Dec. 1, 2011, about the lawsuit in which Massachusetts is suing five major banks including Bank of America Corp.and JPMorgan Chase & Co. over deceptive foreclosure practices. Also seen are, from left, Deputy AG Kevin Conroy,and Assistant AG John Stephan.

For Immediate release - December 01, 2011

Five National Banks Sued by AG Coakley in

Connection with Illegal Foreclosures andLoan ServicingFirst Comprehensive Lawsuit to Address Foreclosure Crisis Seeks to

Hold Banks Accountable For Illegal and Deceptive ConductBank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and GMAC All Named

As Defendants; Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) AlsoSuedBOSTON Five national banks have been sued in connection with their roles inallegedly pursuing illegal foreclosures on properties in Massachusetts as well asdeceptive loan servicing, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced today. Thelawsuit was filed today in Suffolk Superior Court against Bank of America, WellsFargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and GMAC. It also names Mortgage ElectronicRegistration System, Inc. (MERS) and its parent, MERSCORP Inc., as defendants.

The single most important thing we can do to return to a healthy economy is toaddress this foreclosure crisis, said AG Coakley. Our suit alleges that the bankshave charted a destructive path by cutting corners and rushing to foreclose onhomeowners without following the rule of law. Our action today seeks realaccountability for the banks illegal behavior and real relief for homeowners.

In the complaint , the Attorney General alleges these five entities engaged inunfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Massachusetts law by:

Pervasive use of fraudulent documentation in the foreclosure process,including so-called robo-signing;

Foreclosing without holding the actual mortgage (Ibanez violations); Corrupting Massachusetts land recording system through the use of MERS; Failing to uphold loan modification promises to Massachusetts homeowners.

USE OF FALSE DOCUMENTS TO EXPEDITE FORECLOSURES ROBO-SIGNING:According to the complaint, the banks used false documentation in the foreclosureprocess, including so-called robo-signing, whereby bank personnel signed


2/62

affidavits that were untrue, or not based on the signors actual knowledge. Anentity wishing to foreclose on a property must demonstrate it has filed an affidavitin compliance with Massachusetts law. By October 2010, the banks flagrantdisregard of affidavit and notary process requirements became widelyknown. Filings with various Registers of Deeds provided to the Attorney GeneralsOffice revealed the pervasive use of mortgage service employees to sign hundredsof affidavits and sworn statements without personal knowledge of the informationcontained in those affidavits. Evidence also suggests these practices were notconfined to the foreclosure process, but also used in the assignment, transfer andmodification of mortgages secured by property in Massachusetts.FORECLOSING WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY IBANEZ VIOLATIONS:Second, these five entities participated in unlawful foreclosures when theycommenced foreclosures on mortgages where they were not the holders of thosemortgages. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), in Commonwealth v Ibanez,recently upheld Massachusetts law and stated that only the present holder of amortgage is authorized to foreclose on the mortgaged property. The complaintalleges that these entities ignored this fundamental legal mandate and proceeded

to foreclosure even though they did not hold the mortgage, and thus had no legalauthority to conduct the foreclosure. The banks failure to obtain a validassignment of the mortgage prior to foreclosure has adversely impacted titles tohundreds, if not thousands, of properties in the Commonwealth. The complaintalleges that the banks falsely claimed to be the holder of a mortgage in severalforeclosure documents even though they failed to obtain a valid assignment of themortgage.UNDERMINING PUBLIC RECORDS MERS:Third, the complaint alleges that these banks have undermined our public landrecord system through the use of MERS, a private electronic registrysystem. According to the complaint, the creation and use of MERS was adopted by

these defendants primarily to avoid land registration and recording requirements,including payment of recording and registration fees, and to facilitate sales ofmortgage loans. The use of MERS has resulted in a lack of transparency as to theentities that have the legal authority to enforce mortgages, and unfairly concealsfrom borrowers the true identity of the holder of the debt. Since 1997, more than63 million home loans have been registered on the MERS System, accounting formore than 60 percent of all newly-originated mortgage loans. The complaint alsoalleges that through the use of the MERS system, the banks unlawfully failed toregister assignments of mortgages and transfers of the beneficial interests inmortgages.MISREPRESENTING LOAN MODIFICATION PROGRAMS:Finally, the complaint alleges the banks deceived and misrepresented to borrowers

the process, requirements, and availability of loan modifications. The bankspublically claimed to be engaged in widespread loan modifications aimed atpreserving home ownership and avoiding unnecessary foreclosures. Through theNational Homeownership Retention Program, which commenced on November 6,2008, these banks represented that they would work with borrowers to help themavoid unnecessary foreclosures by reducing monthly mortgage payments toaffordable and sustainable levels. The complaint alleges these banks misledborrowers about their eligibility for this program and the amount of relief available,


3/62

failed to achieve a significant level of modifications, and often strung alongborrowers for months in trial modifications that were ultimately rejected.The AGs lawsuit seeks civil penalties, restitution for harm to borrowers andcompensation for registration fees that were avoided. The lawsuit also seeks to holdthe banks accountable through permanent injunctive relief to provide a solution forprior unlawful foreclosures and to require that the banks, going forward, registerassignments and other documents in accordance with Massachusetts law.The lawsuit follows more than a year of negotiations with the banks over a 50-statesettlement focused around the issues of fraudulent documents, including robo-signing. AG Coakley had made clear that she would not sign on to an agreementwith the banks if it included broad liability release regarding MERS and other issuesor if she did not believe the banks had come to the table with an offer in the bestinterest of Massachusetts.AG Coakleys office has been a national leader in holding banks and investmentgiants accountable for their roles in the economic crisis. AG Coakley has obtainedrecoveries from Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Royal Bank of Scotland,Countrywide, Fremont Investment & Loan, Option One, and others on behalf of

Massachusetts homeowners. As a result of these actions, her office has recoveredmore than $600 million in relief for investors and borrowers, helped keep morethan 25,400 people in their homes, and returned nearly $60 million in taxpayerfunds back to the Commonwealth.More information about AG Coakleys work during the lending crisis can be found

here .The lawsuit is being handled by Attorney General Martha Coakleys ConsumerProtection Division, including Assistant Attorneys General Amber Villa, JohnStephan, Sara Cable, and Justin Lowe; Acting Division Chief David Monahan;Investigator Monique Cascarano of the Investigation Division, Chris Barry-Smith,Chief of the Public Protection & Advocacy Bureau and Stephanie Kahn, Deputy Chief

of the Public Protection & Advocacy Bureau.


4/62

CIVIL ACTIONCOVER SHEET moat . No. . - 4 3 6 - 3 - -B.L. .Trnd Court Of MassachusettstSuperior Court DepartmentCounty: SUFFOLK PLA I NT I FF ( S )C O M M O N W E A L :1 .E O F M A S S A C H U S ET T S D Y ,T E M A N T ( S )[S E E A P P E N D I X A ,A T T A C H E D }___...........LONBr rOR NE Y , F I R M NA ME , AD D R E SS A ND TE MA m b er A n d erso n V il la , AA G , Jo hn M. S teph an , AA G , Sara C ab le , ATVIRNEY (tf known)

,fR E c F 1 .. DD E C o i 2 0 1 1 AAG, and Just in j. L o w e i- A A GOff ice o f the A t torney GeneralOne A shburton PlaceBoston, MA 02:108617-727-2000B oa rd o t a a r ( )m um n un tt z 647566, 649509, 667084 Origin Code. : k # 1 Q H M T . t JOZ:iii ,4 f ODNOVA(iOriginal Complaint \0 ' ! OA' . I' I 'r ! .LT Y P E O F A C T I O N A N D T R A C K D E S I G N A T I O N ( S e e r ev e rs e si de )

C O D E N O .Y PE OF A C T I ON ( s p e c if y )R A C KS T H I S A W R Y C A S E ?Unfair and deceptive business *BH2,BG I ,E1J1ractices in violation nf M . G.) Y esX) N oal)L. c. 93AThe following is a full and detailed statement of the facts on which plaintiff relies to determine eligibility in toThe Business Litigation Session.In this action, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seeks restitution, civil penalties and injunctive relief -for violations of M . G. L. c. 93A a rising out Defendants' unfair and deceptive acts during the height of theforeclosure crisis in Massachusetts. The conduct alleged has affected thousands of hom eow ners throughtheir residential mortgag e loans, and includeS, w ithout lim itation;.ngag ingin unfair and deceptive foreclosure practices by conducting foreclosures w hen thedefendants lacked the r ight to do so and m isrepresent ing to hom eow ners their ro les as m ortgagees or asthe holders o f the mo rtgages;

2. Engaging in false do -entation practices to fa cilitate their foreclosure practices;3. Deceiving hom eow ners in the course o f serv icing m ortgage loans by m isrepresent ing to bo rrow ersregarding its loan modification programs, acting deceptively in implementing loan modifications anddeceiving borrowers regarding foreclosure proceedings; and4 . Fa il ing tocom ply w ith Ma ssachuset ts ' regis t rat ion s tatute.T he Defenda nts, and their subsidiaries and related entities, are responsible for the va st ma jority ofunlaw ful fo reclosures that occurred in the Com m onw eal th in the las t four years . Given the scope o f theconduct alleged, the complex fa cts involved, voluminous discovery anticipated, and the likely need forsubstant ial case m anagem ent , the Commonwealth contends that determinat ion o f this mat ter by the BLS isappropriate.* A Special T rack ing Order shall be created by the Presiding Justice of the Business LitigationSession at the Rule 16 Conference,P L E A S E I D EN T I F Y , B Y C A S E N U M B E R , N A M E A N D C O U N T Y , A N Y R E L A T E D A M O N P E N D I N G I NT H E S U P E R I O R couivr D E P A R T M E N T ."I hereby cer t i fy that I have complied w ith the requirements o f Rule 5 o f the Suprem e Judical Court Uniform Rules onDispute Resolution (SIC Ra le 1:18) reqify ing that I p rovide my clien ts w ith in formation abo ut cour t-connected disputeohition services and discuss w ith the!fi the, advaand distages o f the var ious m ethods."(Signature o f At torney of RecordA T E : pecember 1 , 2011

J,r,m ow Forms WorkNow.com

____Arroot ioarr-Loga t t lor .

www.S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


5/62

A P P E N D IX A

-BANK OF AMERICA, N ABAC HOME LOANS SI P M OR G A N C H A S E B A N K , N A , C M BA N KI T I M OR T G A G E , I N C. , . G M A CM O R T G A G E , LLC , W E LLS F A R G O BA N K , N .A . , M O R T G A G E ELE C TR O N ICR E G I S T R K E D N S Y S T E M , INC. , and MERSCO RP , INC. ,D E F E N D A N T Swww

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


6/62

C OM M O N W E A L T F I O F M A S S A C H U S ET T SS U F F O L K C O U N T Y S U P E R I O R C O U R T D E P A R T . ' .E N TOF T HE T RI /%.L(pg.T,,11 -400aCiv. A. No .

V .B A N K O F A M E R I CA , N A ., B A C H O M EL O A N S S E R V I C I N G , LP , B A C G P , L L C ,JP M O R G A N C H A S E B A N K , N . A : , C r rI B A N K ,N A ., C IT I M O R T G A G E , r N C ., G M A CM O R T G A G E , L L C, W E L LS F A R G O B A N K ,N . A . , M O R T G A G E EL E C T R O N I CR E G IS T R A T I O N S Y S T E K IN C a ndM E R S C O R P , I N C .,

Defendants.

CO P AINT

R E C E WE DO E C 0 1 2 0 1 1

S U P t R I Q H G O U R I C N D ,MicHAEL jOSEPH DONM ANr tE R K J M A I I S T R A T EINTROPUCTION

T he Com m onw eal th of M assachuset ts, by and through its A t torney General ,M artha Co ak ley, br ings this enforc m e t ac t ion to ho ld mul t iple bank s accountable fortheir ram pant violat ions o f M assachuset ts law and a ssociated unfai r and deceptiveconduct am idst the foreclosure crisis that ha s gripped Ma ssachusetts and the nation since2007. A ccordingly, pursuant to the Ma ssachuset ts Consum er Pro tection A ct , G. L. c .93A , 4, and G. L. c . 12, 10, the Com m onw eal th seeks to require Defendants Bank ofA m e r ic a , N A . , B A C H o m e L o a n s S e r vic in g , L P , B A C G P , L L C , J P M o r g a n C h a se B a n k ,N A . , Ci tibank , N.A . , Ci timor tgage , Inc. , GM A C M or tgage , LLC, and W ell s F argo Bank ,N .A . (col lec t ively the "Bank Defendants") , as w el l as Defendant M ortg.age Electr nicR egistrat ion System , Inc . and i ts parent corporat ion, MER S CO R P , Inc . (col lect ' e lywww

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


7/62

"ME R S "), to pay civi l penal t ies, rest i tut ion and other com pensat ion for the harm s causedby their unfair and deceptive business conduct in Massachusetts. The Commonwealthalso seek s injunct ive relief in order to rem edy, address, and prevent addi t ional harmaris ing out of the def endants ' conduct .

JURISDICTION AND VENUE2.he A t torney Genera l is authorized to bring this ac t ion pursuant to G. L.c. 93A, 4 and G. L c. 12, 10. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject - matter ofthis action pursuant to G. L. c. 93A, 4, G. L. c. 12, 10, and 0. L. c. 223A, 3.

Venue i s p roper in S uf fo lk C ount y pursuan t t o G. L . c . 223 , 5 and G . L .c. 93A, 4.

4. T he part ies a re properly joined i ii a s ingle law sui t pursuant to M ass. R. Civ .P . 20 due t o t he s ign i f ican t number o f com m on i ssues o f f ac t and l aw ra i sed by t he c la i msdeta i led, below and because these c la im s arise out of the sam e series of t ransact ions o roccurrences, . namely, foreclosures tha t fa i led to com ply w ith Massachuset ts law .

THE PARTIES5. T he P la in t if f i s t he Com m onw ea l th o f M assachuse t s, represen ted by t he

A t torney Genera l , w ho brings this ac t ion in the public interest.6. :BA C H om e Loa ns S e rv ic ng , LP i s a l im i ted pa r t nersh ip organized under

t he l aw s o f T exas , w i th a principal place of business in Calabasas, California. From April2009 throug h 'July 6, 2011, it w as regis tered as a foreign l imited partnership w i th theSecretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Prior to April 2009, BAC HomeLoa ns S e rv ic ing , LP d id business under t he nam e Co - trywide Home Loans Servicing,LP .

2www .S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


8/62

7.A C GP , LLC is a Nevada corpo ra t ion w i th a-principal place of business inCalabasas , Cal ifo rn ia . F rom . June 2008 'through S eptember 29, 2011, i t w as registered asa f o re ign corpora t ion w i th t he :S e . ret a ry o f t he Com m onw ea l th o f M assaChuset t s. P r io rt o A pr il 2009, BA C G E LLC did bus iness a s Counnyw ide.GP, Inc . and Count rywideG P , L L C .

8. As subsidiaries of Bank of America, NA., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LPa n d B A C G P , L L C w e r e re sp o n s ib le , in w h o l e o r in p a r t, f o r B a n k o f A m e r ic a , N . A . 'sresidential real estate loa n servicing obliga tions, including servicing residential real estateloans in M assachusetts .

9. B a n k o f A m e r ic a , N . A . ( to g e t he r w i th B A C H o m e L o a n s S e r v ic in g , L P a n dBA C GP , LLC, "Bank o f A m er ica" ) is a na t iona l bank w i th a p r nc ipa l p lace o f bus inessin Cha r lo t te , No r t h Ca ro l ina . Bank o f A m er ica , N .A . con t ro lled and d irec ted t heoperations of its subsidiaries BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP and BAC GP, LLC. Atvarious points . Bank o f A m erica N .A . either direct ly and/or indirectly through i ts agents ,em ployees, subsidiaries and/or rela ted com panies, including w ithout lim ita t ion B A CH o m e Loans S e rv ic ing , LP and B A C GP , LLC, he ld , se rv iced and /or engaged int ransac t ions re la ted t o , mo r t gages o f rea l p roper ty w i th in the Com m onw ea l th .

10. WMorgan Chase Bank, NA. ("Chase") is a national bank with a principalplace of business in Columbus, Ohio. As described below, Chase, either directly and/orindirect ly through i t s ag ents , emp loyees, subsidiaries and/or rela ted co m panies, includingwithout limitation Chase Ho m e F inance LLC, held, serviced and/or engaged intransactions related to, mortgages of real property within the Co . onwealth.www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


9/62

11. Cit ibank, N .A . is ana t ional bank w i th a principal place of business in, SiouxS o u t h D a k o t a .

12. Ci t iM or t gage , T nc . ( t oge t her w i th C i t ibank , N A . , "Ci t i" ) i s a Delaw arecorporation with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. As describedbelow , Cm ei ther direct ly and/or indirect ly tough its agents, employees, subsidiariesand/or rela ted com panies held, serviced and/or engaged in t ransact ions rela ted to,m or t gages o f rea l p roper t y w i th in t he Com m onw ea l th .

13. Defendant ( -MAC Mortgage, LLC ("GMAC") is a limited liability companyt ha t has o r ig ina t ed and se rv iced resident ia l hoi e m or t gage loans in t he Com m onw ea l th .A s described below , GM A C ei ther direct ly and/or indirectly through i t s agents ,em ployees, subsidiaries and/or rela ted com panies serviced and/or eng aged in t ransact ionsre la t ed to , m or t gages o f rea l p roper t y w i th in the Com m onw ea l th .

14. Wells Fargo Bank, NA. ("Wells Fargo") is a national bank with a principalplace of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. As described below, Wells Fargo eitherdirectly and/or indirect ly through i t s agents , emp loyees, subsidiaries and/or rela tedcom panies , inc luding w i thout l im i ta t ion W el ls F a rgo H om e M or t gage , Inc ., he ld ,serviced and/or eng aged in t ransact ions rela ted to, mo rtgages of rea l prop erty w i thin theC o m m o n w e a l t h .

15. Defendan t MER S CO R P , Inc. is a Delaw are corpora t ion w i th i ts p r inc ipa lplace of business in Vienna, Virginia. MERSCORP owns and operates the MERSS ystem , w hich is a na t ional regis try tha t t racks ow nership and servicing rights inresident ia l m ortgag es loans, including resident ia l m ortgag e loans secured by property int he C o m m o n w e a lt h.

4www .S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


10/62

16. Defendant M ortgage Elect ronic Reg is tra t ion System , Inc . ( together w i thM ER S CO R P , Inc. , "MER S ") is a Delaw are corpora t ion w i th a p r inc ipa l p lace o f bus inessin Res t on , Vi rg in ia . I t is a w hol ly- ow ned subsid ia ry o f M ER S CO R P . Inc . and has doneand i s doing business in the Com m onw ea l th .

E V .TATEMENT 01 , 14 AC SA. THE BANK DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN UNFAIR ORDECEPTI VE FORECL OSURE PRACTI CES.1.Party Seeking to Foreclose In M assachusetts Must StrictlyAdhere W ith Each Aspect of the Statutory Scheme.17. Under M assachusetts law , the holder of a m ortgage m ay foreclose the

m or t gagee 's r igh t o f redempt ion by exerc is ing t he s t a t ut ory pow er o f sa le, i f t ha t pow egran t ed by t he m or t gage .

18. W here the m ortgage grants the mo rtgage holder the pow er of sa le , i tincludes by reference the pow er of sa le set for th a t G. L. c . 183, 21, as regula ted byG. L. c. 244, Il-17C, and 35A.

19 ,nder G. L . c . 183 , 21 , a f t e r a m or t gagor de f aul t s in t he per form ance o fthe underlying obliga t ion secured by the m ortgag e, the m ortgag e holder m ay sel l theproperty a t a public auct ion a nd convey the pro perty to the purchaser in fee s im ple." [S ]uch sa le sha ll f o rever ba r t he m or t gagor a nd a l l pe rsons c la im under h im f rom a l lright and interest in the mortgaged premises, whether at law or in equity," Id.20.ecause this statutory scheme alio s the mortgage holder to exercise this

ext raordinary po w er w i thout f irs t obta ining judicia l authoriza t ion, M assachuset ts courtshave consis tent ly required tha t "one w ho sel ls under a pow er [of sa le] m ust fol low s t r ic t lyits terms . . [and Of he fails to do so there is no valid execution of the power, and thesale is wholly void." Moore v. Dick, 187 Mass. 207, 211 (1905). See Roche v.

5www .S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


11/62

Farnsworth , 106 Mass . 509, 513 (1871) (pOwer of sale contained in mOrtgage "must beexecnted in strict complianee With i ts te rms") . The . Supreme . . Indicial Court recentlyreaf f i rm ed this requirement in Bevilacqua v . Rod riguez:

Our recent decision in the case of U .S. B ank N at ' l A ss '.n v .Ibanez, 458 Mass ._ 637, 647 (2011) , how ever, concludedthat "[a]ny effort to forecIoby a party lackmg' jurisdic t ion and a uthori ty ' to carry o ut a fo reclosure under[the relevant] statutes is void."

460 M ass . 762 , 778 (2011 ) .21.ccordingly, a party seeking to fo reclose by exercising the s ta tutory pow er

of sa le m ust s tr ic tly com ply w ith each aspect of the s ta tutory schem e. In Ma ssachuset ts ,tha t s ta tutory schem e requires the party to:

a. P rovide not ice to the m ortgago r of the r ight to cure a defaul t priorto accelera t ing the enti re unpaid balance of the m ortgage o r otherw ise enforcing themortgage, including by exercising the power of sale. 0. L. c. 244, 35A. In accord withrevisions to the s ta tute in 2010, the m ortgag ee m ust provide such not ice a t least 150 daysprior to accelerating the debt or otherwise enforcing the mortgage. Id. Between 2007and 2010, the m ortgagee w as required to pro vide the s ta tutory not ice a t least ninety daysbefore t ak ing fur t he r ac tion t o en force t he m or t gage . S ee

b. F ile a com plaint to foreclose the mo rtgage in the Land C ourt tha tseeks a judgm ent tha t the mo rtgagor is not ent it led to the benef it s of the Servicemem bersCivil Relief A ct , a federa l s ta tute tha t res t r ic ts foreclosures i f the m ortgago r is a m em berof the military presently on active duty. 50 U.S.C.A. 521(b)(1) and 533(c).

c. F ile an a f f idavi t w i th the Land Co urt , cert ifying com pliance w i ththe not ice requirem ents specif ied in G. L. c . 244, 35A . In tha t a f f idavi t , the f i ling party

6www .S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


12/62

m ust a t tes t e ither tha t it is the mo rtgagee or tha t i t is authorized to ac t as the m ortgagee.

d.rovide not ice to the m ortgago r a t least fourteen days prior to thepropo sed da te of sa le s ta t ing, inter a l ia , the redemp t ion am ount as o f thir ty days prior tothe da te of sa le and identi fying the present holder of the m ortgage.. c. 244 ; 14..e.ause no tices of the sale to be published for three.successivew eeks in a new spaper w i th genera l c ircula t ion in the tow n w here the m ortgaged land l ies .a L. c. 244, 14.

1 .rovide not ice to the.m ortgag or of the m ortgag ee 's intent to col lecta def ic iency ( i f the mo rtgagee so intends) a t least tw enty-one days prior to the da te of thesale. G. L. c. 244, 17B. In addition, the party providing such notice mu1 sign and filew ith the appropria te regis t ry of deeds an a f f idavi t a t tes t ing to i t s com pliance w i th thisport ion o f the foreclosure s ta tute w i thin thir ty days fol low ing the foreclosure sa le . See id .

R ecord an a f f idavi t in the appropria te regis try o f deeds tha t " ful lyand par t icularly" s ta tes the ac ts tak en in the course of co nduct ing the foreclosure of them ortgag e by sa le and to w hich is a t tached copies of the not ice of sa le as publishedpursuant to Chapter 244, Section 14. 0, L. 244, 15.

22. By failing to strict ly adhere to these statutory requirements in conductingforeclosures, the Bank Defenda nts v iola ted those s ta tutes and the Ma ssachuset tsConsumer P ro t ec t ion Ac t .

23. M assachuset ts law further explic i tly l im its w ho is ent i tled to foreclose. T hesta tutory pow er of sa le explic i tly ident i f ies the part ies w ho can exercise the pow er. Th epow er can only be exercised by "the m ortgag ee or his executors , adm inist ra tors ,

7www .S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


13/62

successors or assigns." G. L. c. 183, 21. In addition, G. L. 244, 14 authorizes only"[ t]he mo rteagee Or person having his es ta te in the land m ortgaged, or a personauthorized by the pow er of sa le , or the a t torney duly authorized by a w ri t ing under seal ,or the legal guardian or conservator o f such m.ortgag ee or a persoi ac t ing in . the nam e ofsuch mo rtgagee or person" to exercise the s ta tutory pow er of sa le . A ccordingly, as theS uprem e Judicia l Co urt recent ly has held, "only a present holder of the m ortgag e isauthorized to foreclose on the mortgaged property." U.S. Bank, NA. v. ibanez, 458M ass. 637, 648 (2011).

In addition, 0. L. c. 244, 14 provides that "no sale under [the statutorypow er of sa le] shal l be ef fectual to fo reclose a mo rtgage, unless" advance not ice of theforeclosure sa le has been provided to the m ortgago r, to other interested part ies , and bypublica t ion. T hat not ice m ust specif ica l ly ident i fy the present holder of the m ortgag e a tthe time the notice is issued and the failure to do so voids any subsequent sale. G. L.c. 244, 14; U.S . Bank N A . V. Ibanez , 458 Mass . 637 , 648 (2011 ) .

25.he S uprem e Judicia l Co urt has recent ly reaf f i rmed each o f theserequirements Bank, N.A. v. Ibanez, 458 Ma ss. 637 (2011); see also Bevilacqua v.Rodriguez, 460 M ass . 762 , 772 (2011 ) ("O ne o f t he t e rms o f t he pow er o f sa le tha t m us tbe s t r ic tly adhered to is the res t r ic t ion on w ho is ent it led to fo reclose.") ( quot ing Ibanez,458 M ass. a t 647). Ibanez upheld decisions issued by the Land C ourt inval ida t ing tw oforeclosures w here, in each case, the foreclosing ent i ty, w hile purport ing to be the ho lderof t he m or t gage , had in f ac t f a iled t o ob t a in a va l id , w r i tt en a ss ignm ent o f t he m or t gageprior to co encing foreclosure pro eedings.

8www .S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


14/62

2.he Bank Defendants Conducted F oreclosures W hen T heyLack ed the Legal. Right to do so and M isrepresented. toHotheow nets T heir ROleS aS :Mottgagees or as the Holders ofthe. Mortgages.26.s set forth in the illustrat ive exam ples belo - , the Bank Defendants

repeatedly failed to strictly adhere to Massachusetts statutory require ems in conductingf o rec losures , and k now ingly fo rec losed on m or t gages secured by proper t y w i th in th eCbm inonw eaf th even though they w ere neither the m ortgagee, nor the holder of them ortgage, a t the t ime they init ia ted foreclosure proceedings.

27. F urthermo re, and as set for th in the i llust ra t ive exam ples below , the BankDefendants fa lsely identi f ied them selves as the present holder o f certa in m ortgagesthrougho ut the foreclosure process, including in not ices sent to the m ortgag or, in courtfi l ings including af fidavits signed under the pains and penalties of perjury and/o r inpublished notices required under G. L. c. 244, 1, ets., . L. e. 183, 21, and50 U .S .C .A . 521 (b ) (1 ) and 533(c) .

28. A ccordingly, each foreclosure ini tia ted or advanced by a Bank Defendantw h en i t w as not the cun - ent holder of the m ortgage w as unlaw ful and is void.

29. S uch forec losures a re li kew ise void w here a Bank Defendan t f a l se lyidentif ied itself as the present bolder of t he m or t gage in no t ices t o t he m or t gagor , cour tf ilings, or in published notices required under G. L. c. 244, 1, et seq., G. L. c. 183, 21,and 50 U .S .C .A . 521 (b ) (1 ) and 533(c) .

30. T he Bank Defenda nts ' fa i lures to secure a val id, w ri t ten assignmen t of them ortgage prior to ini t ia t ing a foreclosure viola tes G. L. c. 244, 1, et sea, G. L. c. 183, 21, and is unfa ir and decept ive in viola t ion o f G. L. c . 93A , 2. The B ank Defendants 'www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


15/62

conduet has a dversely a f fected thet i tle to hundreds, i f no t thousands, of propert ies in theC o m m o n w e a l t h .

illustrative ExamplesCHASE

8ericho R oad, Hancock , Massachusetts31. On June 15, 2007, a Hancock . Massachuset ts resident ("Hanco ckB o r r o w e r ") b o r r o w e d $4 4 2 ,0 0 0 f ro m j P M o r g a n C h a se B a n k , N . A . 1 The loan wassecured by a mortgage granted in favor ofjPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. on propertyloca t ed a t 8 Je r icho R oad , H ancock , Ma ssachuse tt s ( t he "H ancock M or t gage" ) .32. On October 6, 2008, Chase HonFinance LLC ("Chase Home Finance")

f i led a com pla in t t o f o rec lose on t he H ancock M or t gage ("H ancock F orec losureCom pla in t ") . T he H a ncock F orec losure Co m pla in t s t a tes t ha t Chase " is t he a ss ignee andholder o f a m or t gage w i th t he s t a tu t ory pow er o f sa le g iven by [H ancock Bo rrow er]. "

33. O n F ebrua ry 6 , 2009, Chase H o m e F inance ob t a ined an order o f no t icere la t ed t o t he H ancock F orec losure Com pla in t pursuan t t o t he . S e rv ice me m b e rs Civ ilRel ie f A c t , 50 U .S .C . A pp . 501 et seq., ("Hancock Order"). In the Hancock Order,Chase H om e F inance i s nam ed as t he "holder o f a M or t gage cover ing rea l p ropert y inH ancock , numbered 8 Je r icho R oad ."

34. A s o f O c t ober 6 , 2008, w hen Chase H om e F inance f iled t he H ancockF orec losure Com pla in t , and a s o f F ebrua ry 6 , 2009, when Chase H om e F inance ob t a inedt he H ancock O rder , i t w as no t t he holder o f t he H ancock M or t gage . I t w as no t un t il

A l l o f t he document s f rom w hich t he Com m onw ea l th ' s a l lega t ions in theseIl lustra t ive Exam ples a re draw n are avai lable in the public record, including the ident i tyof each mortgagor. Nonetheless, the Commonwealth refers to each mortgagoranonymously in order to avoid unnecessary disclosure of personal intbrmat ion.www.S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


16/62

Ma rch 15, 2009 that Chase Hom e Finance received an -ass ignm ent of the HancockMo rt gage ., f rom . .N Mo rgan Chase l it gA . , N A . , m ak ing Chase H om e F inance t he h Ide r o ft he m or t gage .

35.n December 1.6 , 2009, Chase H om e F inance sold the property a t auction:59 Rangeley Avenue, Brockton, Massachusetts36. On N ovem ber 4, 2003, tw o Bro ckton, Ma , , achusetts residents ("Bro cktonBorrowers") borrowed $236,600 from Flagstar Bank, FSB. The loan was secured by am ort gage gran ted in f avor o f M ERS on proper t y loca t ed a t 59 Ra ngeley A venue,Brockton, Massachuset ts ( the "Brockton Mortgage") .

37. On S eptember 5, 2008, Chase Ho m e Finance LLC t i led a com plaint toforec lose on t he Brock t on M or t gage ("Brock t on F orec losure Com pla in t ") . T he Bro ck t onF orec losure Com pla in t s ta t es t ha t Chase " i s the a ss ignee and holder o f a m or t gage w i ththe s ta tu tory pow er of sale given by [the 13rockton B orrow ers]."

38. O n N ovem ber 6 , 2008, Chase H om e F inance ob t a ined an order o f no t icere la t ed t o t he Brock t on F orec losure Com pla in t pursuan t t o t he S e rv icemem bers C iv ilRe l ief A c t, 50 U .S .C . A pp . 301 et seq. ("Brock t on O rder") . In t he Brock t on O rder,Chase H o m e F inance i s named as t he "holder o f a M or t gage cover ing rea l p roper ty inBrock t on , num bered 59 Rangeley A venue ."

39. A s o f S ep tem ber 5 , 2008, w hen Chase H om e F inance f iled t he Brock t onF orec losure Com pla in t , and a s o f N ovem ber 6 , 2008, when i t ob t a ined t he Brock t onO rder , Chase H om e F inance wa s no t the holder o f t he Brock t on Mo r t gage . I t w as no tun t il No vem ber 18 , 2008 t ha t Chase H om e F inance rece ived an a ss ignm ent o f t heBrock t on M or t gage f rom M ER S , mak ing it the holder o f t he mo r t gage.

40. On A pri l 9 , 2010, Chase Ho m e F inance sold the property a t auct ion.www.S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


17/62

38 Mascot Street, Unit 3, Boston, Massachusetts41,n A pri l 26, 2007, a Bo ston, Massachuset ts resident ("M ascot S t reetBorr er") borrowed $272,000 from JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The loan was secured

by a m or t gage gran ted in f avor o f W M argan Chase Bank , N .A . on . p roper t y loca t ed a t 38Mascot Street, Inif -313 sto Massaehmsetts (the "Mascot Street Mogage' ).

42. A t som e poin t be fore Janua ry 30 , 2008, Chase . H om e F inance LLC ("ChaseH o m e F inance") f i l ed a com pla in t t o f o rec lose on t he M ascot S t ree t M or t gage ("MascotS t ree t F orec losure Com pla in t ") . T he M ascot S t ree t Fo rec losure Com pla in t s t a tes t ha tChase Ho m e :Finance "is the assignee and holder of a m ortgage w i th the sta tutory pow erof sa le g iven by [t he Mascot S t reet Borrow er]. "

43. O n Janua ry 30 , 2008, Chase H o m e F inance ob t a ined an order o f no t icerela ted to the Ma scot St reet Fo reclosure Co m plaint pursuan. t to the Servicem em bers CivilRe l ief A c t, 50 U .S .C . A pp . 501 ,etseo. ("Mascot Street Order"). In the Mascot StreetO rder , Chase H om e F inance i s nam ed as t he "holder o f a M or t gage cover ing rea lp roper t y in Bo s t on , num bered 38 Mascot S t reet , U nit N o . 3 , 38 Ma scot S t ree tCondominium."

44. On March 4, 2008, March11, 2008, and March 18, 2008, Chase HomeF inance caused No t ices o f M or t gagee 's S a le o f R ea l Es ta t e t o be publ ished in t he Bo s t onHerald , representing that Chase H om e F inance w as " the present holder" of the IVIascotS t reet M ortgage, and not ic ing a da te of M arch 26, 2008 as the da te for a sa le of thesubject property at public auction.

45. O n M arch 26 , 2008, Chase H om e F inance so ld t he p roper t y a t auc tion .46. On July 25, 2008, Chase Ho m e Finance caused to be recorded a no tarized

Cert i f ica te of Ent ry ( the "Ma scot St reet Cert i f ica te of Ent ry") . The M ascot S t reet12

www.S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


18/62

Cert i f ica te of Ent ry s ta tes tha t , on M arch 26, 2008, "P aul Mulkerro n , a A rmy-in- fact andagen t o f Cha se H om e F inanee LLC . . .. t he cur ren t holder o f a ce r t a in m or t gage g iven by .[the Mascot Street Bort r]" made an entry onto the property located at 38 MascotS t reet, Unit 3 , Bo ston M assacht iset ts "for the purpo se, by him/her declared. , offoreclosing said mortgage for breach of conditions ther of"

47 .hase H om e F inance w as no t t he holder o f t he Mascot S t ree t M or t gagew hen i t f il ed the M ascot S t ree t Fo rec losure Com pla in t (p r io r t o l a - "nary 30, 2008), w heni t obta ined the M ascot S t reet Order (o n 'January 30, 2008), when i t caused not ices of sa leof the subject property to be published (on March 4th, llth, and 18th of 2008), when itsubsequent ly sold the property a t auct ion (o n M arch 26, 2008) or w hen i t made ent ry intothe subject property (o n M arch 26, 2008) supposedly pursuant to r ights f low ing f rom theM ascot S t reet mo rtgage. T n fac t , it w as not unt i l July 2, 2008, a t least s ix m onths a f terf i l ing the Mascot S t reet F oreclosure Com plaint and m ore than three m onths a f ter theproper t y w as so ld a t auc t ion , t ha t Chase H om e F inance rece ived an a ss ignment o f t heM a s co t S t r e et M o r t g a g e fr o m J P M o r g a n C h a s e B a n k , N . A . , m a k i n g C h a se H o m eF inance the holder of the m ortgage.

22 Deluca Ro ad, Milford, Ma ssachuset ts48. On May 3, 2006, M i lford , M assachuse tt s res iden t ("Mi l ford Bo rrow er"

borrowed $253,600 from Sallie Mae Home Loa . , inc. ("Sallie Mae"). The loan wassecured by a m or t gage gran ted in f avor o f M ERS on proper t y loca t ed a t 22 Deluca Roa d ,M i lford , M assachuse tt s ( t he "Mil ford M or t gage" ) .

49. P r ior t o Janua ry 24 , 2008, C it ibank , N .A . , a s T rus t ee ("Ci t ibank , N .A .")t il ed a com pla in t t o f o rec lose on t he M i lford M or t gage ("M ilford F orec losure

1 3www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


19/62

Complaint"). The Complaint states that Citibank, NA, "is the owner (or assignee) andholder o f a m or t gage w i th s t a tu t ory pow er o f sa le g iven by [ the Mi l ford Borro w er]. "

50. on January 24, 2008, Citibank, NA. obtained an order ofnotice related tot he Mi l ford F orec losure Com pla in t pursuan t t o t he S e rv icemem bers C iv il Re l ief A c t , 50U .S .C . A pp . 501 e seci, ("Milford Order"). In the Milford Order, Citibank, N.A. isnam ed as t he "holder o f m or t gage cover ing rea l p ropert y in Mi l ford , numbered 22 D elucaRoad."

51. On M arch 25, 2008, Ci tibank , NA . caused the subject property to be sold a t

auction .52. On July 18, 2008, Ci t ibank, N A . caused to he recorded a no tarized

Cert i f ica te of E nt ry ("Milford C ert i f ica te of Ent ry") . T he M ilford C ert i f ica te of Ent rysta tes tha t , on A pri l 23, 2008, "John O'Hara , the a t torney- in- fac t and agent fo r Ci t ibank,N .A . . . . the cur ren t holder o f a ce r ta in m or t gage g iven by [ the M i lford B orrow er]" m adean ent ry on the property loca ted a t 22 Deluca Ro ad, Milford, M assachusetts "for thepurpose by h im / her decla red, o f f o rec los ing sa id m or t gage fo r b reach o f condi tionsthereof ."

53. Ci t ibank , N A . w as no t t he holder o f t he M i lford M or t gage on Janua ry 24 ,2008, March 25, 2008, or April 23, 2008. It was not until May 21, 2008, more than fourm onths after it f iled the Milford F oreclosure Com plaint, that Citibank, N .A . received anass ignm ent o f t he M i lford M or t gage m ak ing i t -the holder of the mortgage. Thus,Cit ibank, N ,A , ini t ia ted foreclosure proceedings, m ade an ent ry into the subject propertysupposedly pursuan t to r igh ts f low ing f rom t he Mi l ford M or t gage , and even so ld t hesubject property a t auct ion, before i t legal ly held the Milfbrd M ortgag e.

14www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


20/62

65 East hidia Row, Unit 31,G of Harbor Towers H. CondominiumBoston, Massachusetts

54.n June 14, 2004, a BoS ton, Massachuset ts resident ("Harbor T ow ersBorrower") borrowed $510,000 from Washington Mutual Bank ("WAMU"). The loanw as secured . b .y a mo jgage gran ted in f avor o f W A M U o n proper ty loca ted a t 65 Eas tIndia Row, Unit 31G of Harbor Towers Condominium, Boston, Massachusetts (the"Harbor Towers Mortgage"). On December 8, 2006, WAMU assigned the HarborT o w e r s M o r tg a g e to E M C M o r t g a ge C o r p o r a ti o n ( "E M C " ) .

55. On F ebruary 27, 2008, Ci t ibank, N .A . , as T rustee for cert i f ica te holders ofBea r S t eams A sse t Back ed S ecuri ties T rus t 2007- SD2, A sset Backed C er t if ica t es Se r ies2007- SD2 ("Ci t ibank , N .A .") f i led a com pla in t to f o rec lose on the H arbor T ow ersMortgage ("Harbor Towers Foreclosure Complaint"). The Harbor Towers MortgageCom pla in t s ta t es tha t C i tibank , N .A . " iS t he ow ner (o r a ss ignee ) and holder o f a m or t gagewith statutory power of sale given by [the Harbor Towers Borro j."

56. On June 11, 2008, Ci tibank , N.A . obta ined an order of no t ice rela ted to theH arbor T ow ers Forec losure Com pla in t pursuan t to t he S e rv icemem bers C iv i l Re l ie f A c t,50 U.S.C. App. 501 et seq. ("Harbor Towers Order"). In the Harbor Towers Order,Ci t ibank , N .A . is nam ed as t he "holder o f M or t gage cover ing rea l p roper t y in Bo s t on ,numbered 65 East India Row, Unit 310 of the Harbor Towers ill Condominium."

57,n A ugust 20, 2008, Ci t ibank , N.A . caused the subject property to be soldat auction .

58.n N ovem ber 18 , 2008, C i tibank , N .A . caused t o be recorded a notarizedCertif icate of Entry ("Harbor T ow ers cer ti f icate of Entry"). T he Harbor T ow ersCert i f ica te of E nt ry s ta tes tha t , on A ugust 20, 2008, "John O'H ara , a t torney- in- fac t and15www .S topForec losureF raud .com


21/62

agent for [Ci t ibank, N .A .] . the current holder of a certa in m ortgage given by [ theHarbor T ow ers BOrrow erl" ma d.e an entry on the proper ty located a t 65 East India R ow ,Unit 310 of the Harbor T ow ers I I Co ndom inium in Boston, Ma ssachuset ts "for thepurpose by him /her declared, of fo recloS ing said m ortgag e far breach of conditionsthereof."

59. Citibank, N.A . wa s not the holder of the Harbor T ow ers Mo rtgage onF ebruary 27, 2008, June 11, 2008, or A ugust 20, 2008. I t w as not unti l N ovem ber 17,2008, mo re than nine m onths af ter it f i led the Harbor T ow ers Foreclosure Com plaint , thatCi tibank , N .A . rece ived an assignm ent o f the Harbor T ow ers Mor tgage f iom EMCm ak ing it the holder of the m ortgage. T hus, Cit ibank , N.A . init iated foreclosureproceedings, m ade an en try into the subject property supposedly pursuant to rightsf low ing from the Harbor T ow ers Mortgage, and even sold the subject property at auct ion,before i t legal ly held the Harbor T ow ers Mortgage.

60. T o confuse m at ters further , on N ovem ber 14, 2008, just three days prior tothe Novem ber 17, 2008 ass ignment f rom EMC to Ci t ibank , N.A . , WA MU executed anA ssignm ent of M ortgage purport ing to assign the Harbo r To w ers Mo rtgage to Ci t ibank ,NA,

35-7 School Street, Northbridge, Massachusetts61. On M arch 20, 2006, a N orthbridge, Ma ssachusetts resident ("No rthbridge

Bor row er" ) borrow ed $157,500 f rom F ai r f ie ld F inancial Mortgage Group, Inc .("Fai r f ie ld" ) . T he loan w as secured by a m or tgage gran ted in favor o f M ER S on proper tylocated at 35-37 S chool S treet, N orthbridge, Ma ssachusetts ( the "No rthbridgeMortgage") .

16www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


22/62

62. On N ovem ber 8, 2007, Ci tibank, N .A . , as 'T rustee ("Cit ibank, N.A .") f iled acom pla in t t o f o rec lose on t he N or t hbr idge M or t gage ("No r t hbridge Fo rec losureCo m plaint") . The Co m plaint s ta tes" tha t Ci t ibank , N.A . "is the ow ner (or assignee) andholder o f a m or t gage w i th s t a tu t ory pow er o f sa le g iven by [ the N or t hbr idge Bo rrow er]. "

63. On F ebruary 5, 2008, Ci t ibank , N.A . obta ined an order of not ice rela ted tot he No r t hbr idge F orec losure Com pla in t pursuan t t o t he S e rv icemem bers C iv il Re l ief A c t ,50 U JS .C . A pp . 501 e t seq . ("N or t hbr idge O rder" ) . In t he N or t hbr idge O rder ,C i t ibank , N .A . i s named as t he "holder o f M or t gage cover ing rea l p ropert y inNorthbridge, numbered 35-37 School Street"

64. On A pri l 14, 2008, Ci t ibank, N .A . caused the subject property to be sold a tauction .

65. O n S ep t em ber 17 , 2008, C i t ibank , N .A . caused t o be recorded a no t a r izedCertificate of Entry ("Northbridge Certificate of Entry"). The Northbridge Certificate ofEntry states that, on A pril 14, 2008, "'John O'Hara , attorney-in-fact and agent f o rCitibank, NA . . the current holder of a certain mortgage given by [the N rthbridgeBorro w er]" m ade an en t ry on t he p roper t y loca t ed a t 35-37 S chool S t reet , Nor t hbr idge ,M assachuset ts "for the purpose by him /her declared, of foreclosing sa id mo rtgage forbreach of conditions thereof"

6.6.i t ibank, N . A . w a s n o t t he holder of the No rthbridge Mortgage o nNovember 8, 2007, February 5, 2008, or April 14, 2008. It was not until September 4,2008, mo re t han t en m ont hs a f t e r i t f il ed t he N or t hbr idge F orec losure Com pla in t , tha tCi t ibank , N .A . rece ived an a ss ignment o f t he N or t hbr idge M or t gage m ak ing i t t he bolderof the m ortgag e. 'T hus, Ci t ibank, N .A . ini t ia ted foreclosure proceedings, m ade an ent ry

17www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


23/62


24/62

71 .n A pri l 4 , 2008, GM A C sold the property a t . auction . 72..n A pr il 15 , 2008, GM A C caused t o be recorded a no tarized Cert if ica te ofEnt ry ( the "StandiS h S t reet Cert i f ica te of Ent ry") . T he S tandish St reet Cert if ica te ofEntry s ta tes that , (M . A pri l 4 , 2008, "Joshua. M ontout , a t torney-in-fact and ag ent of[G -.. - the current - holder ot a certa inzxrtgageven by [Eke Standish S reetBo rrow ei]" ma de an ent ry onto the property loca ted a t 14 Standish S t reet, Unit 3 , Boston,M assachusetts "for the purpose, by him/her declared, of foreclosing sa id mo rtgage forbreach of con di t ions thereof ."

73. GM A C w as n o t th e h o ld er o f T h e S tan d ish S t re e t M or tgage w h e n it f i le d th eS tandish St reet Fo reclosure Com plaint (prior to January 31, 2008), w hen i t obta ined theS tandish St reet Order (on January 31, 2008), w hen i t caused not ices of sa le of the subjectproperty to be published (on M arch 13, 2008, M arch 20, 2008, and March 27, 2008),w hen i t subsequently sold the property a t auction (on A pri l 4 , 2008), or w hen i t m adeent ry into the subject property (on A pri l 4 , 2008) supposedly pursuant to r ights f low ingf rom the Standish St reet M ortgage. In fac t , it w as not Unt i l A pri l 9 , 2008, m onths a f ter i tf i led t he S t andish S t ree t Fo rec losure Com pla in t , tha t GM A C rece ived an a ss ignm ent o ft he S t a n di sh S t re e t M o r t g a g e fr o m M E R S , m a k i ng G M A C t h e p u rp o r te d h o l de r o f t h em o r t g a g e .

4 Sumner Square, Boston, Massachusetts74. O n Decem ber 16 , 2004, t w o B os t on res iden t s ("Sum ner Squa re Borrow ers")

bor row ed $364,000 f rom 1-800 Eas t -Wes t Mo r tgage Com pany, Inc . The loan w assecured by a m or t gage gran ted in f avor o f M ERS on a p roper t y loca t ed a t 4 SumnerSquare, Do rchest e r (Bos t on) , Ma ssachuse tt s ( t he "S um ner S qua re Mor t gage ' ) .

1 9www .S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


25/62

75.t som e point prior to January 15, 2008, OM A C f i led a com plaint toforec lose on t he S umner S qua re M or t gage ("Sum ner Squa re F orec losure Com pla in t ") .T he Sum ner Squa re F orec losure Com pla in t s ta t es tha t GM A C " is the a ss ignee and holderof' a mortgage with the statutory povr of sale given by [the Sumner Square Borrowers]."

76. On January I 5 , 2008, GM A C obta ined an order o f not ice rela ted to theS um ner Square Fo reclosure Co m plaint pursuant to the S ervicem em .bers Civi l R elief A ct ,50 U .S ,C . A pp . 501 e t seq. ("Sum ner Squa re S t reet O rder") . In t he Sum ner Squa reO rder , GMA C is named as t he "holder o f a M or t gage cover ing rea l p roper ty inDo rchest e r (Bo s t on) , num bered 4 S um ner Squa re . "

77. On November 21, 2007, Nove ber 28, 2007, and December 5, 2007,GM A C caused No t ices o f Mo r t gagee 's Sa le o f Rea l Es t a t e t o be publi shed in the Bos t onH era ld , represen t ing t ha t GM A C w as " the p res n t holder" o f t he Sum ner Squa reM ortgage, and no t icing a da te of D ecember 13, 2007 as the da te for a sa le of the subjectproperty a t public auction.

78. On F ebruary 6, 2008, GMA C sold the property a t auction.79. O n M ay 16 , 2008, GMA C caused t o be recorded a no t a r ized Cer t if ica t e o f

Entry (the "Sumner Square Certificate of Entty"). The St ner Square Certificate ofEntry s ta tes tha t , on M arch 12, 2008, "Jef f rey [ il legible], a t tom ey- in-fac t and ag ent of[GMAC] . the curre t holder of a certain mortgage Oven by [the Sumner SquareBo rrow ers]" made an ent r - onto the property loca ted a t 4 Sum ner ' S quare,'Boston,M assachuset ts "for the purpose, by him /her declared, of fdreclosing sa id mo rtgage fo rbreach of eond i t ions thereof ."

20www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


26/62


27/62

t a ter , on S eptember 22, 2009, tha t GM A C received an assign . .e t of the Stoneham.M o rtgage f rom . M F R S , m ak in g GM A C th e p urpor te d h . o ld e r o f th e m or tgage .

N ot ably , GM A C f i led theS t oneham F orec losure Com pla in t a f te r the LandCo urt (Lo ng, j . ) issued its init ial ruling in. U.S . .Bat ik , NA v , Ibanez, N os . 384283(K CL) , 386018 (KC L) , 386755 -(KCL) ,72009-WL 7J521IrMa.h 26,00) ,

86. On January 14, 2010, GM A C sold the property a t auction.50 Depot Street, Douglas, Massachusetts

87. O n A ugus t 6 , 2003, t w o Do uglas, M assachuse tt s res iden t s ("Do uglasBo ow rs") borrowed $153,000 from Sherwood Mortgage Group, Inc. ("Sherwood").T he loan w as secured by a m or t gage gran t ed in f avor o f S herw ood o n proper ty loca ted a t50 D epot S t reet , Douglas , Massachuset ts ( t he "Do uglas M or t gage" ) .

88. T h a t sa m e d a y , S h e r w o o d a s s ig i ed t h e D o u g la s M o r tg a g e t o M E R S .89. O n S ep t em ber 4 , 2009, GMA C f i led a com pla in t t o f o rec lose upon t he

Douglas Mortgage ("Douglas F oreclosure Com plaint") . T he Douglas F oreclosureComplaint states that GMAC "is the . assignee[] and holder of a mortgage with thesta tutory pow er of sa le given by {the Douglas Borrowers] . "

90. W hen GMA C f i led t he Douglas Forec losure Com pla in t on Sep t ember 4 ,2009, it w as . not t he holder o f t he Douglas Mo r t gage . 'I t w as no t un t il nea r ly a m ont hla ter , on O ctober 2, 2009, tha t GMA C received an assignment of the Douglas Mortgagef r o m M E R S , m a k i n g G M A C t h e pu r po r t ed h o l de r o f th e m o r tg a g e .

91. just as w i th the exam ple above, GM A C f i led the com plaint to forecloseupon t he m or t gage in t h is instance after the La nd Co urt (Lo ng, J. ) issued its initial rulingin U.S . Bank , NA. v. Ibanez, Nos. 384283 (KCL) , 386018 (KCL ) , 386755 (KC L) , 2009W L 795201 (March 26 , 2009) .www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


28/62

92 .n:February 5, 2010, GM A C sold thc property a t auction..B A N K .O F A M E R I CA .62 Fairfield Street, Revere, Massachusetts.93..n N oV em ber 24, 2004, tw o R evere,.Ma ssaehusetts .residents ("RevereB orrow e rs" ) - -)onowbc. 3 ,imIN Cort -hei loa t rwassecured by a m ortgage granted in favor of M ER S on property loca ted a t 62 F airf ieldStreet, Revere, Massachusetts (the "Revere Mortgage"). OnJanuary 5, 2009, the RevereM ort gage w as a ssigned by ME RS t o LaS a l le Bank N a t iona l A ssoc ia t ion , a s T rus t ee t o

St ructured Asset Investment Loan Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Cert i f ica tes , Series2005-2 ("LaSalle Bank"). Bank of Americais the s ccessor-in-interest to LaSalle Bank,hav ing acqui red LaS a l le Bank in O c t ober 2007 .

94. O n S ep t em ber 22 , 2008, LaS a l le Bank f i led a com pla in t t o f o rec lose on t heRevere M or t vage ("Revere Fo rec losure Com pla in t ") . T he Com pla in t s ta t es tha t LaS a l leBank " is t he a ssignee and holder o f a m or t gage w i th s t a tu t ory pow er o f sa le g iven by [ t heR e v e r e B o n -owers]."

95. O n D ecember 16 , 2008, LaS a l le Bank ob t a ined an order o f no t ice rela ted t ot he Revere F orec losure Com pla in t pursuan t t o t he S e rv icemem bers C iv il Re l ief A c t , 50U.S.C. App. 501 et seg, ("Revere Order"). In the Revere Order, LaSalle Bank isnam ed as t he "holder o f a M or t gage cover ing rea l p roper t y in R evere, numbered 62F airf ield S t reet."

96. O n S ep t em ber 22 , 2008 and Decem ber 16 , 2008, when L aS a l le Bank f i ledt he Revere Forec losure Com pla in t and ob t a ined t he Revere O rder , LaS a l le Bank w asnotthe holder of the Revere Mortgage. It was not until January 5, 2009 that LaSalle Bankreceived an a ss ignment o f t he Revere Mo r t gage m ak ing i t t he holder o f t he m or t gage .www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


29/62

97. O n F ebrua ry I I , 2009, LaS a l le Bank so ld t he p roper t y a t auc tion .272-274 Main Street, Oxford, Massachusetts

98. O n M ay 19 , 2005, t wo O xford , M assachuse tt s residen t s ("O xfordB o r r o w e r s" ) b o r r o w e d $ 2 3 9 ,4 0 0 f r o m I o w n a n d C o u n t ry C r e d it C o r p . ( "T o w n a n d

viL ayon pro perty loca ted a t 272-274- M ain S t reet, Oxford, M assachusetts ( the "Oxfo rdM ortgagor ) , Oh M ay 27 , 2005, T ow n and Count ry a ssigned t he O xford Mo r t gage toA m eriquest Mor t gage Com pany ("A m criquest ") , and on t ha t sam e day; A m er iquesta ss igned the O xford Mor t gage t o MER S .

99. O n F ebrua ry 26 , 2009, Bank o f A m er ica f i led a com pla in t to f o rec lose ont he O xford M or t gage ("O xford F orec losure Com pla in t ") . T he Com pla in t s ta t es tha t Bankof A m er ica " is t he a ss ignee and holder o f a m or t gage w i th s t a tu t ory pow er o f sa le O ven.by [ the O xford Borrow ers] ."

100,n ju ly 14 , 2009, Bank o f A m er ica ob t a ined an order o f no t ice re la t ed t ot he O xford F orec losure Com pla in t pursuan t t o t he S e rv icemem bers C iv il Re l ief A c t , 50U.S.C. App. 501 et sm ("Oxford Order"). In the Oxford Foreclosure Complaint,Bank o f A m er ica i s nam ed as t he "holder o f M or t gage cover ing rea l p roper ty in O xford ,num bered 272-274 M ain S t reet ."

10].,n F ebruary 26, 2009 and. July 14, 2009, w hen Bank of A m erica f i led theO xford F orec losure Com pla in t and ob t a ined t he O xford O rder , Bank o f A m er ica w as no tthe holder of the Oxford Mortgage. It was not until September 15, 2009, -. arly sevenm ont hs la t e r , t ha t Bank O f A m er ica r c ived an a ss ignm ent o f the O xford M or t gagem aking i t the holder o f t he mo r t gage.

102.n: October 27, 2009, Bank of A m erica sold the prope ty a t auct ion.24www .S topForec losureF raud .com


30/62


31/62

109 . O n June 23 , 2004, an en t it y nam ed M IT Lending, cla im ing t o be t he holderof th e L y n n M or tgage , ass ign e d th e mo r tgage to M ER S .

110. On O ctober 28, 2008, W ells Fa rgo f i led a com plaint to foreclose on theLynn Mortgage ("Lynn Fore losure Complaint"). The Lynn Foreclosure Complaintstates that Wells Fargo "is the assignee and holder of a mortgage with the statutory pi erof sale given by [ the . Lynn Borrow ers]."

111 . On M ay 8, 2009, W ells Fa rgo o bta ined an order of not ice rela ted to theLynn F oreclosure Com plaint pursuant to the Servicernembers Civi l Relief A ct , 50 U.S .C.A pp . 501 e t seq . ("Lynn O rder") . In t he Lynn O rder , W ell s Fa rgo i s named as t he"holder of a M ortgage co vering rea l property in Lynn, nuM bered 12 Bennet t Circle ."

112. W h n W el ls Fa rgo f i led t he Lynn Fo rec losure Com pla in t on O c t ober 28 ,2008, a s w e l l a s w hen i t ob t a ined t he Lynn O rder on M ay 8 , 2009, W el ls Fa rgo w as no tthe holder of the Lynn M ortgag e. I t w as not unt i l June 3, 2009, m onths a f ter i t f iled theLynn F oreclosure Com plaint, tha t W ells Farg o received an assignment of the LynnM o r t ga g e fr o m M E R S .

113. On Decem ber 13, 2010, Wells F argo B ank sold the property a t auction.114. The examples alleed at parauaphs 30 through 113 are for illustrative

purposes only. Bank of America, Chase, Citi, GMAC, and Wells Fargo engaged insimilar conduct commencing foreclosures prior to holding the mortgage with respectto numerous m ort gage loans ac ross t he Com m onw ea l th . Discovery in t h is ac tion w i llident ify the precise number o f unlaw ful foreclosures by each of the Bank Defendants .

26www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


32/62

3.he Bank Defendants Engaged in False DocumentationPractiees To Facilitate Its Foreclosure Practices.115.s described abo ve, prior to fo reclosure, M assachusetts law requires tha t .anent ity w ishing to fO reclose f i le an a f f idavi t dem onst ra t ing com pliance w i th G. .L. c . 244, 35A,Hand its requirements that borro w ers be provided w ith certa in inform at ion prior tocommencement of foreclosure proceedings.

116. In a ddi t ion, fo l low ing foreclosure, a fo reclosing ent i ty is required to recordat the appropriate registry of deeds an affidavit "fully and part icularly stat ing his acts, orthe ac ts of his principal or w ard" taken w ith regard to the foreclosure, includingcom pliance w i th the not ice requirements of the s ta tutory pow er of sa le . G. L. c . 244, 15.

117. A f f idavi ts under M assachusetts law require the a f f iant to a t tes t under thepains and penal t ies of perjury as to the fac ts conta ined in his or her a f f idavi t.

118 . In addi t ion, as relevant here, m ost a f f idavi ts f i led or record ed on beha lf ofthe foreclosing ent i ty w ere notarized, a t test ing the a f f idavi ts w ere s igned in the presenceof t he n t a ry by t he person nam ed as t he a f f i am .

119. in or a ro und October 2010, evidence of the Ba nk Defenda nts ' fa i lure tocom ply w ith the s tr ic t requirem nts of the a f f idavi t and notary pro cedures becam e w idelyknown Proceedings in state and bankruptcy courts as well as filings with variousregis tr ies of deeds revealed the pervasive use of m ortgage servicer em ployees to s ignhundreds in som e eases thousands of af f idavi ts and other sw orn s ta tements w i thoutany persona l kno w ledge o f t he in form a t ion con t a ined in t he a f f idav i ts .

27www .S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


33/62

120. F urther f lout ing the a f f idavi t and no tariza t ion, requirem ents , the a f f ianessignature wa s f requently notarized on foreclosure docum ents w i thout any verif ica t ion bythe notary a s to the a f f ianes identi ty and w ithout the a f f iant even being present .,

121. EVidence has s ince indica ted tha t these pract ices w ere not co nf ined to theforeclosure context , but w ere a lso employed fo r docum ents concerning the crea t ion,assignment , t ransfer , m odif ica t ion, and discharge of m ortgages secured by property inMassachuset ts ,

122. T he Bank Defendan t s knew or should have kno w n t ha t t he ir f a i lu re tocom ply w ith Massachuset ts foreclosure law , including, w i thout lim ita t ion, init ia t ing andconduct ing foreclosures w i thout being the present holder of the m r tgag e and the use offa lse docum enta t ion pract ices to fa ci li t a te fo reclosures, w as unfa ir a nd decept ive.

123. Each of the Bank Defendants , through their em ployees and/or agents , f iledor caused to be t i led w i th regis t r ies of deeds and co urts , docum ents tha t w re fa lse, fa i ledto com ply w ith the requirements for a f f idavi ts concerning personal kno w ledge, and fa i ledto confo rm to the law gov erning notariza t ion. Discovery in this ac t ion w ill ident i fy theprecise number o f v iola t ions by each Bank Defendant .

THE BANK DEFENDANTS DECEI VED HOM EOW NERS I N THECOURSE OF SERVICING MORTGAGE L OANS.1.he Bank Defendants Have Earned Significant incomeAssuming T he Role of Servicer.

124. T he Ban k D efendants , in their roles as m ortgag e servicers , ac t as the agentfor the current holders of m ortgag e: loa ns, including investor , t rusts, or o ther ent i ties . Inthis role: the Bank Defend ants process and col lect m onthly m ortgag e paym ents; interactw i th and respond to consum ers; handle and disburse tax and insurance escrow accounts;negot ia te and implem ent loan .m odif ica t ions and other loss m it iga t ion solut ions; and

28www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


34/62

m anage k reclosure: interact ions, including m anag ing local foreclosure counsel , orderinginspeet ions or a ppraisa ls, and hiring rea l es ta te brokers or local co m panies to sel l and.m anage bank o w ned proper ty acqui red a t f o r c losure auct ions (a l so know n as "RE O "property) . T hus, born: ) . w ers typically deal exclusively w ith:their s T vicer, not the ultima teholder of their m ortgage, w i th regards to the servicing of their loans.

125. . T he Bank Defendan t s have genera t ed S igni f ican t serVie ing incom e f rom t heacquisit ion of m ortgag e servicing rights .

126. A gainst this back drop, each of the Bank Defendants has engaged indecept ive practices w i th respect to the terms and requirem ents of i t s loan m odif ica t ionprogram s , t he im plem ent a tion o f loan m odi f ica t ions , and t he s t a t us o f f o rec losureproceedings . T h iS decep t ion ha s resul ted in s ign i f ican t bor row er ha rm by w ay o fincreased defaults, re-defaults, and foreclosures.

127. T he Com m onw ea l th does no t con tend t ha t every d ist ressed bor row erseeking loa n m odif ica t ion assis tance is ent it led to, or w ill qual ify -f o r a loan m odi f ica t ion .I t i s t he pos it ion o f t he Com m onw ea l th , how ever , t ha t each o f t he Bank Defendan t s mus tadhere t o t he p r mises it has m ade t o bor row ers and t o t he public and mus t cons iderdis t ressed loans for m odif ica t ion or other loss m it iga t ion, consis tent w i th the progra m s i thas prom ised to bo rro vers and the public.

2.ach of the Bank D efendants Deceived Borrow ers RegardingIts Loan IVIodification Programs.128. Collectively, the Bank Defendants service ore than half of the mortgage

loans in t he U ni ted S t a t es and have been t he se rv ice r f o r approxim a t e ly 65% ofdelinquent mortgages sin e 2009. As such, each Bank Defendant has, at all relevant

29www .S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


35/62

t im es , negot ia t ed and im plement ed va r ious loan m odi f ica t ion p rogram s;bot h p ropr ie t a ryand owe.. ent-based.

129. A t least s ince the United Sta tes T reasury Departm ent announced. thec rea tion o f t he Mak ing LID= A f fordable P rogram ("H A MP ") t he Bank . Defendan t s havepnblicly cla imedta be engaged. in w idespread loan m odif ica t ion. progiam s a imed a tpresming home o nership and avoiding unnecessary foreclosures. Each of the BankDefendants has a lSo ena cted proprie tary loan m odif ica t ion prog ram s w hich they tout asaddi t ional opt ions fo r dis tressed borrow ers .

130. In the course of implem ent ing it s loan m odif ica t ion program s, includingH A M P , how ever , each Bank Defendan t has mis led bor row ers about the i r e l ig ib il it y f o rthis program and the rel ief they w ill receive pursuant to this program.

131. F or ins tance, as of the close of the fourth quar ter of 2009 m ore than a yeara f t e r announcing it s en t rance in t o t he H A M P pro gram B ank o f A e r ica had mo di f iedless than 19% of the el igible del inquent loans nat ionw ide. A year-and-a-half later , as oft he end o f Ju ly 2011 , Bank o f A m er ica had permanent ly mo di f ied on ly 132 ,763 o f t hem ore t han 1 ,000 ,000 loans t ha t w ere a t one po in t mo re t han 60 days de l inquent ande lig ib le f o r a H A M P m odi f ica tion . T o varying degrees the other Bank D efendantsconver ted a h igher pe rcen t age o f m or t gages t o pe rm anent loan m odi f ica t ions . H ow ever ,Massachuset ts hom eow ners have com plained across the board that each of the BankDefendan t s has m isled hom eow ners and prov ided them w i th m isin forma t ion rega rd ingthe loan m odif ica t ion pro cess .

132. F o r e x a m p l e , a r e qu ir e m e n t o f t h e H A M P p r o g r a m i s t ha t b o r r o w e r ssuccessfully com plete a three-m onth t r ia l m odif ica t ion period before they are placed in a

30www .S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


36/62

perma nent loan m odi f ica t ion . Dur ing t ha t t h ree-m ont h t r i a l per iod , bor row ers a rerequired to m ak e reduced mo rtgage paym ents tha t a re ca lcula ted by their servicer to beno m ore t han 31% of t he ir incom e Whi le mak ing the reduced payment s, bor row ers a rerepotted to the credit bureaus as delinquent, and if they are not converted to a per anentm odIf ica t ion , bor row ers a re a ssessed t he d i f f erence be tw een t he ir fu l l m r t gage paym ent sand their reduced t r ia l paym ents .

133,r io r to June 2010, Bank o f A m er ica conver ted on ly approxim a t e ly 30% oft r ia l m odi f ica t ions t o pe rm anent m odi f ica t ions . W el ls F a rgo repor t ed a s imi la rconversion rate for that time period while Citi and Chase hovered at approxima ly 4Only GMAC reported a conversion rate above 70% for that period of time. M nyborro w ers w ere s trung a long in t r ia l m odif ica t ions for nine m onths or longer, subject ingthem to plumm et ing credi t scores and m ount ing del inquency amo unts .

134.he Bank Defendants ' mo dif ica t ion ef forts have bee _ so po or tha t , for thefirst quarter of 2011, the United Sta tes Treasury Departm ent w i thheld payment of theH A M P S erv ice r Incen t ives to Ba nk o f A m er ica , Chase , and W el ls Fa rgo , no t ing t heywere in "need of substantial i provement." CM and GMAC were deemed marginallybet ter and labeled in "need of m odera te im provem ent ." A t the end of the second quarter ,Bank o f A m er ica and Chase w ere aga in deemed in need o f subs tan t ia l im provement anddenied their servicer incentives.

3 1www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


37/62


38/62

137. Instead, hc ever, upon inform at ion and bel ief , each of the Bank . Defendantshas deceived M assachusetts borrow ers about loan m odif ica t ion requirements , by, w i thoutl imitation. , misrepresenting that:

Bo rrow ers m.us t be over s ix ty days . . delinquent toget a loan m odificat ion,W hen in fac t ac tual delinquency is not required. Borro w ers m ay be el igiblecvenf t hey a re a t s imply a t r i sk o f im m inent de f ault . Suchm isrepresenta t ions resa t in increased and un necessary defaul ts .I f bo rrow ers a re over ninety days del inquent they w ill receive priori tyt reatm ent,. w hich is false; and w hich resul ts in unnecessary a ddi t ionaldefaults and extended delinqUencies.Cer t a in bor row ers cannot be considered based oil the type or seasona l, .nature of thei r incom e, When in fact such factorS a re not de terminative ofeligibility. This result s in bor row ers w ho o t herw ise m ay qua li fy f o r a loanm odif ica t ion being impro perly denied Or dissuaded f rom applying.

138. Each o f t he Ba t ik Defendan ts knew or should have kno w n t ha t it sm isrepresenta t ions regarding i t s loan m odif ica t ion pro gram s are decept ive and unfa ir lydisqualify borro e s from obtaining loan modifications.

3.he Bank Defendants Each Acted Deceptively in ImplementingLoan Modifications.

139. In sp i t e o f t he Bank Defendan t s ' conduc t above , ce r t a in bor row ers havereceived loan m odif ica t ions, of ten a f ter w ai t ing m onths, hir ing counsel, and/or answ eringrepeated requests to provide ident ica l applica t ion inform at ion. Once approved, borro w erstypically m ust execute and re turn w ri t ten loan m odif ica t ions to their servicer and thenbegin mak ing the required m odif ied mo nthly paym ents .

140. On num erous occasions, how ever, and of ten a f ter m onths of accept ing thebo owers' payments pursuant to the very loan modifications the Bank Defendantsapproved, each of the Bank D efendants has inform ed these borrow e s tha t their loanwww

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


39/62

m odif ica t ions w ere in fac t rejected, w ere never accepted by investors , w ere never inplace, and/or tha t foreclosure auct ions w ere schednied im n inent ly.

141. EaCh of t he Bank Defendan ts know s or should know t ha t i tsm isrepresenta t ions regarding the im pleMenta t ion o f i ts loan m odif i ta t ions are decept iveand m is lead ing, and result M s ignf ican t ha rm t o bor row ers .

4.ach o f the Bank D efendants Have Deceived Borrow ersRegarding Foreclosure Proceedings.142. T he Bank Defendan ts rou t ine ly m ake m isrepresen ta t ions t o bo r row ersand/or their counsel regarding pending foreclosure pro ceedings, including, am ong otherm isrepresenta t ions, tha t w hile loan m odif ica t ion negot ia t ions are occurring, foreclosureproceedings w ill not cont inue and/or tha t foreclosure auctions w il l be postponed. A snegot ia t ions progress, how ever, borro w ers and/or their counsel of ten learn, w hethert h rough publ ic no t ices o r com m unica t ions w i th o t her employees or agen t s o f t he re levan tBank Defendant , tha t the foreclosure auct ions are cont inuing as scheduled.

143. Each o f t he Bank Defendan t s kno w s or should know t ha t i tsm isrepresenta t ions regarding foreclosure proceedings are decept ive and m isleading, andresul t in ha rm t o bo r row ers .

C. THE BANK DEFENDANTS AND MERS FAILED TO COMPLYW I T H T H E M A S S A C H US E T T S R E G IS T R A T I O N S T A T U T E .144. M ER S CO R P w as es tab l ished in t he l a te 1990s by severa l o f t he na t ion ' s

la rgest banks, secondary m ark et purchasers, and o ther indust ry s takeho lders including theM or t gage Bank ers A ssoc ia t ion and t he A m er ican Land T i t le A ssoc ia t ion .

145. M ERS CO R P i s the pa ren t com pany o f M or t gage E lec tron ic Regis t ra t ionS ys t em , Inc ., a corpora t ion w hose so le purpose i s to se rve a s m or t gagee o f record andnom inee fo r t he benef icia l ow ners o f m or t gage loans .

34www .S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


40/62

146. M ERS CO R P and Mo r t gage E lec tron ic Regis tra t ion S ys tem , Inc. a re ow nedb y so m e of the nat ion 's biggest bank s and m ortgage com panies, including several of theBank Defendants and/o r their subsidiaries .

147. MERS has created a private electronic database (the "MERS System"). TheME RS System. is designed to be.a national. electronic registry that track s changes inbenef ic ia l ow nership interests and servicing rights associa ted w i th.m ortgag e loans. Fullaccess to the MERS Sys tem i s limi ted to m embers and /or ow l e rs o f M ERS .

148. S ince 1997, more t han 63 m i ll ion hom e loans have been regis tered o n theMERS System. Indeed, more than 60% of all newly-originated mortgage loans a eregis t ered on t he ME RS S ys tem.

149. T hrough the M E R S S y s te m , M E R S i s n a m e d t h e m o r t g a g e e o f r e co r d f o rpart icipat ing m em bers e ither a t the or iginat ion of the m ortgage by being nam ed them ortgag ee as nom inee for the origina t ing lender and i ts successors and assigns in them o r t g a g e documents or by subsequent assignment of t he mo r t gage to M E R S . M E R S islisted as the m ortgagee in the of f ic ia l records m ainta ined by the regis ter of deeds fo r thecounty in w hich the property res ts . . T he lenders re ta in the prom issory notes , w hich theyof ten sel l to investors w i thout recording the t ransact ion. in the public record. Lendersl ikew ise are granted the servicing rights to the m ot /gage, w hich they either re ta in ort ransfer to other ent i ties . A s w i th the t ransfer of the prom issory notes , a transfer ofservicing rights is not reco rded in the public record.

150. T o faci l ita te th e t ransfer of benef ic ia l interests in mo rtgages, MER S and i t sm em bers typical ly s t ructure mo rtgage t ransact io , as fol low s:

35www .S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


41/62

a. W hen the purchase of a hom e is f inanced, the lender obta ins f romthe borrow er a prom issory note, w hich sets for th the repayment term s of the loan, and am ortgage inst rument , w hich is intended to sectl re the repaym ent of the prom issory note .The mortgage names MERS as the mortgagee as nominee for the lender and itssuccessors and a ssigns) . In the mo rtgage, the borrow er assigns his or her r ight , t it le , andinterest in the property to MERS andthe mortgage instr ment is then recorded or .

- registered in the local land records w i th MER S as th .e nam ed mor tgage e .b. W hen the prom issory note is sold, and po tent ia l ly re-sold, in the

secondary m ortgag e m ark et , the t ransaction is , or is supposed to be, t racked in the MER Sdatabase as a tansfr of beneficial rights from one investor to another.. MERS membersa te responsibl . for enteringactura te inform at ion into the ME RS S ystem report ing thet ranSfer o f the beneficial in teres ts and S ervicing r ights asseciated W ith each m ortgage .M em bers of the genera l public, how ever, a te unable to access this inform at ion.

c. A s long as the part ies involved in the sa le a re MER S m em bers, .M ER S rem ains the m ortgagee of record and purportedly ac ts as a l .. . agent for each newow i ie r o f t he p rom issory no t e .

I 51. In M assachuset ts, land is ei ther "regis tered" or "unregis tered."I 52. If land is registered, all of the documents affecting t it le to a part icular parcel

of rea l es ta te must be "regis tered" w i th the regis t r ies of d eeds under the auspices of theLand Court .

I 53. M assachuset ts's system o f land regis tra t ion w as establ ished by the LandCo urt A ct , w hich is codif ied as G. L. e . 185, 26 ,-118.

36www .S

topForec

losureF rau

d .com


42/62


43/62


44/62


45/62


46/62

177.he first Mortgage incl. :Wed the following language concerning i tsmor tgage e : "NIERS" is Mortgage Elect ronic Regis t ra t ion Systems, Inc .M ER S is a separa te corpo ra t ion tha t is ac t ing solely as anom inee for Lender and Lender 's successors and assigns.MERS is the mortgagee under this Security Instrument.M ER S is o rganized and ex is t ing under t he law s o fDelaware, nd has an address and telephone number ofP .O . Box 2026, F l in t, MI 48501-2026, te l . (888) 679-M E R S .

(em phasis in original )178. T he second m ortgag e included substant ia l ly sim ilar language con cerning

M ERS and i ts ro le a s mo r t gagee:"T H I S M O R T G A G E i s m a d e t his 1 7t h d a y o f A U G U S T2006, between the Mortgagor . . . (herein "Borrower") andthe Mortgage; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,Inc . ("M ER S ") , ( so le ly a s nom inee fo r Lender , a shereinaf ter def ined, and Lend er 's successors and a ssigns) .M ERS i s o rganized under the l aws o f Delaw are , and has anaddress and te lephone num ber o f P .O . Box 2026, F l in t , M I48501-2026 tel . (888) 679-MERS.

em phasis in original ) .179 . Bot h m or t gages w ere regis t ered w i th t he S out hern Essex Dis t r ic t Regis try o f

Deeds on August 23, 2006 and noted on Certificate of Title Nu ber 59992.180 . O n M arch 12 , 2008, MER S , in i t s capac i ty a s "nom inee fo r Sa l lie Mae

Home Loans, Inc. its successors and assige [sic] transferred the first mortgage to"Citibank, N.A. as trustee." An assignment of mortgue to that effect was registered onM arch 20, 2008 in the So uthern Essex Dist r ic t Regis t ry of Deeds on cert i f ica te num ber59992. N o t rust or benef ic iary for w hom Cit ibank is t rustee is ident i f ied in this or anyother docum ent registered w i th the regis try of deeds.

41www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


47/62

181. On O ctober 24, 2008, "Cit ibank , N.A . as t rustee" proceeded w ithforeciosure )f the f i rs t m ortgage by f i ling w i th the Land. Court a Com plain t to F orecloseM ort gage and request ing an o rder o f notice under the Servicemethbers Civi l , Rel ie f A ct ,

182. On A pri l. 8 , 2009, the Servicem em bers Civil Relief A ct not ice w asregis tered w i th the regis t ry of deeds on cert i f ica te num ber 59992.

183. O n M ay 5 , 2009, judgm ent on the Com pla in t to F orec lose Mo r t gage w asentered by the Land C ourt . T hat judgm ent w as regis tered on July 22, 2009 on cert i f ica tenum ber 59992.

184. M ERS records , how ever , re f lec t t ha t tw o days a f t e r the m or t gages wereregis te red . on A ugust 23 , 2006, they w ere en te red in t he MER S S ys tem and each w asassigned a unique ident i f ica t ion num ber.

185. Just over a m ont h l a t e r, on S ep t em ber 28 , 2006, S a l lie Mae purpor t ed lyt ransfe r red the benef ic ia l int e res t in each m or t gage t o EM C M or t gage LLC ("EM C") . Nodocum ent ref lect ing these t ransfers w as ever regis tered w i th the regis t ry of deeds or LandCourt, in violation of 0. L. c. 185, 67.

186. T hereaf ter , on N ovem ber 1 , 2006, EMC purpo rtedly t ransferred thebenef ic ia l interest in the f i rst m ortgag e to Cit ibank , N.A . No docum ent ref lect ing thist ransfer w as ever regis tered w i th the regis try of deeds or L and Co urt , in viola t ion o f a L.e. 185, 67.

187. The next day, on November 2, 2006, E C transferred the beneficial interestin the second m or t gage t o Bank o f A m er ica , N .A . No docum ent ref lect ing t h is t ransfe rw as ever regis tered w i th the regis try of deeds or L and Co urt , in viola t ion of 0 . L. c . 185, 67.

42www

.StopF

oreclosure

F raud .co

m


48/62

188.ccordingly, on a t least four o ccasions, M ER S a nd i ts m em bers fa i led toregis ter t

Documents

5 BANKS SUED FOR ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES- READ STORY AND COMPLAINT HERE!!! ATTORNEY GENERAL COAKLEY SUES FIVE BIG BANKS IN CONNECTION WITH ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES AND LOAN SERVICING DEC