Mr Cooper Group Inc (COOP)

[Dmdmd2020]

Per Bill Paatalo’s article on November 08, 2018:

https://bpinvestigativeagency.com/when-the-judge-asks-wheres-the-harm/

“When The Judge Asks, “Where’s The Harm?”
Posted by Bill Paatalo on Nov 8, 2018 in Uncategorized | 0 comments
From: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-PR4 Trust v. Riley, Circuit Court Fifteenth Judicial Dist., Palm Beach County, FL, Case No.:50-2016-CA-010759-XXXX-MB:



ORDER GRANTING FINAL JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT



THIS CAUSE, having come before the Court for trial on November 14, 2017, been duly advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

Plaintiff Engaged in Unclean Hands Trying to Prove Standing to Foreclose

Unclean Hands, Generally

“One who comes into equity must come with clean hands else all relief will be denied him regardless of merit of his claim, and it is not essential that act be a crime; it is enough that it be condemned by honest and reasonable men.” Roberts v. Roberts, 84 So.2d 717 (Fla.1956)( emphasis added).
Therefore, even if Plaintiff had standing to foreclose (a meritorious claim), Plaintiff would be denied the equitable relief of foreclosure upon a finding that Plaintiff took actions in pursuing this foreclosure that reasonable and honest men would condemn.
The Florida Supreme Court noted “the principle or policy of the law in withholding relief from a complainant because of ‘unclean hands’ is punitive in its nature.” Busch v. Baker, 83 So. 704 (Fla. 1920). As U. S. Supreme Court Justice Black wrote:


“[T]ampering with the administration of justice in the manner indisputably shown here involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public, institutions in which fraud cannot complacently be tolerated consistently with the good order of society.” Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246, 64 S. Ct. 997, 88 L. Ed. 1250 (1944).





Recently, I had a discussion with Neil Garfield regarding the reoccurring question asked by judges in foreclosure cases, “Where’s the harm?” I’ve been present in courtrooms many times and hear the same type of question coming from the bench. “I understand your arguments about the broken chain of title, that the assignments are fraudulent, that the notes and endorsements are not authentic, etc. But your client took out a loan and has admitted he/she hasn’t made payments. How has your client been harmed?”



The banks, through their alleged “servicers,” have relied on this mindset since the beginning in deflecting the fact that they themselves could never answer that same question if the fake documents they proffer to create standing were not presumed as valid. Here’s Neil’s response,



“Have I been harmed? Sure. Because now I am fighting with a ghost while you guys keep the owners of the debt at bay and you prevent me learning who the owner is. Would I have ever knowingly signed a note to a party who was NOT the creditor? No. Would I have knowingly put my home up as collateral to a party who was pretending to be the creditor? No. Who would?



You are telling me that I must assume the debt exists because you say so. That isn’t enough for me. You show me the records of someone you claim is a servicer but not your own records. Why should I accept that?



You are telling me that the amount of the debt is $300,000 but you won’t tell me how much is unpaid on the records of the owner of the debt. Just because you say so. My experts tell me that the creditors and their agents received multiple payoffs of the principal amount of the loan. The servicer does not keep those records so why should I believe that the servicer records are the only thing we should look at? If I don’t owe it why should I pay? If I don’t owe it to you, why should I pay you. I’m not taking your word for it. Show me that you paid for this debt then we’ll talk.



How am I injured? Because if the law says that there is no debt or that part of the debt has been satisfied as an account receivable then why should I lose my house for not paying an amount that isn’t due to a person who is not entitled to collect? If the law says you have unclean hands then why should I lose my house to you?



How am I injured? You guys with no right or authority are reporting me to credit agencies for nonpayment of a debt I don’t owe you. You have damaged or destroyed my credit reputation.



How am I injured? You guys have prevented me from settling accounts with the owner of this debt and reconciling the amounts due and instead you have placed me in constant fear of foreclosure and eviction. The stress killed my wife, damaged my children and I have had three heart attacks while you kept me in litigation for the last 9 years, while my home is in disrepair that I dare not remodel because it can be taken from me any moment.”



In the Riley case cited above, the doctrine on “Unclean Hands” was applied in denying the Plaintiff relief, regardless of any merit to Plaintiff’s claims. In the Order (See: Order FL – WaMu Chase Robo Witness Destroyed – Marcotte), the bank’s witness (Darlene Marcotte) admits that the assignment of mortgage relied upon by the Plaintiff to prove standing in the case, and many other cases she’s been involved, contain materially false statements regarding ownership of the mortgage(s.)



Here is a direct admission that the foreclosing party has used deception and misrepresentation to collect on a debt. This is the exact type of behavior that was condemned and forbidden to continue in the $25B National Settlement and Consent Judgments back in 2012, and the countless consent judgments entered since. The behavior continues unabated.



Now, this admission by Darlene Marcotte is not some sort of fluke. The servicers repeatedly sing like canaries in depositions admitting to these deceptive practices as though they’ve done nothing wrong. For example, here’s an excerpt from a deposition by Nationstar / Mr. Cooper employee “A.J. Loll”:



Q· ·Okay.··And in this document MERS assigns, and I’m quoting, all beneficial interest under that certain mortgage described below together with the notes and obligations therein described and the money due and become due therein with interest and all rights accrued or to accrue under said mortgage.··Did I read that correctly?
A· ·Yes.

Q· ·So MERS assigned basically the note and mortgage and all monies due under that to U.S. Bank, National Association, as trustee for the certificate holders of the LXS7000-7N trust fund; is that correct?



A· ·This is an assignment of mortgage, not an assignment of a note.··It’s not signed by the trust.··This is an assignment of mortgage from MERS to the tr- — to the trust.
Q· ·(BY MR. KNIGHT)··Correct.

A· ·MERS doesn’t own the note, so they can’t assign the note.
Q· ·Correct.··But it does say that they’re transferring the note, does it not?

A· ·What I’m saying is, the document is an assignment of mortgage.··It doesn’t say assignment of mortgage and note.··It’s just an assignment of mortgage.··MERS is assigning it; they have the powers as based as nominee for this particular loan.··So they’re — alls — all is what’s happening here is the mortgage is being assigned.

Q· ·Uh-huh.··Even though it says, together with the note and obligations therein?

LINDSEY:··Objection to form.
A· ·No, I’m saying that it — it — I’m saying the powers — MERS does not own this note, so they can’t assign the note.
Q· ·(BY MR. KNIGHT)··Correct.
A· ·MERS’ powers within this assignment can only be to assign the mortgage —



Q· ·Right.

A· ·– because that’s — they’re the nominee.
Q· ·But the assignment says it’s assigning the note?
A· ·But it —
Q· ·I — I —
A· ·It’s not assigning the note.


Mr. Loll admits that the assignment states the note was transferred, but that’s not what really happened. Nationwide Title Clearing got the smackdown by the Illinois AG for this very behavior deeming it an unfair and deceptive trade practice having MERS assign notes when in fact, they only assigned the mortgage. (See: IL AG – Final Consent Decree – Nationwide Title Clearing)



In the case Proodian v Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et. al., JPMorgan Chase employee “Matthew Dudas – Legal Specialist III” is asked about the assignment of Proodian’s WaMu Mortgage from the FDIC to Chase. Here is the assignment:



Proodian Assignment


This assignment, and thousands of others like it, state that the FDIC is assigning the mortgage to JPMorgan Chase, and that Chase is executing as attorney in fact for the FDIC. However, when Dudas is asked point blank whether the FDIC assigned the mortgage, here was his response:

Dudas Depo snip 1 - Article
Dudas goes on to testify that this assignment does not transfer any “ownership” rights in the mortgage, but rather ONLY transfers “servicing rights.”



If these examples aren’t hard core evidence of deception and misrepresentation, I don’t know what is. Any reasonable and honest man would, and should, condemn this behavior.



In tonight’s episode of the West Coast – Neil Garfield Show, Charles Marshall, Esq. and I will discuss this topic and how homeowners and their attorneys should be reminded of some of the following consumer statutes that apply to bank servicers in fighting back against their misrepresentations and deceptive practices:



Servicers are subject to the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act 12 U.S.C. §§2601-2617 (RESPA). RESPA “servicing” means receiving any scheduled periodic payments from a borrower pursuant to the terms of any federally related mortgage loan, including amounts for escrow accounts under section 10 of RESPA (12 U.S.C. § 2609), and making the payments to the owner of the loan or other third parties of principal and interest and such other payments with respect to the amounts received from the borrower as may be required pursuant to the terms of the mortgage servicing loan documents or servicing contract.

Servicers are subject to the Truth in Lending Act 15 U.S.C. 1601, (TILA) as servicers of federally related mortgage loans obligated upon a borrower’s request to provide the name, address, and telephone number of the owner of the obligation.



Servicers are subject to the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 41 et seq (FTC) as federally regulated and insured institutions prohibiting unethical, unfair and deceptive business practices against consumers.

Servicers are subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 U.S.C. 1692 (FDCPA), prohibiting the collection of debt not owned, using names other than its own which would indicate that a third person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts, using false, deceptive, or misleading representations of the character, amount, legal status of such debt in connection with the collection of such debt 15 U.S.C. §1692e, prohibiting unfair or unconscionable means to collect under 15 U.S.C. §1692f, failing to validate debt and failing to cease collection of such disputed debt until legal verification is made, unlawfully furnishing deceptive forms under 15 USC 1692j.

Servicers have been subject to the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. §5301 et seq (Dodd-Frank), requiring for example, mandatory servicer participation in HAMP, requiring escrow and settlement procedures for people who are in trouble repaying their mortgages, imposing more stringent requirements for risk management and stress testing, requiring banks, lenders, and others, whenever they securitize an asset, to hang on to a portion of the credit risk, requiring further loss mitigation procedures under RESPA, and establishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Servicers have been subject to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. . §1691 et seq. (ECOA) prohibiting discrimination/disparate treatment by a lender in any aspect of a credit transaction including failing to provide information or services or providing different information or services regarding any aspect of the lending process, using different standards to evaluate collateral, treating a borrower differently in servicing a loan or invoking default remedies.


Bill Paatalo Oregon Private Investigator – PSID#49411



BP Investigative Agency, LLC Mailing Address:

600 Wisconsin Ave #4

Whitefish, MT 59937

Office: 1-(888)-582-0961

[e-mail]

www.bpinvestigativeagency.com”


__________________

IMO...conclusions as of December 11, 2018:

1) Per the article above the testimony of JPM Chase employee Matthew Dudas—legal Specialist III:

“Dudas goes on to testify that this assignment does not transfer any “ownership” rights in the mortgage, but rather ONLY transfers “servicing rights.”

IMO...if FDIC had transfered rightful ownership of WMI subsidiary originated mortgages to JPMC, then JPMC would have shown proper ownership chain of title for those mortgages.

2) I believe that WMI rightfully owns the beneficial interests in MBS Trusts created by WMI subsidiaries

3) If Dudas’ testimony pertains not only to securitized loans, but it also might pertain to portfolio loans, then I also now believe that WMI still has ownership rights to the portfolio loans which WMI subsidiaries (WMB and WMB,FSB) originated and eventually kept on their balance sheets

Per June 30, 2008 Quarterly Reports regarding Portfolio loans :

Mortgage Loans = $222,681,859,000 (WMB) + $8,644,219,000 (WMB,FSB) = $231,326,078,000 portfolio mortgage loans

4) Change In Control has not occurred yet

5) When Change In Control occurs (when FDIC resolves the receivership), IMO...

a) JPMC will pay for the book value of the $231 billion in portfolio loans to WMI.

b) FDIC will unfreeze all the illegally seized assets of WMI (including non-banking assets such as real estate [unknown value], mineral rights [~$47 billion], bankruptcy remote beneficial interests in certificate participation in MBS Trusts [~$181.5 billion], Credit Default Swaps paid out [~$23 billion], etc.).