Foreclosure: Adebo v. Litton Loan Servicing LP (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist] May 29, 2008)(Radack)

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE CLAIM REJECTEDAdebo v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] May 29, 2008)(Radack)(real estate law, no wrongful foreclosure, summary judgment affirmed, notice issue)AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT:

Opinion by Chief Justice Radack Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Keyes and Higley)
01-07-00708-CV Adekunle Adebo v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P.Appeal from 189th District
Court of Harris CountyTrial Court Judge: Hon. William R. Burke, Jr. MEMORANDUM
OPINIONAppellant, Adekunle Adebo, challenges a traditional summary judgment rendered in favor of appellee, Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. (Litton) against Adebo's claim of wrongful
foreclosure. In his single issue, Adebo argues that the trial court erred by rendering summary judgment because Litton did not demonstrate to the trial court that Adebo had been provided an opportunity to cure his default before the foreclosure. Adebo contends that section 51.002 of the Property Code requires that showing. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 51.002 (Vernon Supp. 2007). We affirm.BackgroundAdebo is the former owner of real property located at 12251 Sandpiper Drive, Houston in Harris County (the property). Adebo purchased the property in March 2001, having executed a $22,500.00 promissory note in favor of Litton's predecessor-in-interest. The note was secured by a deed of trust on the property, which required a monthly payment of approximately $233.41.

Litton is the current mortgage-servicing company for Adebo's loan. (1) It is undisputed that Adebo rented the property and did not use it as his residence.Adebo had been in default on his monthly payments since January 2006 when Litton notified him by letter on March 20, 2006 that (1) he was in default, (2) Litton intended to accelerate the note, and (3) he had 45 days to cure his default. The default amount then was $524.00. Adebo did not cure the default. On April 13, 2006, Litton sent Adebo a statement indicating that $1,710 was due to be paid by May 1, 2006. (2) Adebo did not cure the default. By correspondence dated May 25, 2006, Litton served Adebo with notice, by certified mail, of its intent to accelerate the loan, based on his default, that the amount due as of that date was $25,925.90, and that on acceleration, the note would be referred for foreclosure by substitute trustee's sale on or after July 4, 2006.

Adebo sent a Litton a check dated June 1, 2006 in the amount of $700, but Litton returned it to Adebo by a letter dated June 7, 2006, in which Litton reported that the remittance was insufficient to pay the full amount due and that the loan was in the process of foreclosure.Adebo had missed seven payments when the loan was foreclosed at a substitute trustee's sale on July 4, 2006 and purchased by the current mortgagee. When the new owner sought to evict Adebo and his tenants, Adebo filed a petition on July 31, 2006, claiming that Litton had foreclosed on the property without serving him "proper notice" and without affording him "an opportunity to pay the amounts allegedly owed."

Adebo sought a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction to prevent the eviction, which the trial court denied, and also sought to enjoin Litton from selling the property "to another person." Adebo's sworn pleadings allege wrongful foreclosure. In addition, he challenged Litton's "unilateral decision" and authority to pay property taxes on the property and thereby increase the amount necessary to pay off the balance. Adebo's sworn pleadings acknowledge that he resides at a different address than the property address.Litton answered by general denial on December 27, 2006 and filed a motion for traditional summary judgment on February 28, 2007. Adebo filed his late response with leave of court on July 19, 2007, and the trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of Litton on July 19, 2007.

The trial court's order specifies that (1) the July 6, 2006 foreclosure sale "was in all respects valid" and (2) Litton properly paid taxes on the property pursuant to the terms of the deed of trust. (3)Standard of ReviewWe review summary judgments de novo. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656, 661 (Tex. 2005). In reviewing a summary judgment, we must indulge every reasonable inference in favor of the nonmovant, take all evidence favorable to the nonmovant as true, and resolve any doubts in favor of the nonmovant. Id. A defendant who moves for traditional summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims must conclusively disprove at least one element of each of the plaintiff's causes of action. Little v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice, 148 S.W.3d 374, 381 (Tex. 2004).DiscussionIn his single issue on appeal, Adebo contends that the summary judgment must be reversed because "there is no evidence in the record that [Litton] ever gave proper notice" of the substitute trustee's sale of the property and therefore failed to comply with section 51.002(b) of the Property Code.A.

Litton's Motion on Notice of Foreclosure and Adebo's ResponseIn moving for summary judgment on Adebo's wrongful-foreclosure claim, Litton demonstrated that Adebo was seven months in default on his loan obligation before the July 4, 2006 foreclosure sale, and that Litton had given proper notice of the sale.

To support the latter contention, Litton relied first on the business-records affidavit of its vice-president, who stated that Adebo had been provided notice on March 20, 2006, by certified mail, of his default, Litton's intent to accelerate, and his 45-day opportunity to cure, lest the matter be referred for foreclosure, which would take place in approximately 60 days. Notice was sent to Adebo at the property and at his residence address. Litton also provided the business-records affidavit of the foreclosure director of the foreclosing agency to which Litton had referred the matter of Adebo's loan. The director stated in her affidavit and demonstrated, through supporting documentation, that on May 25, 2006 Adebo had been provided notice, by certified mail sent both to the property and to Adebo's residence, that the note had been accelerated and that a substitute trustee sale would take place, at the earliest, at 10 a.m. on July 4, 2006.

Responding to Litton's motion on the issue of notice, Adebo provided his own affidavit in which he denied that he had ever received notice of the foreclosure sale. Adebo argued that a jury should determine whether Litton's conduct was lawful, given that he did not receive a response to his June 21, 2006 telecopier transmission requesting the amount of "pay off balance" due on his loan.B. Compliance with Notice under Section 51.002 of the Property CodeThe controlling statute is section 51.002 of the Property Code, which governs foreclosure sales of real property under contract lien. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 51.002. Subsection (b) of section 51.002 provides that notice of the sale must be given at least 21 days before the date of the sale by all three of the following means:(1) posting at the courthouse door of each county in which the property is located a written notice designating the county in which the property will be sold;(2) filing in the office of the county clerk of each county in which the property is located a copy of the notice posted under Subdivision (1); and(3) serving written notice of the sale by certified mail on each debtor who, according to the records of the mortgage servicer of the debt, is obligated to pay the debt.Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 51.002(b)(1)-(3) (emphasis added).

Regarding notice to the debtor, subsection (d) further specifies that,(d) Notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, the mortgage servicer of the debt shall serve a debtor in default under a deed of trust or other contract lien on real property used as the debtor's residence with written notice by certified mail stating that the debtor is in default under the deed of trust or other contract lien and giving the debtor at least 20 days to cure the default before notice of sale can be given under Subsection (b).

The entire calendar day on which the notice required by this subsection is given, regardless of the time of day at which the notice is given, is included in computing the 20-day notice period required by this subsection, and the entire calendar day on which notice of sale is given under Subsection (b) is excluded in computing the 20-day notice period.Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 51.002(d) (emphasis added).Adebo concedes in his pleadings that the property is not his residence. Accordingly, section 51.002(d) does not apply. Litton nonetheless complied with section 51.002(d) through the affidavit of its vice-president, who stated that Adebo had been provided certified-mail notice on March 20, 2006 that he was in default, that Litton intended to accelerate, and that he had 45-days cure his default, at the risk of foreclosure, which would take place in approximately 60 days. Having been sent on March 20, 2006 and having provided a 45-day opportunity to cure, Litton's notice exceeded the requirements of section 51.002(d).Adebo nonetheless insists that he raised a triable issue of fact concerning Litton's compliance with subsection 51.002(b) because he denied ever receiving "any official foreclosure notices" from Litton. As subsection (e) of section 51.002 provides, however,(e) Service of a notice under this section by certified mail is complete when the notice is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the debtor at the debtor's last known address. The affidavit of a person knowledgeable of the facts to the effect that service was completed is prima facie evidence of service.Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 51.002(e) (emphasis added). Litton provided the "prima facie evidence" referred to in this statute through the affidavits of its vice-president and the foreclosure director of the foreclosing agency, both of whom averred compliance with the certified mail required to accomplish service, both at the property and at Adebo's address.

To raise a triable issue of fact to defeat Litton's summary-judgment showing of compliance with the notice requirements of section 51.002, Adebo had to present some evidence, more than a scintilla of evidence, i.e., legally sufficient evidence, to raise an issue of fact to defeat Litton's prima facie case on the notice element. Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. 1996); Haight v. Savoy Apartments, 814 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied); see also City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 823 (Tex. 2005) ("[T]he test for legal sufficiency should be the same for summary judgments, directed verdicts, judgments notwithstanding the verdict, and appellate no-evidence review."). The "final test" for legal sufficiency "must always be whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to reach the verdict under review." City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 827.As the supreme court reaffirmed in City of Keller, evidence is legally insufficient when (1) there is a complete absence of a vital fact; (2) rules of law or evidence preclude according weight to the only evidence offered to prove a vital fact; (3) the evidence offered to prove a vital fact is no more than a scintilla; or (4) the evidence conclusively establishes the opposite of the vital fact. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 810.In this case, Adebo contends that he has raised an issue for a jury's determination, based on his having denied ever receiving "any official foreclosure notices" from Litton regarding foreclosure.

The dispositive inquiry under section 51.002(e), however, is not receipt of notice, but, rather, service of notice. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 51.002(e) (stating that "Service of a notice under this section by certified mail is complete when the notice is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the debtor at the debtor's last known address.")To defeat Litton's summary-judgment showing of compliance with the notice provisions section 51.002, therefore, Adebo had to defeat Litton's evidence that its notices had been deposited in the mail, by certified mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to Adebo, as stated in the affidavits of Litton's vice-president and the foreclosure director of the foreclosing agency. But Adebo did not defeat that showing. By operation of "the rule of law" of effective service stated in section 51.002(e), we are precluded, as was the trial court, from giving effect, i.e., "according any weight" to the only evidence that Adebo "offered to prove [the] vital real estate law, no wrongful foreclosure, summary judgment affirmed, notice issue)

AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Chief Justice Radack
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Keyes and Higley)

1-07-00708-CV Adekunle Adebo v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P.
Appeal from 189th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. William R. Burke, Jr. fact" that Litton did not comply with section 51.002. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d at 810.We overrule Adebo's issue on appeal.ConclusionWe affirm the judgment of the trial court.Sherry RadackChief JusticePanel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Higley.1. Litton is agent for the mortagee, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee. The original mortgagee was Casa Mortgage, Inc.2. The increase in the balance from March 2006 to April 2006 derives from Litton's having paid property taxes on the property. The trial court ruled that this payment was proper; Adebo has not challenged that ruling on appeal.3. Adebo challenges only the first basis of the trial court's ruling.
geovisit();
Foreclosure: Adebo v. Litton Loan Servicing LP (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist] May 29, 2008)(Radack): "Adebo v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP"

AUDITED FINDINGS

Attorneys and borrowers can call us regarding industry specific borrower rights and obligations by a lender.
Nationwide Loan Services
Toll Free 877-732-7653

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TRUSTOR:

ANDY PHAYAK
1745 CANYON DRIVE,
RIVERSIDE, CA 92504 -

OCCUPANCY -OWNER OCCUPIED
FORECLOSURE DOCUMENTS -NOTICES

DEED OF TRUST - 12/30/2004

STATEMENT/NOTICE OF INTENT - 2934(A)

NOTICE OF DEFAULT - 8/4/2008

SUSTITUION OF TRUSTEE - 12/2/2008

NOTICE OF SALE - 12/2/2008

ASSIGNMENT OF DEED - 12/2/2008

TRUSTEES SALE - STATEMENT/NOTICE OF INTENT 2934(A)

FAILURE 30 DAYS DUE DILLIGENCE

FAILURE -CONTACT BORROWER IN PERSON / OPTIONS

FAILURE -ASSESSMENT TELEPHONE CONTACT

FAILURE TO PROVIDE AFFIDAVIT ABOUT NOTICE OF DEFAULT
NONE FOR THE UNDERSIGN IS A LICENSED RE BROKER
NOTICE OF SALE CERTIFIED MAIL WITH RETURN RECEIPT (CERTIFIED STUB)
TRUSTEES SALE SEPARATE DOCUMENT AFFIDAVIT ATTACHED SUBSTITUTION.

SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE MAILED PRIOR TO RECORDING THEREOF

THE LENDER AT IS OPTION MAY FROM TIME TO TIME APPOINT A SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO ANY TRUSTEE APPOINTED HEREUNDER BY AN INSTRUMENT EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY LENDER AND RECORDED IN ETH OFFICE OF THE RECORDED OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

THE INSTRUMENT SHALL CONTAIN THE NAME OF THE ORIGINAL LENDER , TRUSTEE AND BORROWER, THE BOOK AND PAGE WHERE THIS SECURITY INSTRUMENT IS RECORDED AND THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE. WITHOUT CONVEYNENCES OF THE PROPERTY, THE SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE SHALL SUCCEED TO ALL THE TITLE POWERS AND DUTIES CONFERRED UPON THE TRUSTEE HEREIN AND BY APPLICABLE LAW. THIS PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE SHALL GOVERN TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER PROVISIONS FOR SUBSTITUTION.

Yahoo! 360° Edit Identity

Yahoo! 360° Edit Identity: "http://360.yahoo.com/borrowerclaims"

Why Go After Livinglies and Garfield Web Viewers

Dear Attorney,

You submitted the license concerns, Bar and practice issues. THANK YOU for championing a novel concept for never practicing law or interfering with an attorney client relationship. However, I do have concerns that ask why go after Livinglies website which has absolutely nothing to do with the promotion of practicing unlawfulness and the State Bar.

This is not about trying to replace an attorney’s role. It’s about finding one and avoiding malpractice! It’s about the lack of knowledgeable for Mortgage Loan Hieroglyphics, Acceptance Zen and the Prospects of Underwriter Life Developing on Mars.

So what do you know and are you the pro bono elixir each homeowner is waiting for?

What is your email address for the readers suffering right now!

The few who understand this toxic-thermal mortgage mess are gone and were hired up by the lobbying effort and paid for from institutional earnings stolen from cash strapped investors and borrowers.

If you need medical treatment for an ailment - seek out a physician licensed by the appropriate medical board. What if for treating an immediate medical emergency or suffering brought by a cataclysmic destructive event such as an earthquake? A humanitarian view is to use any training (CPR) and resources around you (shirt of your back) to restore breathing, halt bleeding and save lives.

Woe to the attorney that dare step forward and require a license of the party who saves a life in an emergency. It’s your kind however that will bring arguments and demands upon fellow men after the human condition is restored and suffering and bleeding are long forgotten.

So will the Bar force attorney’s to get up to speed, stop taking money for nothing of value and to represent homeowners for a reasonable fee. Please Counsel, embrace this effort, jump in and Assist those who are suffering the humiliation and threat of loss from a foreclosure and that which does not what meet the eye.

That loss is family, friend’s school and unfortunately identity. The compassion is felt by many notable past and current Attorney Generals who I am sure like I want to know your motivation.

You need to help these people as a lawyer then and get going!

The lender will not offer assistance without a calling card and that is a pleading. No one advocates practicing law where only an attorney can - but they do ask the attorneys of the United States to take the next 20 years to get up to speed.

What do these people do? I am an expert who offers case management services and courtroom testimony to attorneys who can meet my stringent requirements for borrower eligibility.

1) victim to a predatory loan
2) Loosing their home
3) Have nowhere to go
4) Promise to detach*

* That means they promise not to kill themselves regardless of the end result.

At first glance and upon talking to lawyers on both sides, counsel will typically start with an insult and ask if I am an attorney. I say no sir, no apology necessary.
An expert is not an attorney and really more an accountant (auditor) by trade. But I know this much. A lawsuit is a civil action brought in a court of law by a plaintiff seeking relief from the court against the party named as the defendant. And in most instances, a lawsuit contains a request for monetary damages.

And lenders won’t talk seriously to you without your request being made in a pleading

According to a random reference book I found, Black’s something or other, “lawsuits can be brought for a large number of reasons such as breach of contract, seeking damages from an accident or other incident, seeking punitive damages if allowed by law, seeking an injunction to stop an action, for real estate disputes, dog biting people, neighbors walking across my yard to create a shorter path to one another and so on. Do you agree the list is endless?

SO WHAT!

Counsel, I would be foolish to see a dentist for neurosurgery. Yet I submit here that a divorce attorney is no more or less skilled at defending a wrongful foreclosure than is a Probate, Contract, Securities or Real Estate attorney. Each can argue a tort or breech yet none can seem to find it.

Your sector of society will step in and argue the window dressing and wrapper but where’s the beef?

I have been there to testify and heard the lawyer’s gibberish responses. You see I was the one who would not agreed to allow a securities offering to go forward while working on staff with lawyers as a consultant. And under protest I held back another toxic offering usually at the expense of missing my payment due for services rendered. Concerns were for why the issuance would fail under certain FASB and GAAP stress tests.

I have also thrown people out of there home and know the tricks such as waiting near a holiday, Thanksgiving, Christmas and Valentines Day to make my point clear. “Make your payment regardless of the Quality Control audited findings and exposure we see on your loan while trying to shield our firm’s massive vulnerability”.

We lenders, as a sector mingled over cocktail and supper in the plush dinning halls of the Mortgage Bankers Ballrooms found across the country. I would ask questions and wow! If you could hear the responses, from the leaders of . . . well, never mind.

From Sub prime misfits to the elite of the industry. Companies like Citigroup have established itself as a powerful player in subprime market acquiring competitors and employing its vast capital resources and its name-brand respectability. A report cites CitiFinancial, its flagship subprime unit, claims 4.3 million customers and 1,600 plus branches in forty-eight states, including nearly 350 offices across the South. Things don’t stop with CitiFinancial, however. The web of subprime is woven throughout Citigroup. Sandy Weill’s company has refashioned itself into a full-service subprime enterprise—one that makes high-cost loans and sells securities backed by the income streams from all these transactions. In 2000, one study calculated, nearly three of every four mortgages originated within Citigroup’s lending empire were made by one of its higher-interest subprime affiliates—nearly 180,000 loans out of a total of 240,000-plus mortgages for the year.

Why the attraction and what’s the best feature? High profitability or no downside in bad times?

In similar situations our sub prime goal was maximize profitability by stimulating hyperactivity in good times and foreclosure trading in black markets in bad times. Point is do you really know the dirt in the detail and can you offer anything to a client who borrowers $5,000 for a retainer and has nothing to show for it at time of a trustees or sheriff sale.

You’re the attorney! What class suits were you intimate or involved with? Want to talk about some of the questions surrounding Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 there under. If found violating the registration provisions, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act.

Help us, can you allow a plaintiff in a wrongful claim seek a judgment of permanent injunction, disgorgement and civil penalties against the Funding Entities, and disgorgement against certain Holdings, pending the matter?

How about yours and my own experience or expert witness roles in case's such as - FTC v. Associates First Capital Corporation, Associates Corporation of North America, Citigroup Inc., and CitiFinancial Credit Company (Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division). Civil Action No. 1:01-CV-00606-JTC; and Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff, v. First Alliance Mortgage Company, a California corporation, First Alliance Corporation, a Delaware corporation, First Alliance Mortgage Company, a Minnesota corporation, and Brian Chisick, Defendants, and Sarah Chisick, Relief Defendant (Central District of California, Southern Division), Civil No. SACV 00-964 DOC.

Counsel you’re offering nothing more than a argument to own a license to fall back on and window dressing here with a lack of direction for legal guidence to address the dilemma.

Consider the following:

1) The role of a CDO investment under an SEC Blue Sky for $300 million
2) Why a financial publicly traded monster like B of A. will use a Reg. D private placement intended for a small guy who could not afford the cost to register a shelf
3) Why the hell is Citi or B of A is accessing and investing capital in the name of a silly venture
4) Why are institutional giants (ENRON in Reverse) subjecting liquidity which is an “Asset” to off balance sheet treatment? (What the F#$%)
5) Does the behavior of a “Veg -O- matic” sliced and diced onion (I mean security) in a CDO really merit the highest rating possible by a rating agency
6) Were the “X” Rated services of Moody’s and Duff wrongful and deceptive or simply pawns giving no concerns to the manufactured 680 borrower score?
7) Why is the MERS and Lost Note gibberish continuing to smoke screen the role of principal participant involvement prohibited by FIERREA legislation
8) Why are derivatives trading a smoking gun for misaligned acceptance practices to unqualified borrowers?
9) How is GAPP and a ABA manifest the sole tool to bring down the structure big time capital investors are hiding under
10) Why did AIG take the bonuses knowing the back lash was inevitable (ask yourself that one as I for one think they deserve every cent for buying into the lies)

I believe every civilized government provided its land barons the right of counsel before the king where land was seized from peasants in exchange for economic support (bribery) under a monarchy. Counsel came at a cost as it does today and was afforded only to the aristocratic minority who garnered the majority of the land and who could afford the protocol. That is to lawfully argue the right to steal land from another who could not afford to be represented. Our first President ensured the subjects of the crown were replaced with the citizens of a government. Washington proposed the ideal of a presiding leader voted in by the people for a set term. The right to revolt was replaced by the concept of the right to vote. And here’s a brilliant novel approach to deter anarchy and threat of coup. By allowing the citizens of a nation to share in the ownership of the land you remove the motivation to rally one and other against those who control the land and govern by tyranny and threat of force.

There is evidence the lobbying effort of the mortgage banking industry are becoming more organized, gaining clout in the courts and monetarily growing by the day. Politicians seeking to help constituents at this time are eventually going to need funding to remain in office. Cash strapped and broke homeowners are not the best capitalized population of voter revenue a politician will seek out for assistance. The fight is not so much about the fact people are losing their homes as much as it is the myriad of current and foreseen circumstances casing them to lose their homes.

Your remarks are just what the lobbying effort will use over time to crush the homeowner’s chances to survive. Home owner’s rights and survival refers the unbearable cost of seeking out a high priced lawyer’s retainer and menacing obstacle for lawyers who do not fully understand. By understand I mean as Garfield say’s “in the know” about Nuclear Thermal Devices (Carl Kop ESQ) and advanced Quantum Physics and Mortgage Acceptance and Beneficiary Rights to Recovery.

If the Office of the Comptroller is asking why organizations like “ACON and “DOPE” can’t seem to procure any modifications – well sir, what we have here is an inability to communicate.

Sub prime is not a discrimination issue either! So is this the best our lawyers can do for the average guy? The NAACP filing of a discrimination charge using a suit filed back in 2007. Wells Fargo Corp. and HSBC Holdings PLC are the target of separate lawsuits being filed by the NAACP, which alleges the banks were engaged in “systematic, institutionalized racism” in their subprime mortgage lending businesses. The lawsuits, which the NAACP said would be filed in U.S. District Court in California, allege that African-American homeowners were frequently steered into mortgages with higher interest rates than other borrowers with similar credit histories. The two new lawsuits are related to a broader July 2007 lawsuit NAACP filed against some of the nation’s largest lenders for discriminatory lending practices. The allegations against HSBC and Wells Fargo were being filed as a result of subsequent investigations and calls made to the NAACP.

Sub prime lenders are blind to color and racial profiling. They will rip anyone off with no certain preference!

This is a Foreclosure crisis that has yet to reach maximum proportions and that will strangle out the cities of America with lost revenue from a dwindling tax base and add pressure to a country that now needs a socialist tax base in order to survive. A socialist tax base but without any of the programs one could expect in a socialist government.

So, are you a divorce attorney? Can we get your license and ask you . . . what is it you mean to say?

Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust, LLC Series 2006-A Trust.

Title of Series

The Sponsor’s and Seller’s material obligations in the transaction are to purchase the Mortgage Loans from the Originators and sell them to the Depositor, and to repurchase or substitute defective Mortgage Loans in certain instances, as described in “The Pooling and Servicing Agreement — Assignment of Mortgage Loans” and “— Repurchases of Mortgage Loans” in this prospectus supplement.

The following is some information that may be helpful in identifying the structure and potential for vulnerability regarding the pass through vehicle.

Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust, LLC Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-A.
Depositor

Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust, LLC.
Issuing entity

Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust, LLC Series 2006-A Trust.
Seller and Sponsor

Wachovia Bank, National Association.
Originators and Servicers

National City Mortgage Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Trustee

HSBC Bank USA, National Association.
Master Servicer and Certificate Administrator

U.S. Bank National Association.
Closing Date

On or about May 25, 2006.
Cut-Off Date

May 1, 2006.
Distribution Date


TRANSFER OF MORTGAGE LOANS
The diagram below illustrates the sequence of transfers of the mortgage loans that are included in the mortgage pool. The originators have sold the mortgage loans to Wachovia Bank, National Association. Wachovia Bank, National Association will, simultaneously with the closing of the transaction described herein, sell the mortgage loans to Wachovia Mortgage Loan Trust, LLC, the depositor.

The depositor will then transfer the mortgage loans to the trustee.

For a description of the transfers of mortgage loans and the affiliations among various transaction parties, see “The Pooling and Servicing Agreement” and “Affiliations Among Transaction Parties” in this prospectus supplement.

Originators -

Mortgage Loans

Seller and Sponsor -

Mortgage Loans sold pursuant to
Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement

The Depositor
Mortgage Loans transferred pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
Trustee S-4

The Certificates
The certificates will be issued pursuant to a pooling and servicing agreement, dated as of the closing date. A summary chart of the initial class balances, principal types, pass-through rates, interest types and initial ratings of the certificates is set forth on page S-1.
The certificates represent all of the beneficial ownership interest in the trust.

Certain listed (The Class B-4, Class B-5 and Class B-6) Certificates are not offered by this prospectus supplement. These non-offered certificates are subordinated to the offered certificates for distributions of principal and interest and for allocations of losses on the mortgage loans. Information provided with respect to the non-offered certificates is included solely to aid your understanding of the offered certificates.

Mortgage Pool

The mortgage pool will consist of four loan groups of adjustable interest rate, fully-amortizing mortgage loans secured by first liens on one- to four-family properties, which include single-family detached properties, properties in planned unit developments, two-to-four family units, cooperatives, condominiums and townhouses.

The Group 1, Group 2, Group 3 and Group 4 mortgage loans provide for a fixed interest rate during an initial period of approximately three, five, seven and ten years, respectively, from the date of origination of each mortgage loan and thereafter provide for adjustments to that interest rate on an annual basis (or, for one mortgage loan, on a semi-annual basis).

The interest rate of each mortgage loan will adjust to equal the sum of an index and a gross margin. Interest rate adjustments will be subject to certain limitations stated in the related mortgage note on increases and decreases for any adjustment. In addition, interest rate adjustments will be subject to an overall maximum mortgage interest rate. For the mortgage loans in Group 1, Group 2 and Group 4, the index will be the arithmetic mean of the London interbank offered rate quotations for one-year (or, for one mortgage loan, six-months) U.S. Dollar-denominated deposits as published in The Wall Street Journal. For the mortgage loans in Group 3, the index will be the weekly average yield on U.S. Treasury securities adjusted to a constant maturity of one year, as reported by the Federal Reserve Board in statistical Release No. H.15 (519).

All of the mortgage loans in Group 1, Group 2 and Group 4 were originated or acquired and are being serviced by National City, and all of the mortgage loans in Group 3 were originated or acquired and are being serviced by Wells Fargo.
S-5

Selected Aggregate Mortgage Loan Data as of May 1, 2006

Lenders are Starting to Walk Away

By SUSAN SAULNY
SOUTH BEND, Ind. — Mercy James thought she had lost her rental property here to foreclosure. A date for a sheriff’s sale had been set, and notices about the foreclosure process were piling up in her mailbox.
Ms. James had the tenants move out, and soon her white house at the corner of Thomas and Maple Streets fell into the hands of looters and vandals, and then, into disrepair. Dejected and broke, Ms. James said she salvaged but a lesson from her loss.
So imagine her surprise when the City of South Bend contacted her recently, demanding that she resume maintenance on the property. The sheriff’s sale had been canceled at the last minute, leaving the property title — and a world of trouble — in her name.
“I thought, ‘What kind of game is this?’ ” Ms. James, 41, said while picking at trash at the house, now so worthless the city plans to demolish it — another bill for which she will be liable.
City officials and housing advocates here and in cities as varied as Buffalo, Kansas City, Mo., and Jacksonville, Fla., say they are seeing an unsettling development: Banks are quietly declining to take possession of properties at the end of the foreclosure process, most often because the cost of the ordeal — from legal fees to maintenance — exceeds the diminishing value of the real estate.
The so-called bank walkaways rarely mean relief for the property owners, caught unaware months after the fact, and often mean additional financial burdens and bureaucratic headaches. Technically, they still owe on the mortgage, but as a practicality, rarely would a mortgage holder receive any more payments on the loan. The way mortgages are bundled and resold, it can be enormously time-consuming just trying to determine what company holds the loan on a property thought to be in foreclosure.
In Ms. James’s case, the company that was most recently servicing her loan is now defunct. Its parent company filed for bankruptcy and dissolved. And the original bank that sold her the loan said it could not find a record of it.
“It is what some of us think is the next wave of the crisis,” said Kermit Lind, a clinical professor at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and an expert on foreclosure law.
For older industrial cities like South Bend, hard times in the mortgage market began before the recent national downturn, as did the problem of bank walkaways. In the case of Ms. James, a home health care administrator, the foreclosure proceedings began in the summer of 2007, when she could not keep up with the adjustable rate on her mortgage.
In Buffalo, where officials said the problem had reached “epidemic” proportions in recent months, the city sued 37 banks last year, claiming they were responsible for the deterioration of at least 57 abandoned homes; the city chose a sampling of houses to include in the lawsuit, even though the banks had walked away from many more foreclosures. So far, five banks have settled.
In Kansas City, Rachel Foley, a lawyer who handles housing cases, said bank walkaways were “a rare occurrence two to three years ago.”
“We’re seeing them dumped more and more at the moment,” she said.
Experts suggest the bank walkaways are most visible in states where foreclosures are processed through the courts and therefore tend to be more transparent. Other states, like Indiana and New York, have court-mandated foreclosures, but roughly half of the states allow foreclosures to proceed without court intervention, making it difficult to accurately count the number of bank walkaways in recent months.
The soft housing market and the vandalism that often occurs when a house sits empty are the two main factors influencing the mortgage holders’ decisions to walk away, said Larry Rothenberg, a lawyer for Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, one of the larger creditors’ rights firms in the country.
“Oftentimes when the foreclosure starts out, it’s a viable property,” Mr. Rothenberg said, “but by the time it gets to a sheriff’s sale, it might not have enough value to justify further expense. We’ve always had cases where property was vandalized or lost value, but they were rare compared to these times.”
The problem seems most acute at the bottom of the market — houses that were inexpensive to begin with — and with investment properties, where investors and banks want speedy closure by writing off bad loans as losses. Banks and investors typically lose 40 percent to 50 percent of their investment on every foreclosure.
Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an industry newsletter, said some properties had become such liabilities for investors that it was not even worth holding on to them to strip valuable fixtures, like kitchen appliances, toilets and hardware.
“The whole purpose of foreclosure is to take title of the property, sell it and recoup what money you can,” Mr. Cecala said. “It’s just a sign of the times that things are so bad no one wants to take possession of the property.”
In South Bend, boarded-up houses for whom no one has stepped forward are dotting the landscape, adding a fresh layer of blight to communities that were already scarred from the area’s industrial decline.
The city is hoping to create a new type of legal mediation process that would bring together the homeowners and the mortgage holders to settle their disputes while allowing the owners to remain in the home — considered crucial to any stabilization effort.
“I’d say in the last three or four months, we’ve seen dozens of these cases,” said Chuck Leone, the South Bend city attorney. “We see it one of two ways. One is that the bank will simply dismiss the foreclosure complaint. The other is that the mortgage holder will follow through and take a judgment of foreclosure, but then not schedule the property for sheriff’s sale.”
In Ms. James’s case, it has been impossible to determine who canceled the sheriff’s sale, since her last mortgage holder went out of business. Even the city clerk’s records did not provide an answer.
“Nobody has any idea who owns what or who’s responsible,” said Judy Fox, Ms. James’s lawyer at the Notre Dame Legal Aid Clinic. “It’s a very common story.”
Mayor Stephen J. Luecke of South Bend added: “It’s just a crime the way it puts people in limbo. They first off have gone through the grief of losing their house, then they move out and find out that they still own it and have responsibility for it.”
In Jacksonville, Fla., Sylvester Kimbrough Jr. found himself caught in the limbo between foreclosure and ownership last year, 10 years into his 30-year mortgage on a $42,000 two-bedroom house.
Mr. Kimbrough, 56, a former driver for a car dealership who is now unemployed, had already moved out when he learned that the foreclosure had been stopped.
“That move really almost destroyed us,” Mr. Kimbrough said. “It was all for nothing.”
Filed under: CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, foreclosure, securities fraud Tagged: fraud, foreclosure defense, Lender Liability, borrower, disclosure, securitization, predatory lending, rescission, foreclosure offense

Lenders who Foreclose Long after the Notice of Default

03/30/2009 RECENT COMMENTS – “ask anybody doing short sales and they'll tell you the problem is due to the poor efforts of banks and their loss mitigators in dealing with distressed sellers facing a hardship and are trying to avoid foreclosure in the first place..... Where the property will sell for even less....

Let the above comment's serve as proof of the Mortgage Industry's propaganda campaign and other related efforts by lobbyists to deceive! The above came from popular realtor site.

Sh0rt Sales and Loan Mod's

A sub prime loan is a non agency receivable. In a pass through investment it is parked into a separate drawer and there it rests undisturbed as the loan will play out its natural course over the loans life. The life of a loan is based on actuarial models used to determine prepayment speed and recent consumer and economic behavior. A vibrant economy where rates are falling is lethal to a private offering and the GSE'S where home sales are stimulated and refinances are abundant. New loans replace recently funded seasoned paper. In a dead economy brews a similar situation that is just as terminal where slow pays and foreclosures cause early prepays. Prepayment is excited by a flat or wreaking economic condition.

What’s the Point?
You cannot unwind a European investor’s stock holding tied to a Pass through and underlying loan that you targeted and now seek to modify. Each loan is earmarked by the borrower’s payments and deal structure. You need to pull the loan from a security in a early prepayment just as if it were a foreclosure. If it is replaced the new loan must mirror the loan lost to a modification. There is no loan production today to speak of so this example of a lenders reps and warranties is not an option.

If lenders had the cash then they could buy out the loan needed to accommodate a modification. That will only occur at a price above par based on based on a higher future value. Then the lender (not-a–lender) could offer to modify the loan for modification with the understanding it will suffer further losses to help a cash strapped borrower.

This is insane thinking as it would drain cash strapped lenders and lead to a further collapse in leading and loan serving. Consider this inner workings of this option where liquidity is tight.

Look it just wont occur and cannot happen given the deceptive an economical alternative way out. So lenders lie, scam and act down right dishonest. Lie to borrowers about the fact the loan is slowly being reviewed, shooed, glued and tattooed - whatever. Then let some fool who we will call the loss mitigation departmental head (in charge of loan modification and lender collaboration) conduct a materially misleading n unethical negotiation for the habitation and constipation of the cause.

STOP Buying Into the Madness
This modification analysis but outsiders and effort to understand the problem are madness. It's wrong and deceptive but I will add not necessarily unlawful conduct. These comments by viewers are at times a little naive and like hearing a speech repeat itself given by the Tide Talking Stain. Its all ramble about how lender loan docs were being prepared and everything is a slow but sure to go. Then the day of the scheduled sale and right before the lender modification is ready to fund - oh no Sorry!

At 36 months the Trust relieves the lender (not really a lender) in a Pass-through investment of the obligation for repurchase. Now free of it repurchase recourse there is a motivation to foreclose that is easy to verify. That said based on the last six-month effort by lenders who foreclose long after a NOD is issued.

They have a built in incentive for never modifying a loan or conducting a short sale in that they are liquidating the loan at a premium as an REO. All through this time the servicing arm of the lender (who is not a lender) has forwarded borrower payments to a master servers who may have conspired to maintain the trust requirement for no more than 20% delinquency.

I do know what I say and say what I mean to say. I was one of them you see. Some modifications are happening but its not really what you think you see. If forced to cooperate I would refinance some borrower loans where I could afford an offset. I would take a hit on 10 loans for $600,000 – 50% of the total loans in question. I would ask for more time where I had pre-sold the other 10 high balance loans to a capital source solely interested in owning the homes.

For not modifying the other 10 other loans totaling $ 8 million or more I made a windfall. The 10 modifications represented a 50% modification rate for compliance in one month. I took a $60,000 hit or 10% loss on sale for the $600,000 and earned a 10% premium or $800,000 on the loans I held back and liquidated. I would deliver and sell the remainder of the borrower loans by advantageously forcing receivables into a foreclosure sale and by liquidating to a vulture fund group.


You assign the foreclosure over at the time of sale and then be done with the mess using a company like MERS as a nominee in a transfer and bogus recovery firms who call themselves trustees. We liked Realtors, at least the ones who we helped out and wrote about our difficult and arduous responsibility related to loss mitigation and lack of talent and resources.

I like what I do now. No more SL, V12 and collection of other fine line automobiles. I do not even have a car. We are not a non profit but operate as a non profitable organization assisting attorneys as an expert witness. It’s rewarding saving people’s homes and fighting for the cause.


But it’s also a real sad even to have a judge tell you a victim of a predatory loan is not his jurisdiction in an unlawful detainer. I no more like hearing or seeing a trustee who back dates a document prevail. Then there is the Judge who says again, later in the day, “the problem is not his jurisdiction”.

There's also the occasional but consistent allegation we are brokers turned auditors with no consideration for my secondary and capital markets trading back round and for development of a compliance and quality control check and balances system written in 2005.


In 2006 I set out to fight the sub prime disgrace with loss mitigation software we named MiNUTE (Mortgage investors - National Underwriting Tracking Evaluator) . It was introduced just before the eminent sector collapse. It was also rejected by the players I knew and I later came to find out I was labeled a "deal killer".

Spicer, Weunsch, Ramirez and others got there cases dismissed. In one case "Stella" the borrower got her home back after a trustee sale to a third party. There the judge ruled and issued a judgement in our favor.



In a UD that's got to be a first.



Then you have the dark side where one judge told us in a holdover matter “ . . . are you trying to get the house for free" when we cited a technical document mistake. The front page and back page of a notice of default were both numbered page 2. The last sentence of the first page was the first sentence of the second page. Whats up your honor?



It was an obvious cut and paste. Before this happens I was subject to objection and cross examination by Duetsche Banks attorneys I was dismissed as an expert to testify about the documents. I was told I was overqualified and offering non admissible testimony (given the courts jurisdiction limitations). So the Judge continues and say’s . . .

“Oh no, I heard about that stuff! Lost note etc. But, well, no I don’t think so”. She said she would however take the "phony document" and matter under consideration. The decision 48 hours later was ruled for the plaintiff.

Finally, there is Omira and her case against a high profile lender. This foreclosure victim is not a victim at all. She is suffering from cancer and none the less fighting fearlessly back against predatory lending. When asked to resign herself to the fight after being railroaded out of court twice she would not give in. We filed (through counsel) a Sheriffs writ but it was denied - too late.
Nothing seemed to work but she reminded us not to give up and hope and pray for the best -maybe will get a break she would say.

She went to the home to get her final belongings the day of the sheriffs order. And there were the sheriffs and they were smiling as she approached them. She thought this was the insult above all others where she now had to endure rouge law enforcement who thought the whole thing was funny. But as she approached they said, "sorry mam, but we were asked let you back in before we leave". The court just called a few minutes prior and having reversed its decision to deny the order to stay the matter the law enforcement were asked to leave.

MSoliman
Nationwide Loan Servicing