This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
New York Courts To Require Plaintiff Counsel To Verify Accuracy Of Foreclosure Docs
From Reuters via RanSquawk:
NY courts to require Plaintiff's counsel in foreclosure actions to affirm that it took reasonable steps to verify accuracy of underlying documents
And how was this not a requirement before? Did plaintiff lawyers never have an affirmative obligation to verify what the hell they were serving? What a complete circus.
And as Bank of America disclosed previously, the average length of time before a home in New York State enters foreclosure is 792 days. In other words, those who stopped paying their mortgage before Lehman filed will likely be able to get away with rent free living for a few more years.
»
- 4638 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Move over women scorned, the new wrath of our time is anyone living rent free!
mont blanc watch al-Qaida. He is the last Western detainee tudor watches detainee at Guantanamo.The Toronto-born Khadr's trial had ties gucci had been scheduled to start Monday and cartier watches for women and he faced a possible life sentence.The rolex gmt master 2 sentence.The chief military prosecutor, Navy Capt. John ????????? John F. Murphy, said the government welcomed gmt master ii welcomed the deal, which was initiated by the defense, because richard mille replica watches because it removes any doubt about Khadr's panerai replica Khadr's guilt.What you saw puts a lie ebel watches lie to the long-standing argument by some breitling replica some
This is the correct thing to do because it puts the onus squarely on attorneys. There was a time when attorneys had to verify ALL pleadings before filing. This now puts the duty on attorneys to make sure everything is correct or they will face disciplinary action.
I expect a lot of other states to quickly follow suit. (no pun intended!!)
And the corrupt will just ignore their "duty" as I've personally seen them do.
Florida already enacted a "verification" process. The result was just another area for someone to sign a lie.
I've seen verifications done a week before the documents attached to the complaint were even created. In one case, a person signed a verification, then four days later signed an Assignment of Mortgage on behalf of MERS to the Plaintiff (signor was an employee of the Plaintiff). So the document hadn't even been fraudulently created yet, and the "verificator*" was verifying the authenticity of the nonexistent documents.
(*trademarked made up word - all rights reserved)
Just another person to sign a lie. Exactly. The paperwork circle jerk continues.
The corrupt will just ignore their duty and call up daddy for some more bribe money.
WHY ARE THE ONES WHO ALREADY DEFRAUDED THE COURTS NOT IN JAIL? This is complete crap: "you have been bad boys and stupidly let the public catch on, now we're going to claim we really mean it this time!"
Bullshit.
Heheheheh ... he believes in Justice ... watta maroon!
+10,000 Good one
Liberty and Justice for those that can afford it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2bju39fTTI&feature=player_embedded
New unregulated fee game for the banksters: buying delinquent property tax certs., then harassing the obligor with illegal collection actions and piling on illegal fees.
Or pay for it in the bedroom.
Maryland did mostly the same thing - http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/money/maryland-court-approves-new-foreclosure-rule-101910.
They claim not to have authority to "Stop foreclosures". Complete Strikeout.
Please don't bring your fraud to court, as we do not want to rule against the banks before the politicians can find a way to sweep this all under the rug.
Kind Regards,
The Judicial System of the United States of America
Thankfully we have both a state & a federal judicial system.
Some of the best (& worst!) judges are those on the bottom: the local town/village justice which are usually not formally trained lawyers.
If there was only a federal court system, then "fixing" the foreclosure mess would be alot easier for TPTB.
But wtf is up with requiring them to take "reasonable steps to verify accuracy of underlying documents"
Could we make it any more ambiguous?
Why not just require that they verify the accuracy of underlying documents??
Are they accurate, or not?
"Sorry judge, I took reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of the documents, but then my dog ate my homework"
"No worries, at least you took reasonable steps. It's the thought that counts!"
And the Indian call centers also have proof that they tried to call them 12 times at 4 o'clock in the morning.
Those people just didn't wanted to pick up most of the time and when they did, THEY STARTED YELLING TO OUR NICE CALL CENTER PEOPLE!!! Luckely, they don't really speak descent english to understand what they where saying...
Why not just require that they verify the accuracy of underlying documents??
That's the question of the day. Would it require new law?
More likely it would require a new legal system.
You know, one with the criminals on the outside.
I read this as the judges are finally getting the idea that the documents that are supposed to be blue ink ORIGINALs are in fact copies.
In other words the Lawyers are on notice that if they show up with forgeries it's not enough to say you didn't know.
There is still no penalty in this free-for-all. Lawyers are "patrolled" by the various state bars - also lawyers. They will never defrock one of their own - especially ones that serve the Banks. And the state AG - oh, that's right more good ol' boys - just on the state level.
The cure is either more cowbell or 12 gauge suppositories.
Things would change if there was repercussions. Other wise there is nothing to motivate them from their evil ways. BTW evil is nothing more than live backwards. Right there in plain view and I didn't see it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huKe44oGA3w
Given there was a faking factory I would have thought originals would be mandatory.
Wonder if they would be game enough to present a faked document now.
Actually, I think it is fair to say that under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the onus on the plaintiff's attny reads in the negative only, that the attny is not bring wholly spurious or baseless claims. Once you hit the gray area, I'd say in general the attny is free to rely on his client's version of the facts. (if you think about it, the system is set up that the judge and jury decide who's right, not the lawyer, since obviously the parties to litigation can't agree on the facts, the law or both.) So I'm not sure what this is saying. But if I were practicing in NY, I'd be worried I have a new duty to do more than rely on my client's version of the acts and investigate the file to the nth degree (arguably you would do that anyway so as to properly advise your client, but in a foreclosure case, the set of facts is pretty small - did they pay? No? Then exercise remedies.). I'd also increase my fee to reflect my perception of a heightened risk associated with the litigation. But the real threat is of disciplinary action, which certainly will have a "chilling effect" on attnys bringing foreclosure actions. That will of course only dissuade the "ethical" attorneys to steer clear, leaving the practice to those not so unwilling to look the other way when filing.
Ned, you're right on the gray area. The problem, and what the court is addressing, is that because of the widespread knowledge of the problems with foreclosure documentation, attorneys now have an affirmative duty to check for themselves. In other words, an attorney can no longer reasonably rely upon his client's word everything is legit, but must at least attempt to verify that the documents are legitimate (my guess is not facially defective, e.g. verifications executed before transfer documents). The only issue I see with this approach is that most attorneys performing foreclosures are not going to be aware of all the securitization issues... that is a very specialized skill set. As a result, I presume the attorney will be held to a general, reasonable attorney standard similar to malpractice. If the documents are at least ok on their face and arguably ok in legal theory, then I think you're good to go. If it turns out that your client later crawfishes and renegs the authenticity of the verification, I can't see a court imposing any penalty upon the attorney... but, if the documents submitted to the court are patently fraudulent, then you'd better have an ace in the hole with the ethics committee/board (given judges would be required to report the action to the committee/board).
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914472520101019
Cook County Sheriff refuses to execute certain bank foreclosures...
Here is a voice in the wilderness.
They will find a replacement for him quickly. He will be directing traffic in Joliet next week. Or Homer Glen.
Jim Rickards...."short all the big banks"
http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/10/20_...
Bob
Why would it be the job of the Plaintiff to do the Defendant's job in a foreclosure?
They will continue to foreclose until the Defendant's learn how to prove the Plaintiff lacks standing. The law is a severe, severable, separable and prejudicial force. What may have enabled one party to win a foreclosure issue, is not a boiler plate remedy that will enable another to win.
Generally, the Plaintiff in most of these suits lacks standing, it's the Defendant's job to show how the Plaintiff is wrong.
If the defendants lack the knowledge to figure out why the plaintiff lacks standing to foreclose, well the defendant is going to lose. Life is not fair, especially if you are a dummy that doesn't want to go to the law library to figure this out.
Exactly right.
Standing, once challenged, must be established before the matter before the court can be adjudicated.
I see your point, but I think the pervasive and profound impact of these foreclosures supports a social policy argument for recognizing such an affirmative burden upon the plaintiff--particularly given what has taken place without it.
It would amount to simply a stronger claim required by the court for a party to establish standing in the case, imo. I don't see any reason why that claim should not require some underlying documentation.
Sure, it lets off stupid people who are too lazy to find a law library, as you say, but really, is that a reasonable standard for making policy?
Merely challenging standing does not relieve the challenging party of their obligation to support the challenge. In other words, if the challenging party doubts the authenticity of the documentation provided in support of standing, it is the challenging party’s obligation to defend.
I think it is well established by now that banks/lawyers are not above submitting documentation that is either lacking or complete forgeries. That said, the burden still would remain with the challenging party to attack/challenge the authenticity of said documents.
Simply relying on the court to keep the attorney’s honest is a recipe for failure.
+1
The court is suppose to be a neutral party as much as possible. The complaint must be considered to be true as written on it's face, whether the complaint is true or can be proven is a different story which the defendant is responsible for proving how the moving party is WRONG.
People sure do make things complex when they are really simple. The simple solution for the alleged deadbeat defendant is to prove the moving party is WRONG and lacks "standing" to pursue the matter according to Law.
Robo-signing gate is a smoke screen. These foreclosures will start back up and many will lose unless they learn to sustain the Law.
The law, lawmakers, lawyers and Judges is a prefect circle of
NO ACCOUNTABILITY OF HEGEMONIC POWER!!!
THIS NO ACCOUNTABILITY HAS GOT TO GO!!!
Let me guess......... your a lawyer BOB.
Just in case you missed it...
Jim Rickards on Foreclosure-gate - http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2010/10/20_Jim_Rickards.html
isn't this how grossly overpaid organizations, the attorney firms, work to enrich themselves at the expense of their customers? They punch their own time clocks and have zero accountability for what they charge. So why not make a few procedural games to drag the process out for as long as possible at $500 per hour for a dozen or so people?
In the end, a small percentage of the claims will be real problems and will be resolved by a slap on the hand. The so called bad docs will be made good via government sanction and MAYBE a relatively small fine imposed.
Fraud requires proving malicious intent and that's not likely to happen when the foreclosure process itself requires plenty of notice to the debtor. At the end of the day the debtor was delinquent, had notice of pending action and failed to make good. So what if the wrong people executed the right documents!
You sound like someone who cheeped out on back office support, monitoring and who now suffers from a case of the cheep fuck got fucked!
If you dont have you paper trail in order becuase you are a cheep fuck! then you derserve nothing!
Save a penny you cheep fuck and spend a $100... get what you deserve... you reep what you soe you lazy cheep fuck!
Hows that for a moment of fucking zen?
Please define 'reasonable'
Is this the end of property rights?
So in a non recourse state, I could live free for up to 3 years, accumulating my mortgage payments at which point it doesn't matter how crap my credit is as a) everyones credit is crap b)unlike everyone else, I have some nice cash money c) by then banks will be nationalised and will lend to fucking anyone.
Where is my downside risk in strategic default?
What?
You need to get out there and spend that savings on shit you don't need immediately.
Uncle Ben is counting on you to do your patriotic duty!
Here's your Banks LadyH....
$700 Billion in Tarp... I will not add in any of the QE, POMO shit... just the $700 Billion for Your Banks that will go broke any day now over litigation... of a SEC regulated chain of custody for the investment / insitutional grade paper...
10% un-employment costs us around $1 billion a month to carry... in real dollars...
20% un-employment costs us around $2 billion a month to carry then, it stands to reason.
So, $700 billion dollars equals 350 months of 20% unemployment (which is something close to what we suffer in this Country, or is closer than 10%).
350 months equals 29 years of 20% un-employment, so when you say that litigation is going to put the Banks out of business... BULLSHIT!
and as far as you working the system like a Banker, you have to look at yourself in the mirror ever day... you know how much sin you can and can not live with happily. Or, are you stressing the system... which will just cause TARP 2 to come around sooner than later... or whatever is needed to protect the Staus Quo.
Sorry at the end there I started getting real, instead of staying in La La Land with you and the Nationalized Banks over litigation carry costs.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic.
cheap vps
windows vps
cheap hosting | ucvhost