Brooklyn, NY - Homeowners' Hero Judge Slaps US Banks Again |
|
| |
Text Size
|
|
Brooklyn, NY - Brooklyn’s battling Judge Arthur M. Schack has struck again, giving a Brooklyn homeowner an Independence Day gift—freedom from foreclosure.
The judge, who has steadfastly pressed banks in foreclosure cases to prove they own the troubled mortgage and has tossed cases when banks have failed to do so, has again dismissed a foreclosure case—this time because the lawyer on the case, Steven J. Baum, represented the mortgage broker, the bank that bought the loan and the industry registration service serving as the nominee of the loan.
But Baum’s conflict of interest wasn’t the case’s only problem.
Judge Schack, in his decision, also found that the bank, US Bank, never should have filed the foreclosure action because of an “ineffective assignment of the subject mortgage and note to it.” In other words, it sold the mortgage, and the mortgage was securitized, leaving the company simply as the servicer—but it decided to try and take back the Crown Heights home anyway.
The Post has reported that the actions of the Baum firm in foreclosure cases has caught the eye of the US Trustee, the arm of the Justice Department responsible for monitoring the Bankruptcy Court.
Baum, a Buffalo-based foreclosure mill that filed 12,551 foreclosure actions in New York last year, has been scolded by judges for bringing foreclosure cases without proper documentation.
In this case, a Baum lawyer, Elpiniki Bechakas, signed papers claiming to be an executive of Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, which was given certain rights to the mortgages by the broker, Fremont Investment and Loan, while simultaneously representing Fremont and US Bank, which filed the foreclosure in July 2009.
“The Court is concerned that the concurrent representation by [the Baum firm] of both assignor MERS, as nominee for Fremont, and assignee plaintiff US Bank is a conflict of interest,” Schack wrote.
More of today's headlines
“New York - The Rebitzen of late Rebbe of Satmar Rabbi Moses Teitelbaum Zt'l passed away this afternoon at the age of 85. The Satmar Rebbitzen, Rebitzen Pesil Leah...”
New York - Holocaust Survivor Rebitzen of Late Satmar Rabbi Passes Away at 85
Coney Island, NY - Fatal Tragedy at Bay as Friend Tried Saving His Drowning Pal
Total8
Read Comments (8) — Post Yours »
1
Jul 05, 2010 at 02:14 PM AYONEMAN from the HAJ Says:Report as Inappropriate
YES, Judge Schack struck again. BUT it is very important not to mislead the public into believing that this so-called gift is "FREEDOM FROM FORECLOSURE".
IT IS NOT; It is a very nice reprieve which causes a {sometimes lengthy] delay in the foreclosure process, until the bank and their attorney 'mill' get their act together.
Use this valuable time to save and put away money for an eventual settlement and take advantage of current low mortgage rates.
2
Jul 05, 2010 at 02:59 PM Anonymous Says:Report as Inappropriate
This is only news because the standard of proof required in US courts is abysmally low. The standard should be hamotzi machavero, ALOV harayah. In other words if you have an action make sure your paperwork is in order with all the t's crossed and i's dotted.
3
Jul 05, 2010 at 03:02 PM Anonymous Says:Report as Inappropriate
But doesn't New York allow for dual agency in real estate transactions?!
4
Jul 05, 2010 at 03:18 PM Anonymous Says:Report as Inappropriate
And we all pay for it. The fact is that the owner has not paid his mortgage and should be thrown out. That the bank didn't follow the procedure to the letter of the law is incidental. I bet the owner didn't fill out his application exactly correctly either.
5
Jul 05, 2010 at 03:35 PM Anonymous Says:Report as Inappropriate
he has already been reversed in earlier decisions and will be reversed here as well
6
Jul 05, 2010 at 04:23 PM Anonymous Says:Report as Inappropriate
thanks Judge Schack wish there was someone like you in Rockland County, someone to do to Baum what he has done to others. May G-d avenge the heartache he has caused so many families
7
Jul 05, 2010 at 05:19 PM Charlie Hall Says:Report as Inappropriate
“ And we all pay for it. The fact is that the owner has not paid his mortgage and should be thrown out. That the bank didn't follow the procedure to the letter of the law is incidental. I bet the owner didn't fill out his application exactly correctly either. ”
No, if you want to evict someone, you need to follow the procedure to the letter of the law.
8
Jul 05, 2010 at 05:21 PM Charlie Hall Says:Report as Inappropriate
“ But doesn't New York allow for dual agency in real estate transactions?! ”
Yes, but according to the article that isn't the case here: The bank sold the loan but still tried to collect it. That double dipping is fraud! The bank officers responsible are lucky they aren't being prosecuted!!!