Recent WINS
Wolf v. Wells Fargo 11/10/2015 Wells Fargo pays $5.4 million for false recording of assignment > Marie McDonnell helped win this!:
H/T Marie McDonnell Below, I have attached the jury award from the Wolf v. Wells Fargo trial. The jury concluded its deliberations on Tuesday afternoon, November 10th.
It is my belief that this is the first jury verdict of its kind where the jury was asked to determine whether a robo-signed Transfer of Lien (assignment of mortgage) was fraudulent, and on that basis, award damages.
The jury awarded the Wolfs $190,000 in actual and emotional distress damages; $190,000 in attorneys’ fees — which is sufficient to take them through an appeal all the way up to the Texas Supreme Court; and $5 million in punitive damages to be paid equally by Wells Fargo and Carrington.
Plaintiffs David and Mary Ellen Wolf testified on their own behalf, and I testified as their expert.
I explained to the jury the sequence of “true sales” that were necessary to properly securitize the Wolfs’ mortgage loan using my “Securitization Flow Chart” which I have attached below.
Once the jury understood the requirements of the Mortgage LoanPurchase Agreement and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, they were able to see why the Transfer of Lien executed by Tom Croft was fraudulent on the face of the document.
The Defendants called robo-signer Tom Croft and Clayton Gordon as witnesses, both of whom are employed by Carrington MortgageServices, LLC.
The jury also found that even though Wells Fargo Bank was in physical possession of the original note, it did not own the mortgage loan because it was never securitized into the Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-NC3 over which Wells Fargo serves as Trustee.
The jury verdict, and especially their finding that the Transfer of Lien was fraudulent, supports my findings in all of the registry of deeds audits I have conducted for:
The jury verdict in the Wolf v. Wells Fargo trial is epic. Among other things, it demonstrates that when given all the facts, average people can distinguish the difference between “deadbeat borrowers” and a family who fell upon hard times and always tried to do the right thing.
This case should send a message of hope for others; it also provides a road map for cutting through the complexities of modern finance to arrive at a just result.
https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/author/deadlyclear/ and
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2015/11/13/wolf-vs-wells-fargo-wells-fargo-must-pay-5-4m-in-robosigning-foreclosure-row/#sthash.Ao636kLJ.dpuf
wolf_v_wells_fargo_90-jury-verdict-wolf-11.10.2015_charge_of_the_court.pdf
Download File
wolf_v_wells_fargo_transfer-of-lien-ncmc-to-wf-10.15.2009.pdf
Download File
wolf_v_wells_fargo_mcdonnells-securitization-flow-chart-wolf-new-century_ins_11132015.pdf
Download File
more coming soon! A Sea Change is now happening with Rescission and Quiet Title Foreclosure Offense............
and
Shaw v. CitiMORTGAGE, INC., Dist. Court, D. Nevada | Thus, trebling this amount, the court shall enter judgment in the amount of $719,550.00+ in favor of Shaw and against CMI for punitive damages.Posted on23 August 2016.
LESLIE J. SHAW, Plaintiff,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; et al., Defendants.
No. 3:13-CV-0445-LRH-VPC.
United States District Court, D. Nevada.
August 17, 2016.
Leslie Shaw, Esq., Plaintiff, represented by John Ohlson, John Ohlson.CitiMortgage, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew A. Bao, Wolfe & Wyman LLP & Colt B. Dodrill, Wolfe & Wyman LLP.
ORDERLARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2016/08/23/shaw-v-citimortgage-inc-dist-court-d-nevada-thus-trebling-this-amount-the-court-shall-enter-judgment-in-the-amount-of-719550-00-in-favor-of-shaw-and-against-cmi-for-punitive-damages/
H/T Marie McDonnell Below, I have attached the jury award from the Wolf v. Wells Fargo trial. The jury concluded its deliberations on Tuesday afternoon, November 10th.
It is my belief that this is the first jury verdict of its kind where the jury was asked to determine whether a robo-signed Transfer of Lien (assignment of mortgage) was fraudulent, and on that basis, award damages.
The jury awarded the Wolfs $190,000 in actual and emotional distress damages; $190,000 in attorneys’ fees — which is sufficient to take them through an appeal all the way up to the Texas Supreme Court; and $5 million in punitive damages to be paid equally by Wells Fargo and Carrington.
Plaintiffs David and Mary Ellen Wolf testified on their own behalf, and I testified as their expert.
I explained to the jury the sequence of “true sales” that were necessary to properly securitize the Wolfs’ mortgage loan using my “Securitization Flow Chart” which I have attached below.
Once the jury understood the requirements of the Mortgage LoanPurchase Agreement and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, they were able to see why the Transfer of Lien executed by Tom Croft was fraudulent on the face of the document.
The Defendants called robo-signer Tom Croft and Clayton Gordon as witnesses, both of whom are employed by Carrington MortgageServices, LLC.
The jury also found that even though Wells Fargo Bank was in physical possession of the original note, it did not own the mortgage loan because it was never securitized into the Carrington Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-NC3 over which Wells Fargo serves as Trustee.
The jury verdict, and especially their finding that the Transfer of Lien was fraudulent, supports my findings in all of the registry of deeds audits I have conducted for:
- John L. O’Brien, Register of Deeds, Essex Southern District, MA
- Nancy J. Becker, Recorder of Deeds, Montgomery County, PA
- Seattle City Council, Seattle, WA
- In re: Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Litigation, Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, AZ
The jury verdict in the Wolf v. Wells Fargo trial is epic. Among other things, it demonstrates that when given all the facts, average people can distinguish the difference between “deadbeat borrowers” and a family who fell upon hard times and always tried to do the right thing.
This case should send a message of hope for others; it also provides a road map for cutting through the complexities of modern finance to arrive at a just result.
https://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/author/deadlyclear/ and
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2015/11/13/wolf-vs-wells-fargo-wells-fargo-must-pay-5-4m-in-robosigning-foreclosure-row/#sthash.Ao636kLJ.dpuf
wolf_v_wells_fargo_90-jury-verdict-wolf-11.10.2015_charge_of_the_court.pdf
Download File
wolf_v_wells_fargo_transfer-of-lien-ncmc-to-wf-10.15.2009.pdf
Download File
wolf_v_wells_fargo_mcdonnells-securitization-flow-chart-wolf-new-century_ins_11132015.pdf
Download File
more coming soon! A Sea Change is now happening with Rescission and Quiet Title Foreclosure Offense............
and
Shaw v. CitiMORTGAGE, INC., Dist. Court, D. Nevada | Thus, trebling this amount, the court shall enter judgment in the amount of $719,550.00+ in favor of Shaw and against CMI for punitive damages.Posted on23 August 2016.
LESLIE J. SHAW, Plaintiff,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; et al., Defendants.
No. 3:13-CV-0445-LRH-VPC.
United States District Court, D. Nevada.
August 17, 2016.
Leslie Shaw, Esq., Plaintiff, represented by John Ohlson, John Ohlson.CitiMortgage, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew A. Bao, Wolfe & Wyman LLP & Colt B. Dodrill, Wolfe & Wyman LLP.
ORDERLARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2016/08/23/shaw-v-citimortgage-inc-dist-court-d-nevada-thus-trebling-this-amount-the-court-shall-enter-judgment-in-the-amount-of-719550-00-in-favor-of-shaw-and-against-cmi-for-punitive-damages/
Paatalo v. Chase 11/12/2015 TILA Rescission Decision > CHASE Motion To Dismiss DENIED:
For the Doubters on TILA Rescission and Jesinoski READ THIS by Neil Garfield 11/18/205 see opinion for Paatalo MTD DENIED
NOTE: BILL PAATALO is an experienced private investigator and forensic analyst. Taking my material to heart and despite being ridiculed by bank lawyers and even some foreclosure defense lawyers, Paatalo took the simple position that once the notice of rescission is sent, that is the end of the matter, to wit: it is effective upon mailing.
The Bank basically took the only road they had available --- "That's ridiculous. Nobody meant for the borrowers to be able to cancel the loan transactions."
The Court said "Bank, you are wrong. The matter is settled."
A L E R T | Paatalo v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank et al | TILA RESCISSION | ~OPINION AND ORDER 11-12-2015~ | M-T-D....DENIED | The Supreme Court implicitly rejected defendant's argument when it declared "rescission is effected" at the time of notice . . . . . The question here is what happens when the unwinding process is not completed and **neither party files suit** within the TILA statute of limitations.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/6:2015cv01420/122936/12/
paatalo_v_chase_revised_declaratory_relief_cmplt_7.15.15_paatalo_edits__2_.docx
Download File
paatalo_v_chase_-_oregon_response_to_mtd_in_dec_action__2_.docx
Download File
For the Doubters on TILA Rescission and Jesinoski READ THIS by Neil Garfield 11/18/205 see opinion for Paatalo MTD DENIED
NOTE: BILL PAATALO is an experienced private investigator and forensic analyst. Taking my material to heart and despite being ridiculed by bank lawyers and even some foreclosure defense lawyers, Paatalo took the simple position that once the notice of rescission is sent, that is the end of the matter, to wit: it is effective upon mailing.
The Bank basically took the only road they had available --- "That's ridiculous. Nobody meant for the borrowers to be able to cancel the loan transactions."
The Court said "Bank, you are wrong. The matter is settled."
A L E R T | Paatalo v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank et al | TILA RESCISSION | ~OPINION AND ORDER 11-12-2015~ | M-T-D....DENIED | The Supreme Court implicitly rejected defendant's argument when it declared "rescission is effected" at the time of notice . . . . . The question here is what happens when the unwinding process is not completed and **neither party files suit** within the TILA statute of limitations.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/6:2015cv01420/122936/12/
paatalo_v_chase_revised_declaratory_relief_cmplt_7.15.15_paatalo_edits__2_.docx
Download File
paatalo_v_chase_-_oregon_response_to_mtd_in_dec_action__2_.docx
Download File