Indymac Boys Get Sweetheart Deal

New video added to the Video Page


2 Responses to “Indymac Boys Get Sweetheart Deal”
  1. TFin says:

    To stopGOVTwaste: We also have MERS listed as a defendant in our case and the Plaintiff’s Lawyer attempted to gain a Summary Judgement based on the fact that MERS never answered the initial complaint…. WTF? We, the defendants answered the initial complaint. We also have a blank endorsement, original note is supposedly filed with NOTHING attached as far as how the Note has passed hands. There are ALOT of discrepancies/fraud (such as there is an Assignment filed FOUR months after the Foreclosure was filed- the Assignment was created by MERS, which is named as a DEFENDANT in our case AND was signed by Attorneys for our loan servicer- another WTF?)

    Would be interested in hearing a follow up on how your case is going!!

  2. In my instance “MERS as nominee for EMC Mortgage” was listed as a defendant in the complaint. No other business entity is listed as Defendant on the complaint or anywhere else in filings, pleadings, motions, etc.

    Ours was an 80/20 so I think the attempt is to show MERS as nominee for EMC Mortgage as Plaintiff wiping out the second.

    Anyway there’s more;


    Defendant #3 is listed as
    “MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC” but does not appear on the complaint. Under the address line for MERS they list “CIMARRON MORTGAGE COMPANY DBA MORTGAGE WAREHO– USE” which also does not appear on the complaint.

    Wait, still more…

    EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION is listed as Defendant #4 but doesn’t show up on the complaint. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK C/O CT CORPORATION SYSTEM is listed as a separate entity in the address line for EMC but it also is not listed in the complaint.

    The response to my qualified written request said BONY & LaSalle were investors. But the note was endorsed to Suntrust at closing.

    MERS was listed as MORTGAGEE on my MORTGAGE & MERS was also insured as lender on my TITLE INSURANCE POLICY.

    Plaintiff’s MILL law firm filed 1st foreclosure complaint with count II for lost note, then submitted a copy of the note as an exhibit. That exhibit had three endorsements – one “void” one payable to the order of Suntrust and one Suntrust “blank” endorsement.

    Second time Plaintiff files they claim to have possession of the original note & mortgage. They attest copies are attached to complaint. This time the note only has 2 endorsements – the blank endorsement was missing.

    I went to court today in Viera to try and observe foreclosure hearings in the 18th Circuit. Showed up and requested permission to observe the hearings because they are held in chambers. I was told it was a “security” risk. So not only do I have problems with the fact that

    a) originator placed a figure of $0 as income on our loan app
    b) servicer never was able to explain how our escrow acct was zapped and shortage occurred – no increase in tax or insurance by the way
    c) refused to disclose the identity of the real creditor upon my multiple requests
    d) failed to explain MERS at any time before closing & sold us (and our rights) out for a mere $3.95 registration fee
    e) MERS is not licensed as a lender in any state, lost my note, now is my co-defendant
    f) fake AOM
    g) completely ignored my TIL rescission
    h) can’t explain why the other 4 defendants do not show on my complaint &
    i) can’t get in to observe foreclosure hearings

    …I’m worried that I may never get more than 2 minutes to explain my findings in court and that I’ll be out on my tail in no time flat and the frauds that have been perpetrated (en masse) will continue. I would think they’d make accommodations for citizens who wish to observe these foreclosure hearings.


    SEE CLASSIC MERS/ONEWEST sample case here;

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *