In Re: Arizmendi – CA Bankruptcy Court, HAMP Scam & “the court concluded it was left trying to guess which note OneWest actually held.”

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In Re Arizmendi

This case is a HAMP case.  The servicer, One West claimed a $1,1163.92 differential owed and failed to mention it had received a cure payment.  The court opined that at the most the differential owed was $678.32. “To put it bluntly, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing at OneWest.”

One West filed a proof of claim claiming it was the creditor but then at trial stated it was a mere servicer.  One West stated it had rights of enforcement of the note because it was in possession of the note endorsed in blank and there was a servicing agreement that gave it the right to enforce the note.  The court stated that in order to accept OneWest’s arguments, the court would have to assume that OneWest holds the note and held the note “at all appropriate points in time.”  The court found that One West had attached an unendorsed note to both the proof of claim and the declaration.  The unendorsed note had neither an allonge nor an endorsement.  So the court concluded it was left trying to guess which note OneWest actually held.

The second problem the court found was the MERS assignment.  The court noted that the endorsed note shows that the lender assigned its interests in the note more than three years before the execution of the assignment.  “Thus, MERS’ purported assignment of the Trust Deed and the related note as nominee for the Original Lender and without reference ti either IndyMac, FSB or Freddie Mac appears designed to disguise rather than illuminate the facts.”

The court further opined, “And finally, even if OneWest’s second post-trial discussion of standing and submission of evidence were accurate, one thing remains clear: OneWest failed to tell the true and complete story in the OneWest Declaration and in the Claim.”  and this, “The Court is concerned, as a result, that OneWest does not hold the Endorsed Note.  But perhaps more significantly, the Court is concerned that OneWest has determined business expediency and cost containment are more important than complete candor with the courts.” Ouch, that really stings!!!!  The court then lists several cases where OneWest has lied.

Full memorandum below.

~

4closureFraud.org

h/t Alina

~

In Re Arizmendi

Comments
2 Responses to “In Re: Arizmendi – CA Bankruptcy Court, HAMP Scam & “the court concluded it was left trying to guess which note OneWest actually held.””
  1. eyesoars says:

    The last few pages are a hoot. I hope she has the gumption and authority to follow through.

  2. Jason Werner says:

    But OneWest has nothing to lose though because of their sweetheart deal with FDIC.

Leave a Reply