Complaint below…


Five National Banks Sued by AG Coakley in Connection with Illegal Foreclosures and Loan Servicing

First Comprehensive Lawsuit to Address Foreclosure Crisis Seeks to Hold Banks Accountable For Illegal and Deceptive practices

Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and GMAC All Named As Defendants; Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) Also Sued

BOSTON – Five national banks have been sued in connection with their roles in allegedly pursuing illegal foreclosures on properties in Massachusetts as well as deceptive loan servicing, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced today. The lawsuit was filed today in Suffolk Superior Court against Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citi, and GMAC. It also names Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (“MERS”) and its parent, MERSCORP Inc., as defendants.

“The single most important thing we can do to return to a healthy economy is to address this foreclosure crisis,” said AG Coakley. “Our suit alleges that the banks have charted a destructive path by cutting corners and rushing to foreclose on homeowners without following the rule of law. Our action today seeks real accountability for the banks illegal behavior and real relief for homeowners.”

In the complaint , the Attorney General alleges these five entities engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of Massachusetts’ law by:

  • Pervasive use of fraudulent documentation in the foreclosure process, including so-called “robo-signing”;
  • Foreclosing without holding the actual mortgage (“Ibanez” violations);
  • Corrupting Massachusetts’ land recording system through the use of MERS;
  • Failing to uphold loan modification promises to Massachusetts homeowners.


According to the complaint, the banks used false documentation in the foreclosure process, including so-called “robo-signing”, whereby bank personnel signed affidavits that were untrue, or not based on the signor’s actual knowledge. An entity wishing to foreclose on a property must demonstrate it has filed an affidavit in compliance with Massachusetts law. By October 2010, the banks’ flagrant disregard of affidavit and notary process requirements became widely known. Filings with various Registers of Deeds provided to the Attorney General’s Office revealed the pervasive use of mortgage service employees to sign hundreds of affidavits and sworn statements without personal knowledge of the information contained in those affidavits. Evidence also suggests these practices were not confined to the foreclosure process, but also used in the assignment, transfer and modification of mortgages secured by property in Massachusetts.


Second, these five entities participated in unlawful foreclosures when they commenced foreclosures on mortgages where they were not the holders of those mortgages. The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), in Commonwealth v Ibanez, recently upheld Massachusetts law and stated that “only the present holder of a mortgage is authorized to foreclose on the mortgaged property.” The complaint alleges that these entities ignored this fundamental legal mandate and proceeded to foreclosure even though they did not hold the mortgage, and thus had no legal authority to conduct the foreclosure. The banks’ failure to obtain a valid assignment of the mortgage prior to foreclosure has adversely impacted titles to hundreds, if not thousands, of properties in the Commonwealth. The complaint alleges that the banks falsely claimed to be the holder of a mortgage in several foreclosure documents even though they failed to obtain a valid assignment of the mortgage.


Third, the complaint alleges that these banks have undermined our public land record system through the use of MERS, a private electronic registry system. According to the complaint, the creation and use of MERS was adopted by these defendants primarily to avoid land registration and recording requirements, including payment of recording and registration fees, and to facilitate sales of mortgage loans. The use of MERS has resulted in a lack of transparency as to the entities that have the legal authority to enforce mortgages, and unfairly conceals from borrowers the true identity of the holder of the debt. Since 1997, more than 63 million home loans have been registered on the MERS System, accounting for more than 60 percent of all newly-originated mortgage loans. The complaint also alleges that through the use of the MERS system, the banks unlawfully failed to register assignments of mortgages and transfers of the beneficial interests in mortgages.


Finally, the complaint alleges the banks deceived and misrepresented to borrowers the process, requirements, and availability of loan modifications. The banks publically claimed to be engaged in widespread loan modifications aimed at preserving home ownership and avoiding unnecessary foreclosures. Through the National Homeownership Retention Program, which commenced on November 6, 2008, these banks represented that they would work with borrowers to help them avoid unnecessary foreclosures by reducing monthly mortgage payments to affordable and sustainable levels. The complaint alleges these banks misled borrowers about their eligibility for this program and the amount of relief available, failed to achieve a significant level of modifications, and often strung along borrowers for months in trial modifications that were ultimately rejected.

The AG’s lawsuit seeks civil penalties, restitution for harm to borrowers and compensation for registration fees that were avoided. The lawsuit also seeks to hold the banks accountable through permanent injunctive relief to provide a solution for prior unlawful foreclosures and to require that the banks, going forward, register assignments and other documents in accordance with Massachusetts law.

The lawsuit follows more than a year of negotiations with the banks over a 50-state settlement focused around the issues of fraudulent documents, including “robo-signing.” AG Coakley had made clear that she would not sign on to an agreement with the banks if it included broad liability release regarding MERS and other issues or if she did not believe the banks had come to the table with an offer in the best interest of Massachusetts.

AG Coakley’s office has been a national leader in holding banks and investment giants accountable for their roles in the economic crisis. AG Coakley has obtained recoveries from Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Royal Bank of Scotland, Countrywide, Fremont Investment & Loan, Option One, and others on behalf of Massachusetts homeowners. As a result of these actions, her office has recovered more than $600 million in relief for investors and borrowers, helped keep more than 25,400 people in their homes, and returned nearly $60 million in taxpayer funds back to the Commonwealth.

More information about AG Coakley’s work during the lending crisis can be found here pdf format of    Subprime Lending Crisis Factsheet  .

The lawsuit is being handled by Attorney General Martha Coakley’s Consumer Protection Division, including Assistant Attorneys General Amber Villa, John Stephan, Sara Cable, and Justin Lowe; Acting Division Chief David Monahan; Chris Barry-Smith, Chief of the Public Protection & Advocacy Bureau and Stephanie Kahn, Deputy Chief of the Public Protection & Advocacy Bureau.






Ag Complaint National Banks

[scribd id=74403481 key=key-d70agc5nac8xc4gu6fo mode=list]

  1. And, as a means to an end, I would encourage every person in America, EN MASSE and AT ONCE, to File for Bankruptcy; To simply REF– USE to play these criminally-conspired games. I, personally, do not like the SHARECROPPING SYSTEM; I am, therefore, decidedly NOT a SLAVE to these Idiot-Thug Robber Barons whom only THINK they have (HA!!) “Control.” Furthermore, to ALL Student Loan Recipients, all of whom have been literally GOUGED by a thoroughly CORRUPT System which is nothing more than PROSTITUTION by the government HACKS in Cahoots with the BIG BUSINESS of EDUCATION. Walk Away. EN MASSE Do NOT look back; Simply tell the Criminal USURERS (YES, That’s Right) To go to HELL; And just remember this, to those unemployed people who have worked so hard to get “Ahead,” Those selfsame people that Have been left holding the Enormous Proverbial BAG, Burdened Constantly with Huge, Never-ending, Irreconcilable DEBT, With No Hope in Sight of Paying it Off EVER: Just Remember this FACT: These Bastard-Criminals CANNOT get BLOOD from a STONE…

  2. lvent says:

    I watched the press conference..Sounds like she is pushing for loan mods…This economy sucks because of what these bastards did..I would not sign or agree to anything…

  3. Attn PAM BONDI… this is how you do it!!!

  4. According to companies dealing with foreclosures, the case of In Re Johnson (case nos. 3:10-bk-19119, 3:11-bk-10602 and 3:10-bk-16541 in the Eastern District of Arkansas, Jonesoboro Division) has caused the number of foreclosure proceedings to drop significantly since the court issued its ruling on Sept. 28.
    In a nutshell, the court found that lenders not authorized to do business in Arkansas can’t properly utilize the state’s Statutory Foreclosure Act as codified in Ark. Code Ann. §§ 18-50-101 through 18-50-117.(1)
    The aforementioned non-judicial foreclosure act requires all companies wanting to take back homes under that act must be authorized to do business in the state — a real problem for mortgage companies located out-of-state that are servicing loans paid on by Arkansans.
    For more, see Bankruptcy court throws wrench in non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.
    See also, Bankruptcy court ruling slows down foreclosure sales in state, indicating that national title insurers may be beginning to slam the brakes on Arkansas realty sales involving homes recently foreclosed in non-judicial proceedings.
    For the court ruling, see In Re Johnson, Case Nos. 3:10-bk-19119, 3:11-bk-10602, 3:10-bk-16541 (Bankr. E.D. Ark., Jonesboro Div. September 28, 2011).
    Editor’s Note: Buried in footnote 4 of the court ruling is this point of interest:
    The Court notes that counsel for the Debtors argued that a determination that the statute had been violated would make any sale under the Statutory Foreclosure Act void ab initio. No property sales actually resulted from the foreclosure proceedings in these cases. The sole dispute in these cases is whether the foreclosure fees and costs incurred through use of Arkansas’ non-judicial foreclosure process are owed.
    (1) According to the court:
    Absent compliance with Ark. Code Ann. § 18-50-117, J.P. Morgan’s avenue for foreclosing on these properties was that of judicial foreclosure through the courts, not through Arkansas’ non-judicial foreclosure process.
    The court also made this observation on the Arkansas statutory provisions authorizing the use of non-judicial foreclosure procedings in the state:
    These statutory provisions must be strictly construed. See Robbins v. M.E.R.S., 2006 WL 3507464, at *1 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006) (“It is also true that the Arkansas Statutory Foreclosure Act, being in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed.”)
    Posted by Home Equity Theft Reporter at 12:07 AM E

    • sherell Talley says:

      I live in Fort Worth, Texas and I’ve been trying to fight my foreclosure with GMAC. This started in June of 2011. I’ve sent number of lettlers to them. The first Qualified Written Request for my documents went out June 23,11. Second QWR was sent 07/13/11 for documents giving them 10 more days to reply. On 07/29/11 they reply saying they are not the owners that US. Bamk Trustee. GMAC is not who my loan started with in 2001, My lender was Mortgage Edge, after my first payment was sent to Mortgage Edge I got a call form GMAC that I was to send my payment to them, I told them that I had sent the payment to Mortgage Edge to this date I’ve keep the copy of payment just in case this came back unpayed. Mortgage Edge is now out of business.

      I’ve sent paper for a modification in 2007 I was told that I didn’t meat the requirements, due unemployement( TRA) and try when I had a job. On April 25,11 I got a lettler Congratations my request loan modification after over 4 years later my application was approved NON-HAMP LOAN MODIFICATION AGREEMENT I only have 2 day to get the paper work back by the dead line. ” the Borrower acknowledges that ” Lender” is the Legal holder and the owner, or agent sevicer for the legal holder and owner, of the Note and Security Instrument and further acknowledges that if “Lender” transfer the Note, as amended by this Agreement, the transferee shall be the “lender” as defined in this Agreement. This is how this agreements started and no ware does it Stat anything about Us. Bank Trustee. I’ve been paying who I thought was the owners of my loan. No were in this agreement shows US. Bank, It’s ask me to acknowledge GMAC Mortgage. The letter head is GMAC. This information came for the first time in 07/29/11 why was there name in this Modication in April. The agreement was not sign and turned do to the first statement of the borrower acknowledges, and the loan would pay out in 2041. A new 30yrs loan, something I never had in 2001 I signed a 20yr loan. I couldn’t agree to this.

      I need help at this time I have no Attorney working on my case to prove what they have done is not legal foreclosure on 12/06/11 they still has not answer to my request to how they got my loan. I need help before me and my two children is out on the street I’ven been in my home for 10yrs. on this 20 year loan with only 10 yrs. lift on my loan my children or honor student and was born in ths home. This my homestead home, and would like to keep my children in the school ISD were they are doing outstanding. I was not one of them homeowner who got more then they could handle. I’m in this because the company I worked moved to Mexico 12/30/06 KImberly Clark for 15yrs. Shift leader $19.02 hr. In 2008 I started working for Stealcase thay to moved to Mexico . Working as Zone lead at $18.00 dollars a hire. American greed by these big Banks and the largest Company has killed the American dream for me and my children. I’m looking foward to speaking to someone for help my email adress contact me @ # 817-884-7935 in Fort Worth,Texas

  5. From Livinglieswordpress: Ethan C. Nobles writes in First Arkansas News: about MERS and all unregistered debt collectors

  6. The AG cases are great to add to your law suit and use their language, but a case that has not been judged and ordered, or mandated is not case law. You want case law, Ibanez V. U.S. Bank has MERS issues in it they almost all do.

    Find a Lawyer that “Gets It” « Livinglies’s Weblog…in…/find-a-lawyer-that-gets-it/Experience has shown us that sometimes a large number of lawyers show up at these workshops … Some suggested on this blog that all the judges siding with banks be complained about to state investigative commissions. …… FALLOUT FROM FRIDAY’S 6-0 DECISION – US BANK v. IBANEZ CASE COMMENCES: …
    complaint-attacking-assingment-with-secfilings-cited-re-us-bank ……/complaint-attacking-assingment-with-sec…US Bank complaint attacking…what a defense which I would definitely try to use on some of these … 6 VIDEOS FROM NEIL · AA1 US bank v Ibanez Landmark Massachusetts Decision, Wells Fargo Included … Follow Livinglies’s Weblog …
    US BANK « Livinglies’s Weblog…and…/us-bank/I am currently suing Us BANK for $million over a fraud suit since 2007- they ….. AA1 US bank v Ibanez Landmark Massachusetts Decision, Wells Fargo Included …

  7. Readdocs says:

    Don’t do any celebrating until there is real justice with guilty doing time as well as repaying those they harmed.
    The banks will fight back. We are in the beginings of a civil war.
    Kent Deninger has a good write up on this over at the Market Ticker.

  8. scarednearlystiff says:

    I don’t know how you get these materials and share them so soon, but a BIG thank you.
    Among other things we can hope for some homeowner help. (yes?)

  9. lies is all they tell says:

    Yes all Its about time 2 years of this stress. Question I heard years ago before we awoke, before lawsuits against the banks I was Told once a bank had its own lawsuit it could not continue with lawsuits like foreclosures please correct me if I am wrong.this is a long time coming. I still don’t feel safe. Wasn’t it just the other day they were going to try to convince california ag to join the settlement? Everyday something new

  10. Wayne says:

    What does this do for ME in the State of Arizona? Can you use this on some legal precedence? What I see is that Massachusetts took the Thunder from the State of Nevada by a couple of hours. State of Nevada is going to have a media event at 1:00pm today on the same. All I can say …. It is about Time.

    • Awesome! look up on the web livinglies version of Houston We Have A Problem Bevilaqua V. Rodriquez………. and then look up the PDF for just Bevilaqua V. Rod. and read. The Mass U.S. Supreme Court , opinon and order that by history has never been adjudicated against by any court, which means this case law can be tapped into by anyone in any state as evidence of all five banks fruadulantly foreclosing for at least the past five years and all foreclosures are void and the homes are to be given back to the homeowners and new purchasers foreclosed homes have purchased the same as a stolen car. Most of the purchasers are criminal investors, but there are few unsuspecting innocent people that will be hurt by this and will wind up going after the parties whom sold the stoen house to them caused by fraud.

  11. First quiet-title victory in Virginia (by default): first-mortgage deed of trust declared null and void:

  12. DT says:

    Does anyone have a current list of all the AG’s that are suing MERS ? I plan on using some of that information on my court date

    • MERS LOSES in NEVADA -Kartman v Ocwen & MERS › Business/Law › Court FilingsSep 5, 2010 – MERS LOSES in NEVADA -Kartman v Ocwen & MERS … upon predatory notes, Defendant MERS overlooked important aspects of state law. …
      MERS Smackdown in Nevada!! « Livinglies’s Weblog 8, 2009 – In fact, “MERS only has standing in the context of the motion to lift stay … Perhaps someone can really throw the state of Nevada a lifeline and file … MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. …
      MERS – Downloads items – MERS Products MERS® System MERS® Link MERS® 1-2-3 …
      Title Description
      UTAH: Wade v. Meridias Capital, MERS, et al Decision by U.S. District Court …
      UTAH: Wareing v. Meridias Capital Decision of the U.S. Court for …
      LITIGATION DIGEST April 2011 – MERS…File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
      GEORGIA: State of Georgia, ex rel, et al., v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), et al., April 6. 2. V. HAWAII: … NEVADA: Smith v. Community …
      Complaint | State of Delaware v MERSCORP Inc | Foreclosure ……/complaint-state-of-delaware-v-merscorp-i…Oct 28, 2011 – Complaint | State of Delaware v MERSCORP Inc …. A three act play about affidavit fraud in AG Masto’s Nevada 19 hours …
      State of Delaware v. MERSCORP Inc. Press Release | Biden ……/state-of-delaware-v-merscorp-inc-press-release-…Oct 27, 2011 – Attorney General files suit against MERS under the state’s Deceptive Trade …. PDF of press release and a DELAWARE V. MERS FACT SHEET is below… …. A three act play about affidavit fraud in AG Masto’s Nevada …
      FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA 15, 2011 – Nevada Office of the Attorney General ANNOUNCES indictment in massive clark county robo-signing scheme STATE OF DELAWARE v. … Since January 1, 2008, MERS has filed over 1600 foreclosure actions in Delaware. …
      Nevada Supreme Court Reversed & Remand – “Mediation ……/nevada-supreme-court-reversed-remand…Oct 24, 2011 – Here, the record demonstrates that MERS failed to produce the deed of trust and any assignments. … the Deed of Trust & Any Assignments” | HEREDIA-BONNET v. … IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA …
      HAGER & HEARNE 245 E. Liberty St, Ste 110 Reno, NV 89501 00. Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
      Plaintiff, vs. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC. REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., a … Barrett Bates, Relator, is a resident of the State of Nevada and an original … Delaware corporation is a subsidiary of MERSCORP, Inc., and has done business and …

      • Beyer v. Bank of America – MERS…File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
        That is not the law in Oregon. In United States National Bank of Portland v. Holton, 195 P. 823, 824 (Or. 1921), the Oregon Supreme Court expressly allowed a …
        Hundreds of Oregon foreclosure sales stopped after judges’ rulings … › Oregon Business News › FinanceMar 5, 2011 – A number of federal court decisions in Oregon raise questions about the legality of hundreds of foreclosures in the state: » Burgett v. MERS, et …
        Document 5 :: Buckland v. MERS :: 1:2011cv03053 :: Oregon District ……/5MERS MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC AS NOMINEE … the foreclosure at issue violates the Oregon Trust Deed Act. See Burgett v. … In those certificates, plaintiff states he served the complaint and motion for a …
        FISHER v. MERS, ReconTrust | OR Dist. Ct Grants TRO “Presence of ……/fisher-v-mers-recontrust-or-dist-ct-grant…Aug 18, 2011 – Oregon USDC “No right to foreclose, Granted to enjoin f/c” | STATON v. BAC, MERS, ReconTrust Civ. No.6:10-cv-01306-AA UNITED STATES …
        MERS ACTION ALERT!!! | Oregon Fraudclosure “Fix” Postponed but ……/mers-action-alert-mers-foreclosure-fix-postpone…May 31, 2011 – A number of federal court decisions in Oregon raise questions about the legality of hundreds of foreclosures in the state: Burgett v. MERS, et al …

    • KABOOM | Washington State AG McKenna Sues Recontrust in State ……/kaboom-washington-state-ag-mckenna-sues-rec…Aug 5, 2011 – State of Washington v Recontrust … states it right in the case. When the judge states yes MERS has no teeth, it will set case law for our cases. …

      • Complaint | State of Delaware v MERSCORP Inc | Foreclosure ……/complaint-state-of-delaware-v-merscorp-i…Complaint | State of Delaware v MERSCORP Inc. Posted by 4closureFraud on October 28, 2011 · 1 Comment. Here is the complaint… Enjoy! ~ …

    • look belowThese statutory provisions must be strictly construed. See Robbins v. M.E.R.S., 2006 WL 3507464, at *1 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006) (“It is also true that the Arkansas Statutory Foreclosure Act, being in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed.”)
      Posted by Home Equity Theft Reporter at 12:07 AM E

Leave a Reply

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