Is this the beginning of the end for Lender Processing Services, LPS?
From the ruling.
RON WILSON, SR.
The fraud perpetrated on the Court, Debtors, and trustee would be shocking if this Court had less experience concerning the conduct of mortgage servicers. One too many times, this Court has been witness to the shoddy practices and sloppy accountings of the mortgage service industry. With each revelation, one hopes that the bottom of the barrel has been reached and that the industry will self correct. Sadly, this does not appear to be reality. This case is one example of why their conduct comes at a high cost to the system and debtors.
The hearing on the Motion for Sanctions provides yet another piece to in the puzzle of loan administration. In Jones v. Wells Fargo, this Court discovered that a highly automated software package owned by LPS and identified as MSP administered loans for servicers and note holders but was programed to apply payments contrary to the terms of the notes and mortgages. In In re Stewart, additional information was acquired regarding postpetition administration under the same program, revealing errors in the methodology for fees and costs posted to a debtor’s account. In re Fitch, delved into the administration of escrow accounts for insurance and taxes. In this case, the process utilized for default affidavits has been examined. Although it has been four (4) years since Jones, serious problems persist in mortgage loan administration. But for the dogged determination of the UST’s office and debtors’ counsel, these issues would not come to light and countless debtors would suffer. For their efforts this Court is indebted.
For the reasons assigned above, the Motion for Sanctions is granted as to liability of LPS. The Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing on sanctions to be imposed.
New Orleans, Louisiana, April 6, 2011.
Hon. Elizabeth W. Magner
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
From Nye Lavalle
I reduced the banking industry’s scams and abuses into three primary areas or categories OVER 12 YEARS AGO!!!!. The three (3) major issues I have informed you all of are as follows:
#1 BANKS CAN’T COUNT and the amounts they claim are owed for payoff, principal balance, escrow, payments due etc… can NEVER be trusted or accepted without a complete audit of the servicing history from origination to specific date (i.e. acceleration, payoff, foreclosure, bankruptcy etc…) I have informed all of you that the “computer systems” used can’t compute and once a so-called “mistake” is made (i.e. programmed financial engineering scheme) the system can’t go back and adjust the system and amortize the loan correctly. Affiants, as I have said over and over again in countless affidavits and reports, simply take numbers off a computer screen (garbage in – – garbage out) that is usually a third-party system and the affiant has NO INDEPENDENT OR RELEVANT KNOWLEDGE as to the facts of the amount and how those amounts were arrived at. With my scripted depo questions, time-and-time again, affiants never audit or simply conduct a “sample check” of the entire “servicing history” from origination to present date, to ascertain any errors, miscalculations, misapplications, wrongful charges, etc… The lawyers (foreclosure mills) prepare the affidavits and check the payments. As the EMC executive told me in mid 90s “you must sue the lawyers, they are ALL in on it!”
#2 BANKS CAN’T ACCOUNT for the chain of title and ownership of the note and who has authority to foreclose, accelerate, modify, approve assumptions etc… In other words, they can’t account for the actual note holder and how such status was established and if the note has been pledged, sold to others, hypothecated, traded, transferred etc… Affiants, as I have said over and over again in countless affidavits and reports, simply take the information off a computer screen (garbage in – – garbage out) that is usually a third-party system and the affiant has NO INDEPENDENT OR RELEVANT KNOWLEDGE as to the facts of note ownership and they have not reviewed the PSA, necessary assignments, wet ink original notes, indorsements, authorities for the indoresements, checks and wire transmittals, collateral and custodial records and other evidence that the actual holder took possession, control, and ownership of the note. They simply take the information from the last public recording and go with that ignoring all the intermediary assignments. This has been going on for decades now. Again, the lawyers (foreclosure mills) prepare the affidavits and check the title history and often charge a fee for the “title search” that isn’t worth the paper it is written on. As the EMC executive told me in mid 90s “you must sue the lawyers, they are ALL in on it!”
#3 WHEN CAUGHT WITH THEIR HAND IN THE COOKIE JAR (i.e. cooking the books jar) the banks and their lawyers will fabricate evidence, documents, provide perjured testimony, create false affidavits, destroy documents and claim its a gummy bear jar, not a cookie jar. In essence, NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING A BANK, LENDER, SERVICER, OR THEIR LAWYERS place in pleadings, affidavits, summary judgment motions, assignments, indorsements, deposition testimony etc… CAN NEVER BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE OR AS FACT without a complete forensic review, audit, and examination of all wet ink docs, records, financial accountings etc… that PROVE EACH AND EVERY ALLEGATION AND FACT IN A PLEADING, AFFIDAVIT, OR TESTIMONY.
The bottom-line here is that lawyers must QUESTION EVERYTHING AND CHALLENGE EVERYTHING. If not, you may be mal-practicing knowing everything you know now. Money MUST be spent in depositions to make them prove up their cases (they can’t) and e-discovery is and will be critical since they will continue to fabricate evidence and testimony.
In any event, you must read each line and paragraph of this order as WELL AS THE TRANSCRIPTS TO THIS CASE.
Full opinion below…
In RE Wilson Motion for Sanctions Granted
[scribd id=52932599 key=key-riz7txtmsg67u1w097s mode=list]