September 21, 2014

A New Jersey Chancery Judge has denied final summary judgment to PennyMac Corp. which attempted to foreclose on a WaMu-initiated loan which PennyMac claimed to have inherited by assignment from the FDIC through an interim assignment to PennyMac’s predecessor-in-interest (which is another “PennyMac” entity). The Court also ordered that the homeowner take the depositions of known robo-signer Cynthia Riley and the appropriate witnesses from JPMorgan Chase, PennyMac, and any other witnesses deemed material by the homeowner’s counsel.

Michael Jacobson, Esq., local NJ counsel for the homeowner, argued the matter on the Brief and opposition papers research and drafted by Jeff Barnes, Esq. who was also retained by the homeowner.

As those of you who follow this website know, JPM claimed to have purchased all of WaMu loans and loan commitments from the FDIC pursuant to a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (P&AA) executed on September 25, 2008 (the day WaMu failed and went into FDIC Receivership). As it is also known, there is more than one version of the P&AA, and WaMu went into bankruptcy the next day (on September 26, 2008). Thus, whatever was not “sold” to JPM would have been a part of the WaMu Bankruptcy Estate.

PennyMac claimed that the FDIC assigned the loan to it on September 3, 2013, which was almost 5 years after JPM claims to have purchased the WaMu loans from the FDIC as set forth within the now infamous Affidavit of Robert Schoppe, which JPM has used around the United States in alleged support of its claim to have purchased all WaMu mortgage loans from the FDIC when WaMu failed.

PennyMac attempted to support its summary judgment request with a Certification (form of Affidavit in NJ) from a “Default Specialist” of the servicer who never worked for WaMu, or JPM, or the FDIC, or PennyMac. The Certification did not state the date that PennyMac acquired the loan, and the “screen shot” provided with the Certification (in alleged support of the “acquisition” of the loan) showed “Deutsche Bank Authentication”. The effective date of the “Power of Attorney” post-dates the alleged “acquisition date” in the “screen shot.” Further, the Certification does not contain any information on personal knowledge, and equivocates as to how the information in the “records reviewed” were created.

The Note bears an origination date of 2005, and contains a stamp “signed” by robo-signer Cynthia Riley who testified in a deposition taken in a Florida foreclosure case that she never endorsed any notes or put any endorsement stamps on notes from 2004 through 2006.

In denying PennyMac’s request for final summary judgment, the Judge stated that he was “very intrigued” by these issues, and ordered that the homeowner take the depositions of Cynthia Riley, the appropriate person(s) from JPM, and any other depositions necessary (which would include the depositions of those from the FDIC and the two PennyMac entities involved with the alleged “transfer”).

This ruling now permits a homeowner to inquire, under oath, of those witnesses who were involved with what JPM allegedly purchased from the FDIC; what, if anything, the FDIC retained following the September 25, 2008 P&AA; and into the issues as to how a loan which JPM has told the world was part of its acquisition from the FDIC was somehow “assigned” to PennyMac Corp.’s predecessor-in-interest 5 years after the alleged JPM acquisition and then assigned to PennyMac Corp. or otherwise transferred by a claimed “endorsement” which the alleged signer thereof stated under oath she did not place on the Note and did not sign.

This should be very interesting.

Jeff Barnes, Esq.,


September 18, 2014

One of our readers sent us an article from the Tampa (Florida) Tribune newspaper about the “goal” of the Florida government to “rid the courts of 256,000 foreclosure cases per year”. The article highlights the undisputed fact that Judges are railroading foreclosure cases through the system (Judges issue Pretrial Orders stating that the time set aside for the trial is “5 minutes”); ignoring evidence; subjecting those in foreclosure to rules and procedures which are not forced on other civil litigants; refusing to continue (reschedule) foreclosure trials even when the attorneys for the bank and the homeowner agree to it (as they are attempting to work out a loan modification); and generally trampling on homeowners’ constitutional rights.

The article highlighted a certain Judge who refused to hear a motion to vacate a judgment which JPMorgan Chase obtained on a loan which it did not even own. The disclosure that the loan had been previously sold to another entity was not made until after the judgment had been obtained. Despite this undisputed fact, the Judge refused to act.

In one case I have, I recently filed a Motion to amend my client’s affirmative defenses due to new matter which arose and gave rise to adding this to the client’s defenses. Such motions are routinely granted, and do have the effect of rendering a case not “at issue” and thus incapable of being set for trial. The bank attorney’s sole argument was the effect of granting the motion; no objection to the substance of the motion or the proposed defenses was made. When the Judge asked if granting the Motion would bump the November trial date, I responded that the law so provided. The Judge then said “Well, then, I am denying the Motion.” When I asked him the reason why (so that a record of error could be made for appeal), his response was: “Mr Barnes, I do not have time to do that now. I have a whole room of people here waiting.”

So, here is proof positive that the interests of real justice bow to the not-real interests of the State in continuing with the “rocket dockets”, which ONLY benefit the banksters. Remember, any servicer who forecloses on a Fannie or Freddie loan gets a 27 point “kicker” from the government.

The alleged “excuse” for the actions of the courts and Judges is that they are under “pressure” from the state Government to “clear out all of these foreclosure cases.” This is beyond reprehensible, and is bad karma that will eventually come back to haunt those who spew it.

Judges are sworn to uphold the law, not to become robotic slaves to some Government which is apparently beholden to the banksters. Judges are not to ignore the law and the Constitution so that the banks can be rewarded with essentially stolen homes arising out of a fiasco which they themselves created in the first place. It is surprising that no Judge has come forward and refused to engage in what amounts to violations of civil rights.

All of the elements of a civil rights violation case are there: you have a “state actor” (Judge) who is engaging in “disparate treatment” (subjecting “foreclosure” litigants to “special” rules which do not apply to civil litigants in non-foreclosure cases and which “rules” fly in the face of due process and the enacted rules); thereby creating a “suspect class” (“foreclosure people”) who are being deprived of their civil rights with no rational relation to any legitimate state interest. Eliminating due process protections to homeowners so that foreclosure cases can be ramrodded through the system and thus line the pockets of the banksters who created the morass from the beginning is not action “rationally related to a legitimate state interest.”

Florida is not the only state where this is occurring or where it has occurred. Several years ago, one of our readers, who was a police detective, could not figure out why homeowners in Phoenix were being essentially lined up for the slaughter, and why the Judges just ignored the law. The detective did some digging, and found out that the Circuit Judges’ Pension Fund had invested heavily in mortgage-backed securities, so with every foreclosure, their pension fund (allegedly) took a hit.

The short-sightedness of the “rocket docket” procedure, which apparently no one thought through, is that with millions of homeowners being removed from their homes, the property goes into decay; local markets, etc. no longer have their customers and go out of business; neighborhoods become blighted and ransacked by poachers; and the economic base of the neighborhood goes to zero.

So, in the end, the unconstitutional rewarding of property to the banks through unconstitutional court processes will give the states who engage in these actions exactly what they deserve: more bankruptcies; more dilapidated real estate; more crime; and more economic blight. Of course, the Government will blame it all on “those damned homeowners who didn’t pay their mortgage” instead of rightfully blaming the banksters for failing to be reasonable and work with a homeowner to keep them in their home and thus maintain the neighborhood. But then again, we all know what bank lobbyists are capable of.

Jeff Barnes, Esq.,


September 9, 2014

A New Jersey Chancery Judge has denied Wells Fargo’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case where there are five (5) “Assignment of Mortgage” documents, all on different dates, and all cited by WF in its Complaint. WF has requested that the Court declare that 3 of the Assignments are void and of no effect. Essentially, WF wants to pick and choose which Assignments fit its theory of inheriting an interest in the Note and Mortgage, but without any legal basis for making such a novel request.

The homeowner is represented by Jeff Barnes, Esq. and Michael Jacobson, Esq. of the Cooper Levenson Firm in Atlantic City, NJ. Mr. Barnes prepared the legal briefing and argued the matter last Friday, September 5.

The first assignment was by MERS from the original lender to EMC Mortgage, which was a subsidiary of the long-defunct Bear Stearns. WF likes this and the 4th Assignment, which is from EMC to WF. However, EMC was long out of business as of the time of the 4th Assignment, and there is no evidence as to how the Note and Mortgage traveled the five different paths per the five different Assignments. WF also presented no law which permits a court to disregard any assignment in favor of another, so that the “chosen” assignments fit the theory of transfer of the foreclosing party.

In his oral disposition of the motion, the Judge stated “I wish this Note could talk to us”, to explain how it went from the original lender to WF. Unfortunately, the Note cannot, and WF presented no evidence as to how the Note and Mortgage physically traveled from the original lender to WF.

Summary judgment was denied. The Court also made note of a loan modification to the borrower which was signed by MERS, which was curious as MERS is not a lender and does not have the authority to modify a loan.

Jeff Barnes, Esq., www/