Feds chicken out on FIRREA lawsuit against B of A

According to Ben Protess article in Dealbook,  Judge Cayer is recommending to drop the government's lawsuit against Bank of America. In a time where Americans, for the most part, are outraged at the lack of criminal prosecution against the banksters, we have yet another Judge who wants to let them off the hook? Was the $9.3 billion settlement actually a payoff to get out of the criminal charges?

"The lawsuit cites emails from the bank’s employees expressing concern about the quality of the mortgages underling the securities, including one employee who wrote that some mortgages were “like a fat kid in dodge ball, these need to stay on the sidelines."

"Bank of America, which was represented by Skadden Arps, denied the accusations and asked that the case be dismissed. It was assigned to a magistrate judge; holders of that position typically handle scheduling and other procedural matters but occasionally issue rulings as well.

The magistrate judge agreed with Bank of America, concluding that the Justice Department had failed to meet the requirements for a case involving false statements to a government agency. The Federal Home Loan Bank is not an agency. And the Justice Department’s accusations, the magistrate judge ruled, fail to satisfy the requirement that misstatements materially affected the Federal Home Loan Bank’s government regulator"

see the story at DealBook here    http://goo.gl/3AH7lC

Plaintiff wins Reversal against Deutsche , Barclays for Fraud et al.

Congrats to Lenore Albert and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the
reversal and remand in the wrongful foreclosure of Helen Galope's home.
Lenore Albert successfully pled violations of the Unfair Competition laws,
breach of the covenants of good faith and fair dealing and fraud.

See the decision at http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2014/03/27/12-56892.pdf.



HELEN GALOPE, an individual,
 Plaintiff - Appellant,
 v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as Trustee under Pooling and
Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1,
2007 Securitized Asset Backed
Receivables LLC Trust 2007-BR4; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2014/03/27/12-56892.pdf.

 Galope adequately alleged that she would not have purchased her loan had
she known that  the Defendants were manipulating the LIBOR rate. Article III standing exists
when a plaintiff purchases a product she would not have otherwise purchased but
for the alleged misconduct of the defendant. Hinojos v. Kohl's Corp., 718 F.3d
1098, 1104 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d
581, 595 (9th Cir. 2012)); Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1069 (9th Cir.
2011). Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, Galope’s standing does not turn on
whether she actually made interest payments that were adjusted in response to the
allegedly manipulated LIBOR rate. Galope’s cognizable injury occurred when she

purchased the loan, not upon payment of LIBOR-affected interest.1 Maya, 658

F.3d at 1069. 

1. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings on Galope’s

LIBOR claims against the Barclays Defendants under the Sherman Antitrust Act,

15 U.S.C. §§ 1–2, and her state law claims for breach of the covenant of good faith

and fair dealing, and fraud

2. We reverse the district court’s ruling that Galope lacks statutory standing to

pursue her LIBOR-based Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code § 17200, and False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §

17500, claims against the Barclays Defendants and remand for further proceedings. 

4. We reverse the district court’s rulings that Galope’s wrongful foreclosure

and UCL claims based on the DBNTC Defendants’ violation of the bankruptcy

court’s automatic stay are not justiciable. Although rescission of the sale—almost

seven months after the violation—mooted Galope’s claims for injunctive and

declaratory relief, it did not affect her claim for damages. See Wilson v. State of

Nev., 666 F.2d 378, 380-81 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, regardless of whether Galope

has equity in the home, 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1) provides a statutory basis for

damages.

5. We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Galope’s

claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing associated with

violation of the automatic stay. The covenant of good faith and fair dealing “finds

particular application in situations where one party is invested with a discretionary

power affecting the rights of another.” Hicks v. E.T. Legg & Associates, 108 Cal.

Rptr. 2d 10, 19 (Ct. App. 2001). Discretionary power of this kind “must be

exercised in good faith.” Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev.

California, Inc., 826 P.2d 710, 726 (Cal. 1992). T

Citibank Fails Federal Reserve test- Again

Now, the Fed’s action on Wednesday is already prompting calls for another round of changes at the top of the bank’s management.

“There’s no question in our minds that heads should roll,” Mr. Mayo said.

The Fed said that while Citigroup had made progress in the areas of “risk-management and control practices,” its capital planning process “reflected a number of deficiencies.”

The Fed also said that Citigroup had failed to make “sufficient improvement” in certain areas that supervisors had previously identified as “requiring attention.”

In addition to Citigroup, the Fed rejected the capital plans of the American units of three international banks: HSBC, Santander of Spain and the Royal Bank of Scotland, which operates under the Citizens Bank brand in the United States.    Read the whole story here     http://dealbook.nytimes.com/

Bank of America settles $9+ billion fine with Fannie Mae

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, announced Wednesday afternoon a settlement with Bank of America for about $9.33 billion. The deal will end litigation over the bad mortgages issued leading up to the financial crisis.

The settlement is "an important step in helping restore stability to our broader mortgage market and moving to bring back the role of private firms in providing mortgage credit," said FHFA Director Melvin Watt, in a statement.

The federal agency still has claims in seven suits related to residential mortgage-backed securities.

"This is a fair and appropriate resolution, and we're pleased to move forward with this matter in the rear-view mirror," said Bradley Lerman, executive vice president and general counsel for Fannie Mae. "Fannie Mae remains focused on helping people to buy a house, rent an apartment or avoid foreclosure as we build a stronger housing finance system for the future."http://www.cnbc.com/id/101528427

Help someone buy their home back !

Peace and Blessings All,

I have exciting news, after over 3 years of fighting back against US Bank, protesting with the help of our crew in Springfield, thousands of petition signatures and phone calls from people like you, US Bank has agreed to sell me back my home! 

Thank you for your support in beating back US Bank attack. We’ve fought back and are winning but now I need your support to buy back our home and keep my family and our community together.

I have monthly income now, but because of the foreclosure on my record, I cannot find financing to repurchase my home. I am asking for you support to help me raise $20,000. If I can raise the money we can free the home from the clutches of the bank, repair the home and make sure that our home serves the community, and not the big banks!

Will you support me in closing this deal with a donation today?  

What I really want is to have the bank off my back so that I can stay in the community I love, and continue to stand and fight with others to improve our community.

Alone we don’t have much, but together we can fight, and we can win.

By clicking the link below, I ask that you please make donation if you can and/or share my story, not only to help me, but to also let others know if you are struggling with anything and about to throw in the towel: "NEVER GIVE UP!”

Can you Donate $10, $20, $50 or whatever you can afford to help me take my home back from US Bank!  

Many Blessings, 

Candejah and the Springfield No One Leaves Team.  

http://www.gofundme.com/savecandejahshomeplease

Montana Supreme boasts ruling in favor of Banksters

In a disappointing ruling handed down today by the Montana Supreme Court...

JAS, inc

v

INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.; CHARLES J. PETERSON,
ESQ.; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; LSI
RECORDING DEPARTMENT; NATIONAL TITLE
CLEARING; ONEWEST BANK, FSB; FIRST AMERICAN
TITLE COMPANY OF MONTANA, INC.; MACKOFF
KELLOGG LAW FIRM; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; et al


... ruled that MERS and Bank of America,  and Countrywide, who had no real excuse for not making the required deadlines in the foreclosure and quiet title action, were somehow excused for being tardy, and the default judgment against them was dismissed.  Yes, I am saying that the banksters got more than a second bite of the apple, they were given the Golden Ticket that the rest of us warriors only dream of.

MERS argument was that ' Oh gosh, we didn't know we didn't have a lawyer, so gosh we missed this case,' - they were too busy with the other million foreclosure cases.

Oh what a tangled web MERS did weave, and this case explores another angle of who owns the debt, wheres the note, who's on first?

 Do you think that would work for the rest of us homeowners? Whoops, I missed the notice in the paper, and then six months later- you get the house back?   No, of course not. In my opinion, this case is a disgrace to homeowners and foreclosure fighters around the country.

DA 13-0458

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2014 MT 77

JAS, INC.,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

RICHARD D. EISELE; LAURIE EISELE; INDYMAC

BANK, F.S.B./DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT;

INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.; CHARLES J. PETERSON,

ESQ.; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; LSI

RECORDING DEPARTMENT; NATIONAL TITLE

CLEARING; ONEWEST BANK, FSB; FIRST AMERICAN

TITLE COMPANY OF MONTANA, INC.; MACKOFF

KELLOGG LAW FIRM; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; CITY FINANCE

DEPARTMENT; YELLOWSTONE COUNTY TREASURER;

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; and all other

persons, unknown, claiming or who might claim any

right, title, estate, or interest in or lien or encumbrance

upon the real property described in the complaint

adverse to plaintiff’s ownership or any cloud upon

plaintiff’s title thereto, whether such claim or possible

claim be present or contingent,

Defendants and Appellees.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DV 12-0173

Honorable Mary Jane Knisely, Presiding Judge

March 25 2014

...to continue the hearing, and as a result the hearing was set over until October, past the

60-day deadline. MERS did not raise any concern about this delay, and notably, neither

did JAS. Further, JAS did not argue at the hearing that the court was then precluded by

the passage of time from ruling on the pending motions. Thus, it acquiesced in the delay

and “wait[ed] too long to raise the point.” Green, ¶ 28. We therefore conclude that JAS

forfeited the benefit of the 60-day time prescription, and proceed to address the merits of

the District Court’s order setting aside the default judgment.

¶33 MERS was named as a defendant and personally served with the complaint

through its registered agent on April 23, 2012. On June 28, 2012, the clerk of court

entered default against MERS based upon MERS’s failure to file an answer to the

complaint. On July 10, 2012, the District Court entered final judgment in the case,

resulting in a default judgment against those parties against whom a default had

previously been entered. On July 17, 2012, before learning that a default judgment had

been entered against it, MERS filed a motion to set aside the entry of default by the clerk

of court, arguing that it had “good cause” under M. R. Civ. P. 55(c) (Rule 55) to have the

default set aside. In response to MERS’s motion to set aside the default, JAS pointed out

that a default judgment had been entered by the District Court. Acknowledging as much

in its reply, MERS argued that its neglect in failing to timely respond to the complaint

was excusable, and that it should be relieved of the default judgment pursuant to Rule

60(b)(1).

15

¶34 The District Court proceeded to analyze whether MERS had established “good

cause” to set aside the default judgment, in reliance upon our decision in Blume v.

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 242 Mont. 465, 791 P.2d 784 (1990). In Blume, Metropolitan

moved to have the default judgment entered against it set aside. The district court did not

rule on the motion within the time allowed under Rule 60(c), and it was deemed denied.

Metropolitan appealed, and we reversed and remanded. Blume, 242 Mont. at 466, 791

P.2d at 785. In analyzing the issue, we focused on Rule 55. The 1989 version of Rule

55(c) provided: “For good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default and, if

a judgment of default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance with Rule

60(b).” We stated in Blume that, “[a]s noted in Rule 55(c), a default judgment may only

be set aside ‘for good cause shown.’ ” Blume, 242 Mont. at 467, 791 P.2d at 786. We

then repeated and applied the four-prong “good cause” test first enunciated in Bowen v.

Webb, 34 Mont. 61, 85 P. 739 (1906). Under this test, a defaulting party shows “good

cause” when: (1) the defaulting party proceeded with diligence; (2) the defaulting party’s

neglect was excusable; (3) the judgment, if permitted to stand, will affect the defaulting

party injuriously, and (4) the defaulting party has a meritorious defense to plaintiff’s

cause of action. Bowen, 34 Mont. at 65, 85 P. at 740. While we agree with the district

court that the four-part test announced in Bowen is still good law with respect to the

consideration of Rule 60(b)(1) motions, the court in Blume erred to the extent that it

imported the Rule 55(c) “good cause” standard into its analysis of the default judgment.

See Green, ¶ 40 (It is error to import a “good cause” analysis “into cases concerned with

16

setting aside a default judgment.”). However, the District Court’s analysis of the case

under the four-prong test was appropriate.

¶35 MERS argued that it did not respond to the quiet title complaint because it

believed at the time that NTS had been engaged by BOA to protect MERS’s interest and

to represent MERS in JAS’s quiet title action. When MERS discovered NTS was not

representing it, MERS immediately retained counsel. By this time, however, final

judgment had been entered. Counsel for MERS filed its motion to set aside the entry of

default just five days after final judgment was entered. The District Court concluded that

MERS’s failure to file an answer under the stated circumstances constituted excusable

neglect, and that upon learning that it was not represented, MERS had proceeded with

diligence. The court further concluded that MERS would be injured if the default

judgment was left to stand because MERS would lose its interest in the property at issue.

Lastly, the District Court agreed that MERS had a meritorious defense to the quiet title

complaint because the Trustee’s Sale by which JAS acquired the property was defective,

there having been no Affidavit of Mailing recorded prior to the date of the sale, as

required under § 71-1-315(2), MCA. Having concluded that all four prongs of the test set

forth in Blume were satisfied, the District Court granted MERS’s motion to set aside the

default judgment.

¶36 On appeal, JAS claims that MERS has no meritorious defense, and that it would

be unduly prejudiced if we affirm the court’s decision to set aside the default judgment

against MERS. Clearly, the court found the defense regarding the defects in the Trustee’s

17

Sale meritorious. As to prejudice, we note that setting aside the default judgment is not a

fatal blow to JAS, as it will still be free to litigate the merits of its quiet title action on

remand.

¶37 As we held in Essex, this Court will reverse an order setting aside a default

judgment only “upon a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion.” Essex, ¶ 17. Under

the facts presented here, and in light of our stated preference that cases should be decided

on their merits as stated in Matthews, ¶ 9, we cannot conclude that the District Court

manifestly abused its discretion in setting aside the default judgment as to MERS. We

therefore affirm that order.

CONCLUSION

¶38 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the District Court did not manifestly abuse

its discretion in granting MERS’s motion to set aside the default judgment, nor did it err

in granting BOA’s motion to intervene in this proceeding.

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

We concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON

/S/ JIM RICE

http://goo.gl/5zWWTi

CREDIT SUISSE to pay $885M over securities sold to Fannie Mae

GENEVA (AP) — Swiss bank Credit Suisse says it will pay $885 million to settle lawsuits over securities sold to U.S. government-controlled mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the financial crisis.

The bank said Friday the agreement with the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, will result in it taking a 275 million-franc ($311 million) charge on last year's fourth-quarter earnings.

Credit Suisse says the settlement resolves all claims in two lawsuits filed by the FHFA, related to the sale of about $16.6 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities between 2005 and 2007. The securities soured when the housing market collapsed.

Credit Suisse says the earnings adjustment resulting from the charge means it lost 8 million francs in the fourth quarter.

OCCUPY PROTESTER REACHES $4.5M SETTLEMENT WITH OAKLAND

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — An Iraq War veteran whose skull was fractured during an Occupy Oakland protest when he was hit by a beanbag round fired by police has reached a $4.5 million agreement to settle a federal lawsuit with the city of Oakland, his lawyers and city officials announced Friday.

Scott Olsen, 26, sued the city in 2012 for medical expenses and injuries that also included a fractured vertebrae and hemorrhaging of the brain. Olsen was among more than 1,000 demonstrators protesting the police clearing of an Occupy Oakland encampment when struck by a beanbag fired by an officer outside City Hall on Oct. 25, 2011.

Olsen, who served two tours of duty as a U.S. Marine in Iraq, suffered permanent brain injuries and has not been able to return to his career as a computer systems administrator, his attorney Rachel Lederman said Friday. Olsen's lawyers said police investigators concluded he was struck by the round that was fired by an officer less than 30 feet away during the 2011 clash.

"We're pleased that Scott is finally going to be getting some compensation for this really devastating injury," Lederman said. "He sustained some pretty serious brain damage resulting from being shot at a very close range."

Volcker Rule Will Cost Banks Up to $4.3 Billion

 

The regulator estimates implementation costs between $413 million and $4.3 billion for banks it supervises, the OCC said in a report released yesterday. Most of the potential costs could come from the rule’s curbs on certain investments, such as in some collateralized loan obligations. The agency also said affected banks will mostly be those with more than $10 billion in assets and could include as many as seven community banks.

The Volcker Rule, which bans banks from making speculative trades with their own money and limits their stakes in certain private funds, was adopted Dec. 10 by five U.S. financial regulators. The rule, named for former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, imposed the restrictions in response to the 2008 credit crisis.

Woman awarded $6M in fraud case against US Bank

Montana March 2014   A woman who sued US Bank alleging the company defrauded her when she sought a $300,000 loan to buy a condo in Bozeman has been awarded $6 million in damages.
    
Gallatin County jury found US BANK guilty of actual fraud and constructive fraud, and on Friday awarded  Mary McCulley $1 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.
    
McCulley filed suit in June 2009, alleging that US BANK sent her the required 30- year Truth in Lending documents, and instead gave her an 18-month commercial loan. She also claimed the forged deed of trust, which recorded her property as commercial, instead of residential, kept her from being able to refinance with other banks. 
    
McCulley's attorney, Patricia Peterman of Billings, said the verdict was fair.  The lead defense attorney, Mark Sherer / Mackoff Kellogg, for US Bank was not available for comment.

Bank ordered to pay $3.2 Million for 'shocking 'foreclosure

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico judge has issued a $3.2 million judgment against Wells Fargo for foreclosing on a man's home after his death, even though he had purchased an insurance policy through the bank that would have paid the remaining balance on his mortgage.

District Judge Beatrice Brickhouse said the bank's conduct was shocking and so reprehensible that in addition to actual damages, attorney's fees and court costs, she awarded James Dollens' estate $2.7 million in punitive damages.

Brickhouse issued the ruling Feb. 14. It was reported Friday by the Albuquerque Journal.

Jim Hines, a spokesman for San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, said the bank will appeal and it disagrees with several parts of the ruling, including the award of punitive damages.

Katy Duhigg-Kennedy, a lawyer for Dollens' estate, said Friday that the ruling "protected people over profits. We are confident that the appellate courts will do the same."

Butte jury's $52 million verdict against bank possibly highest in Montana history

BUTTE — A Butte jury delivered a $52 million verdict Friday against a bank that received billions in federal bailout dollars, but refused to use the money to help a flailing client — an international company that planned to take root in Butte.

The office supply company Masters Group International filed suit against its former bank — Comerica — after the bank reneged on a written forbearance agreement and liquidated the company’s assets while Masters was trying to set up shop in Butte during the recession.

“That act effectively led to the death of the company,” Timothy Strauch, Masters’ attorney told jurors.

Strauch and Mick Taleff — both Missoula-based attorneys — represented Masters during the 10-day trial in Butte district court that resulted in a monetary verdict that Strauch said may be the highest in Montana history.

The suit was initially filed by the Butte Local Development Corp. against Masters, but the business brought the bank in as a third-party defendant. Strauch explained that Masters didn’t have the money it owed the Butte development group because Comerica had breached its contract and taken Masters’ money.

“There are two Americas,” Strauch said in an interview Tuesday. “Comerica — a company in America where the rules don’t apply — and then there’s America, where the rest of us live and the rules do apply.”

In 2006, Comerica offered the start-up company $9.5 million in a revolving line of credit — meaning as long as Masters made its payments, more money could be borrowed.

Strauch argued the bank did so, knowing that Masters was a long way from generating any cash flow. The two-year loan was slated to expire in 2008, and the company borrowed another $1 million from the bank in that time.

Initially, Comerica told Masters it would renew the loan in 2008, but when the recession hit, the bank refused to renew the loan, Strauch said.

When Masters asked for Comerica to use part of its $2.25 billion in federal bailout funds to help it stay afloat, Comerica refused. And Masters was forced to search for an alternative funding source.

“It is not easy . to replace a loan of $10 million or $10.5 million in the middle of a banking crisis,” Strauch said in court.

But the company did find an alternative source, securing a proposal from Wells Fargo to replace Comerica as the operating lender and pay back the $10.5 million borrowed from Comerica. It additionally extended the line of credit to Masters — allowing them an extra $2.5 million “it so desperately had been needing for months to grow and sustain.”

The switch from one lender to the other was slated to occur in February 2009, with the condition that Masters could not be in default with Comerica when Wells Fargo took over. In November 2008, Masters and Comerica signed the forbearance agreement, in which the bank agreed to take no action to collect its loan until February, Strauch said.

But on New Year’s Eve, Comerica took all the money from Masters’ accounts — nearly $9 million — while continuing to charge the company interest, maintenance fees and $82,000 in attorneys’ fees.

“Each time Masters asked the bank for a payoff, it was simply asking how much do we owe you,” Strauch said in his arguments. “Comerica charged it thousands in attorney fees for the simple pleasure of telling Masters how much it owed.”

The result was the destruction of the company — abroad, it shuttered its doors, and it halted any progress in Butte.

After 10 days at trial, the jury spent three hours in deliberation and awarded $41.5 million in compensatory damages and $10.5 million in punitive damages to Masters.

“I think it took a jury in Montana to render this verdict,” Strauch said Tuesday. “Where fair is fair and a deal is a deal.”

In a statement released Tuesday, Comerica CEO Ralph Babb Jr. stated the bank is considering appealing the verdict to the Montana Supreme Court.

Strauch said he is concerned that the bank may appeal the decision. He also expressed frustration that the penalty the company must pay is only a fraction of its entire worth.

“They did something wrong,” Strauch said. “Americans understand that and they are tired of it. This case just exemplifies the division of the haves and the have-nots.”

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/butte-jury-s-million-verdict-against-bank-possibly-highest-in/article_194d857e-9c68-505b-918d-38538f4ca98c.html#ixzz2wRbRv9L1

The five million dollar punishment

Add caption