An Illustration of the Problem With Bank “Technicalities” Defenses on Foreclosure Problems

Naked Capitalism is discussing more of the outright lies of the financial industry’s PR machine.

A story at the New York Daily News on a foreclosure case dismissed by Judge Arthur Schack illustrates that the problems that banks are having with foreclosures, which they are characterizing as “technical” or “paperwork” run deeper than that. And that is before you get to the issue that we have discussed at length on this blog, namely, the failure to convey promissory notes and related liens as stipulated by the contract governing mortgage securitizations, the pooing and servicing agreement.

It isn’t merely that Johnson-Seck was robo signing, but as we will see soon, she was playing multiple roles that were, from a legal and business perspective, in conflict with each other.

Here, a single party has, obviously falsely, played whatever role was necessary to execute documents to convey the mortgage to the trust so the servicer and trustee could foreclose. In the decision (hat tip 4ClosureFraud) Schack goes at some length about how implausible this appears to be:

The Court grants the request of plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw the instant motion for an order of reference. However, to prevent the waste of judicial resources, the instant foreclosure action is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to renew the instant motion for an order of [*2]reference within sixty (60) days of this decision and order, by providing the Court with necessary and additional documentation. …