Foreclosure Robo-signer Signed 6,000 Affidavits a Week

Famly law, appeals, elder abuse, civil litigation

EVEN IF THE AFFIDAVITS ARE VOIDED, IT DOESN’T MEAN THE FORECLOSURES WERE WRONG
The affidavits IndyMac used to file foreclosures were signed by a so-called robo-signer named Erica A. Johnson-Seck, who routinely signed 6,000 documents a week related to foreclosures and bankruptcy. That volume, the court decided, meant Ms. Johnson-Seck couldn’t possibly have thoroughly reviewed the facts as required by law.

IndyMac (now called OneWest Bank) no longer owns the loans—a group of investors in a securitized trust managed by Deutsche Bank did. Determining that IndyMac didn’t really have standing to foreclose, a judge threw out the case and ordered IndyMac to pay the homeowner’s $30,000 legal bill.

The mortgage bond market is as susceptible to negative headline risk as any other capital market. However, performance appears solid in the wake of potential widespread foreclosure moratoria.

On Friday, Bank of America joined the faulty foreclosure folly — saying it, too, will delay its foreclosure process based on faulty affidavits.

A Wells Fargo executive has acknowledged that he verified only the dates on up to 150 foreclosure documents he signed daily. The executive made his admission in a May deposition involving a Washington state homeowner. He said he relied on co-workers to ensure that other information in the documents was correct.

3 thoughts on “Foreclosure Robo-signer Signed 6,000 Affidavits a Week

  1. Here is my question: If the robosigners can’t attest to reading any of the documents, where is the chain of title?

    If the banks can’t prove who owns the note, how can the title to a property be cleared?

    Many of the homes that have been foreclosed may have been paid already through credit default swaps. Did the note transfer to the company that paid that debt? Was that the US taxpayer through Tarp? This may be a bit of an oversimplification, but it does beg the question, who owns the note? The party that is being removed from their home should be able to talk to the noteholder.

    A contract is between two parties in this country. Let them decide between themselves. If the noteholder wants to foreclose, so be it. But until the homeowner can determine who the noteholder is, justice is not served to either party, the homeowner or the noteholder.

Leave a Reply