MLA Presentation April2011

download MLA Presentation April2011

of 16

  • date post

    08-Apr-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    218
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of MLA Presentation April2011

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    1/16

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    2/16

    On November 10th, 2010, Mass Litigation Advisors, announced the

    expansion of our services to now include 6 New Mass JoinderLitigation Cases

    The springboard for these cases has been the extensive work and case

    precedence established via theRonald et al v. Bank of America case.

    Millions of American homeowners today work hard to sustain the

    demands of paying their mortgages. What they do not know--because

    lenders are running fast to sweep the facts under the rugis that

    millions of these loans have shown evidence of fraud.

    You cannot turn on the television or open a newspaper without hearing

    or seeing some story regarding "MERS, "robo-signing" or how banks

    are foreclosing on American homeowners without the proper procedures

    being followed. These lenders will imply that this is simply a

    technicality in the paperwork.

    Many courts across America, multiple state Attorneys General, and

    millions of struggling homeowners adamantly disagree.

    YOU truly have legal cause against your lender and with MLA you

    can join thousands of Americans who are fighting back!!!!

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    3/16

    Mr. Kramer's practice emphasizes commercial litigation and trial advocacy, with

    a concentration on franchise law, banking litigation, and real property matters. He

    has tried in excess of200 cases and has appeared on nationally televised

    programs regarding pre-trial procedure and trial strategy and has appeared as a

    guest lecturer on topics ranging from constitutional law to trial practice. Mr.

    Kramer is a past president of the Los Angeles West Inns of Court, a national

    organization dedicated to bringing back professionalism and civility into the legal

    profession.

    He is also a supporting member of the American Association of Franchisees &

    Dealers, an organization dedicated to promoting fairness in franchising. Mr.

    Kramer chairs the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers' Speakersand Experts Panel.

    Mr. Kramer is also a member of the American Bar Association Forum on

    Franchising and serves as general counsel to the Hispanic Franchise Foundation,

    a national not-for-profit foundation dedicated to empowering Hispanic franchise

    business. Mr. Kramer received a Juris Doctorate from the Catholic University of

    America and a Bachelors' of Arts from The Ohio State University.

    Education:

    Juris Doctorate - Catholic University of America

    Bachelors of Arts Ohio State University

    Areas of Practice:

    Real Estate Law and Litigation

    Franchise Law

    Bankruptcy

    Entertainment Law

    Estate Planning

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    4/16

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    5/16

    This case was filed and then transferredby court order to the Los Angeles

    complex litigation department Case #

    BC409444. Currently there are close to

    1,100 clients (growing daily) represented

    in this case. The following updates to

    the case occurred as recently as theOctober 19th 2010 via the "Plaintiffs

    Status Report".

    Claims include:

    Malfeasance

    Statutory Violations 3rd Party Beneficiary Claims

    Phantom Investors and Beneficiaries

    Unfair Business Practices

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    6/16

    Wagner v. Citibank

    Case Filed: 30 December, 2010.

    Case Number: BC 452 265

    Presiding Judge : Hon. Mel Red Recana

    Los Angeles Superior Court, Department 45

    Marquette v. One West

    Case Filed: 30 December 2010

    Case Number: BC 452 266

    Presiding Judge: Hon. Michael Stern

    Los Angeles Superior Court, Department 62

    Nelson v. Wells FargoCase Filed: 30 December 2010

    Case Number: BC 452 264

    Presiding Judge: Hon. Ernest M. Hiroshige

    Los Angeles Superior Court, Department 54

    Locker v. Ally Summons

    Case Filed: 30 December

    Case Number: BC 452 263

    Presiding Judge: Hon. Rex HeesemanLos Angeles Superior Court, Department 19

    Carlson v. JP Morgan

    Case Filed: 30 December, 2010

    Case Number: BC 452 262

    Presiding Judge: Hon. Yvette M. Palazuelos

    Los Angeles Superior Court, Department 28

    First Amended Complaints adding all current client retainers were updated in

    January.

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    7/16

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    8/16

    Over 62 million mortgages are now held in the name ofMERS, an electronic recording system

    devised by and for the convenience of the mortgage industry. A California bankruptcy court,following landmark cases in other jurisdictions, recently held that this electronic shortcut makes it

    impossible for banks to establish their ownership of property titlesand therefore to foreclose on

    mortgaged properties. The logical result could be 62 million homes that are foreclosure-proof.

    Mortgages bundled into securities were a favorite investment of speculators at the height of the

    financial bubble leading up to the crash of 2008. The securities changed hands frequently, and the

    companies profiting from mortgage payments were often not the same parties that negotiated the

    loans. At the heart of this disconnect was the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or

    MERS, a company that serves as the mortgagee of record for lenders, allowing properties to change

    hands without the necessity of recording each transfer.

    MERS was convenient for the mortgage industry, but courts are now questioning the impact of all

    of this financial juggling when it comes to mortgage ownership. To foreclose on real property, the

    plaintiff must be able to establish the chain of title entitling it to relief. But MERS has

    acknowledged, and recent cases have held, that MERS is a mere nomineean entity appointedby the true owner simply for the purpose of holding property in order to facilitate transactions.

    Recent court opinions stress that this defect is not just a procedural but is a substantive failure, one

    that is fatal to the plaintiffs legal ability to foreclose.

    That means hordes of victims of predatory lending could end up owning their homes free and

    clearwhile the financial industry could end up skewered on its own sword.

    MERS

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    9/16

    When Wall Street banks securitized, packaged, sold, and resold our mortgages, they

    created a system where it is often impossible to figure out who actually owns mortgage

    notes and therefore has the authority to foreclose on properties. But the big banks are

    getting tangled up in their own web. Recent events have exposed a handful of banks

    that are throwing families out of their homes even though they dont have the mortgage

    note that proves they actually have a legal right to do so. There have been instances of

    two banks trying to foreclose on the same home, and in at least one case, of a bank

    trying to foreclose on a house where the homeowner had never even taken out amortgage with anyone in the first place.

    PROOF OF NOTE SECURITY

    PROOF OF NOTE SECURITY (PATRIOT ACT VIOLATIONS)

    Not only do banks have to prove the documentation of the original note they must

    show proof of the actual funding on each specific note transaction. Banks have

    attempted in court to provide evidence of a securitization pool as proof of funds but

    courts have ruled this as inadequate evidence. The two major challenges this causes is:

    The sheer impossibility of banks being able to unwind mortgage pools down to

    individual investors tied to individual property

    Banks unwillingness to disclose the participating entities within the investment

    pools.

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    10/16

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    11/16

    Potential Case OutcomesMLA cannot and will not provide a guarantee of any

    specific outcome. Litigation is a calculated decision

    based on various case and legal precedence. MLA feels

    the preceding cases carry extreme merit that may carry thefollowing potential outcomes:

    Pre Trial Settlement

    Amnesty Program

    Full Lien Strip

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    12/16

    As each client joins the mass joinder action the lender will receive a pre-trial

    settlement offer per the following terms. (note we are not negotiating; we are

    using legal document demands on Form 998)

    Principal loan balance reduced to 80% of current market value.

    Interest rate reduced to 2% fixed for life of loan.

    PRE-TRIAL SETTLEMENT

    AMNESTY PROGRAMCounsel will be working with legislation to create an potential amnestyprogram. The results will likely be a universal modification approach. If

    successful, this process will indemnify the lending institutions from multi

    trillion dollar litigation while providing homeowners universal term

    reductions. Counsel anticipates our clients "having a seat at the table" will be

    offered increased settlement options.FULL LIEN STRIPThis is the desired and intentional outcome of each of the 6 Mass Joinder law

    suits.

    Counsel has stated they are seeking a complete dismissal of the lien.

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    13/16

  • 8/6/2019 MLA Presentation April2011

    14/16

    Litigation of this size is a very complex and time consuming process. The