Showing posts with label US Bank. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Bank. Show all posts

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Los Angeles Sues U.S. Bank, Calls It a 'Slumlord'

 
By Jonathan Stempel

The city of Los Angeles has sued U.S. Bank, accusing a unit of the fifth-largest U.S. commercial bank of becoming one of its biggest slumlords and blighting the city by allowing hundreds of foreclosed homes to fall into disrepair.

Monday's civil lawsuit by the office of Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich alleges that U.S. Bank has taken title to more than 1,500 foreclosed residential properties in the city in its role as trustee for various mortgage-backed securities trusts.

Los Angeles said that at least since July 2008, U.S. Bank has "disregarded virtually every one of its legal duties and responsibilities as owner, resulting in the creation and maintenance of an alarming number of vacant nuisance properties and substandard occupied housing units."

It said the bank has ignored repeated demands that it comply with the law, causing hundreds of homes to become uninhabitable or "public nuisances," and resulting in illegal evictions of hundreds of tenants from the second most-populous U.S. city.

Los Angeles said that it is seeking a civil fine of $2,500 a day for each violation by what it called "one of the largest slumlords in the city." It estimated the bank's potential liability to be in the "hundreds of millions of dollars."

Thomas Joyce, a spokesman for Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank, said it is the mortgage servicers, not the trustee, who have the responsibility to maintain foreclosed properties, and that "we intend to bring them into" the lawsuit.

Joyce also said the city only recently agreed to detail which homes needed better upkeep, and that the bank will "stand ready" to address property-specific and general foreclosure concerns as it has done in other cities.

Other Cities' Lawsuits

Other large U.S. cities have also sued over mortgage industry practices that they allege contributed to urban blight.

Wells Fargo & Co, the nation's largest mortgage lender, in May settled a lawsuit by Memphis, Tenn., and on July 12 it settled a similar case involving Baltimore.

The Baltimore accord was reached in connection with the San Francisco-based bank's $175 million settlement with the federal government over allegations that it overcharged black and Hispanic borrowers on mortgages, contributing to higher foreclosures.

Wells Fargo was one of five big servicers to join February's $25 billion U.S. settlement over foreclosure abuses.

The National Fair Housing Alliance filed discrimination complaints with the federal government in April against both U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo, accusing them of doing a better job maintaining foreclosed homes in white neighborhoods than in minority neighborhoods.

According to the 2010 census, Los Angeles had 1.41 million housing units, of which about 95,000 were vacant. The city's population was about 3.79 million.

Shares of U.S. Bancorp were down 9 cents at $32.69 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

The case is People v. U.S. Bank NA et al, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, No. BC488436.

Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, August 18, 2011

EVICT THE PRETENDERS. WOULD THIS CAUSE THE COURTS TO PAUSE, TO PERHAPS EVEN LISTEN FOR A MOMENT?


Should Borrower File Eviction Against Bank?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

EDITOR’S COMMENT: I was talking with an expert in landlord tenant law and I received an interesting suggestion. The case involved someone who has just been served with a writ of restitution where the owner had to peaceably leave her home — or it wouldn’t be so peaceful. The suggestion was that the owner file a forcible detainer action of her own against the current party that evicted her and accuse them of trespass as well. If she has proof, and in this case she does, that the documents were forged (even the verified complaint for eviction was forged) then there were many false parties and false documents.
So I squeezed my source a little more and the following is the line of reasoning he was suggesting that we follow from a fact standpoint. The names and details are redacted except for the pretenders. Comments anyone?
  1. Petitioner’s primary residence has just been served with a writ of restitution requiring her to vacate the premises.

  2. Petitioner is the legal owner of the property.

  3. Petitioner cooperated with law enforcement, but states affirmatively that she has proof that the verified complaint filed by US Bank for the forcible detainer from her primary residence was a forged document with a false notary.

  4. Further, Petitioner now has in her possession proof that the documents by which US Bank claims to be the creditor were also forged, fabricated and misrepresented to the court intentionally and with willful disregard for the consequences or the truth.

  5. Petitioner asserts that US Bank used trickery and falsehood to falsely represent facts to the Court that it knew were untrue.

  6. The Substitution of Trustee was a false, forged and fabricated document that was misrepresented by US BANK and their counsel as being authentic.

  7. Using the false Substitution of trustee, US BANK caused a false, fabricated notice of default, despite payments being made under contract to the creditors.

  8. Using the false Notice of Default, US Bank caused a false Notice of Sale to be issued despite the fact that it was neither the beneficiary nor the lender, nor a successor thereto by any means, nor had US Bank ever parted with anything of value that would constitute consideration or an interest in Petitioner’s obligation to creditors.

  9. Using the false Notice of Sale and the false substitute of trustee, a false auction was held by the false substitute trustee, where the false substitute trustee represented US Bank as the false creditor and the false trustee “Accepted” a non-existent bid (US Bank was not present at the false auction) in which the false substitute trustee issued a deed upon “foreclosure” without receiving any consideration of any kind.

  10. The false substitute trustee was at all times under the direct control and instructions of US BANK. US Bank had in substance substituted itself as the false trustee using the CalWestern entity.

  11. Using the fraudulently created and fraudulently obtained deed from the false substitute trustee US Bank initiated an FED action against the Petitioner.

  12. Using the false, forged, fabricated and unauthorized documentation described above, and using the rules of eviction to its advantage, US Bank obtained a Judgment for Eviction and Restitution of the premises against the Petitioner.

  13. Using the fraudulently obtained Judgment for Restitution and Eviction, US Bank filed the required documents for a writ of restitution to issue.

  14. Petitioner is now legally evicted from a home that she legally owns since the deeds used by US Bank were wild deeds, unauthorized and not in the chain of title.

  15. Petitioner demands possession of her home.

  16. The actions of US Bank constitute slander of title, trespass, and have caused severe emotional distress to the Petitioner.

  17. To allow US Bank to continue on this march of theft would make this court a co-venturer in a gross miscarriage of justice.



Enhanced by Zemanta