Do Securitization Audits Ever Work to regain lost homes in California? YES? Maybe?


CEL NOTES: this looks good—I cannot verify the terms of the final disposition or settlement of the case but it appears to be real—I will update if I can confirm.  The Federal Docket for the case number provided in the article does not show a final disposition of the case.

The Shelley Report – Foreclosure Press

by Deadly Clear

Los Angeles Man Wins Property Back After Foreclosure and Eviction [[[http://justiceleaguetaskforce.wordpress.com/2013/08/09/los-angeles-man-wins-property-back-after-foreclosure-and-eviction/]]]

Los Angeles, CA — (SBWIRE) — 08/07/2013 – Homeowner Mike Cohenshad lost his investment home to foreclosure and was also evicted. A securitization audit company and Pasadena law firm helped him get it back.

Mike Cohenshad lost his investment home in foreclosure and also lost the accompanying Unlawful Detainer Hearing. He was then evicted from the investment property which was sold to a 3rd party at bank auction. Cohenshad hired the Law offices of Art Hoomiratana, a foreclosure defense firm in Pasadena, to seek out damages for wrongful foreclosure. Mr. Hoomiratana’s office immediately hired Paladin Securitization Auditors to conduct a securitization audit to investigate the lender’s standing to foreclose.

The securitization audit found that there were grounds for a Fraud and Wrongful Foreclosure Case based upon statutory violations, promissory estoppel, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Business and Professional Code 17 200. Using the securitization audit as evidence, The Law Offices of Art Hoomiratana litigated on these matters and won the home back, post-foreclosure, from the third party who purchased it. The judge found the foreclosure to be illegal and a wrongful foreclosure thanks to Paladin’s audit. The bank was forced to rescind the Trustee’s Sale and agreed to settle out and restructure the client loan including $188,000.00 in deferred principle reduction. His monthly mortgage payment was reduced from $4,981.43 to $2,492.59 and the interest rate was also reduced from 6.75% to 4%.

For reference, the court case is US. District Court Case No. CV13-00722-R (FFMx).

Or visit their site at www.securitizationauditservices.com

***********************************************************************

2013 WL 597283 (C.D.Cal.) (Trial Pleading)
United States District Court, C.D. California.
Mike COHENSHAD, Plaintiff,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Vericrest Financial, Inc.; US Bank, National Association; and Does 1-100, Inclusive, Defendants.
No. CV13-00722 MMM(FFMX).
February 1, 2013.
Diversity Jurisdiction
Demand for Jury Trial
Notice of Removal
Russ M. Fukano (SBN 114166), Email: rfukano@troygould.com, Annmarie Mori (SBN 217835), Email: amori@troygould.com, Troygould PC, 1801 Century Park East, 16th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067-2367, Telephone: (310) 553-4441, Facsimile: (310) 201-4746, Attorneys for Defendants Vericrest Financial, Inc. and US Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 (erroneously sued as US Bank, National Association).
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, for the reasons set forth below, Defendants Vericrest Financial, Inc. (“Vericrest”) and US Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 (erroneously sued as US Bank, National Association) (collectively, “Defendants”) file this Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, requesting removal of this action from the Superior Court of California in the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 based on diversity of citizenship and removal is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The plaintiff in this action is Mike Cohenshad, an individual who is domiciled in the State of California. The defendants are as follows:
1. Vericrest is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas;
2. US Bank Trust, N.A. is a national banking association, with its principal place of business in Delaware;1
3. US Bank Trust, N.A. is acting as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2, which is a trust. In the Ninth Circuit, a trust has the citizenship of its trustee. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. Alaska 2006) (For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, “a trust has the citizenship of its trustee or trustees.”); Wells Fargo Bank v. Mayes, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35344 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2012) (citing Johnson, supra, to explain that trust has citizenship of trustee). Therefore, Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 has the citizenship of US Bank Trust, N.A.; and
4. Defendants are informed and believe and thereupon allege that CitiMortgage, Inc. (“CitiMortgage”) is a New York Corporation with its principal place of business in Florida.
The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.
GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL
In support of the Notice of Removal, Defendants state as follows:
1. On or about December 3, 2012, plaintiff Mike Cohenshad (“Plaintiff”) commenced an action against defendants CitiMortgage, Vericrest and US Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011 -NPL2 (erroneously sued as US Bank, National Association) in the Superior Court of California in the County of Los Angeles entitled Mike Cohenshad v. CitiMortgage, Inc., et al. with a Civil Action No. of BC496711. True and correct copies of the pleadings served on Defendants are attached hereto. A true and correct copy of the Summons (which was not served on Defendants but a copy of which was obtained online) is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of the Complaint served on Defendants is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A true and correct copy of the Notice of Lis Pendens served on Defendants is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
2. Pursuant to a Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt, Vericrest was served with the Summons and Complaint on January 2, 2013.
3. Pursuant to a Notice and Acknowledgement of Receipt, US Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 (erroneously sued as US Bank, National Association) was served with the Summons and Complaint on January 28, 2013.
4. Defendants are informed and believe, and upon that basis allege, that CitiMortgage has not been served with the Summons and Complaint.
5. This Notice of Removal is being filed on or before February 1, 2012, and is therefore timely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).
6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1), “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” No defendant is therefore a citizen of California:
(a) Vericrest is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas;
(b) US Bank Trust, N.A. is a national banking association, with its principal place of business in Delaware; Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 has the citizenship of US Bank Trust, N.A.
(c) Defendants are informed and believe that CitiMortgage is a New York Corporation with its principal place of business in Florida.
7. Plaintiff is an individual domiciled in California. Plaintiff is therefore a citizen of California.
8. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his home was improperly sold at a non-judicial foreclosure sale. Plaintiff seeks a judgment quieting title back to him. His also seeks general, special and punitive damages in connection with causes of action, including fraud and negligence, relating to the purported wrongful foreclosure and related causes of action alleging an improper refusal to modify Plaintiff’s mortgage prior to the foreclosure sale. Plaintiff alleges the loan in connection with the purchase of the property was in excess of $500,000.00. The amount in controversy is therefore greater than $75,000.00.
9. As there is a complete diversity of citizenship, and the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.00, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
10. Therefore, this action is removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which states that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
11. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a copy of this Notice of Removal will be filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of California in the County of Los Angeles, and written notice of the filing of this Notice of Removal will be given to counsel for Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the action now pending in the Superior Court of California in the County of Los Angeles be removed to this Court and that this Court accept this Notice of Removal for filing in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants hereby make a demand for jury trial.
Dated: February 1, 2013
TROYGOULD PC
By: <<signature>>
AnnMarie Mori
Attorneys for Defendants Vericrest Financial, Inc. and US Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 (erroneously sued as US Bank. National Association)
Appendix not available.

Footnotes

Plaintiff erroneously sued US Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for Vericrest Opportunity Loan Trust 2011-NPL2 as “US Bank, National Association.” Plaintiff alleges that “US Bank, National Association” is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Oregon. Complaint, ¶ 4.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s