The Law Office of Carol A. Molloy

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

SEE STOPFORECLOSUREFRAUD.COM

Editor’s Note: I usually advise lawyers that from the very first word that opposing counsel utters, an objection ought to be raised, because it is all a lie. A “living lie.” From the moment he states his name and then says whom he represents, you ought to have something on hand that questions the validity of whether he actually represents the party upon whose behalf he says he is making his appearance. It is usually in the rules that you can demand proof of authority to represent. I know of a few cases that ended up dismissed on those grounds alone because the attorney never came back, never called back and never filed anything.

The way you win these cases is by forming the intent to win it. You can’t form that intent unless you believe it. Believe it! These are all impostors, pretenders and people out to make a buck at the expense of the Court and your client. Don’t get lost in their narrative.

Remember that besides the monthly payment issue, you have a right to seek modification or settlement or to ask for an evidentiary hearing on the amount required for redemption — that requires an accounting from the creditor. How are you going to do that with the wrong party standing in the courtroom and a lawyer who does not even represent anyone? Judges are  latching on to this argument, because it makes sense to them. They are not absolving your client of liability but they will force the issue, and make sure the real deciders are present IF YOU AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE IT.

[NYSC] JUDGE SCHACK Tears up WaMU’s Counsel For “Defective Verification, Phony NY House Counsel” WAMU v. PHILLIP

Posted on02 December 2010. Tags: 2010 NY Slip Op 52034(U), affidavit, affirmations, Arthur M. Schack, defective, Donna D. Maio, esq., foreclosure fraud, house counsel, judge arthur schack, Mark Phelps, Matthews & Matthews, new york, ny supreme court, robo signers, verification, wamu, washington mutual, washington mutual bank v. phillip

Washington Mut. Bank v Phillip
2010 NY Slip Op 52034(U)
Decided on November 29, 2010
Supreme Court, Kings County
Schack, J.

Excerpts:

Further, the verification of the complaint was not executed by an officer of WAMU, but by Benita Taylor, a “Research Support Analyst of Washington Mutual Bank, the plaintiff in the within action” a resident of Jacksonville, Florida, on June 4, 2008. This is the same day that Ms. Maio claims to have communicated with “Mark Phelps, Esq., House Counsel.” I checked the Office of Court Administration’s Attorney Registry and found that Mark Phelps is not now nor has been an attorney registered in the State of New York. Moreover, the Court does not know what “House” employs Mr. Phelps. [*5]

Both Mr. Phelps and Ms. Maio should have discovered the defects in Ms. Taylor’s verification of the subject complaint. The jurat states that the verification was executed in the State of New York and the County of Suffolk [the home county of plaintiff’s counsel], but the notary public who took the signature is Deborah Yamaguichi, a Florida notary public, not a New York notary public. Thus, the verification lacks merit and is a nullity. Further, Ms. Yamaguchi’s notarization states that Ms. Taylor’s verification was “Sworn to and subscribed before me this 4th day of June 2008.” Even if the jurat properly stated that it was executed in the State of Florida and the County of Duval, where Jacksonville is located, the oath failed to have a certificate required by CPLR

<SNIP>

Ms. Maio should have consulted with a representative or representatives of plaintiff WAMU or is successors subsequent to receiving my November 9, 2010 order, not referring back to an alleged June 4, 2008 communication with “House Counsel.” Affirmations by plaintiff’s counsel in foreclosure actions, pursuant to Chief Administrative Judge Ann t. Pfau’s October 20, 2010 Administrative Order, mandates in foreclosure actions prospective communication by plaintiff’s counsel with plaintiff’s representative or representatives to prevent the widespread insufficiencies now found in foreclosure filings, such as: failure to review files to establish standing; filing of notarized affidavits that falsely attest to such review, and, “robosigning: of documents.