Tuesday, June 28, 2011

HOMEOWNER MAY NOT RAISE A NEW THEORY OF RELIEF FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL

REEVES v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE

CAROL L. REEVES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, also known as Kimberly Biery; WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, also known as Scott Holzemiester, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-50698. Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed: June 27, 2011.

Before: WIENER, PRADO and OWEN, Circuit Judges.



PER CURIAM.*
Carol L. Reeves appeals the denial of a temporary restraining order seeking to stop Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Wells Fargo Bank National Association (hereinafter collectively referred to as Wells Fargo) from foreclosing on her home. Wells Fargo contends that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's interlocutory order denying the motion for a temporary restraining order. In response, Reeves contends that the pro se motion should have been liberally construed as a motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
The district court's order denying Reeves's motion for a temporary restraining order is not a final order, nor does it come within any of the other categories that would make it immediately appealable. See In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of the motion for a temporary restraining order, and Reeves's appeal of that ruling is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Faulder v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 741, 742 (5th Cir. 1999).
The denial of a preliminary injunction, however, is immediately appealable if it is related to the substantive issues of the litigation. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1);Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991). Although the district court construed the pro se motion as seeking only a temporary restraining order, Reeves sought relief that, if granted, would have extended beyond the 14-day limit of a temporary restraining order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b). Thus, the pro se motion, liberally construed, was also a request for a preliminary injunction, the denial of which is immediately appealable because it is related to the substantive issues in the case.
A movant for a preliminary injunction must demonstrate "(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury, (3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction may cause the opposing party, and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest." Lakedreams, 932 F.2d at 1107. The decision to deny a preliminary injunction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and will be reversed "only under extraordinary circumstances." White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir. 1989).
Reeves alleged that absent any proof that Wells Fargo was a holder in due course of the promissory note and deed of trust, it had no legal standing to foreclose on the property in question. She also alleged that foreclosure was improper because the note had been rescinded and rendered void by its separation from the deed of trust. In denying the motion, the district court concluded that Reeves had failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
To the extent that the district court denied Reeves preliminary injunctive relief, she has failed to show that it was an abuse of discretion. See id. Reeves does not reassert her claim that the note had been rescinded, nor does she dispute the district court's finding that she had not made a payment on the note since November 2009. The district court reasoned that Reeves's suspicion that Wells Fargo was not the true holder in due course of the note, in light of documentary evidence to the contrary, was insufficient to relieve her of her obligation to pay that note. Reeves has failed to provide any law to the contrary. Further, Reeves acknowledges that she did not cogently articulate her claims before the district court but argues that "based on the facts as now more clearly understood and articulated," she has established a high likelihood of success on the merits. However, because her contentions that the foreclosure notice was flawed, that the assignment and transfer of the note and deed of trust to Wells Fargo was defective, that the undated endorsements were ineffective, and that there is no proof of a nominee agreement between the original lender and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) were not presented to the district court, we may not consider them on appeal.See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (noting that a party may not raise a new theory of relief for the first time on appeal). Likewise, to the extent Reeves relies on documentary evidence that was not before the district court, such evidence may not be considered on appeal. See Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999) ("An appellate court may not consider new evidence furnished for the first time on appeal and may not consider facts which were not before the district court at the time of the challenged ruling.").
APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; AFFIRMED IN PART.

Footnotes


* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.



Listed below are the cases that are cited in the Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

From F3d, Reporter Series

From F2d, Reporter Series





PLUCK v. BP OIL PIPELINE COMPANY
ADVANCED REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY
IN RE ESTATE OF MARUN
PIPER v. UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE
CHIVERS v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.
SMITH v. SUMMIT ENTERTAINMENT LLC
DOUCETTE v. HALLSMITH/SYSCO FOOD SERVICES, INC.
LAPIDOTH v. TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
IN RE MARRIAGE OF CHOA YANG XIONG v. SU XIONG
GONZALES v. CITY OF BOZEMAN


Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, June 26, 2011

FINALLY! ILLINOIS REGULATORY AGENCY FIRST TO FINE A MORTGAGE COMPANY FOR FAULTY DOCUMENTS

Illinois regulatory agency fined PHH Mortgage $290,000

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

From Housingwire.com
Illinois state agency fines PHH Mortgage in robo-signing probe
by KERRY CURRY
Thursday, June 23rd, 2011, 2:12 pm
An Illinois regulatory agency fined PHH Mortgage $290,000 in the first fine levied in a probe of 20 state-licensed mortgage companies.
Mount Laurel, N.J.-based PHH was punished for allegedly signing foreclosure affidavits the company knew would later be altered by attorneys and for signing affidavits using someone else’s name, according to the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.
The violations were found during the agency’s special investigation launched last year, as the national robo-signing scandal arose in which employees at foreclosure law firms were signing and attesting to information in court foreclosure documents that they had not reviewed.
“At a time when homeowners are facing the possible loss of their most precious asset, homeowners have a right to expect their loan servicing company to file accurate and honest paperwork,” said Brent Adams, Illinois secretary of financial and professional regulation. “Time and again, the department has sought to emphasize to loan servicing companies that home foreclosure is no time to cut corners.”
PHH told HousingWire that it disputes the charge.
“PHH Mortgage is recognized as one of the nation’s leading mortgage servicers, and we take our responsibilities to borrowers seriously,” PHH said, in a written statement provided to HousingWire after it called seeking comment.  “We dispute the findings of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, and we reject any assertion that the signatures of the affiants who signed on our behalf were not the signatures of those specific individuals. PHH Mortgage intends to request a hearing in this matter and pursue all available remedies.”
PHH has 10 days to request a hearing on the order, or 30 days to pay the fine.
In at least 19 files, PHH failed to sign affidavits after they had been altered by attorneys and the company’s “knowledge of and complicity with this process is evidenced by the fact that the original affidavits were incomplete and contained notations such as ‘will add’ when they were tendered to the law firm of Fisher and Shapiro,” the department said in a written statement.
The law firm, acting on behalf of PHH, then attested to the completeness of the altered affidavits although they had not been reviewed or re-executed by PHH. The company’s conduct “at the very least, rises to the level of negligence or incompetence,” the state order said.
The agency also said 16 of the 19 affidavits were identified as having all been signed and attested to by the same PHH employee. The department noted at least five distinctly different signatures attributed to one employee, leading the agency to conclude at least four different people used one employee’s name to sign the affidavits.
In December, the department issued a nine-point plan establishing best practices for handling foreclosure-related documents. Among the best practices: Affiants should have the level of knowledge necessary to submit an affidavit in a judicial proceeding and shall confirm that the numbers are accurate. Notarized documents must be done in the presence of the notary after an oath has been administered, and when using “form affidavits” nothing should be left blank, and signatures should be dated.
“PHH has violated both the Residential Mortgage License Act of 1987 and these best practices,” the department said.
The act provides for a fine up to $25,000 for each violation. The state fined PHH $10,000 for each of the 19 files with faulty paperwork and $25,000 for four instances, in which an employee used a name other than his or her own.
In March, Bannockburn, Ill.-based foreclosure law firm Fisher and Shapiro admitted in Cook County Circuit Court that hundreds of its documents may be faulty, noting foreclosure affidavits had been altered without the affiant’s knowledge. In those cases, the content of the original affidavits were changed, and the original signature page was removed and then reattached to the altered affidavits.
After the admission, a Cook County judge temporarily halted 1,700 foreclosure cases. The law firm said it promptly notified the court after its discovery of the flaw.
The Illinois probe is separate from a national probe also under way that has resulted in several consent orders and an investigation into servicers by the nation’s 50 attorneys general.
Write to Kerry Curry.

Enhanced by Zemanta

WELLS FARGO TRIES TO CONTROL EVERYBODY AND EVERYTHING


  • Rate this Story
  •  +1
  •  -1
By IB Times Staff Reports | June 24, 2011 5:15 PM EDT
A joke circulates through employees of Wells Fargo Advisors that's been told so many times few people are laughing anymore that Research in Motion, the struggling maker of the Blackberry smartphone, would already be dead and gone if not for them.
  • (Photo: REUTERS)<br>Wells Fargo won't let company employees plug smartphones into the company's IT system.
(Photo: REUTERS)
Wells Fargo won't let company employees plug smartphones into the company's IT system.
Related Articles
Get Tech Emails&Alerts
Stay connected with cutting edge technology news Sample
Wells Fargo & Co., the bank that owns the investments firm, is one of the most strict corporations when it comes to the mobile devices employees use to conduct business. Wells Fargo does not allow employees to plug in their personal devices with corporate IT systems. Therefore, many of Wells Fargo's 270,000 employees worldwide carry and use two smartphones - one in one pocket issued by the company, and another in another pocket that belongs to them.
"They can't connect to our networks," a company spokesperson said earlier this year in an interview withNetworkworld. "We won't let them."
Wells Fargo does say it gives employees a choice among smartphones they can use for work, includingiPhones, Androids and Blackberrys, and the company has issued iPads made by Apple to some employees, but some who work for Wells Fargo Advisors say it's not that simple. If the company is giving a choice, they did not get the memo.
Blackberrys, said one Wells Fargo Advisors regional vice president who wanted to remain anonymous for fear of retribution from the company for speaking out on the issue, are what the company provides those who work for the brokerage firm side of the bank. He also said IT employees don't like being asked about the iPhone for company use.
"It scares them," he said of the iPhone.
So he is not unlike thousands of other employees who work for Wells Fargo Advisors. Talk with him for long and see that he's juggling two different phones at once, since not only does the company not let him tie his personal device into the system, it also won't distribute him an iPhone for work. The problem, he said, is that the Blackberry isn't as useful for work as his iPhone would be.
"It's the 21st century," he said, pointing to his work-issued Blackberry. "This thing is a dinosaur."
Employees of Wells Fargo Advisors are particularly disgruntled about the situation because, like many red-tape issues faced when one big financial firm merges with another, they were in a different situation before the company merged with the bank. Previously as Wachovia employees, they could connect personal devices to the bank's IT system as long as they were willing to sign a release allowing the bank to wipe it clean should they lose it.
So far, though, Wells Fargo has been unrelenting in protection of its IT system, forcing Wells Fargo Advisors employees and many employees of the bank itself to use Blackberry's for business and another phone for personal. The problem, he said, is that the busy world of today does not allow the two to be separated very easily. But, he said just getting rid of the Blackberry would help.
"If they would just issue iPhones instead of Blackberrys it would be better," the Wells Fargo Advisors employee said.

Enhanced by Zemanta

DO YOU NEED HELP TO AVOID FORECLOSURE?

If you would like to receive information on how you might avoid the foreclosure of your home, please e-mail me your name, address, and phone number. Someone from our office will be in touch right away to assist you. With Warm Regards, Kelly L. Hansen, HOMEOWNERS HELPING HOMEOWNERS, ctsmyhon@yahoo.com
Be happy, healthy and prosperous, but most of all, be blessed.
Kelly L. Hansen's photo.

Kelly L. Hansen


Jurisdictionary® just click on the link
Make Sure Your Attorney Is Working For You!
Kelly L. Hansen
HOMEOWNERS HELPING HOMEOWNERS FOUNDATION
33605 W. 88th Street
De Soto, KS 66018
913-269-0399 Phone
888-881-2349 Fax
MORTGAGE FRAUD VICTIMS
ARE YOU A VICTIM OF MORTGAGE FRAUD?


PLEASE DONATE TO HELP HOMEOWNERS!