http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-12/banks-warned-not-to-flout-25-billion-foreclosure-deal.html?cmpid=yhoo&utm_source=Sept+17+2013+email&utm_campaign=9%2F16%2F13&utm_medium=email
Showing posts with label GMAC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GMAC. Show all posts
Monday, September 16, 2013
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
GMAC stops buuying homes in MASS
Ally Financial Inc.'s GMAC Mortgage unit stopped buying home loans in Massachusetts after the state accused the five biggest mortgage lenders of conducting illegal foreclosures, Bloomberg News reported. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-12-02/ally-financial-will-halt-mortgage-purchases-in-massachusetts-after-lawsuit.html http://www.dsnews.com/articles/gmac-counters-lawsuit-with-decision-to-pull-lending-in-massachusetts-2011-12-02
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Bradbury v GMAC Mortgage
The United States District Court for the District of Maine recently dismissed a group of borrowers’ state law claims against a mortgage servicer for abuse of process and fraud on the court, and denied the borrowers’ motion to remand all of the state law claims.
A group of Maine borrowers (“Borrowers”) threatened with foreclosure or eviction brought suit against GMAC Mortgage, LLC (“GMAC”) seeking damages and injunctive relief, alleging abuse of process, fraud on the court and violations of the Maine UTPA. GMAC removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship and the Class Action Fairness Act, and the Borrowers moved to remand the case back to state court.
At the outset, the Court denied the Borrowers’ motion to remand, reasoning that “there is indisputably subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship” as to the three state common law damages claims. In addition, only once has the Court “resolved all claims over which there is federal subject matter jurisdiction” may the Court “remand the claims over which there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
The Court next dismissed the Borrowers’ abuse of process claim. The alleged basis of the abuse of process was the supposed “filing of false certifications and affidavits in support of GMAC’s motions for summary judgment in various Maine foreclosure proceedings.”
However, a claim for abuse of process under Maine law requires, among other things, “the use of process in a manner improper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.” The Court reasoned that the use of the challenged affidavits and certifications “does not satisfy the ‘improper’ use requirement.” See Advanced Construction Corp. v. Pilecki, 901 A.2d 189 (Me. 2006).
Rather, the certifications and affidavits “were used to win the foreclosure lawsuits, and that is a proper use of such documents.” The Court further noted that if the documents were false, “then the remedy is to seek to vacate the judgment that was obtained, not to start a new lawsuit alleging abuse of process.”
The Court also dismissed the Borrowers’ claim for fraud on the court, reasoning that “no Maine case law recognizes such a basis for a private damage recovery.” In addition, fraud on the court may be a ground for, among other things, vacating a judgment or for sanctions under state civil procedure rules, “but it is not a ground for the recovery of damages by a party in a later lawsuit.”
Finally, the Court denied the Borrowers’ motion to remand the remaining claim under the Maine UTPA based upon both the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Younger abstention doctrine.
As you may recall, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine essentially holds that “a federal court below the United States Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over a claim that seeks in essence to overturn a state court judgment,” and “[i]nstead, the proper avenue for such a challenge is to the state’s highest court and from there to the United States Supreme Court.”
The district court held that “Rooker-Feldman does not destroy subject matter jurisdiction over” the UTPA claim “because the borrowers’ claim is that GMAC’s conduct produced the state court judgments they attack, not that the Maine courts committed legal error.”
As you may also recall, the Younger abstention doctrine “counsels federal courts not to interfere by injunction with ongoing state judicial proceedings.” However, when damages are requested, that doctrine commonly “calls upon the federal court merely to stay the damages claim until the state lawsuit is resolved, not dismiss or remand the claim for damages altogether.”
In this case, the district court noted that “the foreclosure actions, including those pending at the time GMAC removed this action to federal court, have since been resolved,” and the Court determined therefore to “proceed on the merits of the damages claim.” As explained above, the Court “cannot remand part of the case (the claim for equitable relief) while the rest (the claim for damages) proceeds actively in federal court.”
Accordingly, the borrowers’ Maine UTPA allegations remain for resolution before the federal district court.
Having denied the Borrower’s motion for partial remand, the Court concluded by denying the Borrower’s Motion for Order of Notice to Putative Class as moot.
A group of Maine borrowers (“Borrowers”) threatened with foreclosure or eviction brought suit against GMAC Mortgage, LLC (“GMAC”) seeking damages and injunctive relief, alleging abuse of process, fraud on the court and violations of the Maine UTPA. GMAC removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship and the Class Action Fairness Act, and the Borrowers moved to remand the case back to state court.
At the outset, the Court denied the Borrowers’ motion to remand, reasoning that “there is indisputably subject matter jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship” as to the three state common law damages claims. In addition, only once has the Court “resolved all claims over which there is federal subject matter jurisdiction” may the Court “remand the claims over which there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
The Court next dismissed the Borrowers’ abuse of process claim. The alleged basis of the abuse of process was the supposed “filing of false certifications and affidavits in support of GMAC’s motions for summary judgment in various Maine foreclosure proceedings.”
However, a claim for abuse of process under Maine law requires, among other things, “the use of process in a manner improper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.” The Court reasoned that the use of the challenged affidavits and certifications “does not satisfy the ‘improper’ use requirement.” See Advanced Construction Corp. v. Pilecki, 901 A.2d 189 (Me. 2006).
Rather, the certifications and affidavits “were used to win the foreclosure lawsuits, and that is a proper use of such documents.” The Court further noted that if the documents were false, “then the remedy is to seek to vacate the judgment that was obtained, not to start a new lawsuit alleging abuse of process.”
The Court also dismissed the Borrowers’ claim for fraud on the court, reasoning that “no Maine case law recognizes such a basis for a private damage recovery.” In addition, fraud on the court may be a ground for, among other things, vacating a judgment or for sanctions under state civil procedure rules, “but it is not a ground for the recovery of damages by a party in a later lawsuit.”
Finally, the Court denied the Borrowers’ motion to remand the remaining claim under the Maine UTPA based upon both the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and Younger abstention doctrine.
As you may recall, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine essentially holds that “a federal court below the United States Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over a claim that seeks in essence to overturn a state court judgment,” and “[i]nstead, the proper avenue for such a challenge is to the state’s highest court and from there to the United States Supreme Court.”
The district court held that “Rooker-Feldman does not destroy subject matter jurisdiction over” the UTPA claim “because the borrowers’ claim is that GMAC’s conduct produced the state court judgments they attack, not that the Maine courts committed legal error.”
As you may also recall, the Younger abstention doctrine “counsels federal courts not to interfere by injunction with ongoing state judicial proceedings.” However, when damages are requested, that doctrine commonly “calls upon the federal court merely to stay the damages claim until the state lawsuit is resolved, not dismiss or remand the claim for damages altogether.”
In this case, the district court noted that “the foreclosure actions, including those pending at the time GMAC removed this action to federal court, have since been resolved,” and the Court determined therefore to “proceed on the merits of the damages claim.” As explained above, the Court “cannot remand part of the case (the claim for equitable relief) while the rest (the claim for damages) proceeds actively in federal court.”
Accordingly, the borrowers’ Maine UTPA allegations remain for resolution before the federal district court.
Having denied the Borrower’s motion for partial remand, the Court concluded by denying the Borrower’s Motion for Order of Notice to Putative Class as moot.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Judge holds bankers in contempt, threatens jail
http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp?id=1202477854431&hbxlogin=1
Representatives from six major banks that skipped a hearing in a Miami condo association receivership case could face the wrath of Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey today if they fail to show up a second time.
The judge already has declared lenders that own or are foreclosing on units at Bird Grove Condo are on the hook for $105,999 in expenses for the court-appointed receiver for the association. She also held the six in contempt of court.
At a Dec. 1 show cause hearing where Bank of America was the only lender to send a representative. Missing were Flagstar Bank, GMAC, PNC Bank, SunTrust Bank, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo.
Representatives from six major banks that skipped a hearing in a Miami condo association receivership case could face the wrath of Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Jennifer Bailey today if they fail to show up a second time.
The judge already has declared lenders that own or are foreclosing on units at Bird Grove Condo are on the hook for $105,999 in expenses for the court-appointed receiver for the association. She also held the six in contempt of court.
At a Dec. 1 show cause hearing where Bank of America was the only lender to send a representative. Missing were Flagstar Bank, GMAC, PNC Bank, SunTrust Bank, U.S. Bank and Wells Fargo.
Friday, October 1, 2010
GMAC
As many of you have requested, please see the following links for the purported deposition transcripts regarding the GMAC/Ally affidavit news media blitz issue:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28762965/Full-Deposition-of-Jeffrey-Stephan-GMAC-s-Assignment-Affidavit-Slave-10-000-Documents-a-Month
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33129394/2nd-Deposition-of-Jeffrey-Stephan-%E2%80%93-GMAC-s-Assignment-Affidavit-Slave
http://www.scribd.com/doc/28762965/Full-Deposition-of-Jeffrey-Stephan-GMAC-s-Assignment-Affidavit-Slave-10-000-Documents-a-Month
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33129394/2nd-Deposition-of-Jeffrey-Stephan-%E2%80%93-GMAC-s-Assignment-Affidavit-Slave
Friday, June 18, 2010
GMAC Mortgage Faces Lawsuit for Failing to Properly Service Mortgages
Citing mismanaged loan servicing among other accusations, American Residential Equities, LLC (ARE) has filed suit against GMAC Mortgage Corporation, a big player in the residential mortgage servicing industry.
The suit, filed in the Southern District of Florida, accuses GMAC of failing to properly service a number of mortgages and REO properties owned by Miami-based ARE. As a result of this mismanagement, ARE says it has been working for the past year to arrange an orderly transfer of the servicing responsibilities of its loans away from GMAC.
In addition, ARE says GMAC refused requests to audit its books and records. The suit alleges that GMAC failed to maintain properties, subjecting them to weather damage, vandalism, and government fines. And in other cases, ARE says some properties were over-insured, while timely insurance claims were not filed for others.
ARE also claims in the suit that it was pressured by GMAC into offering preferential treatment and a loan modification to Georgia State Rep. Joe Heckstall’s brother, Cornelius Heckstall.
According to the suit, Rep. Heckstall contacted GMAC on behalf of his brother and requested that his mortgage be modified a second time. ARE contents that GMAC pressured the company to offer this second mortgage modification, despite the fact that he had failed to make payments related to an earlier loan modification with identical terms.
The suit, filed in the Southern District of Florida, accuses GMAC of failing to properly service a number of mortgages and REO properties owned by Miami-based ARE. As a result of this mismanagement, ARE says it has been working for the past year to arrange an orderly transfer of the servicing responsibilities of its loans away from GMAC.
In addition, ARE says GMAC refused requests to audit its books and records. The suit alleges that GMAC failed to maintain properties, subjecting them to weather damage, vandalism, and government fines. And in other cases, ARE says some properties were over-insured, while timely insurance claims were not filed for others.
ARE also claims in the suit that it was pressured by GMAC into offering preferential treatment and a loan modification to Georgia State Rep. Joe Heckstall’s brother, Cornelius Heckstall.
According to the suit, Rep. Heckstall contacted GMAC on behalf of his brother and requested that his mortgage be modified a second time. ARE contents that GMAC pressured the company to offer this second mortgage modification, despite the fact that he had failed to make payments related to an earlier loan modification with identical terms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
