Tuesday, November 1, 2011

KingCast and Mortgage Movies stand in shock: NH U.S. Bankrupcty Trustee Larry Sumski actually challenged a proof of claim!

Let's not forget the infamous Credit River Decision from 1968 shall we?
Oh, it is definitely germane.


So I was riding around in my Lexis and look what I found on the side of the highway: 
Sousa v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2011 BNH 3. Wells Fargo and their attorneys failed to provide buyers copies of their closing documents and tried to refuse a rescission. The Decision came down earlier this year, around the same time that he was busy taking a piss on me for being Leslie Crepeau's "Internet Cohort." Now remember the difference is that Ms. Crepeau and I were going at things on a much deeper level and a mere rescission for failure to provide documents. We were going into the belly of the beast, the CDO Fraud, the securitized mortgages, the inherent lack of standing.... that sort of thing. Watch the  movie up top. Here is the case at Stop Foreclosure Fraud because Lexis doesn't like it too much when you publish their cases. I figured that out when I was highlighting all of the successful Defamation litigation against the Boston Herald.


At any rate, or be that as it may, a Lexis search still fails to reveal proof that Trustee Lawrence P. Sumski has ever gone after a B10 proof of claim against the big banks, which is probably why he and his lawyers are fighting me so hard on a simple FOIA Request that I have now appealed along with a question to Mass AG Martha Coakley on her approval of 12% check cashing fees at Band of America and what her office does with the mortgage fines she takes in every year. You know, stuff that should be readily available for the public to know about, right?  At any rate, or be that as it may again, I did find this interesting case of consumer abuse where Chase Manhattan and Federal Home Loan Mortgage tried to foreclose because there was a $3.42 discrepancy in the check amounts! Read below the fold to see how Judge James E. Yakos blasted Chase in McCormack v. Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp. (In re McCormack), 203 B.R. 521.


This chapter 13 bankruptcy case was filed on May 17, 1991 for a plan with creditors by the debtor. The relations between the debtor and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches acting through agent Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation  Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches(hereinafter "Chase") got off to an immediate rocky start......
.....when the secured creditor, Chase,  [**3]  authorized its attorney to file a motion for relief from stay because certain checks tendered by the debtor were $ 3.42 off his regular monthly payment to Chase. This led to some ill will on the part of the debtor since he was then faced with attorney's fees, costs, and possible foreclosure for a relatively small amount of discrepancy in the payments.

The testimony by Chase's witness that its software at the time would not accommodate separate accounting and recording of payments coming from the trustee under the plan I find amounts to the "computer did it" defense. That defense is a nonstarter in this Court's judgment since intelligent beings still control the computer and could have altered the programming appropriately. 2 SeeIn re Price, 103 Bankr. 989, 992 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1989); and In re Stucka, 77 Bankr. 777, 783 (Bankr. C.D.Cal. 1987). To paraphrase the old quote "garbage-in" adage a version here pertinent would be "contempt-of-court-in" and "contempt-of-court [**10]  out."
FOOTNOTES

2 Although perhaps below their dignity and customary practices Chase employees were not precluded from getting a quill pen and ledger book to keep track of the effects of a chapter 13 plan in progress if indeed it was beyond the powers of mortal men and women to re-program their computer.

The actions by Chase in this Court's judgment deserve the imposition of punitive damages in this case. Chase acted with clear knowledge of the bankruptcy, the plan, and the confirming order and acted deliberately in a manner contrary to those requirements, knowing that it was violating federally protected rights, or at the very least acting with reckless disregard as to whether it was doing so. Cf. In re Wagner, 74 Bankr. 898, 904 (Bankr. E.D.P.A. 1987).


No comments:

Post a Comment