Housing is a Civil Right

Housing is a Civil Right

Friday, August 28, 2015

KingCast and Mortgage Movies Present: August 28 2015 Update in Busby v. Reimer & BoA. A Rule 60 Memorandum Using Ron Chernek Deposition in Which he Admits he Doesn't Know Jack Shit!


August 28 2015 Update: Busby v. Reimer & BoA Rule 60 Memorandum using Ron Chernek Deposition in which he admits he doesn't know jack shit!



Ronald John Chernek, Esq. a resident of Ohio is a lawyer licensed to practice law and a shareholder of Reimer. He was the head of the foreclosure Department. F. Peter Costello, Esq. of Reimer prepared the bogus Assignment of Mortgage in the Busby’s foreclosure case. Reimer engaged in a pattern and practice of creating, submitting to courts, and recording documents with false and/or misleading representations in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(2) &(10) and 1692f.
From Glazer v. Chase:
Both foreclosure complaints filed against Plaintiff state that CHF is “the holder” of the Klie note. (Exhs B&D.) Under the version of R.C. 1301.01 in effect at the time relevant to this matter, “holder” means either of the following: “(a) if the instrument is payable to bearer, a person who is in possession of the instrument; or “(b) if the instrument is payable to an identified person, the identified person when in possession of the instrument.”
Mr. Chernek testified regarding RACJ’s process for verifying that the foreclosure plaintiff was in fact the holder of the note:

Q.   So what steps were required in your firm in 2008 to confirm that the Plaintiff can actually have the authority to enforce a lost note?
A   We -- first of all, we executed the assignment that we reviewed before and that was recorded --
Q    Okay.
A --and that was the governing document. We wouldn't file a case unless we had an Assignment. [...]
Q.    Let's go to the assignment that you signed in the Klie matter.
A    Okay.
Q    And you see there you are transferring a note from J.P. Morgan to Chase? 
A   Okay.
Q    So, sir, when you prepared this assignment, how did you determine that J.P. Morgan actually held a note signed by Mr. Klie?
MS. BROWN: Objection.
A    We -- we didn't have a copy of the note, so we-- I don't know how we would have done it at this time. I don't really know. I don't remember this one.
Q    And how would you have gone to confirm that J.P. Morgan has the authority to enforce a note that they may or may not hold?
A    We can only look at the mortgage, the title work, and the assignment alleges both, as it is here, but I have nothing in my possession -- we have nothing in our possession.
Q    So if there's a mortgage, you assume that the person who is the mortgagee have the note? A Well, they -- we assert that they're the holder of the note, yes.
Q.    But do you verify that factual assertion in any way?
A    Other than what the client represents to us, no, because we're not at Chase. (ECF Doc. #179 Chernek 130:7-132:16)

Defendants knew that FNMA was the owner and holder of the Klie note: the FADIS referral letter said so. (see also Decl Exh. P, p1, L) FNMA’s Servicing Guide is equally clear on the fact that FNMA owned and held the note.

Q    My question is: When you, as the preparing entity, you go in to prepare an Assignment of Mortgage, you said there's some verbiage that is required by Ohio law. If the Assignment of Mortgage will say that the note has been transferred, you personally, did you have a way to verify that that transfer had already occurred?
A    No, I mean -- no.
Q    No? 
A    No. [...]
My question, then, is: When you go in to prepare an Assignment of Mortgage and the Assignment of Mortgage will be saying that an assignment of a Promissory Note is being accomplished with the transfer, how did you verify the accuracy of that information?
MS. BROWN: Objection.
A    There's nothing to verify. I'm just stating that with this document that that Promissory Note is being transferred.
Q    At the time when you put down that information,you're not saying the Promissory Note was already transferred?
A    I'm not saying that, no.


July 4 2015 update: More to follow. Looks like a Motion for Summary Judgment and Class Action lawsuit in Glazer v. CHASE and Reimer Arnovitz!


There is more coming for these sleazebags... 
read the entire Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, below.

Mr. Chernek testified regarding RACJ’s process for verifying that the foreclosure plaintiff was in fact the holder of the note:

Q. So what steps were required in your firm in 2008 to confirm that the Plaintiff can actually have the authority to enforce a lost note?
A We -- first of all, we executed the assignment that we reviewed before and that was recorded --
Q Okay.
A -- and that was the governing document. We wouldn't file a case unless we had an Assignment. [...]
Q. Let's go to the assignment that you signed in the Klie matter.
A Okay.

Q And you see there you are transferring a note from J.P. Morgan to Chase?
A Okay.
Q So, sir, when you prepared this assignment, how did you determine that J.P. Morgan
actually held a note signed by Mr. Klie?

MS. BROWN: Objection.

A We -- we didn't have a copy of the note, so we-- I don't know how we would have done it
at this time. I don't really know. I don't remember this one.
Q And how would you have gone to confirm that J.P. Morgan has the authority to enforce a note that they may or may not hold?
A We can only look at the mortgage, the title work, and the assignment alleges both, as it is here, but I have nothing in my possession -- we have nothing in our possession.

Q So if there's a mortgage, you assume that the person who is the mortgagee have the note?
A Well, they -- we assert that they're the holder of the note, yes.
Q. But do you verify that factual assertion in any way?
A Other than what the client represents to us, no, because we're not at Chase.

Defendants knew that FNMA was the owner and holder of the Klie note: the FADIS referral letter said so. (see also Decl Exh. P, p1, L) FNMA’s Servicing Guide is equally clear on the fact that FNMA owned and held the note:

Fannie Mae is at all times the owner of the mortgage note, whether the note is in our portfolio or whether we own it as trustee for an MBS trust. In addition, Fannie Mae at all times has possession of and is the holder of the mortgage note, except in the limited
circumstances expressly described below.

RACJ knew, or should have known, about the requirements of R.C. §1301 et seq. and thus made deliberate misrepresentations about the character and legal status of the debt they sought to collect. In Wallace the Sixth Circuit observed that......
Here is your back story about these scum from Ohio.

No comments:

Post a Comment