.jpg)
IndyMAc, Onewest and FDIC - removing a second
Ok, so I just took a default against Indymac. Since I didn't serve the
FDIC now I'm thinking notice was deficient because of their stupid
sharing arrangement that we're supposed to know about so we can give
everyone due process. I personally believe that a litigant should be
able to depend on how the title to an instrument such as a Deed of Trust
is held. However, I don't want to test that.
Therefore, at the status conference I need to tell Zurzolo I need more
time to serve additional parties. Did I miss it, or does someone
already share the relevant addresses for the FDIC?
And thanks to Lou Esbin for sharing his office procedure. I will break
it down into a memo for my firm.
Steve Lever
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Matt, this is really helpful. Thanks. Jon
>
> My office received the following correspondence from what I belive to be CDCBAA member Janis Abrams. This was received about a month after RR had ordered the removal of the lien through adversary.
>
> The letter mentions 'claim" numerous times and service as it relates to a claim.
>
> I probably missed something...but of the 100's of LAM motions we have served, this is the first one from IndyMAc with this notice.
>
> Has anyone seen this letter with respect to LAM/Adversarials and service to OneWest, IndyMAc etc....Is the adversarial considered a claim?
>
> Please let me know as I understand Janis was not all that thrilled to go betyond the 4 corners of the document....
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *****PLEASE NOTE - WE HAVE A NEW DOWNTOWN ADDRESS*****
>
> Matthew D. Resnik
> Attorney at Law
>
> Los Angeles Office - Downtown
>
> Simon and Resnik LLP
> 510 W. Sixth Street
> Suite 1220
> Los Angeles, Ca 90014
> T:213-572-0800
> F: 213-572-0860
> Matt@...
> www.simonresnik.com
>
> San Fernando Valley - Sherman Oaks
> Simon & Resnik, LLP
> 15233 Ventura Boulevard
> Suite 300
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> P: 818-783-6251 #2
> F: 818-827-4919
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
In prosecuting Motions to Value or Adversary Proceedings to Determine the Extent, Validity or Priority of Liens, it is our custom and practice to serve any and all interested parties as possible. In doing so, we maintain a database of all contact information for all lenders/servicers. When a lender is taken over by the FDIC, we serve the FDIC and successor in interest. We serve the successor in interest as published by the FDIC. We look at the note and deed of trust and serve the original beneficiary and nominee (if any). We ask the client for the last billing statement received from the lender/servicer just prior to the date of filing. And, when there is a foreclosure sale pending, we serve the foreclosure trustee.
You can never go wrong in serving any and all parties in interest at as many addresses as possible, including corporate headquarters. Where there has been a prior proof of claim filed in a prior case, or in the case in which we are seeking an order, we serve that counsel.
Failure to server properly all parties in interest will result in the order being invalid. Many years ago, we had an order vacated because we did not properly serve Wells Fargo Mortgage at its Iowa headquarters!! It's worth the extra postage and time to effectuate adequate and proper service of process.
Lou Esbin
>
> After reading the article, it looks like to me it would be necessary to serve both of them.
>
>
>
> As part of the deal, the FDIC agreed to assume losses on a portion of IndyMac's loans. The new investors would shoulder the first 20 percent of the bank's loan losses, with the FDIC taking on the majority of any losses thereafter. The FDIC used a similar loss-sharing agreement when Downey Savings and Loan Association failed in November.
>
>
>
> If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
>
>
>
> Pat
>
>
>
> Patrick T. Green, Esq.
>
> Fitzgerald & Green
>
> Attorneys at Law
>
> 1010 E. Union Street
>
> Suite 206
>
> Pasadena, CA 91106
>
> Tel: 626-449-8433
>
> Fax: 626-449-0565
>
> pat@...
>
>
>
>
>
Patrick Green
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 4:49 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] IndyMAc, Onewest and FDIC - removing a second
>
>
>
>
>
> It would turn on who ended up with the debt and I think that depends on whether it was considered a good asset or a bad asset.
>
>
>
> FDIC takes the bad and Soros takes the good.
>
>
>
> Matt, we await your research and answer.
>
>
>
> If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Simon & Resnik for all your FDIC issues.
>
>
>
> Pat
>
>
>
> Patrick T. Green, Esq.
>
> Fitzgerald & Green
>
> Attorneys at Law
>
> 1010 E. Union Street
>
> Suite 206
>
> Pasadena, CA 91106
>
> Tel: 626-449-8433
>
> Fax: 626-449-0565
>
> pat@...
>
>
>
>
>
Steven B. Lever
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 3:34 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] IndyMAc, Onewest and FDIC - removing a second
>
>
>
>
>
> So are they saying your LAM order is invalid? I thought Indymac was sold to a group of investor led by George Soros: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28472166/
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
Matt Resnik
> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 1:03 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] IndyMAc, Onewest and FDIC - removing a second [1 Attachment]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Attachment(s) from Matt Resnik included below]
>
> My office received the following correspondence from what I belive to be CDCBAA member Janis Abrams. This was received about a month after RR had ordered the removal of the lien through adversary.
>
> The letter mentions 'claim" numerous times and service as it relates to a claim.
>
> I probably missed something...but of the 100's of LAM motions we have served, this is the first one from IndyMAc with this notice.
>
> Has anyone seen this letter with respect to LAM/Adversarials and service to OneWest, IndyMAc etc....Is the adversarial considered a claim?
>
> Please let me know as I understand Janis was not all that thrilled to go betyond the 4 corners of the document....
>
> --
> *****PLEASE NOTE - WE HAVE A NEW DOWNTOWN ADDRESS*****
>
> Matthew D. Resnik
> Attorney at Law
>
> Los Angeles Office - Downtown
>
> Simon and Resnik LLP
> 510 W. Sixth Street
> Suite 1220
> Los Angeles, Ca 90014
> T:213-572-0800
> F: 213-572-0860
> Matt@...
> www.simonresnik.com
>
> San Fernando Valley - Sherman Oaks
> Simon & Resnik, LLP
> 15233 Ventura Boulevard
> Suite 300
> Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
> P: 818-783-6251 #2
> F: 818-827-4919
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
This looks very similar to a notice that was received in an adversarial matter against Indymac. The attorneyreceiveda notice from the FDIC to dismiss the case based on the fact that Indymac does not exist any more.
I also ran into an LA case in which Indymac's attorneys are not responding to discover requests. Adversary matter 2:09-01156 Judge is Sheri Blubond and the case title is Ch 7 Trustee v. Allen Malkins Lack Mallery Gamble & Nasis. Indymac seems to be avoiding discovery. In one of my cases they filed a MFR to withdrawn the Motion when I questioned the chain of title. The Judge is not receptive to the argument, but it sure got a reaction from Indymac.
The NACBA Workshop in Tuscon suggested discovery be sent out in all cases where there are claims and problems with defaults on mortgages. Jim King was there. This is still pretty new to me, I am trying to wrap my head around what to do and how to streamline it so I can actually be effective. I am struggling to add the discovery requests to my practice and stay afloat with everything else.
Indymac seems to have a habit of selling properties twice. The case I am working on, Indymac sold the property to Deusche Bank first then to OneWest, who forecloses without property chain of title. OneWest is a private LLC that does not need to disclose it's primary players unlike Indymac, that was a corporation. There is a high likelihood the major players simply moved from Indymac to OneWest. There is also a company in Pasadena, Freedom Financial, I believe, that helps people earn money as a straw man. They fund the person who buys the home at foreclosure, the person sells the home at market price, and can then keep 10% of the proceeds. The balance of the funds go back to Freedom Financial. Seems to be a big coincidence that loan mods are just not as successful as they could be.
With Indymac avoiding discovery perhaps we need to sharpen our discovery swords to help our clients.
Law Office of Catherine Christiansen
1077 E Pacific Coast Hwy #210
Seal Beach, CA, 90740
Tel: (562) 361-8721
Fax: (562) 490-8572
attorneychristiansen@gmail.com
This e-mail is private and confidential and is intended solely for therecipient(s) named or otherwise identified herein. If you are notnamed or otherwise identified as an intended recipient, please deletethis e-mail message and any copies thereof and immediately notify theLaw Offices of Catherine Christiansen by e-mail or by telephone (562)608-8368.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
After reading the article, it looks like to me it would be necessary to serve both of them.
As part of the deal, the FDIC agreed to assume losses on a portion of IndyMac's loans. The new investors would shoulder the first 20 percent of the bank's loan losses, with the FDIC taking on the majority of any losses thereafter. The FDIC used a similar loss-sharing agreement when Downey Savings and Loan Association failed in November.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
It would turn on who ended up with the debt and I think that depends on whether it was considered a good asset or a bad asset.
FDIC takes the bad and Soros takes the good.
Matt, we await your research and answer.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Simon & Resnik for all your FDIC issues.
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
My office received the following correspondence from what I belive to be CDCBAA member Janis Abrams. This was received about a month after RR had ordered the removal of the lien through adversary.
The letter mentions 'claim" numerous times and service as it relates to a claim.
I probably missed something...but of the 100's of LAM motions we have served, this is the first one from IndyMAc with this notice.
Has anyone seen this letter with respect to LAM/Adversarials and service to OneWest, IndyMAc etc....Is the adversarial considered a claim?
Please let me know as I understand Janis was not all that thrilled to go betyond the 4 corners of the document....
*****PLEASE NOTE - WE HAVE A NEW DOWNTOWN ADDRESS*****
Matthew D. Resnik
Attorney at Law
Los Angeles Office - Downtown
Simon and Resnik LLP
510 W. Sixth Street
Suite 1220
Los Angeles, Ca 90014
T:213-572-0800
F: 213-572-0860
Matt@resniklaw.com
www.simonresnik.com
San Fernando Valley - Sherman Oaks
Simon & Resnik, LLP
15233 Ventura Boulevard
Suite 300
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
P: 818-783-6251 #2
F: 818-827-4919
The post was migrated from Yahoo.