Josh Rosner: 'Landmark Foreclosure Ruling' In Massachusetts Ibanez Case - Bloomberg Video
New clip from Rosner - not posted before.
Video - Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Joshua Rosner, an analyst at Graham Fisher & Co., talks about the implications of a court ruling against U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. in a Massachusetts foreclosure case.
The state Supreme Judicial Court upheld a judge's decision saying two foreclosures were invalid because the banks didn't prove they owned the mortgages, which he said were transferred into two mortgage-backed trusts without the recipients' being named.
If this clip gets pulled, watch it here on Bloomberg's Youtube channel...
---
Here's a related Bloomberg story from earlier this Summer involving Rosner...
Fannie subpoenas to show $30 billion in bad mortgages
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator may identify as much as $30 billion of debt included in mortgage bonds that the companies can force sellers to repurchase, according to Joshua Rosner, an analyst who in 2007 predicted the collapse in the market for the securities.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency this month said it issued 64 subpoenas seeking loan files and other documents related to so-called non-agency mortgage securities bought by the two government-supported companies. The U.S. is trying to determine whether misrepresentations might require issuers to repurchase debt, producing funds from firms that may include Wall Street’s largest banks to help repay taxpayer money.
Rosner’s estimate of the amount of bad loans the FHFA might find doesn’t equal how much Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may recover because banks can argue some misstatements weren’t “material,” the New York-based analyst at independent research firm Graham Fisher & Co. said in a telephone interview. At the same time, the move bolsters other investors’ efforts, he said.
“The most important thing is probably that the subpoenaed documents will support other private actions and other government-agency actions,” said Rosner, co-author of a May 2007 paper that said the failure of mortgage bonds would roil housing and financial markets. “It will cause a lot of unhappiness on Wall Street.”
Corinne Russell, an FHFA spokeswoman, declined to comment.
---
From last week...
Josh Rosner On Massachusetts Foreclosure Ruling: "Opens The Floodgates To More Lawsuits And Strengthens Cases In Other States" - Includes Amicus Brief
Fear And Loathing On Wall Street - Catastrophic Implications For Banks Of The Ibanez Case Ruling
Mass. Court Ruling Has Potential To Void Thousands Of Foreclosures - Washington Post
---
Recently from Josh Rosner...
Josh Rosner: "Foreclosure Fraud Nightmare Scenario Could Dwarf The Lehman Weekend"
Jan 20, 2011 at 3:51 PM
Reader Comments (6)
josh rosner archives...
http://dailybail.com/home/must-read-2-law-professors-are-scaring-the-shite-out-of-wall.html
http://dailybail.com/home/man-beats-bank-and-creates-mortgage-banking-mers-bomb-lost-p.html
http://dailybail.com/home/adam-levitin-tells-congress-citigroup-bank-of-america-jpmorg.html
http://dailybail.com/home/barry-ritholtz-updates-on-foreclosure-fraud-title-insurance.html
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/01/21/next-in-the-massachusetts-pipeline-francis-j-bevilacqua-vs-pablo-rodriguez/
[snip]
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Introduction
Plaintiff Francis Bevilaqua holds no title to the property at 126-128 Summer Street in Haverhill. That title is held by defendant Pablo Rodriguez. What Mr. Bevilaqua has is a quitclaim deed from US Bank, N.A., which conducted an invalid foreclosure sale on the property (it was not the holder of the mortgage at the time the sale was noticed and conducted as required by G.L. c. 244, § 14) [Note 1] and thus acquired nothing from that sale. See US Bank v. Ibanez, 17 LCR 202 (Mar. 26, 2009) & 17 LCR 679 (Oct. 14, 2009) and cases cited therein. US Bank therefore had nothing to convey, and its purported conveyance to Mr. Bevilaqua was a nullity. See Bongaards v. Millen, 440 Mass. 10 , 15 (2003).
Despite this, Mr. Bevilaqua now seeks to create a full, fee simple title in himself — quite literally, something from nothing — through the “try title” procedure of G.L. c. 240, §§ 1-5. He cannot do so, for the reasons set forth below. Accordingly, his complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety, with prejudice.