Some interesting points in here….
First, the Court requires proof of the grant of authority from the original mortgagee, CAMBRIDGE HOME CAPITAL, LLC (CAMBRIDGE), to its nominee, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (MERS), to assign the subject mortgage and note on March 16, 2009 to INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, FSB (INDYMAC). INDYMAC subsequently assigned the subject mortgage and note to its successor, ONEWEST, on May 14, 2009.
This was a portfolio’d loan? Why do I have a problem believing that? If – and I stress if – this was a portfolio loan, then ok. If not, well, then there’s a few other assignments that have to be in there somewhere. But wait a second… Cambridge appears to still exist! Is this the same Cambridge? If so, what (the fuck) do we have here?
You can’t possibly be serious….. Today, in 2010, we still have NINJA loans? Oh, and for good measure, we have I/Os (bad enough) and worse, no-ratio loans (which I would argue are presumptively entered into in bad faith, as there is no attempt made to determine ability to pay.)
In any event, the Judge is demanding proof of provenance of the note. Good! It’s about damn time that someone started insisting that people coming to court asking for a security interest be enforced prove that they actually have one!
Then there’s this:
In the instant action, Ms. Johnson-Seck claims to be: a Vice President of MERS in the March 16, 2009 MERS to INDYMAC assignment; a Vice President of INDYMAC in the May 14, 2009 INDYMAC to ONEWEST assignment; and, a Vice President of ONEWEST in her June 30, 2009-affidavit of merit. Ms. Johnson-Seck must explain to the Court, in her affidavit: her employment history for the past three years; and, why a conflict of interest does not exist in the instant action with her acting as a Vice President of assignor MERS, a Vice President of assignee/assignor INDYMAC, and a Vice President of assignee/plaintiff ONEWEST. Further, Ms. Johnson-Seck must explain: why she was a Vice President of both assignor MERS and assignee DEUTSCHE BANK in a second case before me, Deutsche Bank v Maraj, 18 Misc 3d 1123 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2008); why she was a Vice President of both assignor MERS and assignee INDYMAC in a third case before me, Indymac Bank, FSB, v Bethley, 22 Misc 3d 1119 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2009); and, why she executed an affidavit of merit as a Vice President of DEUTSCHE BANK in a fourth case before me, Deutsche Bank v Harris (Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 5, 2008, Index No. 35549/07).
Oh, you mean that our fair Judge would also like Ms. Robosigner to explain who she gets paid by, how she gets paid, and more importantly, how she can overcome what appears to be a clear conflict of interest.