Yau v. Deutsche FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Yau_-_complaint_First_Amended_Pleading.78103044

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Yau v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas
Request for IMMEDIATE RELIEF:

Lenore L. Albert, Esq. SBN 210876
LAW OFFICES OF LENORE ALBERT
7755 Center Avenue, Suite #1100
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Telephone (714) 372-2264
Facsimile (419) 831-3376
Email: lenorealbert@msn.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Class
EDDIE YAU, GLORIA YAU,
ROBERT H. RHOADES, NICOLE
RHOADES, STEVE BURKE, CHEN
PI AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE PI TRUST
DATED MAY 17, 2004, SALIM
BENSRHIR, KIMBERLY
CHRISTENSEN, ALICE MBAABU,
CARMEN ARBALLO, ANGELA
BROWN, ANTHONY JOHNSON,
OTIS BANKS, RICHARD
APOSTOLOS, REGAN OWEN,
JENNIFER OWEN, JOANNE
ANDERSON, JEREMY JOHN DALE,
DOUGLAS L. EDMAN, and
DOUGLAS L. EDMAN and ERIC
EDMAN as trustees of the HIGH
DESERT ENTERPRISES TRUST,
on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, DEUTSCHE
1. Breach/Unjust Enrichment
2. HAMP Breach/Unjust Enrichment
3. Breach of Contract – Third Party Ben.
4. Declaratory Relief/Default Cured
5. Declaratory Relief/Unsecured Creditor
6. Declaratory Relief/Fees and Costs
7. Fraud
8. Injunctive Relief
9. Accounting
10.Unlawful/Unfair Acts §17200
11.Fraud
12.Declaratory Relief/Injunction
[ ]
***
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. SACV11-0006-JVS (RNBx)
Assigned for all purposes to the honorable:
James V. Selna
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Demand for Jury Trial
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Yau v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and
INJUNCTION filed Concurrently herewith

BANK TRUST COMPANY
AMERICAS and AURORA LOAN
SERVICES, LLC, Inclusive,
Defendants.
***
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Yau v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas
Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, bring this action on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
(“DBNT” or “Defendant”). Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“DBTCA” or
“Defendant”) and Aurora Loan Services, LLC. (“Aurora” or “Defendant”). Plaintiffs
allege the following on information and belief, except as to those allegations which
pertain to the named Plaintiffs:
1. Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the defendants’ manipulation and use of
the federal and state programs surrounding the mortgage crisis, such as HAMP and other
foreclosure prevention services.
2. The defendants defaulted the plaintiffs and those similarly situated then offered
them federal and state home retention programs such as Home Affordability
Modification Program agreements (HAMP).
3. After the Plaintiffs made their post default payments as requested, the
defendants never-the-less denied the permanent modification, did not cure the default or
reinstate the plaintiffs’ loans on the grounds they couldn’t get the loan to work.
4. The program guidelines state that if the Net Present Value (“NPV”) of the loan
modification is greater than the NPV at foreclosure, then the lenders modify the
loan.
1. Introduction
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the defendants were
already made whole upon the loans because these loans were securitized with credit
default swaps (“CDS”) and other security interests, and the CDS were factored into the
NPV and not merely the amount that the defendants may receive on a foreclosure sale.
6. The securitization of their loans with CDS was never revealed to the plaintiffs
and the Class prior to their default.
7. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 USC § 1331
wherein the action arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.
8. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this action by the
fact that the Defendants are corporations conducting business in the state of California.
9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 USC § 1392 because the action
involves real property located in both the Central and Southern District of California; and
pursuant to 28 USC § 1391(b) inasmuch as defendant DBNT and DBTCA reside in the
Central District of California, and a substantial part of the events or omissions on which
the claims are based occurred in this District.
10.Plaintiffs Eddie Yau and Gloria Yau (the “Yaus,” “plaintiff,” “plaintiffs” or
“borrowers”) are a married couple residing in Vista, California. Plaintiff is now, and at
all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real property
2. Jurisdiction and Venue
3. The Parties
commonly known as 1307 Summer Court, Vista, California 92084 (“subject property”).
Douglas L. Edman was the borrower on the loan.
11.Plaintiffs Robert Rhoades and Nicole Rhoades (the “Rhoades,” “plaintiff,” or
“borrowers”) are a married couple residing in Chino, California. Plaintiff is now, and at
all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real property
commonly known as 7746 Holland Park, Chino, California 92401 (“subject property”).
Robert Rhoades was the borrower on the loan.
12.Plaintiff Steve Burke is an adult residing in Paradise, California. Plaintiff is
now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real
property commonly known as 5871 Pine Circle, Paradise, California 95969 (“subject
property”). Steve Burke was the borrower on the loan.
13.Plaintiff Chen Pi, acting on her own behalf and as trustee for the Pi Trust dated
May 17, 2004 resides in La Puente California. Plaintiff is now, and at all times
mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real property commonly
known as17116 Samgerry Dr., La Puente, California (“subject property”). Chen Pi was
the borrower on the loan.
14.Plaintiff Otis Banks is an individual residing in Inglewood, California. Plaintiff
is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real
property commonly known as 5408-5408 ½ 8TH Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90045
(“subject property”). Otis Banks was the borrower on the loan.

15.Plaintiff Salim Bensrhir and Kimberly Christensen are a married couple
residing in Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein
relevant to this complaint was the owner of real property commonly known as 842 N
Dillon Street, Los Angeles, California 90026 (“subject property”). Salim Bensrhir and
Kimberly Christensen were the borrowers on the loan.
16.Plaintiff Alice Mbaabu is an individual residing in Fontana, California.
Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the
owner of real property commonly known as 13536 Whipple Street, Fontana, California
92336 (“subject property”). Alice Mbaabu was the borrower on the loan.
17.Plaintiff Carmen Arballo is an individual residing in Chino, California.
Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the
owner of real property commonly known as 6952 Gloria Street, Chino, California 91710
(“subject property”). Carmen Arballo was the borrower on the loan.
18.Plaintiff Angela Brown is an individual residing in Stockton, California.
Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the
owner of real property commonly known as 4516 Abruzzi Circle, Stockton, California
95206 (“subject property”). Angela Brown was the borrower on the loan.
19.Plaintiff Anthony Johnson is an individual is an individual residing in Corona,
California. Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint
was the owner of real property commonly known as 382 Minaret Street, Corona, CA
92881 (“subject property”). Anthony R. Johnson was the borrower on the loan.
20.Plaintiff Richard Apostolos is an individual residing in Perris, California.
Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the
owner of real property commonly known as 21200 Mountain Ave., Perris, California
92570 (“subject property”). Richard Apostolos was the borrower on the loan.
21.Regan Owen and Jennifer Owen are a married couple residing in Chula Vista,
California. Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint
was the owner of real property commonly known as 2872 Ranch Gate Rd., Chula Vista,
California (“subject property”). Regan Owen was the borrower on the loan.
22.Plaintiff Joanne Anderson is an individual residing in Laguna Niguel,
California. Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint
was the owner of real property commonly known as 24291 Park Pl Dr, Laguna Niguel,
CA 92677 (“subject property”). Joanne Anderson was the borrower on the loan.
23. Jeremy John Dale is an individual residing in Paynes Creek, California.
Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the
owner of real property commonly known as 30510 HWY 36 East, Paynes Creek,
California 96075 (“subject property”). Jeremy John Dale was the borrower on the loan.
24.Douglas L. Edman is an individual residing in Malibu, California. Plaintiff is
now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real
property commonly known as 612 Thrift Road, Malibu, California 90265 (“subject
property”). Douglas L. Edman was the borrower on the loan.
25.Douglas L. Edman and Eric Edman as trustees of the HIGH DESERT
ENTERPRISES TRUST reside in Malibu, California. Plaintiff is now, and at all times
mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real property commonly
known as 612 Thrift Road, Malibu, California 90265 (“subject property”). Douglas L.
Edman was the borrower on the loan. Then after the loan was made, the property was
transferred by Douglas L. Edman to Douglas L. Edman, Trustee of the High Desert
Enterprises Trust.
26.Defendant DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (“DBNT”
or “Custodian”) has its principal place of business at 1761 Saint Andrews Place, Santa
Ana, CA 92705.
27.Defendant DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS
(“DBTCA”) has its principal place of business at 1761 Saint Andrews Place, Santa Ana,
CA 92705. When DBNT and DBTCA are mentioned together in this complaint they
may be referred to as “Deutsche Bank.”
28.Defendant AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC (“Aurora” or “loan servicer”) is
headquartered in Littleton, Colorado and regularly conducts business in the state of
California.

29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that their loans are in
securitized trusts where the defendants are either the Servicer, Custodian, or Trustee of
that trust.
30.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that DBNTC and
DBTCA act as board members and are referred to as the Company each with different
duties in the trusts.
31.DBNTC and DBTCA are both subsidiaries created by nonparty Deutsche Bank
Company (“DBC”) which has its principal place of business in Germany. Plaintiff is
informed and believes and alleges thereon DBNTC and DBTCA were either acting in
concert, instructing, adopting, ratifying, assisting DBC’s conduct as alleged in this
complaint through an agency or contractual relationship. As such, the actions or failure
to act are the actions or failure to act of each other.
32.Nonparty FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC (“Fannie Mae”) entered into an
agreement with defendant Aurora of which the plaintiffs and the Class were intended
beneficiaries.
33.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that each defendant is
responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in this complaint, and that
plaintiff’s damages were proximately caused by the defendants and at all times
mentioned in this complaint, were the agents, servants, representatives, and/or employees
of their co-defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged were acting in the
scope of their authority as agents, servants, representatives, family members and/or
employees, and with the permission and consent of their co-defendants.
34.Additionally, plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that each
defendant assisted, aided and abetted, adopted, ratified, approved, or condoned the
actions of every other defendant and that each corporate defendant, if any, was acting as
the alter ego of the other in the acts alleged herein.
35.On March 4, 2009 President Obama signed into law the Making Home
Affordable Plan as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. It is in
two parts: the Home Affordable Refinance program (“HARP”) and the Home Affordable
Modification program (“HAMP”).
36.Under these programs, the U.S. Department of the Treasury directed the large
national bank servicers to take corrective action by providing loan modifications that
produced more sustainable loan payments.
37.On March 4, 2009 the U.S. Department of the Treasury explained,
38.With the information now available, servicers can begin immediately to modify
eligible mortgages under the Modification program so that at-risk borrowers can better
afford their payments.
39.Aurora entered into a Servicer Participation Agreement for the HAMP program
with Fannie Mae; the latter acted as Financial Agent of the United States. ( ).
3. Statutory and Regulatory Scheme
Exhibit 1

40.However, Aurora failed and refused to put Mr. Yau immediately into a
modification program until they first defaulted and gave Notice of Sale of Mr. Yau’s
home. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that defendant Aurora first
caused Notices of Default and Notice of Foreclosure Sale to be served on the Class prior
to placing the Class into a temporary HAMP also.
41.By March 2010, the White House fortified the HAMP program because only
borrowers out of the it was aimed at were placed in a
more affordable home loan.
42.Thereafter, the contract between Aurora and Fannie Mae was amended and
restated on or about September 1, 2010. The Amended and restated contract is attached
hereto and fully incorporated herein as .
43.The United States Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of Currency (hereinafter
the “OCC”) regulates the banking industry such as defendant Deutsche Bank. The OCC
mandated that the largest banks institute HAMP programs.
44.The Office of Thrift Supervision (hereinafter the “OTS”) regulates loan
services such as defendant Aurora.
45.According to the Aurora Loan Services – Issuer Profile dated June 24, 2008 by
Analyst Kathleen Tillwitz, Aurora Loan Services was a wholly owned subsidiary of
Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, servicing 20,000 to 110,380 (or 21.4% of their loans) in
170,000 3 to 4 million borrowers
Exhibit 2
California. As of February 29, 2008 Aurora serviced 514,831 mortgage loans totaling
$113.2 billion dollars.
46.On 11/19/10 the OCC supplied the following written testimony:
47.HAMP guidelines now preclude the servicer from initiating a foreclosure
action until the borrower has been determined to be ineligible for a HAMP modification.
48.Aurora actions in working with the borrowers on the loans at issue in this
complaint violated and continue to violate these directives.
49.Under the contract, the Servicer of the loan must perform a Net Present Value
(NPV) Test to compare the value of the money that it would receive if the loan were
modified with the value it could expect from foreclosure.
50. If the servicer and owner of the loan can expect a greater return from modifying
the loan, the loan is considered NPV positive and the servicer and owner then
modify the loan. ( )
51. In plaintiff’s case, plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the
defendants as the servicer and owner of the loan could have expected no more than onethird
of what the plaintiff would have paid under the HAMP loan modification which
would have been anywhere from $934,560.00 to over $1 million dollars.
52.As servicer of the loan, Aurora must modify the loan unless the contractual
agreement it has with the actual holder of the loan prohibits modification. In that case,
must
Exhibit 4
the servicer is required to use reasonable efforts to obtain waivers or approval of a
modification from the owner and/or investor
53.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that Aurora failed to
disclose to Fannie Mae that loans like the Yau’s which appear to nicely fit under the
program’s protected class, were actually the loans that would never become permanently
modified because these loans were backed by CDS and such. Signing up as a servicer of
the HAMP program, was a carrot to lure distressed homeowners into default.
54.The defendants signed up for exemptions with the California Commissioner for
the same reason, motive or to assist in effectuating this plan.
55.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon defendant failed to make
these material disclosures to Fannie Mae and the California Commissioner, so the
defendants could use the guise of being able to offer these “Programs” to maximize their
own profit by luring homeowners into default, dragging out the process and obtaining
more money from the defaulted homeowner than otherwise would likely occur if the
homeowner did not have hope they may qualify for one of the foreclosure alternatives,
such as HAMP.
56. In the Yau’s case, who were initially only behind by $5,000.00, if they had
known and understood the truth to this scheme, they would have had an incentive to find
a short term loan or other capital to cure the late payment prior to default instead of
relying on their lender to place them in a foreclosure alternative program; they most
$3.86 Trillion dollars.
likely would have never entered into the mortgage in the first place; and surely would
have never paid a dime to the defendants after they gave notice of default and
foreclosure.
57.The impact of Aurora’s practice of defaulting before processing a foreclosure
alternative request by a homeowner, then dragging out the process while the homeowner
is making monthly payments and denying blocks of HAMP modifications after obtaining
a temporary modification is nothing more than a financial “Death Spiral” for the
homeowner.
58.At all times herein mentioned, plaintiff and the Class believed that they were
eligible for HAMP.
59.Although the plaintiffs and the Class complied with the terms of the post
default program agreements, Defendants refused to cure the default, offer such a
permanent modification under the program or to take corrective action by providing loan
modifications that produced more sustainable loan payments to plaintiff.
60.The market size for credit default swaps by 2008 in the United States was
estimated to be Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Critics assert that naked CDS should be banned, comparing them to
buying fire insurance on your neighbor’s house, which creates a huge
incentive for arson.1 [emphasis added]
61. In essence the defendants bet against the borrower from the beginning then
used the Federal Government through the federal HAMP program to take even more
money from the defaulting homeowner in this class knowing that they would never grant
this class of homeowners a permanent loan modification or any other type of relief. The
defendants never fully disclosed or adequately explained this to Fannie Mae/Freddie
Mac. The entire program failed to the assist the very class of homeowners it was
intended to protect.
62.On or about February 2, 2011 the Securities and Exchange Commission started
accepting comment on creating an exchange called “Swap Execution Facilities” under
the in order to create
greater transparency with Credit Default Swaps which the SEC refers to as “Security
Based Swaps.”
63.The plaintiffs and the Class in this Complaint are the class of homeowners
these federal and state programs, including the HAMP program were intended to protect.
64.The plaintiffs and the Class were led to believe that they would have the
opportunity to cure their default and be reinstated, but no matter how much they paid the
defendants each month or what they signed, it never happened and they were kept in
constant foreclosure status the entire time while doling out money and their private
financial information to the defendants.
65.Plaintiff alleges defendants intended to, did and still continue to use these
Programs to manipulate more money from the Plaintiffs and the Class.
66.After obtaining the agreements with Fannie Mae and the California
Commissioner, the defendants used the guise of offering these “Programs” to lure
homeowners into default, drag out the process and confuse the homeowners on the type
of alternative temporary program they were placing the homeowner in just to get them to
shell out more money to the defendants after a Notice of Default and Notice of Sale was
filed and served.
67.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that defendant Aurora
knew or had reason to know that defendant Deutsche Bank bought credit default swaps
or other types investment security/insurance that were either worth more than making the
loan modifications permanent prior to default on these blocks of homes when entering to
the contract with Fannie Mae or defendants failed to properly calculate the Net Present
Value (“NPV”) on these loan modifications. But Aurora never disclosed these facts to
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.
68.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that these CD swaps and
other financial arrangements and the NPV calculations as applied to these asset-backed
loans were material facts and as such Defendants had a duty to disclose these material
facts under the agreement with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or comply with the terms with
regard to NPV calculations.
69.Even if such material facts were disclosed to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, these
material facts were never disclosed to the intended beneficiaries of the agreements
between Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and Aurora, the plaintiffs and the Class.
70. If it is later interpreted that the facts were disclosed to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
but the defendants were forbidden from using the gains they could expect to receive from
the CDS by defaulting the homeowners, then the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
breached that covenant to the injury of the plaintiffs.
71.As intended beneficiaries of the agreements between Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
and Aurora, the Plaintiffs and the Class were injured due to the failure to disclose these
material facts and/or comply with the terms of the agreement.
72. The impact of defendants’ practice and/or scheme as more fully described
below was nothing more than a financial “Death Spiral” to the borrower resulting in
making extortion like payments after giving a complete disclosure of their remaining
financial assets, and allowing their credit to be decimated or face foreclosure sale.
73.And even if these borrowers had the ability to reinstate their loans, under this
scheme the proceeds the defendants received on default would not be applied to the loan
but become a windfall to the defendants, still leaving the homeowner’s credit and
financial health badly battered, making the entire scheme outrageous, despicable and
deserving of punitive or exemplary damages.
74.The plaintiffs each received a written agreement such as a temporary HAMP
agreement after default appearing to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to save their home
if they made the requested payments.
75.Plaintiffs and those similarly situated made all payments, however the
defendants did not cure the default, reinstate the loan or permanently modify the loan.
76.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that at all times
mentioned in this complaint, the defendants knew California was not a deficiency
judgment state and understood their actions of collecting payment after default without
cure or reinstatement was unlawful.
77.Yet, the defendants collected money from the plaintiffs before satisfying the
debt with the security.
78.Mr. Burke has paid the defendants approximately $20,279.00 since the Notice
of Default dated 9/16/08 originally for $6,312.74.
79.Plaintiff, Mr. Apostolos has paid $27,928.00 after his Notice of Default dated
6/7/10 in the amount of $33,014.53 and turned over approximately $7,000.00 payments
to his attorney to be held in trust for payments on his home.
4. General Factual Allegations
80.Plaintiff Ms. Brown has paid the defendants approximately $24,728.00 after
her Notice of Default dated 2/14/09 in the amount of $5,899.60 and also placed
additional payments in trust with her attorney and/or deposited with the court.
81.Plaintiff Mr. Salem Benshir and Kimberly Christensen has paid the defendants
approximately $51,991.25 after their Notice of Default dated 11/16/08 in the amount of
$10,495.23.
82.Plaintiff Regan Owens and Jennifer Owens paid the defendants approximately
$38,059.00 after their Notice of Default dated 3/10/09 in the amount of $27,371.99.
83.Plaintiff Ms. Chen Pi has paid the defendants approximately $24,728.00 after
her Notice of Default dated 2/14/09 in the amount of $5,899.60 and also placed
additional payments in trust with her attorney and/or deposited with the court.
84.Plaintiff Ms. Alice Mbaabu has paid the defendants approximately $24,728.00
after her Notice of Default dated 2/14/09 in the amount of $5,899.60 and also placed
additional payments in trust with her attorney and/or deposited with the court.
85.Plaintiff Ms. Carmen Arballo has paid the defendants approximately
$24,728.00 after her Notice of Default dated 2/14/09 in the amount of $5,899.60 and also
placed additional payments in trust with her attorney and/or deposited with the court.
86.Plaintiff Mr. Anthony Johnson has paid the defendants approximately
$24,728.00 after her Notice of Default dated 2/14/09 in the amount of $5,899.60 and also
placed additional payments in trust with her attorney and/or deposited with the court.
87.Plaintiff Mr. Otis Banks has paid the defendants approximately $24,728.00
after her Notice of Default dated 2/14/09 in the amount of $5,899.60 and also placed
additional payments in trust with her attorney and/or deposited with the court.
88. In fact, each of the named plaintiffs and those similarly situated have entered
into agreements with the defendants after default and tendered payments as requested.
89. In 2009, 632,573 California properties had some type of foreclosure filed on its
property record.2
90.According to a California Consumer Banking article dated December 13, 2010,
the outlook for 2011 is worse.
91.The number of foreclosures is expected to increase in 2011 as more mortgage
defaults work their way through the pipeline. Rick Sharga, a senior vice president for
RealtyTrac, said there were approximately 1.2 million bank repossessions in 2010,
900,000 in 2009, and “We expect we will top both of those numbers in 2011,” he said.3
92.Quality Loan Service Corporation, agent of defendant Aurora Loan Services,
LLC recorded over foreclosure type filings in in 2010
alone.
93.Recently, the Attorney General of Arizona was quoted by Business Week as
stating
What I’m most angry about is the simultaneous modifications and
foreclosures… We need to look for a stipulated judgment in all 50 states,
that if someone is in modification, they can’t be foreclosed.
(www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-28/arizona-seeks-changes-tobanks-
home-loan-modification-process.html).
94.The plaintiffs and the Class were led to believe that they would have an
opportunity to cure their default, receive a modification and have their loan reinstated,
but no matter how much they paid the defendants each month or what they signed, it
never happened. Attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as is a true and
correct copy of the Yaus’ Temporary HAMP Agreement.
95.Some plaintiffs signed temporary modification agreements, others were
actually placed in limited modification Special Forbearance agreements, and some were
placed in both after notice of default.
96. Defendant Aurora contracted with Fannie Mae to provide foreclosure
prevention services intending to benefit homeowners with affordable loan modifications.
In return Aurora would be compensated over in taxpayer funds as
incentive to do so. Attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as is a true
and correct copy of the original Agreement between Aurora and Fannie Mae.
Exhibit 3
$2.873 Billion dollars
Exhibit 1
97.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that Aurora Loan
Services made and/or is making more money on defaults and/or foreclosures than on the
loan modifications and knew it would do so when entering into the contract with Fannie
Mae.
98.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that defendant Aurora
knew or had reason to know that defendant Deutsche Bank bought credit default swaps
or other types investment security/insurance that were either worth more than making the
loan modifications permanent prior to default on these blocks of homes when entering to
the contract with Fannie Mae or they failed to report the way they were calculating NPV
under the agreement. But Aurora never disclosed these facts to Fannie Mae.
99.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that these CDS and other
financial arrangements were material facts and as such Defendants had a duty to disclose
these material facts under the agreement or the NPV calculations violated the terms of
the agreement with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Attached hereto and fully incorporated
herein as is a true and correct copy of the March 4, 2009 Home Affordable
Modification Program Guidelines including the NPV calculations.
100. But defendants never disclosed or adequately explained these material facts.
101. Assistant Treasury Secretary Herbert M. Allison admitted that modifying
mortgages has been more difficult than administration officials had anticipated.”
Exhibit 4
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Yau v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas

“Certainly we’ve seen a lot of frustration with this program since its
inception,” he told lawmakers. “We did not fully envision the
challenges we would encounter.” (http://rismedia.com/2010-03-
28/white-house-to-adjust-troubled-mortgage-modification-program/)
102. Section 5 of the Servicer agreement between Aurora and Fannie Mae
contains the representations, warranties and covenants which state in part:
(b) Servicer is in compliance with, and covenants that all
Services will be performed in compliance with all applicable
Federal, state and local law, regulations, regulatory guidance,
statutes, ordinances, codes and requirements, including, but not
limited to, the Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC 1601 et seq., the
home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, 15 USC 1639, the
Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 USC 41 et seq., the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act, 15 USC 701 et seq., the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 USC 1681 et seq., the fair Housing Act and
other Federal and state laws designed to prevent unfair,
discriminatory or predatory lending practices and all applicable
laws governing tenant rights…Servicer is not aware of any
other legal or financial impediments to performing its
obligations under the Program in which Servicer participates or
the Agreement and shall promptly notify Fannie Mae of any
financial and/or operational impediments which may impair its
ability to perform its obligations under such Programs or the
Agreement…
(c) Servicer covenants that:…all data …that is relied upon by
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in calculating the Purchase Price or
in performing any compliance review will be true, complete and
accurate in all material respects, and consistent with all relevant
business records, as and when provided.
(d) Servicer covenants that it will(i) perform the Services
required under the Program Documentation and the Agreement
in accordance with the practices, high professional standards of
care, and degree of attention used in a well-managed
operation…

(f) Servicer acknowledges that the provision of false or
misleading information to Fannie Mae or Freddie mac in
connection with any of the Programs or pursuant to the
Agreement may constitute a violation of: (a) Federal criminal
law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity
violations found in Title 18 of the United States Code; or (b) the
civil False Claims Act (31 USC § 3729-3733). Servicer
covenants to disclose to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac any
credible evidence, in connection with the Servicers, that a
management official, employee, or contractor of Servicer has
committed, or may have committed, a violation of the
referenced statutes.
(g) Servicer covenants to disclose to Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac any other facts or information that the Treasury, Fannie
Mae or Freddie Mac should reasonably expect to know about
Servicer and its contractors to help protect the reputational
interests of the Treasury, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in
managing and monitoring the Programs in which Servicer
participates.” ( page A-2 to A-4 ; Exhibit 2 page B-3
to B-4)
103. Plaintiff alleges that defendants breached these covenents.
104. Defendants used the offering of the federal HAMP Program as an incentive
to get the homeowners to default on their loans which would trigger payment on the CDS
without any care about placing the homeowners at risk of a foreclosure sale and then
have the homeowners like the plaintiffs in this case continue to make monthly payments
on them while in default facing a foreclosure sale all to the defendants’ financial benefit.
105. On July 7, 2007 plaintiff Eddie Yau borrowed $608,000.00 from
Homecomings Financial, LLC on a 30 year negative adjustable rate note to purchase his
Exhibit 1
8. Factual Allegations of the Yaus Repesenting the HAMP Subclass
home where he lives with his wife. His payments were supposed to be fixed at $2,402.34
per month for the first five years of the loan.
106. Mr. Yau, a retired military veteran and mechanic, has no mortgage or home
lending financial experience beyond basic financial matters.
107. Plaintiff, as trustor, executed and delivered a deed of trust, conveying the
real property described herein to secure payment of the principal sum and interest as
provided in the note and as part of the same transaction to Homecomings Financial, LLC
which was then later assigned, sold or transferred by the lender to either DBNT or
DBTCA as beneficiary and serviced by defendant Aurora.
108. Mr. Yau missed his July 2008 payment and telephoned defendant Aurora
Loan Services and explained he was experiencing financial difficulties due to a decrease
in his income and inquired as to alternatives to foreclosure.
109. On or about September 24, 2008 defendant Aurora Loan Services sent a
letter explaining the following programs it offered and that by entering into the programs
the borrower “will avoid the loss of your home through foreclosure or further impairment
on your credit.”
“Repayment Plan: If you recently experienced a temporary reduction
in income or an increase in living expenses, a repayment plan will
allow you to repay the past due amount over a specified period of
time.
Forbearance Plan: You may be able to suspend or reduce your
mortgage payments for a short period of time. Thereafter, we would
review your current financial situation and determine what home
retention option would best assist you in bringing your loan current.
Loan Modification: A loan modification may offer you the ability to
change on or more of the terms of your mortgage. This may assist
you with providing an affordable payment and avoiding foreclosure.
Again, we would need to review your financial situation and ability to
pay. If your loan is current and you anticipate that you may have
difficulty in making the increased monthly payment, we may be able
to assist you with a loan modification that will provide you with an
affordable payment based on your current financial information.
110. Then on December 02, 2008 defendant Aurora Loan Services wrote Mr.
Yau which stated:
“Based upon the information that you provided during your telephone
conversation with Aurora, your loan may qualify for a loan
modification….You must provide documentation to support your
inability to reinstate the mortgage loan in one lump sum…under some
circumstances,
111. Then on December 19, 2008 Aurora Loan Services sent Mr. Yau a letter
noting Mr. Yau’s was in default in the amount of $4,828.68 and that
“If you do not bring your loan current within thirty (30) days of the
date of this letter, Aurora Loan Services may demand the entire
balance outstanding under the terms of your Mortgage/Deed of Trust.”
112. Aurora then followed up with the same letter of September 24, 2008 again
on December 24, 2008 and January 20, 2009.
113. Instead of sending Mr. Yau a loan modification plan, defendant Aurora
Loan Services sent him a Repayment Agreement expecting him to pay an additional
$802.78 per month ($3,207.12 per month for 6 months) which equaled a 33% increase in
you may be expected to pay a loan modification fee.”
[Emphasis added]
his monthly mortgage payment. This payment plan did not create a “more sustainable
payment plan.”
114. In 2009 the Yau’s financial situation became worse as their investments
were depleted from what was later characterized as a “Ponzi scheme.”
115. From that time up to June 2009, plaintiff would telephone defendant Aurora
seeking a modification and Aurora would take down information representing the
defendants would start the process, but the process was never started.
116. Mrs. Yau spoke to a person at Aurora Loan Services named Steve who
promised that someone from Aurora Loan Services would call them back no later than
June 1st about the Making Home Affordable Loan Program.
117. On June 16, 2009 defendant caused to be served and recorded a purported
Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust (NOD) alleging (a) that a
breach of the obligation secured by the deed of trust had occurred, consisting of Mr.
Yau’s failure to pay $12,655.67 as of 6/15/09, and (b) that the defendant, as beneficiary,
elected to sell, or to cause to be sold, the property to satisfy that obligation.4
4 However, that Notice of Default was outside the chain of title because Lawyers Title Company, as
the original trustee and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the nominee did not
assign this right until June 24, 2009. Attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as is a
true and correct copy of the Assignment to Quality Loan Service which was not notarized until
6/24/09.
Exhibit 8

118. A few months later defendant Aurora Loan Services faxed a “customized
Home Affordable Modification Trial Period Plan (“Trial Period Plan”)” under HAMP
wherein Mr. Yau was supposed to make payments of $1,943.70 on 10/01/09, 11/01/09,
and 12/01/09.
119. The temporary HAMP agreement which is incorporated herein stated in part
“If I comply with the requirements in Section 2 and my
representations in Section 1 continue to be true in all material
respects, the Lender will send me a Modification Agreement for my
signature which will modify my Loan Documents as necessary to
reflect this new payment amount and waive any unpaid late charges
accrued to date.”
120. Aurora promised:
“If you qualify under the federal government’s Home Affordable
Modification program and comply with the terms of the Trial Period
Plan, we will modify your mortgage loan and you can avoid
foreclosure.”
121. These terms are boilerplate in all such agreements received by the coplaintiffs
and the class.
122. Mr. Yau believed he was eligible for HAMP and made the payments as laid
out in the agreement under Section 2, provided the necessary documents and his
representations in Section 1 continued to be true in all material respects, yet defendant
Aurora Loan Services failed and refused to send the Modification Agreement for him to
sign, or to cure the default and reinstate the loan.
123. On or about March 6, 2010 defendant Aurora Loan Services sent a letter to
Mr. Yau explaining,
“Unfortunately, we are unable to offer you a Home Affordable
Modification for the following reasons: Excessive Forbearance. We
are unable to offer you a Home Affordable Modification because we
are unable to create an affordable payment equal to 31% of your
reported monthly gross income without changing the terms loan
beyond the requirements of the program.”
124. Defendant’s representation in that letter was false. According to Aurora
Loan Service’s Customer Account Activity Statement the principal balance on the loan
was at $643,178.83 when he entered the temporary payment plan.
125. The contract required Aurora to place the Yaus into a permanent
modification if the NPV was greater under modification than a foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs
allege the defendants breached by failing to place them in the permanent modification.
126. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that Plaintiff’s home
at foreclosure would not have resulted in a sale in excess of the NPV of the modification.
127. Plaintiff through counsel, demanded defendant’s calculations used to deny
plaintiff’s modification and NPV. To date, defendant failed to provide plaintiff with a
HAMP-compliant modification or any documentation showing its calculations to justify
why a permanent modification was not offered to Plaintiff.
128. Mr. Yau’s loan accelerated from $643,178.83 to $649,482.15 during the
interim.
129. Along with the notice that Mr. Yau did not qualify for the loan modification,
defendant Aurora stated that Mr. Yau may qualify for other foreclosure alternatives such
as “Repayment Plan: allows you to repay the past due amount over a
specified period of time.
Forbearance Plan: allows you to suspend or reduce your mortgage
payments for a short period of time until a long term solution is
available.
Loan Modification: allows us to modify one or more of your original
mortgage terms which will provide you with an affordable payment
based on your current financial information.
Pre-foreclosure Sale (short sale): allows you to sell your property,
pay off your mortgage for an amount less than total pay off to avoid
foreclosure and minimize damage to your credit rating.
Deed in lieu of foreclosure: allows you to voluntarily deed your
property to Aurora Loan Services to payoff your mortgage. Taking
this action may not save your home, but it may help your ability to
qualify for another mortgage in the future.”
130. The Yaus telephoned Aurora and were assured that the defendants would
work with the Yaus and that they could cure their default by having the lender
temporarily forebear the terms of the agreement so that the Yaus could catch up.
131. Consequently, Mr. Yau continued making monthly payments on his home
and entered into a Special Forbearance Plan with defendant Aurora when they sent him
the application to sign.
132. On or about April 7. 2010 Defendant Aurora sent Plaintiffs a letter stating it
had enclosed a “Special Forbearance Agreement which has been prepared on your
behalf.” On page 2 of the agreement it stated “WHEREAS, customer has requested and
Lender has agreed to allow Customer to repay the Arrearage pursuant to a loan work-out
arrangement on the terms set forth herein.”
133. However, there was no real consideration and the agreement was illusory
because the Lender had been given the right to proceed with a foreclosure sale during the
term of the agreement at its discretion and the terms never gave the Yaus an opportunity
to repay the arrearage.
134. The Plan was not the same as advertised in its prior letters to Mr. Yau or as
represented on the telephone. The forbearance Plan did not allow Mr. Yau to suspend or
reduce his mortgage payments for a short period of time until a long term solution was
available.
135. Mr. Yau made the required $4,804.72 initial payment and monthly
payments of $2,875.00 but he was only getting further in debt.
136. The true facts were that his payments were increased to $2,875.00 per
month and no other terms of his loan were modified or suspended during the forbearance
period. He was still in default and the foreclosure sales were still pending.
137. Furthermore, the terms of the Agreement violated California law.
138. Mr.Yau continued to make the $2,875.00 monthly payments until this action
was filed.
139. Instead of putting Mr. Yau into a temporary modification, they delayed
processing, requesting the same documents they already had over and over again.
140. As a result of defendants’ unlawful practices, unfair acts and failure to place
Mr. Yau into a permanent HAMP loan modification on December 1, 2009, his loan as of
October 10, 2010 approached the HAMP cap.
Total Unpaid principal $664,711.59
Interest from 12/1/09 to 10/10/10 47,916.49
Escrow/Impound Overdraft 12,983.09
Corporate advance 3,652.84
Unpaid Late Charges 120.12
Recording Fee 37.00
Suspense Balance -2,345.75
Total: $727,075.38
141. On November 5, 2010 defendant Aurora sent notice that it intended on
increasing Mr. Yau’s monthly loan payment to $5,466.57 on 3/01/11.
142. Defendant then notified Mr. Yau it intended to sell his home on 12/13/10.
143. From September 2008 when Mr. Yau was behind by approximately
$5,000.00 through present plaintiff has paid defendants approximately $54,293.08. This
is very close to the amount he would have paid the defendants if he had never defaulted
on the loan in the first place ($2402.34*24 months = $57,656.16).
144. Plaintiff further alleges the defendants were deceptive and unlawful in their
handling of the loans and business practices. Examples in the Yaus’ case, include but are
not limited to the fact that defendant has not rescinded the Notice of Default or Notice of
foreclosure sale although the Notice was filed before Quality Loan Services received
assignment and as such is outside the chain of title. Failing to send the plaintiffs a loan
modification application until after they filed a Notice of Default. Additionally, flood
hazard insurance was not required on the Yaus loan but the defendants charged Mr. Yau
$1592.00 for flood hazard insurance after the loan went into default in addition to other
fees and charges for allegedly driving by the home and such. Also, Defendant obtained
an exemption to allow defendant Aurora to offer modifications and other programs in
excess of 38% of the borrower’s income from the California Commissioner but
defendant never notified plaintiff of that fact as required under California law and never
took the foreclosure off of the home when it was notified of this failure to notify.
Defendants failed and refused to request partition even after being notified only Mr. Yau
was on the Note and Mrs. Yau at most was a trustee and was given no consideration for
her name to be placed on their filed recordings as a “co-borrower” for non-judicial
foreclosure purposes.
5. Factual Allegations of Mr. Edman representing the Forebearance Class
145. Mr. Edman obtained a loan to build a home on his land in Malibu,
California.
146. On or about 12/07/06, for valuable consideration, plaintiff, as borrower
made, executed and delivered to his original lender a written promissory note in the
amount of $850,000.00, a true and correct copy of which is attached as and
incorporated by reference herein.
147. According to the terms of the Note, Mr. Edman was required to pay
$3,141.77 per month for the first five (5) years.
148. Plaintiff, as trustor, executed and delivered a deed of trust, conveying the
real property described herein to secure payment of the principal sum and interest as
provided in the note and as part of the same transaction which was then transferred to
defendant, as beneficiary.
149. Said deed of trust was recorded against the subject property in the Official
Records in Los Angeles County, California, a true and correct copy of which is attached
as and incorporated by reference herein.
150. On or about 1/14/09, defendant caused to be recorded a notice of default
and election to sell in the Official Records in Los Angeles, County, California alleging
(a) that a breach of the obligation secured by the deed of trust had occurred, consisting
of plaintiff’s alleged failure to pay $14,267.35 as of 1/13/09, and (b) that the defendant,
as beneficiary, elected to sell, or to cause to be sold, the trust property to satisfy that
Exhibit 10
Exhibit B

obligation, a true and correct copy of which is attached as and incorporated
by reference herein.
151. A week later on or about 1/23/09, defendants delivered a document to Mr.
Edman which represented a “Special Forbearance Agreement [] has been prepared on
your behalf.”
“WHEREAS, customer has requested and Lender has agreed to allow Customer to
repay the Arrearage pursuant to a loan work-out arrangement on the terms set forth
herein…NOW, THEREFORE…Lender shall forbear from exercising any or all of its
rights and remedies..” [pg 2]
“The amount of each Plan payment specified above includes both (1) the regularly
scheduled monthly payment, plus (2) the portion of the Arrearage specified above…
in the event Customer cures the Arrearage by making all Plan payments on or before
the Expiration Date, and is current with the payments then due, and no default then
exists under the Loan Documents and Agreement, Lender shall consider the Note
and Security Instrument to be current and in effect according to their original terms
and conditions.” Attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as is a
true and correct copy of the Special Forbearance Agreement entered into postdefault.
152. Consequently, Mr. Edman made the monthly payments on his home and
entered into a Special Forbearance Plan with defendant Aurora.
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12

concert therewith after default, but whose default was not cured and loan was not
reinstated by defendants after plaintiff tendered the requested payments.
California homeowners who were denied permanent HAMP loan
agreements after entering in a temporary HAMP agreement with
defendant Aurora whose loans are held by DBNT as Custodian, and
making their payments as requested under the temporary HAMP
agreement.
California homeowners who were denied permanent HAMP loan
agreements after entering in a temporary limited modification Special
Forbearance agreement with defendant Aurora whose loans are held
by DBNT as Custodian, and making their payments as requested
under the temporary HAMP agreement.
159. Excluded from the Class are governmental entities, defendants, and their
affiliates, subsidiaries, current or former employees, officers, directors, agents,
representatives, their family members, the members of this Court and its staff.
160. Defendants subjected plaintiffs and each of their respective Classes to the
same unfair, unlawful and deceptive practices and harmed them in the same manner.
Now plaintiffs and each of their respective Classes seek to enforce the same rights and
remedies under the same substantive law.
161. Plaintiffs do not know the exact size or identities of the members of the
proposed class, since such information is in the exclusive control of the Defendants.
Plaintiffs believe that the Class encompasses over 41 individuals California homeowners
HAMP Subclass:
Forbearance Subclass:

which could reach into the thousands whose identities can be readily ascertained from
Defendant’s books and records. Defendants filed over 4,000 foreclosure documents with
the Orange County Recorder’s office in 2010 alone. Therefore, the proposed Class are so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
162. Based on the market value of these homes in foreclosure and the size of the
payments made by the Class members under the temporary HAMP agreements and
thereafter, plaintiffs believe the amount in controversy could range anywhere from
$1,250,000 for the first 25 members to over $2 billion dollars for the entire anticipated
class.
163. All members of the Class have been subject to and affected by the same
conduct. The claims are based on wrongfully forcing the Class into default before
implementing a written foreclosure alternative program then wrongfully failing to cure
the default, reinstate the loan or permanently modifying the loan under HAMP and other
government programs after the Class made the payments as requested.
164. There are questions of law and fact that are common to the Class, and
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. These
questions include, but are not limited to the following:
a. The validity of the contracts at issue in this case (
(5th Cir 1985) 759 F2d 466, 471);
See, Black Gold Marine,
Inc. v Jackson Marine Co.
b. The nature, scope and operation of defendants’ obligations to the borrowers
under the Servicer Participation Agreements entered into between Aurora
and Fannie Mae ( . (2nd Cir
1986) 799 F.2d 851, 856);
c. Whether the defendants must now be reclassified as unsecured creditors.
d. Whether the plaintiffs have cured their defaults and are entitled to
reconveyance upon payments of subsequent sums due and owing, if any.
e. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to reconveyance of their deeds.
f. The defendants’ obligations to the borrowers when the borrower holds a
CDS or some similar type of security/insurance against default on the
borrower’s loan;
g. Whether the existence of a CDS or similar type of security/insurance to a
borrower should be disclosed at the time the borrower signs the promissory
note and mortgage or as soon as the lender obtains a CDS contract that
could cover the loan.
h. Whether the failure to disclose the existence of a CDS or similar type of
security/insurance to a borrower before default is a breach of good faith and
fair dealing;
See, Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. v Fleer Corp
i. The Class’ right to terminate and rescind the contracts at issue in this action
( . (2nd
Cir. 1994) 17 F3d 38, 39-40).
j. The nature, scope and operation of defendants’ obligations to the borrowers
under the temporary HAMP agreements;
k. Whether the temporary HAMP agreements created any legally binding
obligation on the defendants;
l. Whether the agreements entered into by the borrowers after they were
denied a permanent HAMP agreement were void ab initio for failure or
partial failure of consideration;
m. Whether the agreements entered into by the borrowers after they were
denied a permanent HAMP agreement were illusory;
n. Whether the promissory note and mortgage agreements entered into by the
borrowers after the owner purchased a CDS or similar security/insurance
were void ab initio for failure to disclose this adverse interest or partial
failure of consideration;
o. Whether defendants actions failed to take corrective action by providing
loan modifications that produced more sustainable loan payments;
p. Whether the plaintiffs and the Class (“borrowers’”) payments after the
Notice of Default were the result of fraud of duress;
See, Leisure Time Productions, B.V. v Columbia Pictures Indus. Inc

q. Whether Aurora violated California law by using false, deceptive, and
misleading statements and omission in connection their collection of
Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s mortgage debt;
r. Whether defendants actions or failure to act constituted a breach of their
obligation of good faith and fair dealing;
s. Whether contracts implied in fact were created when Aurora required the
borrowers to continue to make payments after the temporary HAMP
agreement expired;
t. Whether Aurora was required to rescind or otherwise nullify the pending
foreclosure proceedings for all borrowers who were still being considered
for a HAMP modification after the OCC stated “HAMP guidelines now
preclude a servicer from initiating a foreclosure action until the borrower
has been deemed ineligible for a HAMP modification.”
u. Whether the disclosure of the credit default swaps or other types of
investment security/insurance were “material” under federal law;
v. Whether the plaintiff and the Class members are intended beneficiaries of
the agreement between defendant Aurora and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac;
w. Whether defendant Aurora breached its agreement with Fannie Mae/Freddie
Mac;
x. Whether defendant Aurora failed to disclose a material fact to Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac as required under its contract with them to the detriment
of its intended beneficiaries;
y. Whether defendants conduct as described in this Complaint constituted
fraud or duress;
z. Whether defendants were unjustly enriched;
aa.Whether defendants acts and practices described herein constitute unfair or
deceptive business practices under California Unfair Competition Law
(“UCL”)
bb.Whether injunctive relief is appropriate
cc.Whether specific performance is appropriate
dd.Whether punitive or exemplary damages are appropriate
165. The claims of the individual named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the
Class and do not conflict with the interests of any other members of the Class in that both
the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class’ loans were all securitized in vehicles
that had default and other types of swaps placed on them, they were subjected to the
same conduct, the same terms, and tendered payments to the defendants after being
served with a Notice of Default pursuant to a post default foreclosure alternative
program.
166. The individually named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the Class. They are committed to the vigorous prosecution of the Class’
claims and have retained attorneys who are qualified to pursue this litigation.
167. A class action is superior to other methods for the fast and efficient
adjudication of this controversy. A class action regarding the issues in this case does not
create any problems of manageability.
168. The putative class action meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).
169. The nature of notice to the proposed class required and/or contemplated is
the best practicable method possible and contemplated the defendant’s list when
disclosed would most likely be mailing to the property addresses affected by the filed
foreclosures and internet and other general notices are contemplated to ensure notice.
170. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to
the Class so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate
respecting the Class as a whole.
7. Claims for Relief
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Contract/Unjust Enrichment
(All Plaintiffs and Classes against All Defendants)
171. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 170 in this
cause of action as though fully set forth herein.
172. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
173. Defendant represented to plaintiff that by entering into the Special
Forbearance Agreement, the temporary HAMP agreement, or other written post-default
agreement, plaintiff would be able to save his home in that defendant would not sell
plaintiff’s home, and plaintiff would be able to either cure their default or receive a
permanent loan modification.
174. In reliance on defendants’ representations, plaintiff paid the defendants
after Notice of Default was served and recorded.
175. All of the terms in the forbearance agreements, temporary HAMP
agreements or other post-default agreements were drafted by the defendant, and not
negotiable.
176. Plaintiff had no bargaining power in negotiating the terms of these
agreements or the amounts of payments requested.
177. Defendants took the money then elected to sell the property through
foreclosure.
178. Plaintiff alleges said conduct constituted a breach of good faith and fair
dealing, was unconscionable, unjust and/or coercive.

179. As a result of defendant’s conduct, plaintiff was damaged financially.
180. Plaintiff seeks damages according to proof and reserves the right to seek
equitable remedies of unjust enrichment and disgorgement of profit made on the
Plaintiff under guise of performance of this agreement.
181. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 180 as though set forth in full herein.
182. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and the Subclass described above.
183. Defendant Aurora and the Plaintiffs and Class entered into a Temporary
HAMP agreement as alleged above, a true and correct copy of the Mr. Yau’s agreement
is attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as
184. Defendant Aurora agreed to permanently modify plaintiff and each
members of the Class’s loan if plaintiffs and the Class complied with the terms of the
temporary modification.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Unjust Enrichment/Breach of Temporary HAMP Agreement
(Plaintiffs, Eddie Yau, Gloria Yau, Rob Rhoades, Nicole Rhoades, Steve Burke,
Otis Banks, Richard Apostolos, Joanne Anderson and the HAMP Class against
all Defendants)
Exhibit 3.

185. Plaintiff and the Class complied with the terms of the temporary
modification, except for those terms and conditions that were excused or waived.
186. Defendant unjustifiably and inexcusably breached the contract by failing to
perform its obligations thereunder as described above.
187. As a result of defendant’s breach, plaintiff’s loan was not permanently
modified causing injury to the plaintiff and Class.
188. As a result of Defendants’ unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs and the Class have
sustained damages in an amount to be determined at trial (which include legal and other
fees in excess of the principal and interest due on their loans) and seek full
disgorgement and restitution of Defendants’ enrichments, benefits, and ill-gotten gains
acquired as a result of the wrongful conduct alleged above. Alternatively, Plaintiffs and
the Class seek specific performance or if specific performance cannot be granted,
reformation of the contract from temporary to permanent under the same monthly
payment terms for a term of 30 years or if reformation of the contract cannot be granted,
damages according to proof and reserve the right to seek equitable remedies to rescind
the payments made to defendants under guise of performance of this contract and
disgorgement of profits made on the Plaintiffs and the Class loans above reasonable
rental value of their homes from the time the loans originated.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Written Contracts – Third Party Beneficiary
(All Plaintiffs and Classes against all Defendants)
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
189. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 188
as though set forth in full herein.
190. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
191. Plaintiffs and the Class members are third party beneficiaries to the
contract attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as and to the Amended
and Restated contract attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as .
192. Plaintiff and the Class are intended beneficiaries under the contracts.
193. Defendants Aurora and DBTCA and DBNTC, jointly and severally,
unjustifiably and inexcusably breached the Contract by failing to perform their
obligations thereunder as described above.
194. Defendants’ breach of the contract resulted in harm to plaintiff.
195. Pursuant to California Civil Code §1559 and/or federal law, plaintiff may
enforce the contract’s provisions.
196. Plaintiffs and the Class seek specific performance or if specific
performance cannot be granted, reformation of the contract from temporary to
permanent under the same monthly payment terms for a term of 30 years or if
reformation of the contract cannot be granted, damages according to proof and reserve
the right to seek equitable remedies to rescind the payments made to defendants under
phs 1 through 196 as though fully set forth herein.
198. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
199. An actual controversy exists between plaintiff and defendant concerning
their respective rights and duties pertaining to the subject property and described
transactions because plaintiff alleges there was a cure and reinstatement by mutual
consent.
200. As a result, plaintiff desires a judicial determination and declaration that
the default was cured, plaintiff is entitled to reconveyance upon payment of subsequent
sums and the defendant has no ability to foreclose on plaintiff’s home.
201. Such a declaration is appropriate at this time so that plaintiff may
determine his or her rights and duties before the subject property is sold at a foreclosure
sale.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief – Cure and Reinstatement by Mutual Consent
(All plaintiffs and classes against all defendants)
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief – One Action Rule
(All plaintiffs and classes against all defendants)
202. Plaintiff incorporated in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 201 and the allegations in the Second cause of action as though
fully set forth herein.
203. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
204. An actual controversy exists between plaintiff and defendant concerning
their respective rights and duties pertaining to the subject property and described
transactions because plaintiff alleges the defendant violated the One Action Rule so
defendant is reduced to the status of unsecured creditor, entitling plaintiff to injunctive
relief, attorney fees and costs of suit.
205. As a result, plaintiff desires a judicial determination and declaration the
defendants are reduced to the status of unsecured creditor(s), the defendants have no
ability to foreclose on plaintiff’s home as unsecured creditors, and plaintiff is entitled to
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
206. Such a declaration is appropriate at this time so that plaintiff may
determine his or her rights and duties before the subject property is sold at a foreclosure
sale.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief
Improper Application and/or Calculation of Payments, Fees and Costs
(All plaintiffs and classes against all defendants)
207. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 206 as though fully set forth herein.
208. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
209. An actual controversy exists between plaintiff and defendant concerning
their respective rights and duties pertaining to the subject property and described
transactions because plaintiff alleges a breach of the obligation for which the deed of
trust is security has not occurred or is excused because the beneficiary improperly
applied and/or calculated plaintiff’s payments, costs, fees, insurance, taxes and other
charges prior to, during, and/or after default.
210. As a result, plaintiff desires a judicial determination and declaration of
plaintiff’s and defendant’s respective rights and duties; specifically that plaintiff did not
breach his or her obligations and as such the Notice of default and election to sell was
null and void.
211. Such a declaration is appropriate at this time so that plaintiff may
determine his or her rights and duties before the subject property is sold at a foreclosure
sale.
212. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
211 as though fully set out herein.
213. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
214. Consent to the special forbearance was not real or free in that it was
obtained solely through fraud and misrepresentations as herein alleged.
215. Plaintiffs thus seek to rescind the agreements under California Civil Code
section 1689(b)(1). Plaintiffs have retained no consideration provided by defendants
Aurora or Deutsche Bank that can be tendered back to Aurora or Deutsche Bank prior to
rescission.
216. Aurora led plaintiff to believe that it wanted to help Plaintiff maintain
ownership of their homes.
217. Aurora represented it wanted to help Plaintiff maintain ownership of his
home through the language of the special forbearance agreement which states
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud/Misrepresentation of Material Fact)
[By all plaintiffs and classes against all defendants)
“WHEREAS, Customer has requested and Lender has agreed to allow Customer to
repay the Arrearage pursuant to a loan work-out arrangement on the terms set forth
herein.” Aurora led Plaintiff to believe that their arrearage in payments that led to
default would be repaid if they made the payments under the special forbearance
agreement.
218. Plaintiff reasonably relied on defendant’s representations which led
Plaintiff to believe that the default on his home would be cured and his loan would
eventually be reinstated under the agreement.
219. At the time that Aurora made these representations, Aurora know or should
have known that they were not true.
220. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that Aurora would
ensure that the requested payments were never enough to repay the arrearage due to the
way the payments were applied.
221. Plaintiff is informed and believes and further alleges thereon that the notice
of default was on file before the special forbearance was offered so that Aurora could
execute the Trustee’s sale and foreclose after obtaining the payments knowing that the
arrearage would not be repaid.
222. Aurora made these representations with the purpose of persuading Plaintiff
to enter into the Special Forbearance agreements and to continue to make payments of
thousands of dollars.
223. Plaintiff reasonably relied on these representations.
224. Plaintiff would not have entered into the special forbearance agreement and
paid thousands of dollars to defendants Aurora and Deutsch Bank after default had he
known that he would not have had a genuine opportunity to save his home.
225. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct plaintiff has been financially
injured in an amount to be proven at trial and his credit has been damaged.
226. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 225 as though fully set forth herein.
227. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
228. Defendants beneficiary and trustee intend to sell and unless restrained will
sell or cause to be sold, the subject property, all to plaintiff’s great and irreparable injury
in that defendant has given notice that the trustee sale of the property will take place on
March 11, 2011 or anytime thereafter, and if the sales take place as scheduled, plaintiff
will forfeit it.
229. The scheduled sales should be enjoined by virtue of the facts alleged that
said sale is wrongful.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Injunctive Relief
(All Plaintiffs and Classes against all Defendants)
230. Plaintiff has no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy, and the injunction
relief prayed for below is necessary and appropriate at this time to prevent irreparable
loss to plaintiff’s interests.
231. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 230 as though fully set forth herein.
232. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
233. The amount of money defendant owes to plaintiff or vice versa is unknown
and cannot be determined without an accounting.
234. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 233 as though set forth in full herein.
235. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Accounting
(All Plaintiffs and Classes against all Defendants)
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unfair and Unlawful Practices
(All plaintiffs and Classes against All Defendants)
236. California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) defines unfair competition to
include any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent” business act or practice. Cal Bus & Prof
Code 17200 et seq.
237. By its terms, the statute is broad in scope. “It governs „anti-competitive
business practices? as well as injuries to consumers, and has as a major purpose “the
preservation of fair business competition.” [Citations.]” (
(1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.) “By defining
unfair competition to include any „ . . . business act or practice? [citation], the
UCL permits violations of other laws to be treated as unfair competition that is
independently actionable. [Citation.]” ( (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 949.)
In addition, under the UCL, “„a practice may be deemed unfair even if not specifically
proscribed by some other law.? [Citation.]” (
(2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1143.) The remedies available under the UCL are
“cumulative . . . to the remedies or penalties available under all other laws of this state.”
(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17205.) (2010)
238. Defendants have violated Cal Bus & Prof Code §17200 et seq with the
conduct as alleged above.
239. Such acts include but are not limited to:
a. Defendants have a pattern and practice of refusing to provide permanent
loan modifications to those borrowers who loans were placed in temporary
Cel-Tech Communications,
Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.
unlawful
Kasky v. Nike, Inc.
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin
Corp.
Arce v Kaiser Foundations Health Plan, Inc.
HAMP plans but were covered by CDS or other securities/insurance, and
this refusal to provide permanent loan modifications constitutes an
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice in violation of UCL,
and/or
b. Defendant Aurora engaged in “fraudulent” business practices under the
UCL because its temporary HAMP Agreements and post temporary HAMP
Agreements were intended and likely to mislead the public into believing
that if they made the additional payments that Aurora required they would
have an opportunity to cure their loan defaults with a permanent HAMP
modification or similar type of agreement prior to foreclosure. A true
opportunity to cure their defaults was “material” to Plaintiffs and the Class
within the meaning of , (2009) 46 Cal 4th 298, 325,
and/or
c. Aurora engaged in “unlawful” business practices under the UCL based on
its violations of the Security First Rule, Cal Code Civ Pro 726 which states
in pertinent part:
(a) There can be but one form of action for the recovery of any debt or
the enforcement of any right secured by mortgage upon real property
or an estate for years therein, which action shall be in accordance with
the provisions of this chapter. n the action the court may, by its
judgment, direct the sale of the encumbered real property or estate for
years therein (or so much of the real property or estate for years as
may be necessary), and the application of the proceeds of the sale to
In re Tobacco II Cases
the payment of the costs of court, the expenses of levy and sale, and
the amount due plaintiff, including, where the mortgage provides for
the payment of attorney’s fees, the sum for attorney’s fees as the court
shall find reasonable, not exceeding the amount named in the
mortgage.
(b) The decree for the foreclosure of a mortgage or deed of trust
secured by real property or estate for years therein shall declare the
amount of the indebtedness or right so secured and, unless judgment
for any deficiency there may be between the sale price and the amount
due with costs is waived by the judgment creditor or a deficiency
judgment is prohibited by Section 580b, shall determine the personal
liability of any defendant for the payment of the debt secured by the
mortgage or deed of trust and shall name the defendants against whom
a deficiency judgment may be ordered following the proceedings
prescribed in this section….
d. Aurora engaged in “unfair” business practices under the UCL because it
violated the laws and underlying legislative policies concerning: (1)
foreclosure prevention; (2) the unavailability of deficiency judgments after
a lender exercised its election to sell under non-judicial foreclosure; and (3)
the rights of contracting parties to enjoy the benefits of their agreements
after having paid valuable consideration for such benefits.
240. As a proximate result of defendant Aurora’s conduct, plaintiff was injured
financially and/or to his property rights. Aurora’s conduct as set forth herein resulted in
loss of money or property to Plaintiff.
241. Plaintiff seeks damages, disgorgement of profits on the CD Swaps,
injunctive relief in the form of correction of his/her, their damaged credit, cure of
default and reconveyance of the deed, and any other equitable relief that the court deems
appropriate.
242. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
241 as though fully set out herein.
243. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
244. As more fully described above defendants concealed the following material
facts that they had a duty disclose:
e. Defendants Deutsche Bank and Aurora concealed the material fact that
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas as trustee was the
owner of the note and mortgage loan until after the plaintiffs and Class
were thrown into default on their loans.
f. Defendant Deutsche Bank concealed the material fact that the plaintiffs and
Class’s loans were covered with CDS or other similar security/insurance
after the defendant defaulted the plaintiffs and Class’s loans.
g. Defendant Aurora concealed a material fact that the way the contract was
written between Fannie Mae and Aurora, there was a substantial amount of
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud/Concealment of Material Fact)
(All Plaintiffs and Classes against All Defendants)
loans aimed at receiving a more sustainable and affordable mortgage under
HAMP that would not pass the NPV test because the lenders such as
defendant Deutsche Bank had purchased credit default swaps or other types
of investment security/insurance against these mortgages.
245. In plain language, the very types of mortgages the federal HAMP program
was designed to protect were the very types of mortgages that were not being protected
by the terms of the agreement between Aurora and Fannie Mae. The lenders like
defendant Deutsche Bank knew it. The servicers such like defendant Aurora knew or
should have known it and the plaintiffs and the Class in this action didn’t have a clue.
246. Aurora was under a duty by the terms of the contract with Fannie Mae to
disclose this material fact to Fannie Mae when it entered into this Agreement or when it
learned of this material fact from defendant Deutsche Bank. The defendants were under
a duty to disclose the owner of the loan.
247. The suppression of this fact was likely to mislead and did mislead Fannie
Mae, the plaintiffs and the Class.
248. The representations and failure to disclose information and suppression of
the information herein alleged to have been made by defendant were made with the
intent to induce plaintiffs and the Class to act in the manner herein alleged in reliance
thereon.
249. In reliance upon the representation that defendants were qualified to offer
the HAMP program to plaintiffs and the Class and without knowing that their loans
were asset-backed pass-through securities held by Deutsche Bank who bought credit
default swaps or other types of investment security/insurance or what that really meant,
the plaintiffs and the members of the Class continued to make payments on their
mortgage after they were in default and entered into the temporary HAMP agreements
as described above believing if they continued to make their payments they would be
accepted into a permanent HAMP modification.
250. Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, at the time these failures to
disclose and suppressions of facts occurred, and at the time plaintiff took the actions
herein alleged, was ignorant of the existence of the facts which defendant suppressed
and failed to disclose. If plaintiff had been aware of the existence of the facts not
disclosed by defendant, plaintiff would not have paid these additional amounts to the
defendants after default; may not have even signed the note or mortgage loan; and most
likely would not have relied on defendant Aurora’s representations which lulled them
into default without looking beyond the servicer for an alternate solution.
251. As a proximate result of Defendants’ fraudulent conduct as herein alleged,
plaintiffs and the Class were induced to disclose all of their private financial information
and pay Aurora additional monies without any real consideration by reason of which
plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged in the sum of their payments so made.
252. Plaintiffs and the Class seek specific performance or if specific
performance cannot be granted, reformation or if reformation cannot be granted, offset,
equitable remedies to rescind the payments made to defendants under guise of
performance of this contract and disgorgement of profits made on the Plaintiffs and the
Class loans above reasonable rental value of their homes from the time the loans
originated.
253. The aforementioned conduct of defendant(s) was an intentional
misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant(s)
with the intention on the part of the defendant(s) of thereby depriving plaintiff of
property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that
subjected plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s
rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
254. Plaintiffs and the Class seek specific performance of the temporary HAMP
agreement by converting it to a permanent modification on the same terms and if
specific performance cannot be granted; rescission of all of the agreements as a result of
these failures of consideration. Plaintiffs have no other adequate remedy at law and will
suffer irreparable harm if the agreements are not rescinded and if the fees paid (which
included legal and other fees not required to be paid under their notes) are not returned.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief/Injunction
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Yau v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas
(As between plaintiff Gloria Yau and all those similarly situated and all
defendants)
8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
255. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 254 as though set forth in full herein.
256. Plaintiff Gloria Yau and all those similarly situated always held title in the
home described in the complaint and in the Notice of Default and Foreclosure Sale
attached hereto as exhibits.
257. Plaintiff Gloria Yau was not a signer on the Note and was not a coborrower
on the loan, in fact.
258. Defendants contend that they have the right to non-judicially foreclose on
plaintiff Gloria Yau’s home, and conduct a trustee’s sale relative to that property and
evict her.
259. Plaintiff contends that Defendants do not have a right to foreclose on her
portion of the home.
260. An actual controversy presently exists between Plaintiff Gloria Yau and
Defendants as to the existence of the ability or right to foreclose on her home and evict
her. A judicial decision is necessary and appropriate at this time so that Plaintiff Gloria
Yau and Defendants may ascertain their respective rights relative to Plaintiffs and the
Class’s homes and the appropriate injunction issued.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment
against defendants, Aurora Loan
Services, LLC, DBNTC, DBTCA and each of them, jointly and severally, as
follows:
A judicial determination and decree that:
the plaintiffs have cured their default and plaintiff is entitled to
reconveyance upon payment of subsequent sums;
the defendants, and each of them, have no legal right or authority to
foreclose on plaintiff’s home,
that the defendant is reduced to the status of an unsecured creditor,
that defendant improperly applied and/or calculated plaintiff’s payments
requiring a full accounting;
B. An accounting;
C. A permanent or final injunction to force defendants to request immediate
removal of default or foreclosure status and all other derogatory/negative
information from the Plaintiff’s credit reports and to refrain such derogatory
reporting in the future;
A permanent or final injunction, to effect full and fair relief consistent with the
law, including but not limited to forcing defendants to reconvey the deed of the
trust to the plaintiffs and Class and refrain from holding the debt out as
“secured” to any other creditors. Such injunctive relief could include, case
dismissals, rescissions of sales, reconveyance of deeds, cures of defaults,
reinstatement of loans at the principal and rate consistent with the rest of the
relief afforded by way of this Complaint.
Restitution to the Plaintiffs and the Class in amounts to be proven at trial;
Statutory damages and civil penalties;
Disgorgement of profits;
Costs of this action, including the fees and costs of experts;
Attorneys’ fees;
Prejudgment interest at the statutory rate;
Post-judgment interest;
Exemplary and Punitive Damages; and
Grant plaintiffs and the class such other and further relief as this Court finds
necessary and proper.
Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.
Dated: March 11, 2011 LAW OFFICES OF LENORE ALBERT
By _______________
LENORE ALBERT, ESQ.
Attorney for the Plaintiffs and the Class

Yau_-_complaint_First_Amended_Pleading.78103044

SB 94 and its interferance with the practice

CA SB 94 on Lawyers & Loan Modifications Passes Assembly… 62-10

The California Assembly has passed Senate Bill 94, a bill that seeks to protect homeowners from loan modification scammers, but could end up having the unintended consequence of eliminating a homeowner’s ability to retain an attorney to help them save their home from foreclosure.

The bill, which has an “urgency clause” attached to it, now must pass the State Senate, and if passed, could be signed by the Governor on October 11th, and go into effect immediately thereafter.

SB 94’s author is California State Senator Ron Calderon, the Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, which shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone familiar with the bigger picture. Sen. Calderon, while acknowledging that fee-for-service providers can provide valuable services to homeowners at risk of foreclosure, authored SB 94 to ensure that providers of these services are not compensated until the contracted services have been performed.

SB 94 prevents companies, individuals… and even attorneys… from receiving fees or any other form of compensation until after the contracted services have been rendered. The bill will now go to the Democratic controlled Senate where it is expected to pass.

Supporters of the bill say that the state is literally teeming with con artists who take advantage of homeowners desperate to save their homes from foreclosure by charging hefty fees up front and then failing to deliver anything of value in return. They say that by making it illegal to charge up front fees, they will be protecting consumers from being scammed.

While there’s no question that there have been some unscrupulous people that have taken advantage of homeowners in distress, the number of these scammers is unclear. Now that we’ve learned that lenders and servicers have only modified an average of 9% of qualified mortgages under the Obama plan, it’s hard to tell which companies were scamming and which were made to look like scams by the servicers and lenders who failed to live up to their agreement with the federal government.

In fact, ever since it’s come to light that mortgage servicers have been sued hundreds of times, that they continue to violate the HAMP provisions, that they foreclose when they’re not supposed to, charge up front fees for modifications, require homeowners to sign waivers, and so much more, who can be sure who the scammers really are. Bank of America, for example, got the worst grade of any bank on the President’s report card listing, modifying only 4% of the eligible mortgages since the plan began. We’ve given B of A something like $200 billion and they still claim that they’re having a hard time answering the phones over there, so who’s scamming who?

To make matters worse, and in the spirit of Y2K, the media has fanned the flames of irrationality with stories of people losing their homes as a result of someone failing to get their loan modified. The stories go something like this:

We gave them 1,000. They told us to stop making our mortgage payment. They promised us a principal reduction. We didn’t hear from them for months. And then we lost our house.

I am so sure. Can that even happen? I own a house or two. Walk me through how that happened again, because I absolutely guarantee you… no way could those things happen to me and I end up losing my house over it. Not a chance in the world. I’m not saying I couldn’t lose a house, but it sure as heck would take a damn sight more than that to make it happen.

Depending on how you read the language in the bill, it may prevent licensed California attorneys from requiring a retainer in advance of services being rendered, and this could essentially eliminate a homeowner’s ability to hire a lawyer to help save their home.

Supporters, on the other hand, respond that homeowners will still be able to hire attorneys, but that the attorneys will now have to wait until after services have been rendered before being paid for their services. They say that attorneys, just like real estate agents and mortgage brokers, will now only be able to receive compensation after services have been rendered.

But, assuming they’re talking about at the end of the transaction, there are key differences. Real estate agents and mortgage brokers are paid OUT OF ESCROW at the end of a transaction. They don’t send clients a bill for their services after the property is sold.

Homeowners at risk of foreclosure are having trouble paying their bills and for the most part, their credit ratings have suffered as a result. If an attorney were to represent a homeowner seeking a loan modification, and then bill for his or her services after the loan was modified, the attorney would be nothing more than an unsecured creditor of a homeowner who’s only marginally credit worthy at best. If the homeowner didn’t pay the bill, the attorney would have no recourse other than to sue the homeowner in Small Claims Court where they would likely receive small payments over time if lucky.

Extending unsecured credit to homeowners that are already struggling to pay their bills, and then having to sue them in order to collect simply isn’t a business model that attorneys, or anyone else for that matter, are likely to embrace. In fact, the more than 50 California attorneys involved in loan modifications that I contacted to ask about this issue all confirmed that they would not represent homeowners on that basis.

One attorney, who asked not to be identified, said: “Getting a lender or servicer to agree to a loan modification takes months, sometimes six or nine months. If I worked on behalf of homeowners for six or nine months and then didn’t get paid by a number of them, it wouldn’t be very long before I’d have to close my doors. No lawyer is going to do that kind of work without any security and anyone who thinks they will, simply isn’t familiar with what’s involved.”

“I don’t think there’s any question that SB 94 will make it almost impossible for a homeowner to obtain legal representation related to loan modifications,” explained another attorney who also asked not to be identified. ”The banks have fought lawyers helping clients through the loan modification process every step of the way, so I’m not surprised they’ve pushed for this legislation to pass.”

Proponents of the legislation recite the all too familiar mantra about there being so many scammers out there that the state has no choice but to move to shut down any one offering to help homeowners secure loan modifications that charges a fee for the services. They point out that consumers can just call their banks directly, or that there are nonprofit organizations throughout the state that can help homeowners with loan modifications.

While the latter is certainly true, it’s only further evidence that there exists a group of people in positions of influence that are unfamiliar , or at the very least not adequately familiar with obtaining a loan modification through a nonprofit organization, and they’ve certainly never tried calling a bank directly.

The fact that there are nonprofit housing counselors available, and the degree to which they may or may not be able to assist a given homeowner, is irrelevant. Homeowners are well aware of the nonprofit options available. They are also aware that they can call their banks directly. From the President of the United States and and U.S. Attorney General to the community newspapers found in every small town in America, homeowners have heard the fairy tales about about these options, and they’ve tried them… over and over again, often times for many months. When they didn’t get the desired results, they hired a firm to help them.

Yet, even the State Bar of California is supporting SB 94, and even AB 764, a California Assembly variation on the theme, and one even more draconian because of its requirement that attorneys only be allowed to bill a client after a successful loan modification has been obtained. That means that an attorney would have to guarantee a homeowner that he or she would obtain a modification agreement from a lender or servicer or not get paid for trying. Absurd on so many levels. Frankly, if AB 764 passes, would the last one out of California please turn off the lights and bring the flag.

As of late July, the California State Bar said it was investigating 391 complaints against 141 attorneys, as opposed to nine investigations related to loan modifications in 2008. The Bar hasn’t read anywhere all of the complaints its received, but you don’t have to be a statistician to figure out that there’s more to the complaints that meets the eye. So far the State Bar has taken action against three attorneys and the Attorney General another four… so, let’s see… carry the 3… that’s 7 lawyers. Two or three more and they could have a softball team.

At the federal level they’re still reporting the same numbers they were last spring. Closed 11… sent 71 letters… blah, blah, blah… we’ve got a country of 300 million and at least 5 million are in trouble on their mortgage. The simple fact is, they’re going to have to come up with some serious numbers before I’m going to be scared of bumping into a scammer on every corner.

Looking Ahead…

California’s ALT-A and Option ARM mortgages are just beginning to re-set, causing payments to rise, and with almost half of the mortgages in California already underwater, these homeowners will be unable to refinance and foreclosures will increase as a result. Prime jumbo foreclosure rates are already up a mind blowing 634% as compared with January 2008 levels, according to LPS Applied Analytics.

Clearly, if SB 94 ends up reducing the number of legitimate firms available for homeowners to turn to, everyone involved in its passage is going to be retiring. While many sub-prime borrowers have suffered silently through this horror show of a housing crisis, the ALT-A and Option ARM borrowers are highly unlikely to slip quietly into the night.

There are a couple of things about the latest version of SB 94 that I found interesting:

1. It says that a lawyer can’t collect a fee or any other compensation before serivces have been delivered, but it doesn’t make clear whether attorneys can ask the client to deposit funds in the law firm’s trust account and then bill against thsoe funds as amounts are earned. Funds deposited in a law firm trust account remain the client’s funds, so they’re not a lawyer’s “fees or other compensation”. Those funds are there so that when the fees have been earned, the lawyer doesn’t have to hope his or her bill gets paid. Of course, it also says that an attorney can’t hold any security interest, but money in a trust account a client’s money, the attorney has no lien against it. All of this is a matter of interpretation, of course, so who knows.

2. While there used to be language in both the real estate and lawyer sections that prohibited breaking up services related to a loan modification, in the latest version all of the language related to breaking up services as applied to attorneys has been eliminated. It still applies to real estate licensed firms, but not to attorneys. This may be a good thing, as at least a lawyer could complete sections of the work involved as opposed to having to wait until the very end, which the way the banks have been handling things, could be nine months away.

3. The bill says nothing about the amounts that may be charged for services in connection with a loan modification. So, in the case of an attorney, that would seem to mean that… well, you can put one, two and three together from there.

4. Lawyers are not included in definition of foreclosure consultant. And there is a requirement that new language be inserted in contracts, along the lines of “You don’t have to pay anyone to get a loan modification… blah, blah, blah.” Like that will be news to any homeowner in America. I’ve spoken with hundreds and never ran across one who didn’t try it themselves before calling a lawyer. I realize the Attorney General doesn’t seem to know that, but look… he’s been busy.

Conclusion…

Will SB 94 actually stop con artists from taking advantage of homeowners in distress? Or will it end up only stopping reputable lawyers from helping homeowners, while foreclosures increase and our economy continues its deflationary free fall? Will the California State Bar ever finishing reading the complaints being received, and if they ever do, will they understand what they’ve read. Or is our destiny that the masses won’t understand what’s happening around them until it sucks them under as well.

I surely hope not. But for now, I’m just hoping people can still a hire an attorney next week to help save their homes, because if they can’t… the Bar is going to get a lot more letters from unhappy homeowners.

Don’t get HAMP ED out of your home!

By Walter Hackett, Esq.
The federal government has trumpeted its Home Affordable Modification Program or “HAMP” solution as THE solution to runaway foreclosures – few things could be further from the truth. Under HAMP a homeowner will be offered a “workout” that can result in the homeowner being “worked out” of his or her home. Here’s how it works. A participating lender or servicer will send a distressed homeowner a HAMP workout agreement. The agreement consists of an “offer” pursuant to which the homeowner is permitted to remit partial or half of their regular monthly payments for 3 or more months. The required payments are NOT reduced, instead the partial payments are placed into a suspense account. In many cases once enough is gathered to pay the oldest payment due the funds are removed from the suspense account and applied to the mortgage loan. At the end of the trial period the homeowner will be further behind than when they started the “workout” plan.
In California, the agreements clearly specify the acceptance of partial payments by the lender or servicer does NOT cure any default. Further, the fact a homeowner is in the workout program does NOT require the lender or servicer to suspend or postpone any non-judicial foreclosure activity with the possible exception of an actual trustee’s sale. A homeowner could complete the workout plan and be faced with an imminent trustee’s sale. Worse, if a homeowner performs EXACTLY as required by the workout agreement, they are NOT assured a loan modification. Instead the agreement will include vague statements that the homeowner MAY receive an offer to modify his or her loan however there is NO duty on the part of the servicer or lender to modify a loan regardless of the homeowner’s compliance with the agreement.

A homeowner who fully performs under a HAMP workout is all but guaranteed to have given away thousands of dollars with NO assurance of keeping his or her home or ever seeing anything resembling an offer to modify a mortgage loan.
While it may well be the case the government was making an honest effort to help, the reality is the HAMP program is only guaranteed to help those who need help least – lenders and servicers. If you receive ANY written offer to modify your loan meet with a REAL licensed attorney and ask them to review the agreement to determine what you are REALLY agreeing to, the home you save might be your own.

A ‘Little Judge’ Who Rejects Foreclosures, Brooklyn Style

By Michael Powell – NY Times – 8/30/09

The judge waves you into his chambers in the State Supreme Court building in Brooklyn, past the caveat taped to his wall — “Be sure brain in gear before engaging mouth” — and into his inner office, where foreclosure motions are piled high enough to form a minor Alpine chain.

“I don’t want to put a family on the street unless it’s legitimate,” Justice Arthur M. Schack said.

Every week, the nation’s mightiest banks come to his court seeking to take the homes of New Yorkers who cannot pay their mortgages. And nearly as often, the judge says, they file foreclosure papers speckled with errors.

He plucks out one motion and leafs through: a Deutsche Bank representative signed an affidavit claiming to be the vice president of two different banks. His office was in Kansas City, Mo., but the signature was notarized in Texas. And the bank did not even own the mortgage when it began to foreclose on the homeowner.

The judge’s lips pucker as if he had inhaled a pickle; he rejected this one. “I’m a little guy in Brooklyn who doesn’t belong to their country clubs, what can I tell you?” he says, adding a shrug for punctuation. “I won’t accept their comedy of errors.”

The judge, Arthur M. Schack, 64, fashions himself a judicial Don Quixote, tilting at the phalanxes of bankers, foreclosure facilitators and lawyers who file motions by the bale. While national debate focuses on bank bailouts and federal aid for homeowners that has been slow in coming, the hard reckonings of the foreclosure crisis are being made in courts like his, and Justice Schack’s sympathies are clear. He has tossed out 46 of the 102 foreclosure motions that have come before him in the last two years. And his often scathing decisions, peppered with allusions to the Croesus-like wealth of bank presidents, have attracted the respectful attention of judges and lawyers from Florida to Ohio to California. At recent judicial conferences in Chicago and Arizona, several panelists praised his rulings as a possible national model.

His opinions, too, have been greeted by a cry of affront from a bank official or two, who say this judge stands in the way of what is rightfully theirs. HSBC bank appealed a recent ruling, saying he had set a “dangerous precedent” by acting as “both judge and jury,” throwing out cases even when homeowners had not responded to foreclosure motions. Justice Schack, like a handful of state and federal judges, has taken a magnifying glass to the mortgage industry. In the gilded haste of the past decade, bankers handed out millions of mortgages — with terms good, bad and exotically ugly — then repackaged those loans for sale to investors from Connecticut to Singapore. Sloppiness reigned. So many papers have been lost, signatures misplaced and documents dated inaccurately that it is often not clear which bank owns the mortgage.

Justice Schack’s take is straightforward, and sends a tremor through some bank suites: If a bank cannot prove ownership, it cannot foreclose. “If you are going to take away someone’s house, everything should be legal and correct,” he said. “I’m a strange guy — I don’t want to put a family on the street unless it’s legitimate.”

Justice Schack has small jowls and big black glasses, a thin mustache and not so many hairs combed across his scalp. He has the impish eyes of the high school social studies teacher he once was, aware that something untoward is probably going on at the back of his classroom. He is Brooklyn born and bred, with a master’s degree in history and an office loaded with autographed baseballs and photographs of the Brooklyn Dodgers. His written decisions are a free-associative trip through popular, legal and literary culture, with a sideways glance at the business pages.

Confronted with a case in which Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs passed a defaulted mortgage back and forth and lost track of the documents, the judge made reference to the film classic “It’s a Wonderful Life” and the evil banker played by Lionel Barrymore. “Lenders should not lose sight,” Justice Schack wrote in that 2007 case, “that they are dealing with humanity, not with Mr. Potter’s ‘rabble’ and ‘cattle.’ Multibillion-dollar corporations must follow the same rules in the foreclosure actions as the local banks, savings and loan associations or credit unions, or else they have become the Mr. Potters of the 21st century.”

Last year, he chastised Wells Fargo for filing error-filled papers. “The court,” the judge wrote, “reminds Wells Fargo of Cassius’s advice to Brutus in Act 1, Scene 2 of William Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar’: ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’ ”

Then there is a Deutsche Bank case from 2008, the juicy part of which he reads aloud:

“The court wonders if the instant foreclosure action is a corporate ‘Kansas City Shuffle,’ a complex confidence game,” he reads. “In the 2006 film ‘Lucky Number Slevin,’ Mr. Goodkat, a hit man played by Bruce Willis, explains: ‘A Kansas City Shuffle is when everybody looks right, you go left.’ ”The banks’ reaction? Justice Schack shrugs. “They probably curse at me,” he says, “but no one is interested in some little judge.”

Little drama attends the release of his decisions. Beaten-down homeowners rarely show up to contest foreclosure actions, and the judge scrutinizes the banks’ papers in his chambers. But at legal conferences, judges and lawyers have wondered aloud why more judges do not hold banks to tougher standards.

“To the extent that judges examine these papers, they find exactly the same errors that Judge Schack does,” said Katherine M. Porter, a visiting professor at the School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and a national expert in consumer credit law. “His rulings are hardly revolutionary; it’s unusual only because we so rarely hold large corporations to the rules.”

Banks and the cottage industry of mortgage service companies and foreclosure lawyers also pay rather close attention. A spokeswoman for OneWest Bank acknowledged that an official, confronted with a ream of foreclosure papers, had mistakenly signed for two different banks — just as the Deutsche Bank official did. Deutsche Bank, which declined to let an attorney speak on the record about any of its cases before Justice Schack, e-mailed a PDF of a three-page pamphlet in which it claimed little responsibility for foreclosures, even though the bank’s name is affixed to tens of thousands of such motions. The bank described itself as simply a trustee for investors.

Justice Schack came to his recent prominence by a circuitous path, having worked for 14 years as public school teacher in Brooklyn. He was a union representative and once walked a picket line with his wife, Dilia, who was a teacher, too. All was well until the fiscal crisis of the 1970s.

“Why’d I go to law school?” he said. “Thank Mayor Abe Beame, who froze teacher salaries.”

He was counsel for the Major League Baseball Players Association in the 1980s and ’90s, when it was on a long winning streak against team owners. “It was the millionaires versus the billionaires,” he says. “After a while, I’m sitting there thinking, ‘He’s making $4 million, he’s making $5 million, and I’m worth about $1.98.’ ”

So he dived into a judicial race. He was elected to the Civil Court in 1998 and to the Supreme Court for Brooklyn and Staten Island in 2003. His wife is a Democratic district leader; their daughter, Elaine, is a lawyer and their son, Douglas, a police officer.Justice Schack’s duels with the banks started in 2007 as foreclosures spiked sharply. He saw a plague falling on Brooklyn, particularly its working-class black precincts. “Banks had given out loans structured to fail,” he said.

The judge burrowed into property record databases. He found banks without clear title, and a giant foreclosure law firm, Steven J. Baum, representing two sides in a dispute. He noted that Wells Fargo’s chief executive, John G. Stumpf, made more than $11 million in 2007 while the company’s total returns fell 12 percent. “Maybe,” he advised the bank, “counsel should wonder, like the court, if Mr. Stumpf was unjustly enriched at the expense of W.F.’s stockholders.”

He was, how to say it, mildly appalled. “I’m a guy from the streets of Brooklyn who happens to become a judge,” he said. “I see a bank giving a $500,000 mortgage on a building worth $300,000 and the interest rate is 20 percent and I ask questions, what can I tell you?”