On the art of the “technical mistake”

It’s amazing how quickly these little “mistakes” and “errors” are popping up now that the lawyers for the fraudulent securities are on the hunt. And so many too!

Wells Fargo admitted Wednesday it made mistakes in the paperwork for thousands of foreclosure cases and promised to fix them. The San Francisco-based bank said it plans to refile documents in 55,000 of the cases by mid-November. The company said not all those cases included errors and didn’t say how many did. Wells Fargo described the mistakes as technical and said it has no plans to halt the foreclosure process.

Oh, well, so long as it’s only 54,999 technical mistakes… meanwhile, the bankers’ little game of ex post facto minimal admission doesn’t appear to be playing well with anyone but the media.

“Mortgage servicers have been reworking investor-owned loans while not seeking amendments on debts they hold themselves, a misstep investors can use to bypass trustees or force them to act, Bill Frey, the head of Greenwich Financial, said at the conference. The four largest U.S. banks, which service a majority of U.S. mortgages, own more than $400 billion of home- equity debt, Goodman said. “We found servicer defaults in 100 percent of the trusts,” Frey said.”

100 percent servicer defaults? Probably just a technical mistake, I’m sure. It will be interesting, of course, to see the attempts to explain away the magic rotating vice-presidency of MERS as yet another technical mistake.

“In the instant action, Ms. Johnson-Seck claims to be: a Vice President of MERS in the March 16, 2009 MERS to INDYMAC assignment; a Vice President of INDYMAC in the May 14, 2009 INDYMAC to ONEWEST assignment; and, a Vice President of ONEWEST in her June 30, 2009-affidavit of merit. Ms. Johnson-Seck must explain to the Court, in her affidavit: her employment history for the past three years; and, why a conflict of interest does not exist in the instant action with her acting as a Vice President of assignor MERS, a Vice President of assignee/assignor INDYMAC, and a Vice President of assignee/plaintiff ONEWEST. Further, Ms. Johnson-Seck must explain: why she was a Vice President of both assignor MERS and assignee DEUTSCHE BANK in a second case before me, Deutsche Bank v Maraj, 18 Misc 3d 1123 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2008); why she was a Vice President of both assignor MERS and assignee INDYMAC in a third case before me, Indymac Bank, FSB, v Bethley, 22 Misc 3d 1119 (A) (Sup Ct, Kings County 2009); and, why she executed an affidavit of merit as a Vice President of DEUTSCHE BANK in a fourth case before me, Deutsche Bank v Harris (Sup Ct, Kings County, Feb. 5, 2008, Index No. 35549/07).”

Now here’s the punchline: “Johnson-Seck admitted she was not employed by MERS and didn’t know who its president was or the location of its headquarters.”