CT US BKR TRUSTEE FILES SUBPOENA FOR 2004 EXAMINATION V DEUTSCH ET AL

ONE ON ONE WITH NEIL GARFIELD

COMBO ANALYSIS TITLE AND SECURITIZATION

REQUIRED READING

THAT DAMNED STANDING ISSUE AGAIN

SEE 01.26.2011 -US-Trustee-Motion-in-CT-for-2004-Examination[1]

NOTABLE QUOTES:

Deutsche has filed two proofs of claim in this case regarding an alleged secured claim arising from a mortgage given to secure a loan made to the debtor and her spouse. The first proof of claim filed on July 28, 2010 (claim no. 2-1 on the claims register) (“POC”) failed to include any documentation connecting Deutsche to the underlying mortgage.

On July 28, 2010, Deutsche filed the POC. The POC asserts that notices and payment should be sent to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., 1525 S. Beltline Road, Suite 100, N. Coppell, Texas 75019. The POC asserts a secured debt to Deutsche in the amount of $336,345.51. The POC was signed by Lawrence J. Buckley (“Buckley”) as Creditor’s Authorized Agent.

The United States Trustee has reviewed the documents filed by Deutsche in this case and has concerns about the integrity of those documents and the process utilized by Deutsche in filing the POC and the Amended POC. To begin with, the POC asserted that Deutsche was a creditor of the Debtor, yet the Note and Mortgage annexed to the POC appear to document a note and mortgage as between the Debtor and MAC, not Deutsche.

Based on these inconsistencies, the United States Trustee requests that she be given the opportunity to question Deutsche about the methods it used and what documents were reviewed and considered before filing the POC, the Amended POC, and its Plan Objection. Bankruptcy Courts have discussed the need for secured lenders to provide accurate information in filings before the Court or else “[t]he debtor and his/her family may lose their home, and the debtor and other creditors may lose significant equity in foreclosure.” In re Gorshtein, 285 B.R. 118, 122 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002); In re Fagan, 376 B.R. 81, 87 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007). Consequently, “cause” exists authorizing the issuance of a subpoena to compel document production under Bankruptcy Rules 2004(c) and 9016, and moreover, for the issuance of an order directing Deutsche to appear for an examination under Bankruptcy Rule 2004.

Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |