Showing posts with label Foreclosures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foreclosures. Show all posts

Monday, November 5, 2012

Foreclosure --- Update on fraud-closure

Ohio Supreme Court: Bombshell win for homeowners
BOMBSHELL WIN:  Schwartzwald vs. Federal Home Loan (Freddie Mac)
Lack of standing CANNOT be cured or remedied with a later assigned mortgage
Explosive Legal News: 
Supreme Court of OHIO:  
Cases: Nos. 2011-1201 and 2011-1362 - Submitted April 4, 2012

Decided: October 31, 2012
Written Opinion: Judge Terrance O'Donnell


This is a major victory and EXPLOSIVE NEWS in the FRAUDclosure battle

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. v. Duane Schwartzwald et al. (HERE)
The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that standing to initiate a mortgage foreclosure lawsuit is determined on the date the complaint is filed. A foreclosing party, which lacked standing at the time the suit was filed, CANNOT remedy that defect by obtaining an assignment of a mortgage and promissory note AFTER the filing of the foreclosure action but prior to an entry of a final judgment.

The court’s 7-0 unanimous decision dismissed a decree of foreclosure granted to Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation FHLMA  (AKA "Freddie Mac") against Duane and Julie Schwartzwald because FHLMA did not have standing at the time it filed the foreclosure action.

Congratulations to the court for making the right decision and for upholding the law. Many similar cases were cited from other states to support the decision. Congratulations to fine attorney ANDREW ENGEL for fighting this battle on behalf of the Schwartwald family (no longer in the home) and attorney BRUCE BROYLES for submitting an amicus brief on behalf of this blog
OHIO FRAUDCLOSUE (our amicus brief here) and OHIO homeowners


{¶41}It is fundamental that a party commencing litigation must have standing to sue in order to invoke jurisdiction of the common pleas court. Civ.R. 17(A) does not change this principle, and a lack of standing at the outset of litigation cannot be cured by receipt of an {later post filing} assignment .... or by substitution of the real party in interest.

{¶42}Here it is undisputed that Federal Home Loan did not have standing at the time it commenced this foreclosure action, and therefore it failed... Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the cause is dismissed.

OTHER STATE DECISIONS were relied upon:
{¶27}This principle accords with decisions from other states holding that standing is determined as of the filing the complaint.

See, e.g., Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust v. Brumbaugh, 2012 OK 3, 270 P.3d 151, ¶ 11 (“If Deutsche Bank became a person entitled to enforce the note as either a holder or nonholder in possession who has the rights of a holder after the foreclosure action was filed, then the case may be dismissed without prejudice * * *” [emphasis added]);
U.S.Bank Natl. Assn. v. Kimball, 190 Vt. 210, 2011 VT 81, 27 A.3d 1087, ¶ 14 (“U.S. Bank was required to show that at the time the complaint was filed it possessed the original note either made payable to bearer with a blank endorsement or made payable to order with an endorsement specifically to U.S. Bank” [emphasis added]);
Mtge. Electronic Registration Sys., Inc. v. Saunders, 2010 ME 79, 2 A.3d 287, ¶ 15 (“Without possession of or any interest in the note, MERS lacked standing to institute foreclosure proceedings and could not invoke the jurisdiction of our trial courts” [emphasis added]);
RMS Residential Properties, L.L.C. v.Miller, 303 Conn. 224, 229, 232, 32 A.3d 309 (2011), quoting Hiland v. Ives, 28 Conn.Supp. 243, 245, 257 A.2d 822 (1966) (explaining that “ ‘[s]tanding is the legal right to set judicial machinery in motion’ ” and holding that the plaintiff had standing because it proved ownership of the note and mortgage at the time it commenced foreclosure action);
McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Natl. Assn., 79 So.3d 170, 17 (Fla.App.2012) (“the plaintiff must prove that it had standing to foreclose when the complaint was filed”); see also Burley v. Douglas, 26 So.3d 1013, 1019(Miss.2009), quotingLujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 571, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992), fn. 5 (“ ‘standing is to be determined as of the commencement of suit’ ”);
In re 2007 Administration of Appropriations of Water of the Niobrara, 278 Neb. 137, 145, 768 N.W.2d 420 (2009) (“only a party that has standing may invoke the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal. And the junior appropriators did not lose standing if they possessed it under the facts existing when they commenced the litigation” [footnote omitted]).

PREVIOUS Ohio circuit court decisions:

{¶34} Thus the Third and the Ninth Circuits have rejected the notion that Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a), on which Civ.R. 17(A) is based, allows a party with no personal stake in a controversy to file a claim on behalf of a third party, obtain the cause of action by assignment, and then have the assignment relate back to commencement of the action {and} “Rule 17(a) does not apply to a situation where a party with no cause of action files a lawsuit to toll the statute of limitations and later obtains a cause of action through assignment. Rule 17(a) is the codification of the salutary principle that an action should not be forfeited because an honest mistake; it is not a provision to be distorted by parties to circumvent the limitations period.
{¶37} Other courts have also determined that plaintiff cannot rely on procedural rules similar to Civ.R. 17(A) to cure a lack of standing at the commencement of litigation. Davis v. Yageo Corp., 481 F.3d 661, 678 (9th Cir.2007)
{¶38}We agree with the {above} reasoning and analysis presented in these casesStanding is required to invoke the jurisdiction of the common pleas court. Pursuant to Civ.R. 82, the Rules of Civil Procedure do not extend the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, and a common pleas court cannot substitute a real party in interest for another party if no party with standing has invoked its jurisdiction in the first instance

Andrew M. Engel, for appellants.
Bruce M. Broyles, urging reversal for amici curiae Homeowners of the State of Ohio and


Please read and pass this information along as it explains the FRAUD banks use to STEAL your Property.
----- Original Message -----

Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 3:11 AM


Public Service Announcement:


Michael Lawrence
Speaks This Evening!
Bay County Florida Resident
Uses Securitization Audit
to Get Foreclosure Case Dismissed
just like with the Vested Manna Process and the Michael Lawrence Process
Panama Beach, FL — (SBWIRE) — 10/02/2012 – Most homeowners entering foreclosure are packing up their belongings and calling the movers. This was not the case for Phillip Adamczyk of Panama Beach, FL. Adamczyk did something most Americans would never dream of doing. He went to court to fight his foreclosure case against the bank without a lawyer, and won.
The Florida homeowner recently appeared in court against Thrivent Financial Bank’s legal representation and asked them to produce the note to his mortgage. When they produced a copy of the note, Adamcyzk wisely asked that they produce the original mortgage note. Thrivent Financial’s legal team left the courtroom that day, confident they could produce the requested evidence, and they did. However, Adamczyk had an ace up his sleeve. It’s a little thing called a Securitization Report.
Between his first trial appearance and the time it took to reconvene, Adamczyk hired Securitization Auditors to provide him with a securitization audit of his mortgage process. A securitization audit is a legal document that looks for and identifies violations in the securitization and foreclosure process. The auditors, after requesting specific documentation from the lender, found the following:
“It should be noted that the primary document for review in an audit is the Promissory Note. We have examined a signed copy of a Note for this transaction; it did contain a Sale/Assignment Endorsement: ‘Pay To The Order of *** Blank *** Without Recourse by: (sig) Dale O’Keefe, AVP Thrivent Financial Bank’, the endorsement indicates that the lender has been paid and or has released all interest in the Note.”
So the Assistant Vice President of Thrivent Financial signed the note indicating the mortgage had been sold, but endorsed it to “Blank”. Simply put, this means that Thrivent Financial sold the note and cannot identify or does not know who they sold it to. This in turn means they have no standing in court to foreclose on Adamczyk’s property.
Prior to reconvening at the trial, Adamczyk presented the securitization audit to Thrivent Financial’s legal team, which apparently swept the rug out from underneath their feet, as they did not even appear in court to pursue the foreclosure.
On September 18, 2012 the judge denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order of Summary Judgment, thus allowing Adamczykk to remain in his home without the impending cloud of foreclosure looming over his head. He has himself to thank for being so bold as to appear in court without an attorney, as well as The Securitization Auditors for supplying him with the evidence needed to keep his bank’s legal team from appearing in court.
Officials Press More Banks
To Reach 'Robo-Signing' Settlement
September 27, 2012 U.S state attorneys general are negotiating a legal settlement with four regional banks for their involvement in the "robo-signing" crisis. The agreement would be similar to the $25 billion National Mortgage Settlement brokered with five national lenders in February. That agreement included sweeping compliance mandates to prevent the widespread improper notarization and document signing practices at the heart of the foreclosure crisis.

The banks have had preliminary talks with state and federal officials, who are investigating claims that loan servicers mishandled foreclosure documents. However, the timing of a
settlement is not yet known.

If a settlement is reached, the banks will face a financial obligation and likely will have to comply with the servicing standards. The NNA has established a Trusted Notary program to help lending institutions reach compliance with the new mortgage industry regulations.

Thousands Of Mortgage Fraud Complaints
Filed Against Attorneys
A “huge” number of mortgage fraud-related complaints are being filed against attorneys and law firms, according to the American Bar Association. And some of these questionable attorneys have tried to enlist unsuspecting Notaries into helping defraud victims.
Approximately 24 percent of the mortgage fraud-related complaints received by the Washington, DC-based Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law involved attorneys or law firms.
Laura Ernde, Acting Communications Director for the California State Bar, said her organization has received more than 11,000 mortgage-related complaints against attorneys in the past three years, with the most common complaints being loan modification scams. In loan modification scams, typically the attorney or a representative offers distressed homeowners help in modifying the terms of a mortgage, but takes money from the victims without delivering real help. “The clients pay fees but don’t get any services and often end up losing their homes,” Ernde said.
The ABA described the proliferation of complaints as a “disturbing trend” because lawyers are sworn to uphold the law and add legitimacy to transactions. A number of states — including Georgia, South Carolina and Massachusetts — require the presence of attorneys instead of Notary Signing Agents at home loan signings.
Notaries have contacted the NNA about attempts by dishonest loan modification companies to hire them under false pretenses in order to make mortgage scams look legitimate. The scammers typically hire Signing Agents to collect advanced fees from customers for loan modifications or to notarize “loan assistance documents” and then take the documents away from a signer without leaving any copies.
Ernde warned all Notaries to avoid any job offers that require collecting an advance fee for loan modification services from a customer — this practice is banned in several states including California.
If you are contacted by an attorney, law firm or other business that offers “loan modification” assignments involving advanced fee collection or any other suspicious or unusual requests, refuse any such offers and contact local law enforcement or your state Attorney General’s office to report it.
JPMorgan Chase Bank Dick Jamie Dimon
Indicted - Arrest Warrant Issued!
       • Posted by Glenn Canady on October 3, 2012 at 11:00pm
This story is moving fast!  We are going to be DAYS ahead of the mainstream media in reporting that JPMorgan Chase CEO - Jamie Dimon has had an arrest warrant issued by the FBI!  This story which was broken by Tom Heneghan is EXPLOSIVE!  The banksters have robbed America since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 and the Fake CIA News and political puppets will not discuss this fraud!



Spread  Far  And  Wide

How the Michael Lawrence Program Works:
The OMNI Process
 There are basically three parts to this process developed by Michael Lawrence;
The Administrative Process:
About 4 years ago Michael Lawrence developed an administrative remedy that was highly successful, then and unto itself, in stopping the foreclosure and allowing for the reconveyance of the title back to the homeowner.   The homeowner was then free to sell their property or place the property into the safety of a trust which many did.  It also was designed to dovetail with future planned federal lawsuits; one dealing with RESPA, TILA, and HOEPA violations; the other dealing with FDCPA, FCRA, and TPA violations.  Although the Admin Process no longer affects the foreclosure moving forward against the homeowner; it does still establish the proper, and I emphasize ‘proper’, Qualified Written Request and exhaust your Administrative Remedies.  It furthermore established that line drawn in the sand to the exact point in time a proper Dispute began.
The Evidence Package:
$800.00 inclusive or ala cart; $1,800.00
This Admin Process is joined with an Evidence Package that clearly establishes just who the true owner and holder of the note really is.  In over 500 observations not once has the true owner and holder of the note been the party who is servicing the note.  Imagine that…..  A Forensic Loan Analysis and a Securitization Analysis of the Loan is processed identifying the CUSIP and the REMIC numbers associated with your ‘loan’ and further identifies each and every trade associated with these numbers.  Using your favorite Search Engine look up “CUSIP and the REMEC” and the word “fraud” and see what you get.
This is one portion of the process.
OMNI Trust:
Another portion of the process is to create the OMNI Trust.  This trust is the lawful vehicle that enables Mr. Lawrence and his lawyers to litigate the issues they wish to assert and challenge.
OMNI Gold:
The final portion of this process is for you to purchase the OMNI Gold product.  This is where your property, via the OMNI Trust, drags your property, not you, into court where a proper adversarial complaint is lodged.
Ultimately, the attorney for the trust, joined with financial backers who provide the cash settlement amount to pay off your mortgage, offers The Claimant, your Servicer, to ascertain beyond a shadow of a doubt with the appropriate evidence, their standing - in other words - to make absolutely sure they are the True Party in Interest The True Owner and Holder of The Note - a potential injured party were they not paid.

Once the Claimant established this fact, the investors will simply pay off the debt in exchange for the Original Promissory Note, a Certified Copy of the Chain of Custody of the Note showing that The Claimant honestly acquired The Note and lastly, a Certified Copy of the days Call Report from the Original Lender establishing that The Original Lender truly lent you their assets and not their Credit, a thing illegal under Title 12 of the United States Code.
This is not Rocket Science, Folks, nor is it Hollywood theater.  
It is simply the law as I understand it.
I need you to understand something very important:  This process portion – where your property is taken into court via the trust – is priced at $2,500.00, separately.  HOWEVER, I will not allow our membership to go forward into this part of the process without having completed the other portions as outlined above.  Why? It is my observation that all that is mentioned above is required to completely avail the fullness of the desired end result.  This is my opinion.  I’ve observed this for over fifteen years.  This is what is required of the YRIITL Membership and nothing short of this.
This is just what it is; the accumulation of funds for whatever necessary purposes arise to operate with throughout this effort.  It is the same uniform amount for every one involved.
Below I have copied from last weeks email to you a thorough explanation of the Evidence Package as it is one of the two keys that unlocks the door that the banks have kept away from the homeowners for you better understanding.
Also, I want to add that other Information Providers offer other avenues to fight the foreclosure process that focus on the Break in the Chain of Title, which you hear about each Thursday evening.
Forensic Loan Analysis
YRIITL introduces you to a team of dedicated audit professionals that provide qualified reporting. The Information Provider leading this team is Shannon.
A Forensic Loan Analysis is the process of investigating and scrutinizing all documentation pertaining to your loan at the time of origination. The Information Provider, Shannon, and her team analyze all the information and cogently put that information into a report that can be used as supporting evidence by your legal counsel in an action against your lender.  During the height of the real estate market (1999 through 2008) some mortgage lenders - most, by example of the history of reports already generated by Shannon's team - did not follow underwriting standards that are required by the Federal government and State regulatory bodies. These guidelines must be followed by originators of home loans. The loan origination process, by not complying with the state and federal rules and regulations, became a morass of side-stepped rules and concealed the true damage done to homeowners.
When Shannon and her team of loan auditors dissect originating documents they look first to the state and federal laws protecting homeowners. Your current loan can reveal TILA, RESPA, HOEPA, and FDCP violations, and other applicable underwriting standards. The law pertaining to mortgage lending is very comprehensive and there are laws to protect homeowners from becoming victims of predatory lending.  Reviewing every document that was presented to you at the closing of your home loan has the potential to reveal multiple violations such as: Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Home Ownership Equity Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Broker Licensing, Loan Transaction Documentation, Proper Calculation of APR and Finance Charges, Underwriting Standards, Predatory Loan Indicators, Your Home Purchase Process.  Did you receive a legitimate (good faith) appraisal by a qualified and licensed appraiser, OR did your lender inflate the home value for their benefit? Was there Due Diligence on the part of your lender to verify your ability to repay the loan by having you submit the required financial information, OR did they just use your credit score and paystubs? Right of Rescission – were you notified that you had the right to cancel the loan within a specified amount of time as required by law?
Prior to getting the loan did you have to sign separate agreements with your broker that were not part of the original agreement? Were all the terms of the loan properly disclosed to you by the loan officer and all questions answered prior to signing the loan? Did the lender provide you with all the State and Federal Disclosures (TILA, RESPA, HUD etc.) as required by law? Did you pay down extra points when originating your home loan? Has your mortgage broker received extra fees and commissions that you were unaware of when you originated your loan? Do you know how much you will have paid for your home by the end of your loan? Since you were giving them a cash item with value (Promissory Note), shouldn’t you have received a receipt for their intake of this asset? For example, when you leave your car to be serviced, or sell it, or lend something to someone, don’t you get a contract with a receipt? Is your Promissory Note and Deed of Trust together or are they separated? The Deed of Trust contract is NOT the receipt in the cash (Promissory Note) transaction.  (The Promissory Note is considered cash as that is how the bank’s ledger shows it on their books.)
Did you know The Promissory Note is a different item altogether from the Deed of Trust contract? Yes, two completely separate transactions are taking place.  This is why it is so imperative for the Banks to keep the two transactions together at all times. Separated, they are impotent. Did the mortgage broker/closing agent provide full disclosure that your Promissory Note was to be sold? Did the Bank make an actual loan to you using the bank’s own money, or did they act as a middle-man and use investors’ money? How was your mortgage interest rate determined by the bank / mortgage lenders? Did they put you on a sliding scale depending upon your internal “ability to pay” as predicated by your credit scores? If so, the fact that you gave them FULL CONSIDERATION in the form of a Promissory Note UPFRONT and they still put you into a sliding scale for interest is discriminatory, predatory and immoral.
Securitization Analysis
Due to the complexity of auditing loan documents this report includes the specialized reports to meet the growing needs for both the public and private sectors. Your Information Provider, Shannon and her team, is directly involved at all points of the audit service, from audit testing, analysis, and data analytics that are transparent, regulatory and reporting compliant....  
These specialized reports, among other things, include locating your loan in a particular trust with up-to-date information with respect to whether or not your loan is performing or non-performing in the securitized trust. This information is important because all securitized trusts need to comply with the PSA (Pooling and Servicing Agreement) as dictated by the rules of the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), FTC (Federal Trade Commission) and other federal and state regulatory agencies.
Her team’s extensive research capabilities and technological expertise allow the investigators the ability to locate, track and verify transactional information on home loans. Using proprietary data from various financial networks such as federal regulatory agencies, state regulatory agencies, financial reporting associations and county records, this team provides analytics on financial transactions pertaining to mortgages and securitized trusts. This team will provide you with a layered transactional synthesis of your home mortgage.
This report provides pertinent data to the homeowner and their legal counsel that helps formulate a plan of action – whether offensively or defensively, and always for home ownership rights. The team we break down these complex financial transactions into a cogent and transparent report. This type of solution based report is specifically tailored to the Homeowners needs.
The report will include the following:
  • Loan Recording at county, governmental housing reporting agencies and financial reporting services
  • Deed Recording and Transfers
  • Verification that Assignees on Promissory Note is True and Correct
  • Information Identifying “True” beneficial Interest as per Promissory Note
  • Disclosures and Sufficiency of Information as per UCC
  • Securitized Trust Verification
  • Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing the Trust that holds your Note
  • CUSIP – Identifying the Trust Account
  • Trust Prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
  • Identification of the Servicers; Originators; Trustees and Underwriters
  • Details of Bond Performance – Transactional up-to-date information
  • Periodic Reporting of Loan Performance in Securitized Trust
  • Client Specific Information – (special requests)
Shannon is a subscriber of proprietary software and uses the latest search tools for Non-Agency residential loans by characteristic; either Loan Number or Original Amount that are provided to perform a search to verify that the loan is inside the Securitized Trust.

These reports are available Ala Cart as well as inclusive to The Remedy Michael Lawrence offers.
I hope you attend this evening’s call either by phone or the web.
A Vested Manna Process WIN!
On November 21, 2011, a Northern Virginia Circuit Court entered an order granting plaintiff homeowner a default judgment in a quiet title action, voiding the deed of trust.
Earlier this year, frustrated by the fact that she could not get to the real party in interest to modify a loan, the homeowner went on the offensive and filed a court action to quiet title to her property and seeking nullification of the deed of trust supposedly encumbering the property with a first mortgage. Subsequently, a bank servicer (posing as an owner) moved to intervene into the case on the grounds that its’ ownership rights in the debt and the property would supposedly be at stake. Any homeowner may successfully oppose this type of motion with the Direction, Support and Product of Vested Manna. In this case, the motion was withdrawn.  Because none of the remaining defendants responded, the homeowner moved for judgment by default, seeking nullification of the deed of trust. The judgment was granted and the court entered an order voiding the deed of trust. This appears to be the first ruling of this kind in Virginia.   Similar rulings have been obtained in Missouri, Arkansas, Utah, Texas, and Florida.  See the Thursday night free tele-conference calls at for more information. 
Spread  Far  And  Wide
For more information ....... 

Contact: Martin Michaelsson: .
Brought to you by....

The Phone Numbers and Pins are published at behind the Free Tele-Conference tab. Enter with your User Name and Password. If you don’t have one, click on “New? REGISTER HERE” and create your unique User Name and Password. Information is available only to registered members. Click on Free Tele-Conference Calls and you will see the correct information.


So, if you want to learn how you can accomplish this Offensive Posture for yourself, listen to and participate in the Free Tele-Conference Calls most every evening of the week. See the 'Free Tele-Conferences' TAB at, AND THE NEW CALENDAR TAB. There are also the Archives to view two years of historical conference calls!

Best regards,


Click one of the links below to learn more about our self-help courses, or to order your copy today:
The Leader in Step-by-Step Lawsuit Self-Help . . . On the Web Since 1997
Case-Winning Lawsuit Procedure for Non-Lawyers ... Learn How-to-Win In Just 24 Hours !

I also encourage you to purchase the 24 hour JurisDictionary Course found at the products and services page at This course is the absolute minimum entry level for anyone who is anticipating having to deal with a lawful issue. It will be the best 24 hours you have ever spent! I have heard it said this course, when completely understood by you, could put you on par with 85% of the lawyers you may come across.

DISCLAIMER: Legal Information is NOT the same as Legal Advice This site provides entertainment/educational information about law designed to help users safely cope with their own legal needs. But legal educational information is not the same as legal advice. The application of law varies with an individual's specific circumstances. The laws of every state are in constant change, and although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it is appropriate to your particular situation.

SPAM: We Support Responsible Email Compliance: This email cannot be considered spam as long as we include: Contact information & remove instructions. This message is being sent to you in compliance with the current Federal legislation for commercial e-mail (H.R.4176 - SECTION 101Paragraph (e)(1)(A)) AND Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress.

UNSUBSCRIBE: Not responsible for typographical errors. Further transmissions to you may be stopped immediately and at no cost to you by clicking this Email Database Removal Link and clicking the Confirm button. Contact Information: Most Affordable Marketing - Administrator 839 Royalwood Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Foreclosure - Bank Of America Mortgage Fraud: Feds Sue For Over $1 Billion Alleging Multi-Year Scheme

The Rumor Mill News Reading Room 

Bank Of America Mortgage Fraud: Feds Sue For Over $1 Billion Alleging Multi-Year Scheme
Posted By: MESETA [Send E-Mail]
Date: Wednesday, 24-Oct-2012 20:49:08

Federal prosecutors sued Bank of America for $1 billion on Wednesday, alleging that the bank's former Countrywide unit concocted a mortgage scheme it called the "Hustle" in order to sell thousands of fraudulent and otherwise defective mortgage loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
"In order to increase the speed at which it originated and sold loans ... Countrywide eliminated every single checkpoint on loan quality and compensated its employees solely based on the volume of loans originated," the lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal district court, alleges.
This led to "rampant instances of fraud and other serious loan defects," all while Countrywide was telling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy up mortgages for resale, that it had strengthened its lending requirements.
The mortgage giant called the scheme the "High Speed Swim Lane" or the "Hustle," for short, according to the lawsuit.
When the loans "predictably" defaulted, Fannie and Freddie, which in 2008 required a massive taxpayer bailout due in large part to the purchase of toxic mortgages, incurred more than $1 billion in losses, the lawsuit says.
The mortgage scheme continued through 2009, well after Bank of America acquired Countrywide, according to the lawsuit.
Bank of America did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The lawsuit, which alleges violations of civil and not criminal law, comes on the heels of several other high-profile cases tied to the financial crisis that have been filed this month by federal and state law enforcement officials, who have taken fire for not aggressively pursuing those responsible for the mortgage crisis.
Earlier this month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued Bear Stearns, now a unit of JPMorgan Chase, accusing it of stuffing mortgage bonds with bad loans without informing investors of the risk.
A week later, the Department of Justice sued Wells Fargo, claiming the bank lied about the quality of thousands of loans it certified for a federal insurance program. Both of those cases are pending.