SanbornTribeca Lending 5th day of May 2008

55 NEEDHAM RD, DANVERS LEGAL NOTICE COMMONWEAL 55 NEEDHAM RD, DANVERS LEGAL NOTICE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS LAND COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT Case No. 367957 To John A. Sanborn and Wendy J. Sanborn and to all persons entitled to the benefit of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Tribeca Lending Corp. claiming to be the holder of a mortgage covering real property in Danvers numbered 55 Needham Road given by John A. Sanborn and Wendy J. Sanborn to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for Tribeca Lending Corporation dated July 21, 2006, and recorded at the Essex County (Southern District) Registry of Deeds in Book 25926, Page 441, and now held by plaintiff by assignment Has/have filed with said court a complaint for authority to foreclose said mortgage in the manner following: by entry and possession of and exercise of power of sale. If you are entitled to the benefits of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and you object to such foreclosure you or your attorney should file a written appearance and answer in said court at Boston on or before the 5th day of May 2008. or you may be forever barred from claiming that such foreclosure is invalid under said act. Witness, KARYN F. SCHEIER, Chief Justice of said Court on this 24th day of March 2008. Attest: Deborah J. Patterson Recorder Appeared in: Danvers Herald on Thursday, 04/10/2008

Back

Tyrone Lobo

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/04/22/worried_homeowners_share_their_high_interest_stories?mode=PF

	THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

Worried homeowners share their high-interest stories National effort to battle lenders hits Jamaica Plain By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff | April 22, 2007 Tyrone Lobo, 34, quit his job last month as a deputy in the Barnstable Sheriff's Department so he could cash in his pension and use the roughly $30,000 to save his house. He and his fiancée hoped that the drastic decision would buy time and keep them afloat, anything to prevent their four-bedroom Cape-style home in Falmouth from being auctioned off. Yesterday, the couple and more than 50 other Massachusetts homeowners at risk of losing their properties shared their stories at a meeting at the state headquarters of the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America in Jamaica Plain. The gathering was part of a national effort by the nonprofit community advocacy and homeownership organization to form a grassroots campaign against subprime lenders. Similar meetings occurred in 32 other NACA offices around the country. Lobo and his fiancee, Melissa Hergt, 39, had seen their monthly mortgage payment jump from just under $800 in 2002 to $2,700 last fall because of previous refinancing to stave off a previous foreclosure, they said. "We got to take on the fight to stop you from losing your home and to hold the people in the scheme out there accountable" Bruce Marks, the organization's chief executive officer, told Lobo and others. Dressed in a mustard yellow T-shirt with a shark logo and red lettering that said "Stop Loan Sharks," Marks said, "We're not violent, but we're a confrontational advocacy company." Comparing subprime lenders and brokers to roaches, he told the crowd to be prepared to confront chief executives of major lending companies in the executives' communities, in front of their homes, country clubs, or areas of business. The group also agreed to a sit-in in Governor Deval Patrick's office until he calls Ameriquest Mortgage Co., where many of the homeowners have loans, to stop foreclosures and modify people's loans. Some banks have said they are trying to help borrowers in trouble and engage in responsible subprime lending. One by one yesterday, homeowners stood and told horror stories of how their payments on their adjustable-rate mortgages doubled or tripled. Some said they repeatedly turned to subprime mortgage companies as quick fixes to save their homes. "I walked the same road, pretty much knowingly, again and again," said one man who did not want his name published for fear of embarrassing his children. "For people with limited resources, it's pretty hard to break the cycle." Lobo's and Hergt's housing troubles began after Hergt's parents died and the couple took on the payments in 2002 at an affordable $775 a month. They said they decided to refinance with Option One Mortgage Corp. and take on a $192,000 loan to remodel the kitchen, pay off credit cards, and help Hergt's son pay for college. That decision increased their monthly mortgage to $1,500, which the couple could still afford. But then Lobo suffered a back injury from a second job loading milk crates at a local grocery store and was out of work for three months. Hergt, who worked at a Falmouth pet store, lost her job when the store went out of business. They fell behind in their mortgage payments, and the house, where Hergt and her children have lived for 16 years, went up for auction. They said they were able to hold off the foreclosure by refinancing with Tribeca Lending Corp. at 12.8 percent interest, double what they were charged before, but bumping their monthly mortgage to $2,700. They couldn't afford it. "It was the only deal on the table to save the house in that amount of time," Lobo said. "It's been a struggle every month." Neither lending institution could be reached for comment yesterday. The couple hopes Lobo's pension will help them catch up on their mortgage payments. "We're worried that any day they're going to start the foreclosure again," Lobo said. "I'm hoping that these guys will do something to help us get a fresh start." Marks said his organization has committed $1 billion to help families like Lobo and Hergt refinance at the best possible fixed rate, currently 5.375 percent for a 30-year mortgage. "You just feel like you're the only one going through this," Hergt said, "but hearing all those stories in there was comforting in a way."

© Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

First Circuit K.O.'s Lender

Partridge Snow & Hahn LLP

First Circuit K.O.'s Lenders in Chapter 3 Mortgage Modifications

By Richard M. Coen of Partridge Snow & Hahn LLP

Did Congress Intend to Encourage Banks to Lend Only to Single-Family Home Buyers?

To a greater degree than in most areas of the country, real property values in Massachusetts and Rhode Island are still far below their peaks of the 1980's. The volume of foreclosure sales remains high, and depreciation is a major stumbling block for creditors trying to recoup their investments. Fortunately for creditors, Section 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Code") allows a foreclosing mortgagee to prohibit a Chapter 13 debtor from modifying a mortgage on a principal residence. However, a recent First Circuit case may take some of the punch out of that weapon, as well. Unfortunately, the First Circuit in Lomas Mortgage, Inc. v. Louis, 82 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) has now made law which can be referred to nationwide, based on regional factors more peculiar to the Northeast, where there is an especially high percentage of multi-family housing stock.

While Section 506(a) of the Code allows a debtor to limit a creditor's secured claim to the value of the underlying collateral, Section 1322(b)(2) prohibits a debtor from doing so where the creditor's claim is secured only by a lien on the debtor's principal residence. Nobleman v. American Sav. Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 332 (1993) (emphasis supplied). Such a mortgage modification (also called a "bifurcation" or a "strip-down") would limit the bank's secured interest to the property's actual value (often, much lower than the total debt), and leave the balance as an unsecured claim, paid at cents on the dollar. Thus, the policy behind Section 1322(b)(2) is to ensure creditors that they will be able to enforce their secured interests, where their mortgage encumbers a debtor's principal residence.

Until recently, Massachusetts and Rhode Island Bankruptcy Courts differed in their application of the Code and Nobleman to the issue of what constitutes a "principal residence." In Massachusetts, bifurcation of secured claims had been liberally granted. Even though the real property was clearly the debtor's principal residence, other uses to which the property was put were generally not a bar to modification. See, e.g., In re McGregor, 172 B.R. 718, 719 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1994) (debtor, residing in one unit of a four-unit apartment building, was permitted to modify the mortgage); In re Brown, 175 B.R. 129, 131 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1994) (modification permitted where debtor resided in one unit of a two-unit complex).

Meanwhile, Judge Votolato made clear that in Rhode Island, even though property was used as more than a principal residence, the secured claim could still not be bifurcated. In re Guilbert, 165 B.R. 88 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1994). In Guilbert, the debtor resided in one unit of a three-unit complex, the second occupied by a relative and the third occasionally rented. The Court stated that Section 1322(b) does not "say, or in any way imply, that if the debtor's principal residence is also used to house other tenants, paying or otherwise, that it may be open to modification by the home owner." Id. at 89. Thus, although the property was more than a principal residence, the mortgagee's objection to the modification was upheld, and the secured claim could not be bifurcated.

Earlier this year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals was squarely presented with the question of whether the term "principal residence" applies to cases in which a mortgage covers both the debtor's principal residence and other property, such as rental units. The Court in Lomas began its analysis by considering case law which had held modification permissible on notes secured by both personal and real property. In re Hammond, 27 F.3d 52 (3d Cir. 1994). Then, turning to the legislative history of Section 1322(b)(2), the Court noted that the bill's language as reported out of the House differed too dramatically from that of the Senate to be instructive on the issue of how property with both residential and investment characteristics should be treated. Lomas at 5. The Court did, however, state that "[i]t is unlikely Congress intended the antimodification provision to reach a 100-unit apartment complex simply because the debtor lives in one of the units." Id. at 6. Finally, the Court found a case to which a Judiciary Committee Report referred, and relied on that case to hold that Section 1322(b)(2) does not apply to a mortgagee's interest in a multi-family house, one unit of which is the debtor's principal residence. Id.(citing In re Ramirez, 62 B.R. 668 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 1986).) Thus, a debtor residing in a multi-family residence can limit the mortgagee's secured interest to the value of the real property, leaving the balance as an unsecured deficiency.

Clearly, Lomas means Rhode Island (and the remainder of the First Circuit- Maine, New Hampshire and Puerto Rico) must conform its definition of "principal residence" to that used by the First Circuit and Massachusetts. But what does Lomas mean in the long run to mortgagors and mortgagees? Certainly, Section 1322(b)(2) has lost some of its punch- a mortgagee can no longer argue that Chapter 13 Plans dealing with mortgages on certain multi-unit property cannot be modified. Now, the scope of the term "principal residence" is expanded to include multi-unit complexes, if not 100-unit complexes, as long as the debtor is one of the residents (subject, of course, to a Chapter 13 Debtor's secured debt limitation of $750,000.00). However, looking back to the policy behind Section 1322(b)(2), perhaps mortgagees, already suffering from depreciation at the end of the ownership cycle, may take another hit, this time at the start of the ownership cycle: lenders reading the Lomas opinion may cringe at the thought of losing their security interests to Chapter 13 Plan modifications, and balk at new lending to owners of multi-family real property.

---

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:JlqSVEnr36wJ:library.findlaw.com/1999/Aug/1/126316.html+multi-family+bankruptcy+modification&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Tribeca + frankin credit check out ny NY State Superior court Hundreds of cases

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/search/query3.asp

Tribeca + Frankin credit check out ny NY State Superior court Hundreds of cases

Dear , all folks that Tribeca Lending Corp may have damaged

Dear,
All the good folks that Tribeca Lending Corp may have damaged. Urgently I need to say is that while you may think you are safe that Tribeca Lending Corp. has suspended operations, is that you need to know that Tribeca is not the real party of interest. It seems unnoticed that Tribeca is merely the wholly owned subsidiary that originated loans for Franklin Credit Management. For those that think that Tribeca Lending Corp is no longer revelant is that your loan or my loan( to try to stay truthful) is still potentially afflicted and attached by the true puppet master Franklin Credit Management.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. Some of you might be more comfortable relating more to the idea of a weed by any other name to be called Franklin Credit Management Corp. The wording without zero spin from Franklin Credit is that 'We Originate our Loans primarily through Tribeca Lending Corp ." Look it up on FCMC S.E.C. filing.
For clarity and consistency , Implode really needs to list FCMC as one of the next ailing entities or lenders.
Please at first response, many of you will quickly point out that FCMC is a (seemingly neutral party) servicer of non performing or re performing loans. But this is not accurate. Even according to FCMC own SEC words, Tribeca Lending only in name is the Lender, and only in name or legal partitioning is the name on 33,000 separate mortgages. But remember FCMC words that "We" and I Repeat "We" originate our Loans through Tribeca Lending Corp.
Further evidenced by the recent Huntington Bank merger with Sky Bank whom has been accused of sadly understating the almost complete Subprime dangers of Franklin Credit. All of Tribeca's assets basically have a lean or attachment as well as Franklin Credit of all there Loans.
Franklin credits directive per "Huntington Bank" is for FCMC to concentrate on enforcing (servicing) the assets of there portfolio. Franklin and Tribeca presently need permission to Originate Loans.
Another words FCMC is a bit different than a Servicer. They are basically functioning in the sole capacity to enforce all the assets that either FCMC or Tribeca or Tribeca XV12006 or any and all the multi pages of fully owned subsidiaries for collection and enforcement.
Ml Implode has been remarkably wide reaching in covering just about every known Sub prime Lender out there. But Franklin Credit Management has gone unnoticed. But to sidebar just how much of an influence Tribeca/FCMC have made on the citizenry of the USA is to do a quick search of Bankruptcy Filings. For a company with only an earlier net worth of 1.5 billion dollars they have managed to have a presently running list of 3000 bankruptcy filings. This amount does not represent the active numbers but rather the total filings of just the last 18 months. Talk about Sub prime baby, then they have made there mark !!
The significance of FCMC going unnoticed, isn't even my point. The significance of FCMC in this example is that while over 200 companies have been named as imploded ,is that Franklin Credit Management goes unnamed and even more significantly has survived. Survived even past Countrywide.
FCMC is by far a unique non breathing animal. With attributes beyond the present destruction of all Sub prime Lenders. As if last surviver of total thermal Nuclear war. The nuclear equivalent of the cockroach (at least in theory) that survives.
Franklin Credit, this rare Cockroach like, Alien survivalist , Mortgage Enforcing Terminator force that for the moment has not fallen. They are something beyond say just simple Loan servicer. They started 17 years ago with the sole predatory purpose with great success at buying up loans gone bad from the FDIC ,savings and Loan crisis. So for them mortgages on simpleton home consumers is way small time game kill for them. There abilities and self evident success at acquiring undervalued assets is the equivalent of shoot to kill rabbits !!
I reserve moral judgment here because this company in all fairness makes no moral claim as being an addition to the community. Rather recognize the pure Darwinist's survival mode of its operation. It only stands to enforce , modify or foreclose and take the assets of its subjects.
FCMC does not pretend to even bother recognizing the concept of people, or homes.
FCMC is way beyond that. FCMC operates in a spectrum that is not im-moral. Rather they are simply a-moral. A truly depraved entity that only survives to take, and kill all that is around them.
Implode needs to list them .They are ailing. They somehow convinced Huntington Bank to put there brain dead inhumane existence on a feeding tube of money for now to continue what appears to be there sole purpose to terminate, litigate, and gobble all that they can before they perish. Eventually into there own soleness , worthless ultimate destiny of the void they reside in.The final end for all corrupted entities being simply called in valid. Not to have lived so therefore not died but rather simply VOIDED out Terminated or, ultimately deleted.

NickLaudani@gmail.com

Tribeca Lending and I still do not know my Refi deal

Tribeca Lending Corp- Franklin Credit - My story alleged as not proven yet in court

-Now I am going to shock you with horror. Not only do I own my own 3 -4 family home but my job for 5 years now has been that of a loan officer. Can you imagine the shame I feel at being tricked(alleged) like this. Because as I have tried on numerous occasions to write several letters and several complaints to both the companies and regulatory bodies. The answers I received from there attornies continually deny any wrondoing.. One answer is I should of known better.
Which if I had actually gotton all of the proper facts in a proper way in timely advance maybe i would of known the deal. If I had gotton the cash-out that i required as part of the deal to fix up my main sewer drain including bathrooms i could of properly rented it out.
In fact I was lead to believe of a deal but the deal that I should of known in the end never happened.

Here is something that probably is unique. And still even as a loan officer, is I still do not know the deal. I have two completely different Closing statements. My lawyer found a third closing statement. Payments were made on the Final Closing Statement are completely different . In some cases I called up the third party which attorneys for FCMC or Tribeca claimed to have been paid and then I have found that certain third parties were never paid .
I have been given pieces of 3 different incomplete even I allege fraudulent Applications. Further not one of the ones that reflect something that I was counting.
Further then its a fair assumption that certain parties or affiliates with Franklin credit or Tribeca have kept for themselves money that they took from my equity and kept

So yeah ,

Tell us your story, I guarantee with your knowledge that I am a loan officer you couldn’t possible feel as tricked and embarrassed as I do !! Furthermore now after dozens of letters and complaints To Banking Division , I am now in Bankruptcy court. But it turns out I am not doomed to Bankruptcy court and have found that in challenging them that they have to show some answers !! But the truth is we all could most likely succeed in some way if we were allowed to share our stories to a judge as a group. So that’s my story.. What’s yours?

Submit, come one come all. !!!!!

Tell your Story about Tribeca and Franklin Credit Management.

The Checklist of Tribeca Franklin Doom

But please before you tell your story Lets do
The Checklist of Tribeca Franklin Doom
Does this sound familiar to you. Let me guess. Check yes or if maybe as well .

1- 0You were in Foreclosure, or about to be, and Tribeca/Franklin angels came to save you from Foreclosure. Foreclosure Bailout experts.
2- 0 Further you likely heard some variance of this special savior able to be experts in Foreclosure
3- 0 You most likely find out that they were honest about being foreclosure experts ? Experts all right, experts in delaying your foreclosure and kicking down the road just far enough to be true to there expertise in the foreclosure of your home?
4- 0Did you unfortunately let on to them that you were relying on a cash out on top of the loan to remedy the situations that you relied on as the only logical way that you had felt would make this refinance succeed. Because if you did , then those sharks smelled blood!!
5- 0 Let me guess….They didn’t t give you any early paper work of just what the deal was but did assure you that everything would be just fine
6- 0 Did they leave your income blank? Or show up at the closing with some ungodly impossible amount of income that you impossibly did not make ?
7- 0 Did you happen to notice that the interest I ve heard thought quite as low in my case of 6% but then in fact to be something much higher12.99% ?
8- 0in my situation was stalled for months until the refi deal approached a period that within 3 days of a pre-existing scheduled auction of my house.
9- 0Surely most all that cash out they promised ended up going to anyplace they could find, being fees or paying third parties as required for the refi eventually leaving you stunned at the cash-out turning into fees ?
10- 0 Oh yes at least in my case was told that it had to be a mistake and that they d work on it to try to get me the cash back they promised?
11- 0 Did you receive an application at the close that seemed unrecognizable? I did?
12- 0 Were you made aware of the very likely event that your loan may have fallen into the category of unenforceable as the fees and costs may have been way above the limits of laws
13- 0 Did you find it curious that you were charged for an appraisal that you already paid?
14- 0I bet you wondered if insurance that they took out of the proceedings might not have been paid?
15- 0 Did you call the helpful service representatives at Franklin Credit to discuss these mistakes.
16- 0 Did they offer one bit of help?
17- 0Except maybe you should consider Bankruptcy court. Or a short sale to them?
18- 0 Did you end up filing bankruptcy
19- 0 Did you loose your home? 20.- 0Or are you about to loose your Home?