Federal Law

US Supreme Court Will Not Review Deutsche Bank National Trust Company About Homeowner Grievances Regarding Illegal Foreclosures

DEUTSCHE BANK CASES LISTED ON THE US SUPREME COURT WEBSITE – NO HOMEOWNER HAS MADE IT TO CERT….THE GERMAN BANK IS PROTECTED BY THE COURTS, GOVERNMENT AND THE CABINET

We Analyzed the U.S. Supreme Court Archives…

Based on available 5-year history of Deutsche Bank cases filed; 65 (now 70 based on recent updates) and Ocwen 23 cases filed (relying on Court website search tool) ; In summary, Petitioners either failed to submit a petition (after extension of time request) or were ultimately denied.

file type icon  Docket for 18-1370
Title:Joanna Burke, et vir, Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 18-1236
Title:S. Bruce Hiran, et al., Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
S. Bruce Hiran, et al., Petitioners Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 22, 2019) AppendixPetitionCertificate of Word CountProof of
file type icon  Docket for 18-1294
Title:Michael D. Lynch, et ux., Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Michael D. Lynch, et ux., Petitioners Waiver of right of respondents Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 16-317
Title:Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, et al., Petitioners v. Robert R. McCormick Foundation, et al.
United States Court of Appeals for Reply of petitioners Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, et al. filed. Motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 46.2 filed by petitioners Deutsche Bank Trust Co., et al.

We Notified the U.S. Supreme Court about Deutsche Ignoring a Court Order…

Deutsche Bank recently made an announcement reneging on the $7.2 billion dollar fine in the form of penalties a relief package for homeowners. Incredulously, this decision has not resulted in a public outcry. Deutsche Bank’s 2017 settlement was scheduled to expire for homeowners in March 2022.

In the waning days of the Obama administration, Deutsche Bank made a series of unusually frank admissions in a U.S. court filing.

The German bank acknowledged that during the housing boom it made intentionally false representations to buyers of its mortgage-backed securities, concealing the actual risks from purchasers of the bonds. It lied, for example, about borrowers’ credit scores. It also lied about the amount of equity that borrowers held in their homes.

Banks typically do not fess up to deliberate wrongdoing, and when they do, their language is usually more equivocal than it was here. So the Department of Justice, which extracted the confession, took credit.

“Our settlement today makes clear that institutions like Deutsche Bank cannot evade responsibility for the great cost exacted by their conduct,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a January 2017 press release.

The Justice Department also said that the $1.77 trillion-asset bank had agreed to pay $7.2 billion, more than half of which would come in the form of aid to consumers who were harmed by its misconduct. “Specifically, Deutsche Bank will provide loan modifications, including loan forgiveness and forbearance, to distressed and underwater homeowners throughout the country,” the DOJ’s press release stated.

But that claim, like many statements that Deutsche made to mortgage bond investors a decade earlier, proved to be false.

The multibillion-dollar settlement did not actually require Deutsche to offer any loan modifications; they were merely one option on a menu of choices available to the bank. And after initially pledging to provide modifications, Deutsche Bank recently backed out of that plan, saying that it would instead fulfill its settlement obligations by financing new mortgages, some of which have gone to wealthy borrowers.

So far, Deutsche has received $1.5 billion in credit for new mortgage originations. These loans — ostensibly made for consumer relief purposes — do not need to have any connection to the borrowers who were harmed a decade ago. The homebuyer merely has to reside in one of 18 U.S. states in which more than half of the nation’s population lives in order for Deutsche to receive credit.

Critics of Deutsche Bank say that many distressed homeowners would be able to stay in their homes if their monthly payments were lower or their loan principal were reduced and that the bank is doing nothing to help them.

“The thing that was most needed is the thing that they seem to be walking away from,” said Kevin Stein, deputy director of the California Reinvestment Coalition.

The Department of Justice, which did not respond to requests for comment, claimed in 2017 that its settlement with Deutsche would provide $4.1 billion in consumer relief. But the agreement is now expected to provide no assistance to homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgages.

The bank’s about-face serves as a fitting coda to President Obama’s foreclosure prevention efforts, which failed to stem the sharp nationwide increase in vacant homes. It also illustrates how one particular Obama-era program was creatively repurposed by lawyers, who found a way to give banks settlement credit for funding new mortgages that likely would have been made anyway.

‘Deutsche’s conduct was among the worst’

On the eve of the financial crisis, Deutsche Bank was the world’s third-largest issuer of residential mortgage-backed securities. The bank later admitted that it knew the U.S. housing market was on the verge of collapse even while it was injecting tens of billions of dollars into the sector.

Deutsche’s list of confessed misdeeds was long. The bank knowingly misrepresented to investors that mortgages had been reviewed to ensure borrowers’ ability to repay them. It intentionally securitized loans that were originated based on fraudulent appraisals. And it knowingly disregarded evidence that significant numbers of loans would not comply with the bank’s representations to investors.

The bank’s motive was simple: There was a lot of money to be made as long as the housing boom continued. In 2006, a supervisor in Deutsche’s due diligence department predicted that the mortgage machine would keep whirring until rising defaults began affecting profits.

“I can say very clearly that Deutsche’s conduct was among the worst,” said a former federal prosecutor with direct knowledge of the case. “We took the view that their conduct was pretty egregious. They had to be held accountable for it.”

The Justice Department investigated the mortgage securitization practices of numerous big banks in the wake of the financial crisis, and subsequent negotiations led to settlements with varying punishments. During the Obama administration, they typically included a mix of fines and so-called consumer relief, which gave the banks monetary credit for taking steps to help homeowners.

Since President Trump took office, banks accused of bad conduct before the financial crisis have not had to provide any redress to consumers at all. Mortgage bond settlements reached last year with Barclays Capital, HSBC, Nomura, Royal Bank of Scotland and Wells Fargo did not include consumer relief provisions.

In the Deutsche case, negotiations heated up in 2016. That September, the bank confirmed that the Justice Department was seeking a $14 billion settlement, while also stating that it had no intention to resolve the claims for anywhere that amount.

The German lender was facing pressure to resolve the matter quickly, as market concerns swirled about its ability to absorb a massive settlement.

But a couple of subsequent developments appear to have weakened the DOJ’s hand. First, Donald Trump was elected president, which seemed to portend that more industry-friendly officials would soon be installed at the Justice Department.

Second, the settlement talks raised the uncomfortable possibility that a large penalty could wipe out most of the bank’s capital cushion. In September 2016, Deutsche’s market capitalization was around $18 billion.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government denied that state aid was a possibility, but the bank’s precarious financial condition gave her administration a stake in the outcome of the U.S. talks.

On Dec. 23, Deutsche announced that it had reached a settlement in principle with the Justice Department, which included a $3.1 billion civil money penalty and $4.1 billion in consumer relief. “The consumer relief is expected to be primarily in the form of loan modifications and other assistance to homeowners and borrowers, and other similar initiatives to be determined,” the bank stated.

In earlier settlements, the Justice Department had allowed banks to get some credit for originating new mortgages, but it had also established minimum thresholds for loan modifications.

For example, JPMorgan Chase was required under a 2013 settlement to obtain at least $2 billion in credit for modifications that included either principal write-downs or forbearance. The following year, a DOJ settlement with Bank of America established a $2.15 billion minimum for modifications that provided first-lien principal reductions.

By contrast, the Deutsche Bank settlement included no minimum requirement for loan modifications. If the bank so chose, it could fulfill all of its purported consumer relief obligations by financing new loans to any homebuyer in California, Florida and other states designated as hardest-hit areas.

‘Things did not need to be this bad’

Even before he took office as president, Barack Obama was feeling political pressure to provide substantial aid to borrowers who were on the verge of losing their homes. The law that authorized a $700 billion bank bailout — passed just a month before Election Day — had not earmarked any money for homeowners.

Within weeks of Obama’s inauguration, the Treasury Department set aside $75 billion in bailout funds to encourage loan servicers to modify distressed borrowers’ mortgages. The plan was touted as a way to help 3 million to 4 million at-risk homeowners by reducing their monthly payments.

“By making these investments in foreclosure prevention today,” Obama said in a speech  announcing his plan, “we will save ourselves the costs of foreclosure tomorrow.”

But Treasury proved unable to get the money out the door quickly. One year later, only 169,000 loan modifications had been finalized, which was fewer than the number of homeowners who were receiving foreclosure notices each month.

“Things did not need to be this bad,” Julia Gordon, a Washington-based housing advocate, testified in 2010. “If the Bush administration had moved quickly back in 2007, or if the Obama administration and Congress had acted more forcefully in early 2009, we could have significantly limited the breadth and depth of the foreclosure crisis.”

In February 2010, the Obama White House tried another approach, allocating $1.5 billion to state housing finance agencies in California, Florida, Arizona, Nevada and Michigan. The Hardest Hit Fund later grew to $9.6 billion, as 13 more states plus the District of Columbia became eligible to receive money.

The program was meant to encourage state-level experimentation in foreclosure prevention, but it’s been plagued by episodes of mismanagement. A government watchdog in 2016 and 2017 identified $11 million in wasteful and unnecessary spending that included a Mercedes Benz lease, employee parties, free parking for employees and gym memberships.

“Ultimately every misused dollar is one less dollar for homeowners,” Christy Goldsmith Romero, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, testified at a May 2018 congressional hearing.

The Hardest Hit Fund had been created to provide funding to states that suffered large home price declines and high unemployment rates. But eventually the “hardest hit” designation was seized upon by lawyers who were negotiating multi-billion dollar settlements between banks and the federal government.

The settlements enabled banks to earn credit for making new mortgage loans to borrowers in hardest-hit places, regardless of the particular borrowers’ economic circumstances. Under the early agreements, eligible loans were restricted to specific distressed census tracts, and the amount of credit that banks could get for those loans was capped.

One example was JPMorgan Chase’s November 2013 settlement over pre-crisis mortgage securities. Of the $4.06 billion in consumer relief credit that was eventually granted under that settlement, 17% was for loans to borrowers in hardest-hit areas, while 42% was for loan modifications that included principal forgiveness.

‘The change in plans … may disappoint distressed homeowners’

But then came the Deutsche Bank settlement. Under that agreement, in order to be eligible for hardest-hit credit, new loans did not have to be targeted to specific census tracts.

So new loans to borrowers in posh parts of San Francisco, Palo Alto and Santa Monica were eligible for credit — since California was one of the 18 states designated by the federal government as hardest hit. The same was true for pricey suburbs such as Wilmette, Ill., Short Hills, N.J., and Lake Oswego, Ore.

Wealthy borrowers with high-priced mortgages were also eligible. Last year Deutsche sought credit under the settlement for loans as large as $982,000. The borrowers reported as much as $500,000 in annual income.

After the settlement was reached, Deutsche took preliminary steps toward providing loan modifications. The bank, which has virtually no direct involvement in the U.S. mortgage servicing industry, entered into financing arrangements with two loan servicers.

But then the bank reversed course, informing the lawyer who is charged with monitoring its compliance with the settlement that it planned to satisfy its entire $4.1 billion obligation by financing the origination of new mortgages. Under the settlement, Deutsche gets credit of $10,000 to $11,500 for each eligible mortgage that it finances.

Settlement monitor Bresnick acknowledged that Deutsche Bank’s change in plans ‘may disappoint distressed homeowners and others…hoping to receive different types of consumer relief from the bank.’

“The bank’s strategy of focusing solely on new loan originations is permitted by the agreement,” the monitor, Michael Bresnick, noted in a report published in February. “The change in plans, however, may disappoint distressed homeowners and others, including the many individuals who have reached out to the monitor over the past two years, hoping to receive different types of consumer relief from the bank.”

Bresnick declined to comment for this article.

A Deutsche spokesman declined to say what prompted the bank’s reversal. In a written statement, the bank said that its consumer relief program has provided financing to more than 190,000 homeowners.

“As reported by the monitor, we have decided to focus our efforts on helping people purchase homes as the most efficient and effective way of delivering consumer relief given current market conditions and our financing expertise,” the bank’s statement read.

Of the $1.5 billion in consumer relief credit that Deutsche has received, more than half of that amount has been for loans to borrowers in hardest-hit states. The bank also gets credit for financing loans to first-time low- and moderate-income homebuyers in any state.

Data about the mortgages that Deutsche submitted for credit in the second and third quarters of 2018 suggest that many were the kind of plain-vanilla loans that can usually find funding in the market.

The vast majority of the Deutsche loans were 30-year fixed-rate mortgages. All of them met credit underwriting criteria established by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Nationwide housing prices have risen by 53% in the last seven years, according to the S&P/Case Schiller index. But the recovery has been uneven, with high levels of underwater mortgages still dogging many low-income and minority communities.

During the fourth quarter of last year, 18 mortgages were either seriously delinquent or in the foreclosure process for every one mortgage that was modified, according to data collected from seven large banks by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

By deciding not to offer loan modifications, Deutsche Bank is putting its own interests ahead of what is best for consumers, said Scott Astrada, director of federal advocacy at the Center for Responsible Lending. He compared the German bank’s decision-making to its bad conduct before the housing crisis.

“I think it was the same kind of mentality — in a different context — that was the whole problem in the first place,” Astrada said.

DEUTSCHE BANK CASES LISTED ON THE US SUPREME COURT WEBSITE – NO HOMEOWNER HAS MADE IT TO CERT….THE GERMAN BANK IS PROTECTED BY THE COURTS, GOVERNMENT AND THE CABINET

file type icon  Docket for 18-514
Title:Ola L. Drake, et vir, Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Ola L. Drake, et vir, Petitioners Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 19, 2018) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
file type icon  Docket for 18-473
Title:John Davis, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., et al.
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due Waiver of right of respondents Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., et al. to respond filed.
file type icon  Docket for 16-317
Title:Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, et al., Petitioners v. Robert R. McCormick Foundation, et al.
Robert R. McCormick Foundation, et al. Reply of petitioners Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, et al. filed.Supplemental brief of petitioners Deutsche Bank Trust Co., et al. filed.
file type icon  Docket for 18-6217
Title:Colette Marquis, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh of respondents Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., as trustee for Long
file type icon  Docket for 18-5478
Title:Ryan Jennings, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. Application (17A731) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 20, 2017 to January 19, 2018, submitted to Justice
file type icon  Docket for 17A1348
Title:Colette Marquis, Applicant v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Application (17A1348) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from
file type icon  Docket for 17-1488
Title:Pamela M. Timbes, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Waiver of right of respondents Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC to
file type icon  Docket for 18A143
Title:John Davis, Applicant v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Application (18A143) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from
file type icon  Docket for 17A731
Title:Ryan Jennings, Applicant v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. Application (17A731) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 20, 2017 to January 19, 2018, submitted to Justice
file type icon  Docket for 17A812
Title:Pamela M. Timbes, Applicant v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Application (17A812) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from
file type icon  Docket for 17-1260
Title:Karen Mobley, Petitioner v. Tom Leatherwood, et al.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Waiver of right of respondents Bank of America, N.A., Brian T. Moynihan, Recontrust Co., N.A., U.S. Bank N.A., and Deutsche Bank to respond filed.
file type icon  Docket for 17A838
Title:Pamela M. Timbes, Applicant v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Application (17A838) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of
file type icon  Docket for 17A969
Title:Marilyn E. Matheson, et al., Applicants v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Marilyn E. Matheson, et al., Applicants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Application (17A969) to extend the time to file a petition for
file type icon  Docket for 17-6278
Title:LaQuisha R. Worthy, et vir, Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
LaQuisha R. Worthy, et vir, Petitioners Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 16-1478
Title:Michael J. Pence, et ux., Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Michael J. Pence, et ux., Petitioners Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond filed.Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 17-5217
Title:Plamen Iordanov, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Appellate Court of Illinois, First District Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 18, 2017)
file type icon  Docket for 10-915
Title: City of Cleveland, Ohio, Petitioner v. Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc., et al.
Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. to respond filed. Party name: Bank of America, N.A. and Countywide Securities Corporation Party name: Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.
file type icon  Docket for 16-8571
Title: Soni Melgar, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust, et al.
Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District Waiver of right of respondents Deutsche Bank National Trust, et al. to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust, et al.
file type icon  Docket for 15A941
Title: Jay Liebman, et al., Applicants v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District Application (15A941) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 7, 2016 to
file type icon  Docket for 15A392
Title: George Yono, et ux., Applicants v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Application (15A392) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from
file type icon  Docket for 15A300
Title: Harold Blick, Applicant v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Application (15A300) denied by The Chief Justice.
file type icon  Docket for 15-9656
Title: Martin S. Stancik, Jr., Petitioner v. Deutsche National Bank
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga County Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche National Bank to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche National Bank
file type icon  Docket for 15-8209
Title: Derek Quinn, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 15-8169
Title: Peter Lundstedt, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 15-788
Title: Ellen Margelis, Petitioner v. IndyMac Bank, et al.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Waiver of right of respondents IndyMac Bank FSB, Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co; MERSCORP; Mortgage Electronic Party name: IndyMac Bank, et al.
file type icon  Docket for 15-636
Title: Javier Carrillo, et al., Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 14, 2015)DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.
file type icon  Docket for 15-262
Title: Martha Echeverry, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 2, 2015)
file type icon  Docket for 15-260
Title: Anh Nguyet Tran, et al., Petitioners v. Bank of New York, nka Bank of New York Mellon, et al.
Bank of New York, nka Bank of New York Mellon, et al. Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Solely in its Capacity as Party name: U.S. Bank National Association, et al.
file type icon  Docket for 15-1268
Title: Heather M. Bliss, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, et al.
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 13, 2016) Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee to respond filed.
file type icon  Docket for 15-1233
Title: Danny Chenault, et al., Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. Court of Appeals of Ohio, Franklin County Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 2, 2016) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 2, 2016.
file type icon  Docket for 15-122
Title: Ruth Calderon-Cardona, et al., Petitioners v. The Bank of New York Mellon, et al.
Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas to respond filed. Party name: The Bank of New York Mellon, et al. Party name: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas
file type icon  Docket for 15-1069
Title: Richard William Breinholt, et ux., Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Richard William Breinholt, et ux., Petitioners Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 14A957
Title: Farouk Saco, et ux., Applicants v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Deutsche Bank Trust Company United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Application (14A957) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 11, 2015 to May 10, 2015
file type icon  Docket for 14A717
Title: Belmont Holdings Corp., et al., Applicants v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al.
Belmont Holdings Corp., et al., Applicants Deutsche Bank AG, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Second CircuitApplication (14A717) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of
file type icon  Docket for 14A486
Title: Angelique Figueroa, Applicant v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Application (14A486) for an extension of time within which to comply with the order of Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 14A344
Title: Sara I. Garcia, Applicant v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company America as Trustee
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company America as Trustee District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District Application (14A344) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from
file type icon  Docket for 14A1233
Title: Jay Liebman, et al., Applicants v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Application (14A1233) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 1, 2015 to July 31, 2015, submitted to Justice Thomas.
file type icon  Docket for 14-9302
Title: Patrick V. Broz, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 14-7635
Title: Jozette Greenfield, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al.
Deutsche Bank AG, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due
file type icon  Docket for 14-7610
Title: Mark S. Miller, et ux., Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Mark S. Miller, et ux., Petitioners Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR13, by and though Deutsche Bank National to respond filed.
file type icon  Docket for 14-7409
Title: Marina Read, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Appellate Department, Superior Court of California, Santa Barbara County Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed
file type icon  Docket for 14-7220
Title: Ivett Bello and Xabier Garay, Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Ivett Bello and Xabier Garay, Petitioners Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 14-473
Title: Bahi Khosiko, et al., Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for RALI 2006QS18
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari filed Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee for RALI 2006QS18 to
file type icon  Docket for 14-1354
Title: Farouk Saco, et ux., Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 14-1052
Title: Belmont Holdings Corp., et al., Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al.
Belmont Holdings Corp., et al., Petitioners United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Brief of respondents Deutsche Bank AG, et al. in opposition filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank AG, et al.
file type icon  Docket for 14-10279
Title: Chon S. Un, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 14-10195
Title: Harold Blick, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due
file type icon  Docket for 13A1122
Title: Daniel B. Graves, Applicant v. Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Application (13A1122) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 27, 2014 to
file type icon  Docket for 13-851
Title: Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Petitioner v. Moneygram Payment Systems, Inc.
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 18, 2014) Waiver of right of respondent Moneygram Payment Systems, Inc. to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
file type icon  Docket for 13-640
Title: Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi, Petitioner v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., et al.
Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi, Petitioner United States Court of Appeals for for the respondents Credit Suisse Securities, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., and
file type icon  Docket for 13-1546
Title: Daniel B. Graves, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.
file type icon  Docket for 13-1449
Title: Doug Welborn, in His Official Capacity as Clerk of Court of Nineteenth Judicial District for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana, et al., Petitioners v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, et al.
Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank to respond filed. right of respondents HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC BankUSA, N.A., and Sun Trust Mortgage, Inc. to Party name: Deutsche Bank
file type icon  Docket for 13-1205
Title: Elfriede Korber, et al., Petitioners v. Federal Republic of Germany, et al.
of right of respondents Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG and Deutsche Bankers Trust Co. to respond filed. Waiver of right of respondent Bank for International Settlements to respond filed.
file type icon  Docket for 13-10369
Title: Angelique Figueroa, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 12A232
Title: Jay Liebman, et ux., Applicant v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Application (12A232) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from
file type icon  Docket for 12-10411
Title: Molly S. White, et vir, Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Molly S. White, et vir, Petitioners Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond filed.Party name: Molly S. White, et Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 11-1233
Title: Billy Torain, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 16, 2012) DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 14, 2012.
file type icon  Docket for 10-502
Title: Joseph Dixon, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response Waiver of right of respondents Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al. to respond filed.
file type icon  Docket for 09-459
Title: Joseph Melfi, Petitioner v. WMC Mortgage Corporation, et al.
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Waiver of right of respondents Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Deutsche BankNational Trust Company, as Trustee to respond
file type icon  Docket for 09-10010
Title: Patricia Ann Ingle, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga County Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 6, 2010)
file type icon  Docket for 07-817
Title: Lorenzo Vecchioli, Petitioner v. Borel Private Bank & Trust Company, et al.
Borel Private Bank & Trust Company, et al. Waiver of right of respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company to respond filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
file type icon  Docket for 07-667
Title: Solomon Vereen, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, et al.
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 20, 2007) Waiver of right of respondents Deutsche BankNational Trust Company, et al. to respond filed.
file type icon  Docket for 07-11444
Title: Sarah Richards Buck, Petitioner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-2, et al.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-2, et al. Waiver of right of respondents Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Long Beach
file type icon  Docket for 06A35
Title: Montana Board of Investments, Applicant v. Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.
Court of Appeals of New York Application (06A35) denied by Justice Ginsburg. Party name: Montana Board of InvestmentsParty name: Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.
file type icon  Docket for 04-347
Title: Herero People’s Reparation Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Deutsche Bank, A.G., et al.
Herero People’s Reparation Corporation, et al., Petitioners United States Court of Appeals for the District Brief of respondent Deutsche Bank, A.G. in opposition filed. Party name: Deutsche Bank, A.G.

Billups v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. and PHH Mortgage Corp., N.D. Illinois

Billups v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. and PHH Mortgage Corp., N.D. Illinois (1:19-cv-05891) District Court, N.D. Illinois

Rosalie Conner, 90 Years Young Pro Se v. PHH Mortgage Corp., S.D. Tex., before Snr Judge Hoyt

What you can truly classify as an aged debtor, foreclosure mills and their client(s) including Deutsche Bank have no humanity.

Deutsche Bank: Was it Murder or Was It Suicide?

Val Broeksmit – a longtime source about Deutsche Bank – is missing. He’s the son of a Deutsche Banker found hanging from a door in London.

US Supreme Court Will Not Review Deutsche Bank National Trust Company About Homeowner Grievances Regarding Illegal Foreclosures
3 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Donate to LawsInTexas. Make a Difference.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

We keep your data private and share your data only with third parties that make this service possible. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

© 2020-21 LawInTexas com is an online trading name which is wholly owned by Blogger Inc., a nonprofit 501(c)(3) registered in Delaware. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top