In Re Waring

401 B.R. 906, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 560, 2009 WL 499501
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio
DecidedFebruary 27, 2009
Docket19-30366
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 401 B.R. 906 (In Re Waring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Waring, 401 B.R. 906, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 560, 2009 WL 499501 (Ohio 2009).

Opinion

ORDER ON MOSS CODILIS, LLP AND CONTINUED ORDER ON SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC. RE REAFFIRMATION AGREEMENT

PAT E. MORGENSTERN-CLARREN, Bankruptcy Judge.

On February 26, 2009, the court held a hearing on a show cause order which directed:

(1) Saxon Mortgage to appear and show cause why it should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with court orders relating to a reaffirmation agreement with the debtors Robert and Maureen Waring; and
(2) Corey Robertas to appear and show cause why his electronic filing privileges should not be revoked for interfering with the efficient administration of this case.

These individuals appeared at the hearing:

(1) John Cottrell, assistant vice-president of Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., represented by attorney Edward Boll;
(2) Corey Robertas, represented by attorney Scott Fink;
(3) Maria Borresen, an independent contractor who is the compliance attorney for Moss Codilis, LLP; and
(4) Gilbert Blomgren, representing the debtors Robert and Maureen Waring.

The show cause arose out of a reaffirmation agreement between “creditor Saxon Mortgage” and the debtors Robert and Maureen Waring that was filed on September 8, 2008. (Docket 11). The court issued an order identifying deficiencies in the agreement and setting a hearing. (Docket 12). The debtors’ counsel appeared at that hearing, and the next four on the same topic, but no one appeared for Saxon Mortgage. The details are stated in this court’s order entered on February 18, 2008 and need not be repeated here. (Docket 25).

Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. Does Not Hold an Interest in the Note

The reason for the breakdown in communication became apparent at the show cause hearing. Based on Mr. Cott-rell’s statements, “Saxon Mortgage” is not, in fact, a creditor of these debtors. There does not even seem to be a legal entity by this name. The note holder is Bank of New York, Mellon as trustee for a trust that was not identified with certainty at the hearing. That entity hired Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. (not “Saxon Mortgage”) to represent it in the reaffirmation process. See 11 U.S.C. § 524(c). Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., in turn, has had an agreement with the law firm of Moss Codilis, LLP since 2007 under which Moss Codilis, LLP serves as its national counsel to address reaffirmation issues. On October 1, 2007, Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. executed a limited power of attorney in favor of Moss Codilis, LLP to perform all *908 acts necessary “to execute Reaffirmation Agreements.” (Hearing Exhibit A).

According to attorney Borresen, Moss Codilis, LLP is a limited liability partnership with 15 employees, whose partners are five law firms, all of which are in the default servicing industry. Those firms include Fein, Such, Kahn & Sheppard PC (New Jersey); Pite Duncan (California); and Morris Schneider & Prior (Georgia); Ms. Borresen did not recall the other two law firm partners. There is a separate entity called Default Servicing Solutions that is affiliated (in an unspecified fashion) with Moss Codilis, LLP. Default Servicing Solutions has 135 employees, including Mr. Robertus. 1 Moss Codilis, LLP and Default Servicing Solutions are located in Colorado. The parties did not present a power of attorney giving Default Servicing Solutions or Mr. Robertus authority to act on behalf of Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.

After Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. referred the reaffirmation agreement issue in this case to Moss Codilis, LLP, that entity assigned it to the loss mitigation department. The loss mitigation department is one and the same for Moss Codilis, LLP and Default Servicing Solutions. An individual in that department-probably Rachel Gardner-drafted the agreement and sent it to Corey Robertus, who signed it in Colorado (without independent review) and filed it with this court.

The reaffirmation agreement is signed in this fashion:

Accepted by Creditor:
SAXON MORTGAGE
4708 Mercantile Drive Fort Worth, TX 76137
(Signature)
The handwriting at this point is a cursive signature for Corey Robertus, followed by this printing:
Corey M Robertus
atty in fact for Saxon Mortgage 9-8-08

This raises several issues:

(1) “Saxon Mortgage” does not own or hold the note referred to in the reaffirmation agreement and is not a creditor of these debtors;
(2) Corey Robertus individually does not hold a power of attorney from Saxon Mortgage Services;
(3) Corey Robertus is not an employee of Moss Codilis, LLP, which does hold a limited power of attorney from Saxon Mortgage Services; and
(4) no one at the hearing had the documentation establishing the full name of the Bank of New York Mellon trust that currently holds the note signed by the debtors.

See generally, Fed. R. BANKR.P. 9011.

The court stated at the hearing that the reaffirmation agreement would be approved because the deficiencies originally identified had been corrected. On further review, and considering the information provided at the hearing, it is apparent that the agreement cannot be approved as filed because Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. does not have a legal interest in the note and, therefore, does not on its own behalf have the legal authority to reaffirm the *909 debt owed by the debtors to the unidentified trust. To permit the actual parties in interest to enter into an agreement, the court will provide additional time for filing a new reaffirmation agreement.

The Note Holder Failed to Establish a System by which Debtors can Communicate regarding Reaffirmation Ayree-ments

With respect to the communication issue that caused the show cause order to be issued, it is apparent that there is no system in place at Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. or its agents by which a debtor’s counsel or a pro se debtor can contact the creditor to attempt to negotiate a reaffirmation agreement. In addition to the debtor having been given the name of the wrong creditor, there are no telephone numbers listed on the reaffirmation agreement for Corey Robertus or “Saxon Mortgage.” Corey Robertus works in Colorado, not at the Texas address listed on the reaffirmation agreement and no one at the Texas address responded to the court’s orders that were sent there.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Taylor
655 F.3d 274 (Third Circuit, 2011)
In Re Waring
406 B.R. 763 (N.D. Ohio, 2009)
In Re Greco
405 B.R. 393 (S.D. Florida, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
401 B.R. 906, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 560, 2009 WL 499501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-waring-ohnb-2009.