In Re Dixon Ford

2011 WL 6749083 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P sued Ds alleging mortgage fraud. P and John Elder (Elder) are both employees of the SSA, where Elder is P's supervisor. Ds are now seeking to depose Elder regarding his role in completing a Verification of Employment (VOE) form regarding P. In 2007, P financed the purchase of real property with a 'stated income' mortgage loan from D. In a stated income loan, the lender requires a VOE from the borrower's employer. During the discovery process, two versions of the VOE were produced, with two different job descriptions for P. Handwritten notes suggest that Elder provided the VOE to P before Ds received it. P executed a loan application stating she was a Vice President of the SSA and earning $11,900 per month. P accepted a mortgage loan commitment with WFS (D). Bank (D) purchased the mortgage as part of a mortgage-backed security transaction. Bank (D) did not conduct an independent review of the individual mortgages because the Seller warranted that the mortgages were enforceable and underwritten in accordance with its guidelines at the time of their origination. Bank (D) received P's mortgage note and the original recorded mortgage. The face of P's mortgage showed nothing was wrong. WFS (D) nor P alerted Bank (D) to any alleged misrepresentations. P asserts that she provided documentation that accurately described her employment and overall financial position. P provided: (1) pay stubs; (2) tax returns; (3) a bank statement for the period between February 14, 2007 and March 16, 2007, which includes an entry for the direct deposit of P's wages in the amount of $782.60; and (4) a credit report, indicating P's employment as 'Teller Service.' P contends the WFS (D) loan officer prepared the loan application containing the incorrect employment information. Mr. Elder confirmed that he completed a VOE accurately and truthfully. P eventually defaulted on the mortgage. P sued Ds for fraud. Bank (D) claimed it was a holder in due course and it took the note free of defenses and that it was under no obligation to investigate. Bank (D) moved for summary judgment as an HDC.