Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC

 
  Upcoming Classes

Search CFLA's Article Archive:

Insurer Prevails On Fraud Claim In Mortgage Securitization Action Against Countrywide

lexology.comMar 7, 2012

Chadbourne & Parke LLP
Thomas J. McCormack and Robert M. Kirby

A New York trial court recently granted partial summary judgment in favor of MBIA Insurance Corporation (“MBIA”) on fraud and breach of warranty claims it had brought against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and various affiliates (collectively, “Countrywide”) concerning certain financial guaranty insurance policies that MBIA had issued in connection with residential mortgage-backed securitizations originated by Countrywide. MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Index No. 602825/08, 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012). The court concluded that, to succeed on its fraud and breach of contract claims, MBIA was not required to prove a direct causal link between its payment of claims under those policies and the alleged misrepresentations by Countrywide concerning the risks of the securitizations.    

 

Background

Between 2004 and 2007, MBIA entered into 15 separate insurance contracts with Countrywide whereby MBIA agreed to insure payments to investors with respect to the securitization of certain pools of residential mortgages. That securitization process involved packaging numerous mortgage loans into a trust, issuing securities in the trust and selling those notes, known as residential mortgage-backed securities, to investors. The homeowners’ payments of principal and interest on their mortgage loans would be used to pay the investors who purchased the securities. Pursuant to its contracts with Countrywide, and in exchange for premium payments received, MBIA was obligated to make up any shortfalls in the scheduled payments to the investors from the trust.  

MBIA alleged that, beginning in 2007, during the U.S. housing market collapse and related financial crisis, defaults and nonpayments by the homeowners whose mortgages were included in the relevant securitization pools materially increased, and the trusts became unable to make the scheduled payments to investors in the notes. As of August 29, 2009, MBIA claims, it had paid $1.4 billion on its insurance policies and faced hundreds of millions of dollars in additional future claims.  

On September 30, 2008, MBIA commenced the instant action against Countrywide, asserting a number of causes of action including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and indemnification. In essence, MBIA alleged that Countrywide made material misrepresentations and breached warranties concerning the creditworthiness of the borrowers of the home loans included in the securitization pools and Countrywide’s compliance with proper underwriting and loan origination standards. According to MBIA, Countrywide knowingly made loans to borrowers that could not afford to repay them and/or who committed fraud in their loan applications. Moreover, Countrywide allegedly falsely represented that home appraisals were conducted by independent appraisers while, in truth, the appraisers were beholden to Countrywide, thereby increasing the risk of inflated appraisals. MBIA alleges that if it had known that Countrywide’s representations were false, MBIA would never have guaranteed the notes and suffered the losses alleged.  

Countrywide moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and, in an April 29, 2010 decision, that motion was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim in its entirety and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim in part, while denying the motion to dismiss the fraud claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified that decision to dismiss the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim in its entirety, but otherwise affirmed. MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 87 A.D.3d 287, 928 N.Y.S.2d 229 (1st Dep’t 2011).

 

The Parties’ Positions

Having in large part survived Countrywide’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the allegations in its complaint, MBIA thereafter filed a motion for partial summary judgment in its favor concerning its fraud and breach of contract claims.  

MBIA’s motion effectively sought a declaration by the court concerning the degree of causal connection that MBIA would need to demonstrate in order to prove its fraud and breach of contract claims. With respect to its fraud claim, MBIA requested a judgment from the court that MBIA need establish only that Countrywide’s alleged misrepresentations induced MBIA to issue insurance policies on terms it would not have agreed to had MBIA known of the alleged misrepresentations, and that MBIA need not show a causal connection between Countrywide’s alleged misrepresentations and MBIA’s claims payments. Similarly, with respect to its breach of contract claim, MBIA sought a judgment that it need establish only that the mortgage loans in the securitization pools breached a representation or warranty in a way that materially affects MBIA’s interests, and need not show that the loan was nonperforming or that the nonperformance was caused by Countrywide’s breaches of representations and warranties.

Countrywide opposed MBIA’s motions, arguing that MBIA should instead be required to prove that the claims payments it made were directly caused by Countrywide’s alleged misrepresentations and not by the meltdown of the U.S. housing market and financial crisis that began in 2007. Countrywide further argued that, in any event, MBIA could only be entitled to rescission of the challenged insurance policies and not, as it demands, damages in the amount that it has paid out under the insurance policies (less premiums MBIA received under the policies).

 

The Decision

In deciding MBIA’s motion for partial summary judgment, the court framed the “base issue before the court” as “when causation occurs in claims for insurance fraud and breach of representations and warranties.” Relying in part on Sections 3105 and 3106 of the New York Insurance Law, the court concluded that “it is well-settled that it is upon the misrepresentation that induces action resulting in damages that fraud or breach occurs.” As such, “no basis in law exists to mandate that MBIA establish a direct causal link between the misrepresentations allegedly made by Countrywide and claims made under the policy.”  

Following from this conclusion, the court explained the standard of proof moving forward in the litigation as follows:  

MBIA must prove for its fraud claim that it issued the Insurance Policies on representations made in the policies’ applications, and that it would not have done so or would have issued the policies on different terms had the alleged misrepresentations not been made. Similarly, MBIA must prove for its breach of warranty claim that Countrywide’s alleged misrepresentations materially increased MBIA’s risk of loss.

Moreover, the court disagreed with Countrywide’s position that MBIA may only seek to rescind or avoid the insurance policies and could not seek damages. The court concluded that, although “rescission may be warranted should MBIA prove its claims,” it would be “impractical” because rescinding the insurance policies would harm the innocent investors in the notes. And, where rescission is impractical, the court has the discretion to instead award “rescissory damages.” Here, according to the court, “should MBIA prove its case, rescissory damages [in the amount paid by MBIA under the insurance policies] minus premiums received will make MBIA whole without providing a windfall.”

The court cautioned, however, that MBIA must still prove all the elements of its claims, including “that it was damaged as a direct result of the material misrepresentations” and “the amount of [those] damages,” which “will not be an easy task.”

 

Implications

The court’s recent decision in MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. settled in favor of financial guaranty insurance companies an important question concerning the standard of proof necessary to establish causation on certain fraud and breach of contract claims. That decision did not, however, decide the ultimate merits of MBIA’s claims. A decision on whether MBIA can prove its essential allegations by a preponderance of the evidence, including its reliance on and damages suffered from Countrywide’s alleged misrepresentations, awaits another day.


Back to March 2012 Archive

CFLA was founded by the Nation's Leading Foreclosure Defense Attorneys back in 2007 to serve the Foreclosure Defense Industry and fight pervasive Bank Fraud. Since opening our virtual doors, CFLA has rapidly expanded to become the premier online legal destination for small businesses and consumers. But as the company continues to grow, we're careful to hold true to our original vision. For us, putting the law within reach of millions of people is more than just a novel idea—it's the founding principle, just ask Andrew P. Lehman, J.D.. With convenient locations in Houston and Los Angeles, you can contact Our National Account Specialist and General Manager / Member Damion W. Emholtz at 888-758-2352 for a free Mortgage Fraud Analysis or to obtain samples of work product, including cutting edge Bloomberg Securitization Audits, Litigation Support, Quiet Title Packages, and for more information about our Nationally Accredited and U.S. Department of Education Approved "Mortgage Securitization Analyst Training Certification" Classes (3 days) 24 hours for approved CLE & MCLE Credit (Now Available Online).

SEE BELOW- http://www.certifiedforensicloanauditors.com

Call us toll free at 888-758-2352

Bookmark and Share
spacer
Facebook Like us on Facebook
Twitter Follow us on Twitter
YouTube View our YouTube Videos
LinkedIn Connect to us on Linkedin
 
BBB Logo

 

spacer
Contact us or view our Sample Documents & Audits by completing the form below.

  • Reload
  • Should be Empty:


 

DVD Sets Only $99

 

FREE Mortgage Fraud Analysis

 

Order Cutting-Edge Services Now

 

Quiet Title Packages from Licensed Attorneys

 

Affiliate Services

 

CFLA Sponsored Attorney Links

 

Take-Home Education Package

 

ALB Law Firm

 

Advocate Legal

 

The True News Network

 

Sutton Law Firm, P.L.L.C.

 

Rubenstein Business Law

 

Atighechi Law Group

 

Scunziano & Associates

 

Get Certified to Perform Mortgage Securitization Audits

 

CFLA Training Academy

 

Expert Witness Services

 

Cutting Edge Expert Securitization Reports

 

CFLA Credit Cards

 

Breaking News

 

Letters to the Editor

 

CFLA Weekly Newsletters

 

Code of Ethics

 

Testimonials

 

Instructional Videos

 

Job Opportunities

 

License Opportunities

 

MARS Rule

 

Product Samples

 

Resource Links

 

Servicer Information

 

Foreclosure Laws

 

REST Report

 

Quiet Title Packages from Licensed Attorneys

 

Advertise on CFLA

 

Advertising Space: Mortgage Securitization, Quiet Title

 

Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC
13101 West Washington Blvd.
Suite 444
Los Angeles, CA 90066

Phone: 832-932-3951
Toll Free: 888-758-CFLA (2352)
Mobile Users: CLICK TO CALL
info@certifiedforensicloanauditors.com

   
 
CFLA IS NOT A LAW FIRM AND DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY LEGAL ADVICE. CFLA DOES NOT OFFER FORECLOSURE CONSULTING OR FORECLOSURE RELIEF
SERVICES. CFLA DOES NOT OFFER OR ASSIST WITH ANY LOAN MODIFICATION SERVICE. CFLA ALWAYS RECOMMENDS THAT CLIENTS RETAIN COMPETENT COUNSEL IN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTION. CFLA HAS A FREE PROGRAM TO REFER CFLA CLIENTS TO LAW FIRMS IN NEARLY EVERY STATE AND CFLA
DOES NOT CHARGE OR OBTAIN REFERRALS FEES FOR THESE SERVICES. SERVICES NOT OFFERED TO RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA.


     
 
Home About Us Privacy Policy Terms of Service Disclaimer SERVICES Careers Contact Us
 
COPYRIGHT © 2007-2016 Certified Forensic Loan Auditors ™ All rights reserved