California State Bar Shields Disgraced Judges

The California Commission on Judicial Performance describes its mandate thusly:
“The Commission on Judicial Performance, established in 1960, is the independent state agency responsible for investigating complaints of judicial misconduct and judicial incapacity and for disciplining judges, pursuant to article VI, section 18 of the California Constitution.

The Commission’s mandate is to protect the public, enforce rigorous standards of judicial conduct and maintain public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judicial system. While the majority of California’s judges are committed to maintaining the high standards expected of the judiciary, an effective method of disciplining judges who engage in misconduct is essential to the functioning of our judicial system. Commission proceedings provide a fair and appropriate mechanism to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.”

To that end, the CJP’s website lists – alphabetically – all disgraced judges admonished, censured or removed in the past 20 years.

However, the California State Bar (www.calbar.org) is blissfully unaware of that list. Even though the attorney records on its site are supposed to disclose all administrative and public actions taken against the licensees, I have cross-referenced the CJP list with the California Bar records, and – surprise! – no adverse actions are shown on any of their records. Moral lapse on the part of the ethics-enforcers?

Bank is Trying to Intimidate Buyer

Q: I am buying a bank owned foreclosed home in Michigan. The asking price was $$40,000, but wee finally agreed on $37,500 with concessions of $2,500. Closing is to take place no later than the end of this month. Two weeks ago, I was faxed an addendum that states the sellers concessions will be 2,250, and not $2,500, and that if I don’t sign the addendum, the contract is void. I have already given the bank a deposit of $1,000. My Good Faith Estimate states that I will need to bring approximately $3,500 with me to the closing. I have already paid the Mortgage Appraisers $400, and I have already signed the addendum that states I will not get a “warranty deed” but instead I will receive a “quit claim” deed. In addition to the money needed at closing, I also have to pay my real estate agent a fee of $195 and a “reo compliance fee of $395.

Does this all sound right? thank you for any help you can offer.

A: You have raised a number of different issues, which I will try to address:

1. A quit claim deed is not as good as a warranty deed and it does not give you a perfect title to the property; however, most deeds given in foreclosure sales provide a less than perfect title, as this is the nature of the beast. Having said that, it seems to me that since you are not buying the property in a foreclosure sale but directly from the bank, you should insist on getting a warranty deed.

2. Only a review of your contract can determine whether the seller can change the concession from $2,500 to $2,250. Normally, I would not get too uptight over a minor change of $250, but the question remains: does the contract allow the seller to change the seller’s concessions?

3. The closing fees could have been negotiated by you when you first made the offer to purchase. As they stand now, they are certainly not out of line.

Since the purchase of a bank-owned property introduces some elements of risk to the transaction, it would make sense to spend a couple of hundred dollars and have an attorney review the documents.

Mortgage Scamster Sentenced in New York

 LEV L. DASSIN, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that DOMINICK DEVITO was sentenced to 51 months in prison on May 19, 2009, by United States District Judge BARBARA S. JONES in Manhattan federal court for mortgage fraud, insurance fraud and obstruction of justice.

According to Counts One, Thirteen and Fourteen of the Indictment, the charges to which DEVITO pleaded guilty; other documents filed in the case; and statements made during the guilty plea and sentencing proceedings: From January 2002 through November 2004, DEVITO was the leader of a fraudulent real estate investment scheme that purchased multimillion-dollar residential properties in various communities in Westchester County — including Purchase, New York — with loans obtained through the submission of false and misleading information to banks and other lenders. DEVITO identified properties for sale, orchestrated the purchase of the properties, and performed construction work at the properties.

In addition, from January 2003 through February 2005, DEVITO engaged in a scheme to defraud insurance companies by submitting false and misleading insurance claims and supporting documents for water damage caused by broken pipes at several of the homes he and his co-conspirators had purchased as part of the mortgage fraud scheme. DEVITO obstructed justice in connection with his sentencing in 2003 in Manhattan federal court for racketeering and mortgage fraud in an earlier case. Specifically, DEVITO submitted false and misleading information regarding the value of his assets and his personal net worth following his sale of a property located in Purchase, New York.

DEVITO, 45, pleaded guilty before Judge JONES on July 22, 2008. In addition to his 51-month prison term, Judge JONES ordered a supervised release of 3 years and ordered DEVITO to forfeit a total of $1.4 million.