Mr. Isaeff first asked Mrs. Benight if she had the contact history documents with her. She answered in the affirmative. Barbara Bratton’s public defender stated that he noticed with the contact history there are notes about conversations. He then asked “who makes the notes about conversations in the contact history? Mrs. Benight replied, they are made by a person who was a party to that conversation. Mrs. benight was then asked if one of those parties to the conversation was someone who actually worked for SPS? She replied with yes, that sometimes it’s a lawyer, vendor, or borrower, but it is all related to a particular loan.
Beneath, is a call log for Select Portfolio Servicing. We first see a conversation between Ms. Bratton and SPS where she calls in and states that she was under the impression that the foreclosure sale was going to be rescinded. Ms. Bratton was advised that they were unable to rescind the sale and advised that IT WOULD NEED TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. Ms. Bratton advised SPS that she was working with company to modify the loan on 4/8. Then on 4/11 the house went on sale.
Ms. Bratton’s public defender then stated as it shows below, on November 3rd, 2008, Ms. Bratton called in and was referring to something about a dismissal, that she thought that the foreclosure sale was rescinded, and that’s what she understood to be the case. Specifically, she said her attorney told her that the case was dismissed, and she also thought that meant the foreclosure was rescinded.
Next, Ms. Bratton’s public defender stated looking from page 67 below carrying over to page 68 below that, we see a note from SPS stating that they’re aggressively seeking CFK on this property. Mrs. Benight then stated that this means CASH FOR KEYS! Ms. Bratton’s public defender then asked the question, so when somebody is trying to get somebody to move out, sometimes they are offered money to leave and in exchange for giving the keys and access to the property? Mrs. Benight answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Benight was then asked, in this case it looks like there was some authorization for, depending on when the keys were handed over, anything from $1,800 up to $3,000. Mrs. Benight answered in the affirmative.
Next, Ms. Bratton’s public defender asks about an entry from December 16 at 9:12 in the morning. We see this below. Ms. Benight is then asked about the signature of Charles Karich next to this entry and whether or not he was an SPS employee at the time. She replied that he was not a SPS employee but a LENDER. He then asked “and it looks like he told somebody at SPS that they’re working with the occupants on possibly purchasing the property; Is that correct? Mrs. Benight answered in the affirmative. Then she stated that they were not interested in the cash for keys.
Next, Mrs. Bratton’s public defender stated going back to page 66 and 67, which we see below, starting from the bottom of 66 going to 67 it LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY IS SPEAKING with an EVICTION ATTORNEY, is that correct? Mrs. Benight replied with it was J&A Eviction who was a VENDOR who is not an attorney, BUT AN EVICTION COMPANY. The public defender then told Mrs. Benight that it makes reference to an eviction attorney talking about calling an agent. They’re trying to sell the property to the occupants. Mrs. Benight replies YES.
Next, Ms. Benight was asked to look at the last entry on page 63 which was from February 4 of 2009 and the person who made the entry was named DANCRA. It was not verified if DANCRA was actually a person who worked for SPS, Like Mrs. Benight stated, all of the people privy to the conversation worked for SPS.
Next Mrs. Bratons public defender said moving to page 64 below, it says the hearing for a motion of summary judgement is set for February 6th, do you see that? Ms. Benight states YES. It then says the attorney for the former owner is asking for a week continuance of this hearing. The reason is the former owner’s sister is trying to qualify for a loan to purchase the property. THATS IN THERE, CORRECT? Mrs. Benight stated yes.
