1 1 2 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 3 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------) 4 In Re: SILVIA NUER 5 Debtor, 6 7 ---------------------------------) 8 9 10 11 DEPOSITION OF ANN GARBIS 12 New York, New York 13 Monday, March 8, 2010 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Reported by: 21 William Byrne Job No. 243187 22 23 24 25 2 1 2 3 March 8, 2010 4 10:05 a.m. 5 6 Deposition of ANN GARBIS, held at 7 the offices of United States Trustee's 8 Office, 33 Whitehall Street, before William 9 Byrne, a Notary Public of the State of New 10 York. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 2 A P P E A R A N C E S: 3 4 TEITELBAUM & BASKIN 5 Attorneys for the witness 6 3 Barker Avenue 7 White Plains, New York 10601 8 BY: JAY TEITELBAUM, ESQ. 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES TRUSTEES OFFICE 13 Attorneys for U.S. Trustee 14 33 Whitehall 15 New York, New York 10004 16 BY: GREG ZIPES, ESQ. 17 18 19 LINDA M. TIRELLI, ESQ. 20 Attorney for Defendant 21 202 Mamaroneck Avenue 22 White Plains, New York 10601 23 24 ALSO PRESENT: 25 AUDREY WILLIAMS 4 1 A. Garbis 2 A N N G A R B I S, 3 having been first duly sworn by a 4 Notary Public, was examined and 5 testified asfollows: 6 EXAMINATION BY 7 MR. ZIPES: 8 Q. Please state your name for the 9 record. 10 A. Ann Garbis. 11 Q. Good morning. 12 A. Good morning. 13 Q. Ms. Garbis, my name is Greg 14 Zipes. I am with the Office of the United 15 States Trustee. In case you are not fully 16 familiar with what my office is, we are a 17 component of the Department of Justice. 18 We are charged with among others things, 19 the orderly administration of bankruptcy 20 cases, and we are conducting an 21 investigation into this case with respect 22 to a motion to vacate the stay filed by 23 Chase. 24 Let me start off with the 25 preliminaries which you probably already 5 1 A. Garbis 2 heard from your attorney, there are 3 certain housekeeping matters that you need 4 to understand. 5 First of all, you have to 6 verbalize all of your answers, so when I 7 ask you a question, don't nod. 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Answer yes or no or with an 10 explanation as is appropriate? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. If your attorney objects, you 13 can still answer the questions and that 14 might be a matter we will take up with the 15 judge at some later point. If you don't 16 understand a question, it is important 17 that you tell me that you don't understand 18 it and not try to guess or speculate. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. I would be happy to rephrase 21 my questioning. 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. Now with that said, Ms. 24 Garbis, I ask if you understand what I 25 just said? 6 1 A. Garbis 2 A. Yes, I do. 3 Q. Ms. Garbis, have you ever been 4 deposed before? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Have you been deposed 7 recently? 8 A. No. 9 Q. But you are generally familiar 10 with the rules of taking depositions? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Did you review any documents 13 prior to today's deposition? 14 A. The affidavit. 15 Q. Your affidavit? 16 A. The affidavit that I signed 17 and the assignment of mortgage. 18 Q. Any other documents? 19 A. No. 20 Q. When did you review those 21 documents? 22 A. Initially maybe a week ago 23 when I signed the affidavit, on or around 24 the 22nd of February. 25 Q. Did you have any discussions 7 1 A. Garbis 2 with anyone regarding today's deposition? 3 A. No. 4 MR. TEITELBAUM: Other than 5 me. 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. 7 Q. Where do you reside? 8 A. In Jacksonville Beach, 9 Florida. 10 Q. What is your highest level of 11 school or education? 12 A. I have an AA degree and a 13 two-year degree as a paralegal. 14 Q. Where and when did you get 15 that? 16 A. In Florida, 1990. 17 Q. Did you get your AA degree 18 directly after high school? 19 A. No. 20 Q. How many years approximately? 21 A. Well, it was probably 16 or 17 22 years because my first marriage was 17 23 years. 24 Q. Where did you get your degree 25 again? 8 1 A. Garbis 2 A. Clearwater, Florida. 3 Q. Do you have any other degrees 4 or diplomas or certificates? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Let me ask a general question, 7 and maybe I will be more specific. Have 8 you held many jobs since high school? 9 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection to 10 the form. You can answer it. 11 A. Since high school? 12 Q. Yes. 13 A. Actually I didn't work a lot 14 during my first marriage, I had a couple 15 of jobs since then. 16 Q. So did you start working -- 17 A. After I got my paralegal 18 degree, I worked for the Resolution Trust 19 Corporation for five years while it 20 existed in Dallas, Texas. 21 Q. I would like to take you 22 through your work history and that's why 23 when I asked that question I was going to 24 narrow it down a little. 25 A. Yes. 9 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. So you worked for the 3 Resolution Trust Corporation, I'm not 4 asking for specific dates, but if you can 5 give me an approximate time frame. 6 A. It was in existence from 1990 7 to 1995, that's how long I was there. 8 Q. And what was your role there? 9 A. I was a paralegal in the legal 10 division. 11 Q. What were some of your 12 functions? 13 A. Well, a lot of the attorneys 14 would send in pleadings, and we would have 15 to sort of go through the pleadings and 16 do, you know, a cite check because the 17 Resolution Trust Corporation only wanted 18 the attorneys to cite specific cases in 19 the law and there were some that they 20 didn't want. 21 So basically we did a lot of 22 Lexis-Nexis, and all that sort of research 23 to make sure the cites they were citing 24 within the pleadings were the ones that 25 the Resolution Trust wanted them to cite. 10 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. And that was your function? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. After that job where did you 5 go? 6 A. After that I started working 7 for a company called ContiMortgage 8 Financial in Hatboro. 9 Q. How long did you work there 10 for? 11 A. I worked there, I was there 12 maybe a total of five years. During the 13 last several months they had opened an 14 office in Phoenix, Arizona. So I went to 15 that office. 16 Q. Did you work with them up to 17 the bankruptcy filing? 18 A. Actually prior to filing 19 bankruptcy. Once they closed down that 20 Phoenix division then I started working 21 for Conseco, which was on Green Street, 22 and it was literally across the parking 23 lot from Conti's Arizona facility, and 24 actually the executive vice president had 25 been the executive vice president at 11 1 A. Garbis 2 ContiMortgage and so he simply called a 3 lot of his old staff that he wanted and we 4 walked across the parking lot. 5 Q. So that was in approximately 6 1999 or so? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And then how long did you work 9 for Conseco? 10 A. One year. 11 Q. And what was your role at 12 Conti? 13 A. At Conti I was a foreclosure 14 coordinator. 15 Q. What did that entail? 16 A. It entailed once the 17 foreclosure action would be referred to an 18 attorney, basically you were assigned 19 specific states. I was Ohio. So any 20 referrals in the State of Ohio, I worked 21 with the law firms following up. 22 Within the software systems 23 they have specific templates that are 24 events that happen during a normal 25 foreclosure so you would or you could 12 1 A. Garbis 2 print out a list of late events, like in 3 the standard Fannie it would be like a 4 Fannie Mae timeline, and it would say: 5 Okay, the attorney received the referral 6 on this date, so we should have the first 7 legal by this date. 8 If you didn't get the first 9 legal, then you would get a printout of 10 the late events. And so you would contact 11 your attorney's office directly and say, 12 so what is happening on the Jones 13 complaint. And so that's it. And then if 14 the attorney needed anything, you were his 15 contact on the foreclosure. Also if he 16 needed a document if he needed copies of 17 anything and when it came time for the 18 bid, when he needed a bid for the sale he 19 came to you. 20 Q. Do you happen to recall what 21 the computer system was that you worked 22 with? 23 A. At ContiMortgage we actually 24 did a conversion from LSAMS to MSP. 25 Q. And I will jump ahead for the 13 1 A. Garbis 2 moment. Is Chase still using some version 3 of MSP? 4 A. Chase had actually converted 5 to MSP in the prior servicing platform 6 last July, and the sub prime the year 7 before that. 8 Q. And now tell me about Conseco. 9 A. Conseco, actually I was 10 managing their accounts payable section 11 and their foreclosure referral section. 12 Q. Did Conseco do residential and 13 nonresidential mortgages? 14 A. Yes. I was not in the mobile 15 home division, I was in the residential 16 division. 17 Q. Did it do any commercial, was 18 that your area? 19 A. That was not my area. 20 Q. Then what did you do after 21 Conseco, which was in Phoenix; is that 22 correct? 23 A. Yes. I moved to Tampa, 24 Florida and I worked for CitiFinancial 25 Mortgage. 14 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. How long did you work there? 3 A. I worked for CitiFinancial 4 Mortgage in Tampa for a year, and then I 5 moved to Coppell, Texas because 6 CitiFinancial purchased Ford Motor Credit 7 that was a large company there, and 8 actually the same executive vice president 9 that was at Conti and Conseco was at the 10 Texas office for Citi, and so he brought 11 me on board in Texas also. 12 Q. And what was your position 13 there? 14 A. Director of foreclosure. 15 Q. And what were your 16 responsibilities? 17 A. I had several foreclosure 18 managers that reported to me, and they had 19 foreclosure coordinators who reported to 20 them. So, basically, the coordinators did 21 what I did at Conti where I would oversee 22 the timeline of foreclosures and managers 23 managed them and that process and I 24 managed the managers. 25 Q. When did you leave Citi? 15 1 A. Garbis 2 A. 2001. 3 Q. Where did you go after that? 4 A. I went over to Orlando, 5 Florida to work for Ocwen Loan Servicing. 6 Q. How long were you there for? 7 A. Three years. 8 Q. And what was your position 9 there? 10 A. I was the senior manager of 11 default servicing. 12 Q. What were your job functions? 13 A. My functions were to manage 14 all the foreclosures, the bankruptcies, 15 the title issues and the referrals. 16 Q. Did that same gentleman ask 17 you to come to Ocwen? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Is he out of the picture now? 20 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 21 Q. You had referred to a 22 gentleman who had brought you to various 23 positions like Conseco and then 24 CitiFinancial. 25 A. Yes. 16 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. What was his name? 3 A. Jim Miller. 4 Q. And did he work at Ocwen as 5 well? 6 A. No. 7 Q. So you were at Ocwen for three 8 years? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. How many people reported to 11 you? 12 A. 125. 13 Q. This was national? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. As part of your role there, 16 you said you were in charge of the 17 foreclosures correct? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. Did your work include working 20 out the payment plans with borrowers? 21 A. No. 22 Q. What are some of the things 23 you did in your capacity in charge of 24 foreclosures? 25 A. Basically, the same as at 17 1 A. Garbis 2 Citi, where I managed managers who managed 3 foreclosure coordinators who monitored the 4 timeline to make sure things were done 5 timely whether it be a foreclosure or 6 bankruptcy. 7 Q. Were you also involved with 8 bankruptcy then? 9 A. Yes, I managed bankruptcy 10 there also. 11 Q. At Ocwen did your department 12 prepare any pleadings in connection with 13 bankruptcy cases? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Was that done by counsel? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Where did you go after Ocwen? 18 A. Washington Mutual. 19 Q. And I guess I should ask, did 20 Washington Mutual acquire Ocwen? 21 A. No. 22 Q. So it was just a separate job 23 move? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. That occurred approximately in 18 1 A. Garbis 2 2003? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And what was your function at 5 Washington Mutual, and where were you? 6 A. I was a vice president of 7 asset recovery in Jacksonville. 8 Q. What is that, what did your 9 job entail? 10 A. I had certain default 11 functions, servicing of loans in default. 12 I had the referrals, the monitoring of 13 senior liens when Washington Mutual had 14 the junior liens. I also had all of the 15 contested foreclosures or bankruptcy 16 adversaries that fell out of the normal 17 scope of the foreclosure in bankruptcy. 18 Q. So in the event that a matter 19 became contested that became your area of 20 responsibility? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Did you sign any affidavits in 23 connection with your job there? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Was that in foreclosure and in 19 1 A. Garbis 2 bankruptcy cases? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Did you appear for depositions 5 or in court as part of your job? 6 A. For Washington Mutual? 7 Q. Yes. 8 A. No. 9 Q. How many people worked for you 10 at Washington Mutual? 11 A. It started off three years ago 12 at seven and grew to 65. 13 Q. You worked for Washington 14 Mutual until when? 15 A. Until September 26 when Chase 16 took over Washington Mutual. 17 MR. TEITELBAUM: I don't want 18 to testify, but just to be clear on 19 the record I mean the witness said 20 took over Washington Mutual. We 21 don't have to go into it, but it was 22 pursuant to an acquisition through 23 the FDIC, it is just the legalese. 24 MR. ZIPES: I understand. 25 Q. You didn't say the year as 20 1 A. Garbis 2 well, what year was it? 3 A. 2008. 4 Q. And did you just understand 5 what your attorney just said? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And in your capacity, we are 8 talking about Washington Mutual now -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- at Washington Mutual did 11 you receive any training of any kind as 12 part of your job? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. What was the nature of that 15 training? 16 A. They had actually had a lot of 17 training at Washington Mutual. Every year 18 you had certain training requirements that 19 you have to go through. They have to do 20 with following like the FD -- what is it, 21 the RESPA and the TILA. Every financial 22 institution I ever worked at, every year 23 you have a certain amount of training you 24 have to do like taking privacy training, 25 those sorts of things and, of course, 21 1 A. Garbis 2 management training. 3 Q. What was the computer system 4 that was used at Washington Mutual? 5 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 6 A. MSP. 7 Q. Was there any training? Did 8 you have any training on MSP at Washington 9 Mutual? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Then since that 2008 where 12 have you worked since the takeover of 13 Washington Mutual. 14 A. JP Morgan. 15 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. It 16 wasn't a takeover. 17 Q. Where did you work after you 18 worked at Washington Mutual? 19 A. I worked for JP Morgan Chase. 20 MR. TEITELBAUM: Off the 21 record. 22 (Whereupon, an off the 23 record discussion was held.) 24 Q. Let me be clear about the 25 entity that you work for, is it JP Morgan 22 1 A. Garbis 2 Chase Bank N.A.? 3 A. It is actually Chase Home 4 Lending. 5 Q. To your knowledge, that's the 6 entity at Chase that you work for? 7 A. The division. 8 Q. So whenever we refer to Chase, 9 we are going to be referring to that 10 division -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- unless you've told me 13 otherwise. 14 A. Okay. 15 Q. Or I tell you otherwise. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Where is your current office 18 that you are employed at, the physical 19 location of your office? 20 A. Jacksonville, Florida. 21 Q. Has it been there since you 22 started working at Chase? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And are you associated with a 25 specific department within Chase? 23 1 A. Garbis 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. What's the name of that 4 department? 5 A. I'm the vice president of 6 default control. 7 Q. Default control is that 8 division within a division or how would 9 you characterize that? 10 A. Within default there are 11 divisions that are sort of divided by 12 functionality. And in the default control 13 division we have property preservation; we 14 have accounts payable. I manage the 15 breach letters and equity analysis for all 16 of Chase. 17 Q. Let me back up a second. 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. My question was: So these are 20 different divisions within the default 21 control, correct? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Are those all the divisions, 24 to your knowledge? 25 MR. TEITELBAUM: All the what 24 1 A. Garbis 2 divisions? 3 Q. Did you understand the 4 question? 5 A. Yes. I'm trying to think. 6 Evaluations. 7 Q. So let me just make sure. You 8 said that you are in charge of breach 9 letters and equity. 10 A. Equity analysis. 11 Q. What does that mean, and we 12 can start with breach letters? 13 A. Breach letters is the notice 14 of intent to foreclose, it is called that 15 in some states but basically we send out 16 the breach letters when the loan becomes 17 so many days past due, and whatever that 18 particular state's statutory requirements 19 are, and then it expires so many days 20 after that. 21 And depending on the state, 22 again, because it's different lengths for 23 different states. Then there is the 24 foreclosure referral, where the loan would 25 actually be first reviewed and then 25 1 A. Garbis 2 there's the foreclosure for referral. 3 Q. Are you involved with that 4 review for foreclosure referrals as well? 5 A. No. 6 Q. And then what about equity 7 analysis? 8 A. Equity analysis is 9 predominantly a process that is done on 10 second liens in which you get a recent 11 evaluation you get to pay off for the 12 senior lien holder. And it is simply a 13 financial calculation to see if there is 14 sufficient equity to initiate a 15 foreclosure from a second lien position; 16 so it is analyzing equity, predominantly 17 second liens. 18 Q. Does anyone work for you? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. How many people? 21 A. Right now I have about, well, 22 I have 123. 23 Q. And they all perform these 24 same functions? 25 A. Well, there is a group of 30 26 1 A. Garbis 2 in Jacksonville that do just the breach 3 letters. It is centralized out of 4 Jacksonville for the entire corporation, 5 and I have 50 people in Lewisville, Texas 6 doing equity analysis and people in 7 Melbourne, Florida doing equity analysis; 8 50 that is, and approximately 50 people in 9 Manila in the Philippines doing equity 10 analysis. 11 Q. So just by my count that is 12 more than 125? 13 A. They just added Manila. 14 Q. I see. Why don't we just 15 focus for a moment on breach letters. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. How does your group decide who 18 to send out breach letters to? 19 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 20 I mean there should be some 21 latitude here that this has no 22 relevance to anything in this case 23 so that we can see how far this 24 goes, but I may get to the point 25 where I will direct the witness not 27 1 A. Garbis 2 to answer if it has nothing to do 3 with the loan or this case. 4 Q. You can answer the question. 5 A. Basically, it's a highly 6 automated function in that certain logic 7 is queried against the entire system, and 8 it is very complex logic in that it is 9 very state specific so, and what this 10 logic does daily is produce a flat file of 11 the loans that qualifies once it has gone 12 through all of these figures and all of 13 the filters and logic that qualifies to 14 have a breach letter sent to them. 15 So that this file is then 16 automatically loaded to an FTPC, and we 17 have the breach letter vendors to pick it 18 up at the FTPC site file transfer protocol 19 where it's a secured encrypted site, where 20 they then actually have their own in-house 21 programming in which they populate and 22 produce these letters that they actually 23 mail the letters according to the 24 templates that we have given them. 25 Then they send us a return 28 1 A. Garbis 2 file confirming exactly which loans 3 received it, and then that return file is 4 automatically uploaded to the MSP system 5 on a specific screen. 6 Q. Was the MSP system the 7 computer system you were describing that 8 employs all this logic? 9 A. The MSP system is the system 10 that the logic queries. So it looks at 11 the MSP, and it says how many loans are 12 this many days past due in Kansas, and 13 they are not in bankruptcy, in foreclosure 14 or REO, they don't have a E-payment plan 15 going on, they don't have the coding that 16 would prevent them from getting a breach 17 letter. 18 Q. Is LDS one of those service 19 sources that you were describing? 20 A. LDS? 21 Q. LPS? 22 A. No. 23 Q. Fidelity? 24 A. A breach letter vendor? 25 Q. Yes. 29 1 A. Garbis 2 A. No. 3 Q. Now, just tell me briefly 4 about how you is that in sum and substance 5 what happens with these breach letters? 6 A. For the vast majority, yes. 7 Q. When you say the vast 8 majority, do you mean more than 95 9 percent? 10 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 11 Q. If you know? 12 A. Approximately that. You have 13 some very unique statutes that have been 14 recently enacted in which they are asking 15 for pieces of information that are not 16 queryable within the MSP, such as the 17 original lender's name and license number 18 within the state, so that's why I have 30 19 people in Jacksonville. 20 Once the vendor file is 21 produced daily, a column is added to that 22 vendor file and a search is done to fill 23 in that information, and then the file 24 goes to the vendor. We term them as 25 manual, but they were only manual in that 30 1 A. Garbis 2 we have to input certain pieces of data 3 for the file to be complete for that 4 jurisdiction to comply with the state 5 statute, that's the process. For the most 6 part we don't actually produce any letters 7 or fold them or put them in envelopes or 8 anything like that. 9 Q. With respect to equity 10 analysis, just tell me briefly how that 11 occurs. 12 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 13 Again, it's beyond the scope of this 14 examination. You may answer it. 15 A. As a loan becomes 70 days past 16 due again there is a logic query against 17 the system. It looks to see if these 18 loans had a recent valuation done on them. 19 By recent it has to be within the last 20 four months. If it has not, then that 21 file is produced of those loans and it 22 goes over to this valuation group that I 23 referred to, which is a centralized values 24 ordering department within Chase. They -- 25 MR. TEITELBAUM: Don't go into 31 1 A. Garbis 2 the details of how they do the 3 analysis. 4 A. No, they send for a value. 5 The value comes back and it is transferred 6 into a piece of the work flow software 7 that's at Chase, and it plugs in the 8 numbers and comes out with the decision 9 there is sufficient equity to pursue a 10 foreclosure or not sufficient equity to 11 pursue a foreclosure, and we try to have 12 that done prior to day 90 of the 13 delinquency. 14 Q. Is your group responsible for 15 any depositions or court appearances or 16 for the preparation of documents? 17 A. No. 18 Q. What is the geographical area 19 of your group, do you cover all 50 states? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Anywhere else? 22 A. Wherever we have a loan. 23 Q. Is this residential and 24 commercial or just residential? 25 A. Just residential. 32 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Are you familiar with the term 3 motion for relief from the automatic stay? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. What is that in layperson's 6 terms, can you tell me what that is? 7 A. You seek relief from the 8 Bankruptcy Court of the automatic status 9 imposed when the customer files 10 bankruptcy. 11 Q. And that's with respect to 12 mortgages, right? 13 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. It could be others as well? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Are you familiar with the term 18 "proof of claim"? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What's your understanding of 21 that? 22 A. It is the initial document 23 filed by the creditors in a bankruptcy 24 that puts the court that provides them 25 with a documentation and the proof of what 33 1 A. Garbis 2 claim they have against that debtor's 3 estate. 4 Q. Tell me about the training 5 that you receive and that the people who 6 are working for you receive at Chase? 7 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 8 Do you want to break it into two 9 pieces, please? 10 Q. Starting with do you receive 11 any training as a part of your job 12 functions at Chase? 13 A. Yes, we receive a lot of 14 training on in-house policies. We receive 15 yearly training of course on the TILA and 16 RESPA and Privacy Acts, and it is a lot of 17 training on customer service. 18 Q. Do you get training on any of 19 your computer systems at Chase? 20 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 21 A. Yes, as it is relevant to our 22 position. 23 Q. So tell me about yours in 24 general terms. 25 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 34 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Your training. 3 A. I haven't had any specific 4 courses on MSP since I have been with 5 Chase. 6 Q. Any other computer systems? 7 A. LPS Desktop. 8 Q. What is that? 9 A. It's sort of an interactive 10 piece of software between the law firms 11 and Chase. 12 Q. And let me talk about people 13 who work for you. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Do they receive any training? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And what's the nature of that 18 training? 19 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 20 It's beyond the scope, this is not a 21 30(B), this was pursuant to a notice 22 of the deposition. 23 I will clarify this was not a 24 30(B)(6) to designate a witness for 25 general purpose. She is being 35 1 A. Garbis 2 produced in response to a specific 3 notice of the deposition that she 4 appear in connection with a document 5 she executed in this case. 6 I'm going to make a standing 7 objection. I'm trying to give you 8 some latitude, but at some point we 9 should really get to the issue that 10 she is here for. 11 Q. You can answer the question. 12 A. My people receive the initial 13 orientation training that all new 14 employees receive. They also receive the 15 yearly training and within my current job 16 functions, in my equity analysis people 17 receive training on the work floor 18 application that we use to do equity 19 analysis. And within the breach letter 20 division they receive training on the MSP 21 system. And on the system called the VLS 22 in which our home equity loans reside on. 23 Q. Do you know who Ms. Judy 24 Greece is? 25 A. Yes. 36 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Who is she? 3 A. She is the vice president of 4 bankruptcy for class. 5 Q. And do you report to her? 6 A. No. 7 Q. How do you know her then? 8 A. She was a vice president at 9 Chase, and at the time of the acquisition 10 of WAMU there was a lot of reorganization 11 of functionalities across the board within 12 because you are bringing together two big 13 companies, so it was like you only need 14 one head of bankruptcy, one head of 15 foreclosure. So Judy is over bankruptcy, 16 so I met her many times in senior 17 management meetings. 18 Q. Who do you report to? 19 A. I report to Dennis Dorman. 20 Q. Can you spell that last name? 21 A. D-O-R-M-A-N. 22 Q. And his role at Chase is what? 23 A. He is a senior vice president. 24 Q. And do you know what his job 25 function is? 37 1 A. Garbis 2 A. He is over all of those five 3 functions of default control, the property 4 preservation, the accounts payable. 5 Q. Do you know who he reports to? 6 A. He reports to Michael Zarro. 7 Q. What's his position? 8 A. He is the executive vice 9 president of Chase. 10 Q. Do you know who Mr. Zarro 11 reports to? 12 A. He reports to Dave Lowman. 13 Q. What is his function? 14 A. He is over default servicing. 15 Q. And this might be the last 16 time I ask you, but who does he report to? 17 A. Davey Schneider. 18 Q. What is his function? 19 A. He is over a similar title, he 20 is over all of the default servicing and 21 regular servicing. 22 Q. And regular servicing? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And do you know what his 25 position is? 38 1 A. Garbis 2 A. I don't know what his specific 3 title is besides being an executive vice 4 president. 5 Q. Who does he report to? 6 A. He reports to Jamie Diamond. 7 Q. Do you know who Mr. Herndon 8 is? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. His first name is Charles? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Who is he? 13 A. He is an employee of Chase. 14 Q. Does he work for you? 15 A. No. 16 Q. How do you know him? 17 A. He used to work for me. 18 Q. How long ago was that? 19 A. When we were Heritage WAMU, he 20 was one of the managers in the department 21 where we managed the contested 22 foreclosures and the bankruptcy 23 adversaries. So he had a team of 24 paralegals that reported to him. 25 Q. How long ago was that? 39 1 A. Garbis 2 A. It was in September of 2008. 3 Q. Have you spoken to him in 4 connection with this case? 5 A. No. 6 Q. And I should ask the same 7 about Ms. Greece, have you spoken to her 8 about the case? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Have you had any other 11 communications with these two? Let me 12 start with Mr. Herndon. 13 A. No, I haven't had any 14 communications with him. 15 Q. And what about Ms. Greece in 16 connection with the case? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Let me run through some of 19 these. You are familiar with an 20 assignment of mortgage in this case that 21 you signed? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Let me just have you open up 24 the binder that we prepared. 25 A. Yes. 40 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. And rather than having the 3 court reporter -- off the record. 4 (Whereupon, an off the 5 record discussion was held.) 6 Q. I will refer you to a binder 7 that I just handed to you -- 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. -- and ask that you turn to 10 what I have marked as UST Exhibit 4. 11 A. Yes. 12 MR. ZIPES: And I will ask 13 that the court reporter mark this 14 exhibit as UST Exhibit 1 for 15 identification. 16 (Garbis/UST Exhibit 1, 17 recording document and assignment 18 marked for identification, as of 19 this date.) 20 Q. I will have you look at this 21 document and ask you if you recognize the 22 document? 23 MR. TEITELBAUM: Just note it 24 is actually multiple documents, at 25 least two. I think there's a 41 1 A. Garbis 2 recording document and assignment 3 behind it. 4 MR. ZIPES: Yes. 5 THE WITNESS: I did not see 6 the first two pages. 7 MR. ZIPES: Let me do this 8 another way then. Let me mark this 9 as UST Exhibit 2, and what I'll do 10 I'll have the assignment by itself. 11 So let's mark that as Garbis/UST 12 Exhibit 2. 13 (Garbis/UST Exhibit 2, 14 assignment marked for 15 identification, as of this date.) 16 Q. Ms. Garbis, I ask that you 17 review the document. Are you familiar 18 with this document? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. What is this document? 21 A. This is an assignment of 22 mortgage that I signed on November 1 of 23 2008. 24 Q. And this is showing the 25 assignor JP Morgan Chase Bank at the top? 42 1 A. Garbis 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And assignee Deutsche National 4 Trust Company as trustee? 5 A. For the Long Beach Mortgage 6 Trust. 7 Q. What is the property address? 8 A. 1651 Metropolitan Avenue, 7-C, 9 Bronx, New York. 10 Q. This is a photocopy here, but 11 that's your signature? 12 A. Yes, it is. 13 Q. And do you have a specific 14 recollection of signing this document on 15 November 1, 2008? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Is that your handwriting above 18 where it says 1st day of November 2008? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Do you know whose handwriting 21 that is? 22 A. No. 23 Q. If you turn to the second 24 page -- 25 A. Yes. 43 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. -- of the assignment? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. This is an affidavit, correct? 5 MR. TEITELBAUM: What's an 6 affidavit? 7 MR. ZIPES: This assignment is 8 an affidavit. 9 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 10 No, it is not, it is an assignment. 11 Q. Turning to the second page of 12 this assignment is that a notary? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And did you see this 15 assignment being notarized? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Do you know who Lori Quinn is? 18 A. Yes. She is a manager in the 19 document execution area for Chase. 20 Q. Where does she work? 21 A. Jacksonville, Florida. 22 Q. Is that the same building as 23 yours? 24 A. She is in the same building 25 that I'm in. 44 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. And you said you did not see 3 her sign this? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Do you keep any records of 6 when you sign an assignment of mortgage? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Tell me the procedure. How 9 often do you sign assignments of mortgage 10 in your job in a given week? 11 MR. TEITELBAUM: Do you want 12 to do it in a time period, for 13 example, when this was and then 14 maybe now because it may have 15 changed? 16 MR. ZIPES: Sure. 17 Q. Let's focus on the time period 18 we are talking about. Let's take the year 19 2008. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. In 2008 after you became a 22 Chase employee, was it your job function 23 to sign assignments of mortgage? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Was it anybody else's job 45 1 A. Garbis 2 within Chase to sign assignments of 3 mortgage? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. How many other people? 6 A. It would be anyone who had the 7 authority to do so, which would be 8 indicated by their title. 9 Q. Do you have any specific 10 recollection of signing this assignment of 11 mortgage? 12 A. No. 13 Q. So again I am talking about 14 the time period 2008 after you became a 15 Chase employee. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Tell me generally the 18 procedure for how you would come to sign 19 an assignment of mortgage? 20 A. Well, basically, it starts 21 with at the law firm level they produce 22 the assignment, they would send it via a 23 PDF document to either the LPS Desktop 24 software system or the general e-mail box 25 that document execution maintains or both 46 1 A. Garbis 2 depending on how expedited they wanted it 3 to be. 4 Document execution would print 5 out the PDF document, they prioritize them 6 by perhaps the message that came in with 7 it. A lot of time they will say I need 8 this in two days or here is an assignment. 9 So they would prioritize it into actually 10 they put the high priority ones in a red 11 folder and the others go into another 12 folder. Then they go through their, they 13 have a QC process in the document 14 execution area, and what they do is they 15 put the loan number into MSP, and they 16 check certain data points within an 17 assignment of mortgage. 18 So they would make sure that 19 this loan number has this borrower's name 20 at this address, and that in the MSP 21 system it is showing Long Beach Mortgage 22 and Deutsche Bank, so that language was 23 there. They would then -- 24 Q. Can I interrupt you. Who is 25 "they"? 47 1 A. Garbis 2 A. This is the document execution 3 team; they've taken these PDF files that 4 the law firms submit. 5 Q. That isn't your department, 6 though, correct? 7 A. That is not my department, but 8 they were in the building. 9 Q. Do you know who they report 10 to? 11 A. They report up to Chad Prelog, 12 who is the vice president of all of 13 foreclosure. 14 Q. I will let you get back to 15 what you were saying in a second. Who 16 does he report to? 17 A. Chad reports to Ann Thorne. 18 And Ann Thorne is the level of my boss so 19 they report to Michael Zarro and from 20 Michael Zarro is the same -- 21 Q. Getting back to your job 22 functions for a moment. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. I don't recall you saying that 25 signing an assignment was part of your job 48 1 A. Garbis 2 function, was that something that you said 3 before? 4 A. The signing documentation is 5 very title oriented, so as a vice 6 president I would sign assignments of 7 mortgage. 8 Q. So it is more of the fact that 9 you are a VP than a part of your 10 department? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. You were getting back to how 13 the document execution team prepares these 14 when I interrupted you. 15 A. For assignments of mortgage 16 once they have done their data check 17 points and confirmed that the document 18 appears to be correct, then they would put 19 it in a folder and bring it to me to sign. 20 I would sign the documents in the folder, 21 and give it back to them. They would go 22 back or they would take their folders and 23 they would notarize them and PDF the 24 documents back to the attorney, and then 25 mail the hard copy originals and document 49 1 A. Garbis 2 the MSP system they had received the 3 assignment of mortgage and returned it. 4 Q. Do you before signing an 5 assignment of mortgage typically check 6 that the information is valid on the 7 assignment of mortgage? 8 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection 9 just to the use of the word "valid." 10 Q. Do you check the accuracy of 11 any of the information on the assignment? 12 A. I read the assignment and if 13 there are no red flags that appear to me, 14 then I would execute the assignment. 15 Q. What would be an example of a 16 red flag? 17 A. If they were asking me to sign 18 as Aurora. If it says Aurora Loan Service 19 instead of WAMU or Long Beach. If it had 20 a assigner I was not that familiar with or 21 that would never be an entity of ours. 22 Q. So you would just be checking 23 it to make sure? 24 A. Yes. So that there are no red 25 flags there because I would not sign for 50 1 A. Garbis 2 Wachovia because I'm not a vice president 3 of them. 4 Q. Are there any other red flags 5 you look for? 6 A. Other than being unfamiliar 7 with the name that would be the only thing 8 I would be looking for in an assignment of 9 mortgage. 10 Q. And focusing on the assignment 11 of mortgage, there's a reference on the 12 first page, and you will see it, Pillar 13 Processing, LLC. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Are you familiar with that 16 entity? 17 A. No. 18 Q. I don't want to confuse the 19 record. I think you testified that you 20 had no specific recollection of having 21 signed this document; is that correct? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. When was the next time that 24 you became aware of this document? 25 A. Of the document itself? 51 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Yes. 3 A. When I actually saw it on 4 February 22 or 23. 5 Q. Let me turn to what's been 6 marked as UST Exhibit 1. 7 A. Yes. 8 MR. TEITELBAUM: The actual 9 exhibit? 10 MR. ZIPES: No, I don't want 11 to confuse you, that would be a 12 binder 4. 13 Q. Just so we are clear, you 14 testified that the first two pages of this 15 you haven't seen before. 16 A. No. 17 Q. This is a recording and 18 endorsement cover page for a mortgage. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Are you familiar with this 21 document or have you ever seen a document 22 like this before? I am not talking about 23 in this case specifically. 24 A. I have seen documents like 25 this before. Generally, the law firm 52 1 A. Garbis 2 completes the cover page because it has to 3 be attached in order for the court to 4 accept it. 5 Q. Let me have marked as UST 6 Exhibit -- and when I say that I'm 7 referring to a Garbis/UST Exhibit, but let 8 me ask the question before I have it 9 marked. 10 Have you seen a motion to 11 terminate the automatic stay in the case? 12 A. No. 13 MR. ZIPES: When I'm referring 14 to this case, I'm referring to the 15 Nuer number 0814106. 16 Let me turn to the binder UST 17 Exhibit 12, and I ask this be marked 18 as Garbis/UST Exhibit 3 for the 19 purposes of this deposition. 20 (Garbis/UST Exhibit 3, 21 document entitled "JP Morgan Chase 22 Bank National Association Incumbency 23 Certificate" was marked for 24 identification, as of this date.) 25 Q. Can you just review the 53 1 A. Garbis 2 document quickly? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Do you recognize this 5 document? 6 A. Yes, I know what this document 7 is. 8 Q. And can you just read the 9 title for the record? 10 A. "JP Morgan Chase Bank National 11 Association Incumbency Certificate." 12 Q. Your name is on this? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. What is your understanding of 15 what this document is? 16 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 17 You can answer to the extent that 18 you have an understanding. 19 A. What this basically does is 20 give the people on this document the 21 authority to sign certain types of 22 documents, and they are spelled out in the 23 document exactly what you can sign. 24 Q. I'm not trying to trick you, 25 the second page is dated January 26, 2009. 54 1 A. Garbis 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. When was the first time that 4 you saw this document, to the best of your 5 knowledge? 6 A. I don't recall. 7 Q. Was it more than a month ago? 8 A. No. 9 Q. It was within the last month? 10 A. Probably. 11 Q. I think you testified before 12 that you signed assignments as a VP. Tell 13 me how it came to be that you knew you 14 could sign documents as a vice president? 15 A. Well, this document was 16 distributed specifically to the document 17 execution area, so they would know who to 18 go to to get a signature. So when they 19 brought you a document it was because you 20 are on the incumbency list and certified 21 on the incumbency list. 22 Q. Would this show you the 23 incumbency list? 24 A. Yes, and it is hanging in 25 their cubicles also. 55 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. How do you know is my 3 question. 4 A. This particular incumbency 5 list, all of those individuals and I had 6 heard about that this list coming out 7 before actually seeing the document 8 because all of these individuals are 9 Heritage WAMU vice presidents, every 10 single one of them. So the announcement 11 was out, okay, incumbency has come through 12 for all of us, so we are good. 13 Q. Let me just, I'm confusing 14 things a little bit here. Let's close the 15 binder, and if you can just tell me how 16 you knew to sign documents, and I'm trying 17 to figure out how you personally knew that 18 it was okay for you to sign assignments as 19 part of your job at Chase? 20 A. Well, as to when we came in we 21 had been Heritage WAMU and we had the 22 authority to sign documents. The 23 communication was that everybody at that 24 level would be -- I don't know what the 25 correct term of it is -- grandfathered, or 56 1 A. Garbis 2 whatever, and that you would continue with 3 your same level of authority that you had 4 at WAMU, and that the same signature 5 authority because there were other 6 authorities attached to that loss 7 authorities expenses, that sort of thing, 8 that's just in the interest of business 9 continuity, that it was communicated out 10 that, yes, everybody you have your same 11 authority that you had at WAMU. 12 Q. So this authority started at 13 WAMU? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Was that direction given to 16 you orally or in writing do you recall? 17 A. It was an e-mail. 18 Q. You testified that you have no 19 specific memory of signing this assignment 20 but you are aware that Chase generally has 21 records that this document was given to 22 you to sign. 23 A. The document execution area 24 would have a system that the document came 25 in and the document was sent out. 57 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Do you happen to know if that 3 would be stored on MSP or do you know 4 where that would be stored? 5 A. I'm not positive. 6 Q. And to your knowledge this UST 7 Exhibit 3, which is the incumbency 8 certificate, are you aware of any other 9 such incumbency agreements? 10 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection, it 11 is not an agreement. 12 MR. ZIPES: Certificate, thank 13 you. 14 A. I don't understand the 15 question. 16 MR. TEITELBAUM: I will object 17 to the question in addition. 18 Q. How did you come to learn of 19 this incumbency certificate which was 20 marked as UST Exhibit 3? 21 A. Actually through the document 22 execution department. 23 Q. Was that written or oral? 24 A. Initially when they came to 25 it, it was that they had the incumbency 58 1 A. Garbis 2 certificates and so they would bring 3 folders to us to sign. And actually they 4 were having a problem with mine in that 5 they were going to go back and get another 6 one. 7 Q. Is this the document that they 8 produced, let's be more specific when you 9 say "they"? 10 A. The document execution people 11 were having an issue. 12 Q. Who was telling you that? 13 A. Lori Quinn, the manager of 14 that area. 15 Q. And she is the same Lori Quinn 16 that signed the notary? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did she talk to you or did she 19 e-mail you? 20 A. Initially she spoke to me 21 about it. 22 Q. When did that conversation 23 take place? 24 A. I don't recall. 25 Q. Within the last month? 59 1 A. Garbis 2 A. No, shortly after this came 3 out. 4 Q. Were any e-mails or written 5 communications made between you and her on 6 this subject of the incumbency 7 certificate? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Anybody else in the document 10 recovery service? 11 A. Well, others were aware of the 12 issue on my incumbency certificate. 13 MR. TEITELBAUM: Did I miss 14 what the issue is, I may have fallen 15 asleep? 16 A. I haven't said what the issue 17 is. 18 Q. What was the issue with the 19 incumbency certificate? 20 A. This was sort of a blanket 21 certificate for all of the Heritage WAMU 22 employees. They went to the HR system and 23 put the names in, and they had mine as 24 Helen Ann Garbis and the law firm would 25 not accept my Ann Garbis signature, which 60 1 A. Garbis 2 has always been my professional signature, 3 so they had to get another incumbency 4 certificate as Ann Garbis. 5 Q. Is there another incumbency 6 certificate to your knowledge that has 7 your name on it? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And when was that executed? 10 A. I'm not sure when it was 11 executed. 12 Q. Was it before this January 26, 13 2000 letter? 14 A. It was after this because this 15 was a problem, but it was made retroactive 16 to the -- September 26, 2008. 17 MR. ZIPES: Let me mark as UST 18 Exhibit 4 what is in the binder as 19 Exhibit 13. 20 (Garbis/UST Exhibit 4, 21 affidavit signed by Ann Garbis 22 marked for identification, as of 23 this date.) 24 Q. Could you review the document? 25 A. Yes. 61 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Have you seen the document 3 before? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. What is this document? 6 A. This is an affidavit that I 7 signed surrounding the specific facts 8 around this assignment of mortgage. 9 MR. TEITELBAUM: Before Ms. 10 Garbis testifies any further, I want 11 to make a clarification on the 12 affidavit. There is something -- 13 and I discussed it when this was 14 sent to Ms. Garbis -- there is a 15 reference in paragraph 4 to a 16 document being annexed, Exhibit A to 17 the affirmation of Jay Teitelbaum, 18 and it was annexed to that 19 affirmation at the time it was sent 20 to the witness after it was executed 21 the document referred to as Exhibit 22 A of Jay Teitelbaum actually was 23 annexed as Exhibit A to the 24 affidavit of Amy Polowy. 25 It was my oversight that I did 62 1 A. Garbis 2 not have Ms. Garbis reexecute the 3 new affidavit, but at the time it 4 was executed it was attached to my 5 affirmation. So it was a mistake by 6 me in not updating Ms. Garbis' 7 affidavit. Just so we are clear. 8 MR. ZIPES: Fine. 9 While Mr. Teitelbaum has 10 brought that up let me mark as UST 11 Exhibit 5, two screen shots I will 12 call them and these are not in the 13 binders. 14 (Garbis/UST Exhibit 5, two 15 pages bearing Bates stamps 1219 and 16 1220 marked for identification, as 17 of this date.) 18 MR. TEITELBAUM: At the 19 request of Mr. Zipes, I want to 20 confirm that with respect to my 21 statement a few moments ago 22 regarding Exhibit A to my 23 affirmation which became the exhibit 24 to Ms. Polowy, the two documents 25 which have been marked as UST 63 1 A. Garbis 2 Exhibit 5 which bear Bates numbers 3 001219 and 001220 which were put on 4 there by my office are the documents 5 that I was referring to. 6 Let's go off the record. 7 (Whereupon, an off the 8 record discussion was held.) 9 Q. This affidavit which is marked 10 as UST Exhibit 4 is your affidavit; is 11 that correct? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And let me just go over your 14 name here. Maybe we should have done this 15 before, you go by the name of Helen A. 16 Garbis? 17 A. I go by Ann Garbis. 18 Q. So this affidavit says, Helen 19 A. Garbis. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. And it is you who signed this? 22 A. It is me who signed it. That 23 is my legal name. That's the name on my 24 passport. When I travel it is Helen A. 25 Garbis. 64 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. And this affidavit is dated 3 February 22, 2010; do you see that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did you sign this on that 6 date? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And there is a notary beneath 9 your signature, Leslie Ann Hurley; do you 10 see that? 11 A. Hunley. 12 Q. H-U-N-L-E-Y? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Did she see you execute this 15 document? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And she signed this in your 18 presence? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. In paragraph 1 of this 21 affidavit it states: "I make this 22 affidavit upon my personal knowledge and 23 my review of the books and records of JP 24 Morgan Chase unless stated otherwise." 25 A. Yes. 65 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. What were the books and 3 records that you reviewed at JP Morgan 4 Chase in preparing this affidavit? 5 A. I actually put in MSP and 6 looked at the screen that confirmed that 7 was the screen shot that actually came up 8 in the servicing system, the MSP servicing 9 system. 10 Q. And to be clear, you are 11 pointing to UST Exhibit 5? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. These two pages which are 14 Bates stamped, you wouldn't necessarily 15 know this but Bates stamp 1219 as your 16 counsel said and 1220? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Did you actually look on a 19 computer or were these documents handed to 20 you? 21 A. I looked on Leslie's computer. 22 Q. Who is Ms. Hunley? 23 A. Actually she works in the 24 default litigation area. 25 Q. To be clear that is not your 66 1 A. Garbis 2 domain? 3 A. No, she sits right outside my 4 office. 5 Q. What is her position there? 6 A. She works in triage. 7 Q. Is she a manager? 8 A. No. 9 Q. Who did you deal with in 10 preparation of this affidavit at Chase? 11 A. No one. 12 Q. Other than her? 13 A. That's all. 14 Q. Did you draft this document 15 yourself? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Do you know who drafted it? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did you make any changes to 20 the affidavit before you signed it? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Did you review it and confirm 23 the information in it? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. You reviewed screen shots or 67 1 A. Garbis 2 what you termed as screen shots in 3 reviewing this affidavit? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And the screen shots are the 6 two pages that you referred to, correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Did you review any other 9 documents in preparing this affidavit? 10 A. No, except for the assignment 11 of mortgage. 12 Q. Which is your assignment of 13 mortgage? 14 A. Yes. And previously I had 15 seen the LPS power of attorney, I'm 16 familiar with that document. I was 17 already previously familiar with it prior 18 to getting this. 19 Q. What paragraph are you 20 referring to with respect to that power of 21 attorney? 22 A. Paragraph 10. 23 Q. You were making reference to 24 the Walter assignment in paragraph 11. 25 A. Yes. 68 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Had you seen the Walter 3 assignment before seeing this affidavit? 4 A. No. 5 Q. And when you say that it was 6 the Walter assignment in paragraph 11, 7 that you determined that such assignment 8 was duly executed under the authority 9 granted LPS and the LPS power of attorney, 10 what did you do to confirm that it was 11 duly executed? 12 A. It was the assignment of 13 mortgage that he signed was signed and 14 there was a notary on it of his signature. 15 Q. In paragraph 12 you state: 16 "At the time of the execution of this 17 assignment" -- and again we are referring 18 to your assignment not Mr. Walter's 19 assignment in that paragraph. 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- "I was vice president at JP 22 Morgan with authority to execute this 23 document." 24 What was the basis of your 25 authority, and I'm not trying to trick you 69 1 A. Garbis 2 here? We discussed we looked at the 3 certificate of incumbency, but you also 4 referred to having some powers left over 5 from WAMU. 6 What was your understanding of 7 your authority to execute that assignment? 8 A. That this was about six weeks 9 after that certificate of incumbency was 10 going to be made retroactive so we could 11 continue business as usual. 12 Q. Let me refer you to UST 13 Exhibit 5 -- 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. -- which is the two screen 16 shots. 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Are you familiar with what the 19 screen means, and let me point to what is 20 marked as Bates stamped 1219, which has a 21 long transfer history on top of it? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Are you familiar with what 24 this screen means? 25 A. Yes. 70 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. And can you tell me when this 3 screen was produced? 4 A. On the 18th of February 2009. 5 Q. And you can tell that because? 6 A. The date and time stamped in 7 the upper right-hand corner. 8 MR. TEITELBAUM: Can we just 9 back up a second. Just clarify on 10 the record, what do you mean by 11 produced? Was it generated at that 12 time or input at that time or 13 printed at that time? There are a 14 lot of -- 15 Q. Can you clarify your 16 understanding of when this screen print 17 was produced? 18 A. Yes. On the 18th of February. 19 Q. And you recall looking at this 20 specific screen in preparing your 21 affidavit which is UST Exhibit 4? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. If you can just tell me what 24 you see. There is a line there 47/06 and 25 as you read across there is the word "Sale 71 1 A. Garbis 2 To Long Beach Mortgage Company," do you 3 see that? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Can you tell me what that 6 means? 7 A. That was when the loan was 8 boarded onto the Washington Mutual MSP 9 system the loan was transferred in. 10 Q. What is the line underneath 11 that 3/3/06 and there is "Maint investor"; 12 do you see that? 13 A. Maintenance that is. 14 Q. Can you tell me what that line 15 means? 16 A. No. 17 Q. And I would assume you also 18 wouldn't know the line underneath that 19 dated 2/2/06 which also has "Maint 20 investor"? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Turning to the second page -- 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. -- which is Bates stamped 25 1220, "MSP Loan Master"; do you see that 72 1 A. Garbis 2 document? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And again that has the date 5 2/18/09. This is also a document you 6 reviewed in preparing this affidavit? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Can you tell me what this 9 screen represents? 10 A. This is the MAS-1 screen in 11 MSP, MAS-1 is in the upper left-hand 12 corner, and it gives you the basic loan 13 information for each loan it is the 14 master. 15 Q. Does this contain any history 16 of the loan on this page? 17 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection, 18 what history are you talking about? 19 Q. Is this the loan as of the 20 date 2/18/09, the information relating to 21 the loan as of 2/18/09? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. Does it have any historical 24 information on it relating to the loan? 25 A. It has the origination loan 73 1 A. Garbis 2 number, and when the S flag went on it, 3 and it sets out what the principal balance 4 is and the rates, the basic loan 5 information of who the trust is in and 6 what lien position it is. It is 7 conventional without insurance. It gives 8 basic loan information on the MAS-1 9 screen, a payment history. You can go to 10 a lot of other screens in MSP to get that 11 type of detail. 12 Q. Does this screen tell you or 13 the other screen tell you who the owner of 14 the mortgage is? 15 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 16 A. In the system investor line, 17 Deutsche National Trust. 18 MR. TEITELBAUM: Read it 19 accurately. 20 A. The holder is Long Beach 21 Mutual, it is LBMLT. 22 Q. Where are you looking? 23 A. Right here. 24 Q. What does "Inv" stand for? 25 A. Investor. 74 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Is there a category here for 3 owner? 4 A. No. 5 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 6 Q. Have you seen screen shots 7 that have owner or is "Inv" the only 8 reference to the owner of the mortgage? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And in paragraph 7 of your 11 affidavit -- 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. -- the screen shots further 14 reflect that investor or owner of the 15 loan; do you see that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Which is being serviced by JP 18 Morgan is Deutsche Bank National Trust 19 Company -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- as trustee for Long Beach 22 Mortgage Trust 2006-2; do you see that? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Where is that information 25 contained in these two screen shots? 75 1 A. Garbis 2 Could you walk me through it, please? 3 A. That is on the investor -- 4 MR. TEITELBAUM: Referring to 5 page 1220. 6 A. The investor field. 7 Q. The investor field, so we are 8 clear, we are talking about six lines 9 down. 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Where is Long Beach Mortgage 12 Loan Trust 2006-2? 13 A. It wraps, it is the line right 14 under it; LBMLT is Long Beach Mutual. 15 Q. So that's the code? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Now, what does HDR stand for? 18 It's about seven lines down on 1220, right 19 underneath Deutsche Bank about eight lines 20 down. 21 A. I don't know. 22 Q. From this screen, can you tell 23 whether Deutsche Bank is the owner of the 24 mortgage? 25 A. Yes. 76 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. How can you tell that? 3 A. The owner of the mortgage is 4 populated in the investor field on MAS-1 5 in MSP. 6 Q. And what is the LBMLT on that 7 line? 8 A. That's Long Beach Mortgage. 9 Q. What is its connection to this 10 mortgage? 11 A. Well, if there was room it 12 would be one line, but there isn't room. 13 Q. And so what is its 14 relationship? You are testifying I 15 believe that Deutsche Bank is the owner of 16 this mortgage, right? 17 A. Yes. And as a trustee for 18 Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust, the Long 19 Beach Mortgage Loan Trust is 2006-2 is the 20 specific Long Beach Mortgage pool that 21 Deutsche Bank is the investor and owner 22 of. 23 Q. You know through your job that 24 that is how Chase would abbreviate that? 25 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection to 77 1 A. Garbis 2 the previous question as to how 3 Chase would abbreviate that. I'm 4 putting an objection on the record. 5 Q. And your answer was what? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. As part of your ordinary job 8 functions, do you deal with LPS default 9 solutions? 10 A. Currently? 11 Q. Yes. 12 A. My breach letter area deals 13 with them for Heritage WAMU loans. 14 Q. Again, just to be clear, you 15 didn't review any of the underlying 16 documents in preparing this affidavit? In 17 other words, to confirm that Deutsche Bank 18 is the owner. 19 A. No. 20 Q. I'm a little confused as to 21 what the issue was with the certificate of 22 incumbency from your perspective. Can you 23 tell me again what the problem was? 24 A. The sort of blanket 25 certificate that was issued for the 78 1 A. Garbis 2 Heritage WAMU vice presidents, they took 3 the data from the human resource system, 4 and normally I sign my document as Ann 5 Garbis. 6 So there were some in the 7 document execution area they'd say they'd 8 have it like that we are going to need to 9 go back and get one for Ann Garbis, 10 otherwise the law firms are going to push 11 it back and say I need a certificate 12 because on the certificate of incumbency 13 it has to accompany documents. So they'd 14 say it will get pushed back. So then they 15 went through the cycle and got another one 16 under Ann Garbis. 17 Q. Just to be clear, the 18 affidavit you signed -- and we are 19 referring to Exhibit 3, when we are 20 talking about the certificate? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. The affidavit that you signed 23 also happens to not be in the name you 24 would normally sign your name; is that 25 correct? 79 1 A. Garbis 2 A. Correct. 3 RQ MR. ZIPES: I will ask for a 4 further limited production of 5 documents which I didn't see -- if 6 you produced them please bring them 7 to my attention -- the e-mail that 8 was referred to by Ms. Garbis that 9 provided her with the legacy 10 authority to sign assignments. 11 MR. TEITELBAUM: We did not 12 produce any e-mail, and I will 13 object to this. And, Greg, we did 14 in fact produce to you which you 15 chose not to mark, the actual 16 corrected certificate of incumbency. 17 MR. ZIPES: That's not what 18 I'm asking. 19 MR. TEITELBAUM: I understand. 20 We have provided to you the 21 certificate of incumbency dated 22 November 6, 2009 which has Ann 23 Garbis and the correction of her 24 name, and the effective of September 25 26, 2008 as the date that WAMU was 80 1 A. Garbis 2 acquired through the FDIC 3 acquisition, that the assets of WAMU 4 were acquired through the FDIC 5 acquisition. 6 So again I'm going to take it 7 under advisement as to whether or 8 not we are required to produce 9 anything further to establish that 10 in point of fact Ms. Garbis had the 11 authority on November 1, 2008. 12 I believe we have done 13 everything that needs to be done to 14 establish that, and unless you can 15 show me that there is something 16 here, frankly, that questions 17 whether Ms. Garbis was a vice 18 president at Chase on November 1 and 19 lacked the authority. I've got to 20 tell you I really object to the 21 request as burdensome and 22 unnecessary. 23 MR. ZIPES: Just so we are 24 clear, it is the e-mail -- 25 MR. TEITELBAUM: I understand 81 1 A. Garbis 2 exactly what it is. You haven't 3 shown anything which calls into 4 question Ms. Garbis' authority and 5 we produced certificates of 6 incumbency. 7 MR. ZIPES: At this point we 8 are wasting time in the deposition. 9 MR. TEITELBAUM: Exactly. 10 RQ MR. ZIPES: If you want to 11 object, you can object. We will 12 deal with it. As long as my request 13 is clear, and if you will take it 14 under advisement and either produce 15 it or not produce it. 16 Then the other one that we 17 would like from you is any written 18 record of Chase that establishes the 19 date that the assignment was 20 executed by Ms. Garbis. 21 MR. TEITELBAUM: I will take 22 that under advisement. 23 MR. ZIPES: Again, if you 24 produced it point me to it. 25 MR. TEITELBAUM: I don't 82 1 A. Garbis 2 believe anything along those lines 3 has been produced, to my knowledge. 4 MR. ZIPES: Off the record. 5 (Whereupon, an off the 6 record discussion was held.) 7 RQ MR. TEITELBAUM: Now, you have 8 requested, Greg, the backup 9 documentation to substantiate, as I 10 understand it, that the Garbis 11 assignment was executed on November 12 1; is that your request? 13 MR. ZIPES: Yes. 14 MR. TEITELBAUM: I'm taking 15 that request under advisement. I 16 have a question for you: Are you 17 challenging the authenticity of that 18 document after Ms. Garbis has 19 identified her signature on it, and 20 testified that she in fact executed 21 it on November 1? 22 MR. ZIPES: I think our 23 pleadings speak for themselves. 24 This is not the time to engage in 25 showboating or anything else, let's 83 1 A. Garbis 2 just say that I will consult with my 3 colleague and we will let you know 4 if we have any further questions. 5 MR. TEITELBAUM: Off the 6 record. 7 (Whereupon, an off the 8 record discussion was held.) 9 EXAMINATION BY 10 MS. TIRELLI: 11 Q. My name is Linda Tirelli. I 12 represent the debtor in this matter, Ms. 13 Silvia Nuer. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. I have a couple of questions 16 for you and, hopefully, it won't go too 17 far over. 18 You said earlier there was a 19 process of I believe the law firm 20 producing an assignment of mortgage and 21 that would be put into a PDF file and then 22 e-mailed or put on the LPS system for your 23 document execution department to take over 24 from there and obtain a signature; is that 25 correct? 84 1 A. Garbis 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Typically, how long does that 4 process take from the time the law firm 5 sends out the letter to the time it is 6 signed by a vice president? 7 A. I don't know. 8 Q. Is it the same day service? 9 A. I don't know. 10 Q. Is there a particular time of 11 day that you sign these documents? 12 A. No. 13 Q. You also referred earlier to 14 someone from the document execution 15 department carrying a red folder over to 16 you for signing documents. How many times 17 a day does that occur on a typical day? 18 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 19 A. Currently almost never. 20 Q. At the time that you signed 21 the assignment of mortgage that we have 22 been talking about today, approximately 23 how many times a day would you sign this 24 sort of document? 25 A. Once. 85 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. And was that before lunch or 3 after lunch? 4 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 5 A. It varied. 6 Q. So there was no rhyme or 7 reason; it could be in the morning or the 8 afternoon? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What is your business address? 11 A. Beyberry. 12 Q. What is the full address? 13 A. 7740 Beyberry. 14 Q. That's Jacksonville, Florida? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. I think you said earlier 17 something about Leslie being in your 18 building. How many buildings does Chase 19 occupy down there? 20 MR. TEITELBAUM: In this 21 complex? 22 MS. TIRELLI: In this 23 particular complex. 24 A. In this campus there are four 25 buildings. 86 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Are there other campuses in 3 Jacksonville, Florida? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Are there other campuses in 6 Florida? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Where would they be? 9 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 10 A. Melbourne. 11 Q. Does Mr. Herndon work in the 12 same complex as you do? 13 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 14 Q. If you know. 15 A. No, he doesn't work in the 16 Charleston building but in the main 17 building; so we are not in the same 18 building. 19 Q. But you are on the same 20 campus? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. So I'm clear, there are four 23 buildings on your campus? 24 A. Yes. They are not contingent 25 to one another; two of the buildings are 87 1 A. Garbis 2 more satellites and two buildings that are 3 annexed to each other and the Charleston 4 building is a mile away from those two and 5 the DeSoto building is a mile away also. 6 Q. That is all part of the same 7 campus? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And is this document execution 10 department in the same building as yours? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And the affidavit that we saw 13 earlier today that was, just so I'm clear, 14 you did not prepare that affidavit 15 yourself? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Do you know who prepared it? 18 A. Not who actually prepared it, 19 no, but it came from Jay's office. 20 Q. And how did it get to you? 21 A. In a PDF file. 22 Q. From Jay's office directly to 23 you? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. So there is no filter. It 88 1 A. Garbis 2 didn't go through LPS first or anything 3 like that? 4 A. No. 5 Q. And you read it before you 6 signed it? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Did it come with attachments 9 such as the screen shots that we were 10 talking about earlier? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And you said earlier that you 13 are not familiar with the Pillar 14 Processing Company? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Did you see that address at 17 the bottom of, I believe it is marked as 18 Exhibit 2, which I believe is the 19 assignment of mortgage. It was marked as 20 Exhibit 2, and if you look at the bottom 21 towards the left middle left it says, 22 "Pillar Processing, LLC" with an address 23 listed. Are you familiar with that 24 company? 25 A. I know who they are. 89 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Who are they? 3 A. It's the document processing 4 company within a law firm in upper New 5 York. 6 Q. What law firm is that? 7 A. I believe it is Steven Baum. 8 Q. And what is a document 9 processing company? 10 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 11 Q. What is your understanding of 12 what a document processing company is? 13 A. This stamp would not have been 14 on the document when I sent it. 15 Q. So do you know when that came 16 to be on this document? 17 A. When they get ready to record 18 it and attach the cover, the recording 19 with the bar code, then at that point from 20 my understanding that's when they notice 21 so there is a record of who processed the 22 document to be submitted to the court. 23 Q. And just below the stamped 24 address it appears to be handwritten 25 initials, are you familiar with what that 90 1 A. Garbis 2 is? 3 A. No. 4 Q. You don't know who put that 5 there? 6 A. No. 7 Q. And there is a number on the 8 bottom lower left-hand corner 38501, and 9 it appears to be handwritten. Do you know 10 who would have put that on this document? 11 A. No. 12 Q. Was that there when you signed 13 it? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Are you familiar with Lori 16 Quinn's signature? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Looking at the second page of 19 Exhibit 2, does that signature appear to 20 be complete to you? 21 A. No. 22 Q. What's incomplete about it? 23 A. Well, it looks like something 24 that it was copied from or from the 25 original document that it was copied from, 91 1 A. Garbis 2 that something got cut off. 3 Q. Like the signature? 4 A. If you couldn't see her name 5 on the stamp, you wouldn't know whose 6 signature that was. 7 Q. Have you ever seen the 8 original of this page? 9 A. Well, it would have been 10 attached or it would have come to me as a 11 complete document. 12 Q. It would have been already 13 notarized? 14 A. No. 15 Q. I'm not understanding when you 16 say it -- 17 A. It would have come to me, and 18 when I would have seen it would have been 19 part of this. When it came to me it 20 wouldn't have been signed, but it would 21 have had the date and my name on it and 22 Jacksonville filled in. 23 Q. But the signature would not 24 have been on it when it came to you? 25 A. No. 92 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. You didn't see Ms. Quinn 3 actually sign this document, did you? 4 A. No. 5 Q. And to the best of your 6 recollection, was Ms. Quinn present when 7 you signed this document? 8 A. No. 9 Q. And if that stamp, again, was 10 not there on the second page, you wouldn't 11 know whose signature that was for sure, 12 correct? 13 A. No. 14 RQ MS. TIRELLI: I'm going to 15 request the original be produced. 16 MR. TEITELBAUM: I take it 17 under advisement. 18 Q. On the front page I notice 19 that you signed here as Ann Garbis, and I 20 understand also that you signed other 21 documents as Helen Ann Garbis. 22 For example, the affidavit 23 that we looked at earlier you signed Helen 24 Ann Garbis; is that correct? 25 A. Yes. 93 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Is anybody authorized to sign 3 your name for you? 4 A. No. 5 Q. You don't have a secretary or 6 somebody else that works for you that has 7 permission to sign your name occasionally 8 on documents? 9 A. No. 10 Q. And it has never happened 11 before? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Just a question for you. I 14 notice today when you signed in on the log 15 that you signed A. Garbis; is that 16 correct? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And your A. seemed to be 19 angular not round; is there any reason for 20 that? 21 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 22 A. No. 23 Q. Do you have different 24 signatures for different occasions? 25 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 94 1 A. Garbis 2 A. No. 3 Q. So if the signature is 4 different, it is just a coincidence? 5 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. According to your affidavit, 8 you have seen the assignment of mortgage 9 from Scott Walter; are you familiar with 10 that assignment of mortgage? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Do you know the circumstances 13 under which that assignment of mortgage 14 came to be? 15 A. What do you mean? 16 Q. If you don't understand my 17 question ask me to rephrase it and I will 18 be more than happy to do it. 19 A. I don't know the exact 20 internal procedure for LPS for when 21 documents are presented to them for 22 execution. 23 Q. Under what circumstances would 24 an LPS employee sign an assignment of 25 mortgage? 95 1 A. Garbis 2 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 3 A. When the law firm requests 4 them through the LPS software system. 5 Q. Walk me through this then. 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. When you say the law firm, in 8 this particular case you are talking about 9 the Steven Baum firm? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And are you saying that they 12 would have requested an assignment of 13 mortgage from LMS? 14 A. No. 15 Q. How would they -- 16 A. They would prepare an 17 assignment of mortgage, and they would 18 upload the file to the LPS software and 19 then the LPS servicing group on the 20 Heritage WAMU loans, they would print out 21 that document, and then present it to an 22 authorized signer under the power of 23 attorney because there was a specific 24 group of people, and one of those people 25 would then execute the document. 96 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. You have used the term before 3 Heritage WAMU Group; is that what you 4 said? 5 A. Heritage WAMU is any loan that 6 was originated or serviced by WAMU prior 7 to us becoming Chase. Internally we have 8 a lot of Heritage EMC, and Heritage WAMU 9 and Heritage Chase. It sort of keeps it 10 clear in our minds that this is a Heritage 11 WAMU loan; just so because they are 12 actually on separate versions or separate 13 clients of MSP. 14 Q. And what exactly is MSP? 15 A. It is mortgage servicing 16 platform and it's simply a platform of 17 software; it's a platform that has been in 18 the industry for many years and it tracks 19 payment histories. Payments are posted; 20 there are collection notes; foreclosures 21 are tracked there; they have specific -- 22 you can open specific modules if the loan 23 was never in foreclosure it would never 24 have a foreclosure open, but if it was in 25 foreclosure it would have a foreclosure 97 1 A. Garbis 2 open, and within that module there are 3 these screens that track everything. 4 So it is you can sort of 5 design it to be an all-encompassing 6 servicing. So you can service a loan 7 whether it's performing or if it goes in 8 default you have these modules that you 9 can open to more efficiently manage the 10 default. 11 Q. Back to the Scott Walter 12 assignment, if I may. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Do you know for sure who would 15 have requested the assignment of mortgage 16 to be signed by Scott Walter? 17 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 18 A. The law firm, it would not 19 have specifically been by him. 20 Q. So the law firm they would 21 send a PDF file over the LPS of a document 22 they had prepared and it gets signed by 23 somebody with this authority? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Were you aware that Scott 98 1 A. Garbis 2 Walter had signed an assignment at the 3 time you signed an assignment? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Is it standard that two 6 assignments of mortgage would be drafted; 7 one goes into the LPS and one is sent 8 directly to the servicer asking for his 9 signature. 10 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 11 Assuming facts. 12 A. No. 13 Q. In this particular case, we 14 have two assignments of mortgage; is that 15 correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. One signed by Scott Walter and 18 one signed by you? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Is that normal, based on your 21 experience when a law firm meets an 22 assignment of mortgage that the normal 23 thing is that they would get two 24 signatures? 25 A. They would. It would depend 99 1 A. Garbis 2 on if they submitted two. 3 Q. Under what circumstances would 4 they submit two? 5 A. If they were really trying to 6 expedite it, and they were going through 7 all of the avenues within which they had 8 knowledge of. 9 Q. And do you see that as 10 potentially causing confusion? 11 A. At the law firm? 12 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 13 Q. In general. 14 A. If we have two assignments of 15 mortgage signed by two separate parties, 16 do you see that as potentially causing 17 confusion. 18 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 19 A. Not ultimately. 20 Q. Do you know whether or not 21 Scott Walter did any sort of research into 22 his authority for actually signing this 23 document prior to signing it? 24 MR. TEITELBAUM: You are 25 referring to the Walter assignment? 100 1 A. Garbis 2 MS. TIRELLI: Yes. 3 A. Into his authority? 4 Q. He signed an assignment of 5 mortgage. 6 A. Right. 7 Q. Do you know what procedure LPS 8 employs that Mr. Walter would follow to 9 verify his authority? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Do you know whether or not he 12 signed his assignment of mortgage in the 13 presence of a notary? 14 A. I don't know the procedure. 15 Q. At the time that you signed 16 the assignment of mortgage, the one 17 bearing your signature. It indicates that 18 it was assigned to Long Beach -- actually 19 what is your understanding of this 20 assignment of mortgage, the one that is 21 signed by you, what's your understanding 22 of the effect of this document? 23 A. That it is assigning it 24 from/to the Deutsche Bank National Trust 25 Company. 101 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. And the assignor is who? 3 A. JP Morgan Chase. 4 Q. Are you representing by 5 signing this that JP Morgan Chase owned 6 this loan at the time it made the 7 assignment? 8 A. JP Morgan was the receiver for 9 assets that were owned or serviced by 10 Washington Mutual. 11 Q. This particular loan I believe 12 you testified earlier was held in a trust. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. So it's an asset of that 15 trust; correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And do you know as of when it 18 has been held by that trust? 19 A. The date would indicate 2006. 20 Q. So if the loan was an asset of 21 the trust in 2006, how is it that JP 22 Morgan Chase can make an assignment in 23 2008 from JP Morgan Chase back to the 24 trust? 25 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 102 1 A. Garbis 2 A. Well, they were doing it as 3 part of the motion for relief, you know, 4 to clarify and make clear exactly how the 5 title was flowing on it. 6 Q. And how was the title flowing 7 on this, based on this assignment of 8 mortgage that you signed? 9 A. It had gone through Long Beach 10 and Washington Mutual, which were part of 11 the federal FDIC receivership assets; the 12 assets of that trust flowed to Chase, and 13 this was assigning it to the bank that 14 trust. 15 Q. So did it leave the trust at 16 some point? 17 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 18 A. No. 19 Q. So in other words this loan 20 was continually owned by the trust since 21 2006? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. So this assignment has no real 24 effect, does it? 25 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 103 1 A. Garbis 2 A. Well, it is sort of 3 confirmatory at the time of filing of the 4 motion for relief. 5 Q. So you didn't actually 6 exchange any sort of consideration like 7 the one dollar and other valuable 8 consideration as indicated in this 9 document, did you? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Do you know why it would say 12 that you did exchange this for a dollar 13 and other valuable consideration if, in 14 fact, that's not what happened? 15 A. That's the standard language I 16 have seen in every assignment of mortgage. 17 Q. But there is no receipt for 18 anything being received in exchange? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Was Ms. Nuer's loan a 21 performing loan or a nonperforming loan at 22 the time this assignment was made? 23 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 24 A. I don't know. 25 Q. Could you tell from your 104 1 A. Garbis 2 screen shots when the loan became 3 nonperforming? 4 A. No. 5 MR. TEITELBAUM: The two 6 screen shots that are here? 7 MS. TIRELLI: Yes. 8 A. No. 9 Q. Have you ever looked into 10 whether or not this was a performing or 11 nonperforming loan? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Being that it is in bankruptcy 14 and, in fact, the assignment of mortgage, 15 if I understood you earlier, was in 16 conjunction with a motion for relief from 17 stay in conjunction with that bankruptcy, 18 would you draw the conclusion that this 19 would be a nonperforming loan? 20 A. Yes. 21 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 22 Q. Do you have any familiarity 23 with a pooling and servicing agreement 24 that governs this trust? 25 A. No. 105 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Have you ever seen a pooling 3 and servicing agreement that governs this 4 trust? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Do you know what a pooling and 7 servicing agreement is? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. What is it based on from what 10 you know of it? 11 A. It's an agreement that when a 12 trust or a pool is created that surrounds 13 the servicing guidelines for that, it is 14 fairly or pretty much boilerplate language 15 that goes into a facility pooling 16 servicing agreement, and what it does it 17 tells the servicer how the owner of that 18 trust wants the loan serviced. 19 Q. And does the pooling and 20 servicing agreement also typically explain 21 how the pool acquired a particular loan or 22 a pool of loans? 23 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 24 A. No. 25 Q. Not that you are aware of? 106 1 A. Garbis 2 A. No. 3 Q. So you are not sure how this 4 pool came to acquire or how this trust 5 came to acquire Ms. Nuer's loan? 6 A. No. 7 Q. But it wasn't because of the 8 assignment that you signed? 9 A. No. 10 Q. It already had it at that 11 point? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. You testified earlier that you 14 have been trained or you received annual 15 training in the Real Estate Settlement 16 Procedures Act, RESPA, and also in the 17 Truth In Lending Act I believe you said 18 TILA? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Is that true? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. So it's annual training? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And if a borrower wanted to 25 send a qualified written request, you 107 1 A. Garbis 2 would call that a QWR? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. For simplicity, pursuant to 5 RESPA is that something your department 6 would handle? 7 A. No. 8 Q. And are you aware of a 9 qualified written request that was served 10 on Chase in this particular case? 11 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 12 You can answer it. 13 A. No. 14 Q. If a qualified written request 15 pursuant to RESPA and/or TILA was served 16 on Chase, what department would actually 17 handle responding? 18 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 19 A. There is a centralized group, 20 that's what they do. 21 Q. And do they check for accuracy 22 if you know to respond to such a request? 23 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 24 A. I'm not familiar with their 25 procedures. 108 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Do you have access to those 3 records in a computer? 4 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection to 5 the entire line as beyond the scope 6 for which this witness has been 7 produced. 8 A. No. 9 MR. TEITELBAUM: And also 10 objection because these are not 11 issues which are remotely relevant 12 to any of the issues in this case. 13 So I'm putting the objection on the 14 record. 15 Q. There was in fact a qualified 16 written request sent over to Chase or 17 served on Chase, and it was responded to 18 by the Steven Baum law firm which 19 indicated that the holder of the loan was 20 Deutsche Bank as trustee; does that sound 21 accurate? 22 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 23 The witness testified she 24 didn't know anything about a QWR. 25 A. I don't know. 109 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. Do you know who the holder of 3 this loan is? 4 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection, 5 asked and answered. 6 A. The loan is part of this 7 trust that was part of the Long Beach 8 Mortgage Trust that was owned by Deutsche 9 Bank. 10 Q. Do you understand there is a 11 distinction between a holder and an owner 12 of a loan, if you know? 13 A. No. 14 Q. So at the time that you signed 15 this assignment of mortgage, you didn't do 16 any sort of verification as to who the 17 holder or owner of this loan was? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Have you come across 20 situations before where you find there 21 were two assignments of mortgage being 22 requested simultaneously from a law firm? 23 A. Not that I was aware of. 24 Q. So this is the first time you 25 have ever seen this? 110 1 A. Garbis 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. So earlier when you testified 4 that it could be there were reasons to 5 expedite a matter, were you just guessing? 6 A. No. 7 Q. Was it ever expressed to you 8 that your signing this assignment of 9 mortgage needed to be done right away or 10 was to be done in a hurry? 11 A. It was only indicated when it 12 was handed to me in the red folder. 13 Q. And who indicated that to you? 14 A. Lori Quinn. 15 Q. What exactly did she say? 16 A. She would just give it to me 17 in a red folder that's in the internal 18 signal that these are the expedited ones. 19 Q. So Lori Quinn gave this to 20 you? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. I thought you testified 23 earlier that Lori Quinn was not present 24 when you signed this? 25 A. She leaves them for me. I 111 1 A. Garbis 2 have an in-box where she leaves the 3 folders and then she comes back by and I 4 give them to her and tell her that I have 5 signed them. 6 MS. TIRELLI: I have nothing 7 further for right now. Thank you 8 very much. 9 MR. TEITELBAUM: Do you have 10 anything further, Mr. Zipes? 11 MR. ZIPES: You can go ahead. 12 MR. TEITELBAUM: I have a few 13 questions to follow up. 14 EXAMINATION BY 15 MR. TEITELBAUM: 16 Q. I will start at the end. Just 17 for the record Jay Teitelbaum for Chase. 18 Ms. Tirelli just asked you 19 about Ms. Lori Quinn, and I just want to 20 clarify. Do you have a specific 21 recollection whether this assignment was 22 delivered to you in a red, blue, orange 23 purple or any folder at all? 24 A. No. 25 Q. So when you testified that Ms. 112 1 A. Garbis 2 Quinn delivers documents to you in folders 3 you were talking generally and not about 4 this specific document? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Now, with respect to the fact 7 that there were two assignments executed 8 here -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- can you just in your own 11 words tell us the circumstances under 12 which that could potentially happen? 13 A. Well, as I explained before 14 when a law firm really wanted to expedite 15 something they could place it in the LPS 16 system and the GM box, and in order to see 17 which one they got back fastest. 18 Q. And what is the GM box? 19 A. That is for document execution 20 internal. 21 Q. So that doesn't flow through 22 LPS? 23 A. No. 24 Q. It would be separate systems? 25 A. Right. 113 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. And that would have been a 3 decision that would have been made by the 4 law firm as to how to distribute this for 5 execution? 6 A. Yes. And as it came back it 7 would be the law firm then would do the 8 processing of actually attaching the cover 9 sheets and deciding which assignment they 10 were going to record. 11 Q. Now, I want to also address 12 this issue about the fact that Ms. Quinn 13 did not witness your execution of the 14 assignment. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Can you describe what 17 procedures, if any, are in place so that 18 the notary understands that you actually 19 executed this document or an assignment, 20 not just this particular document? 21 A. As I said, they bring the 22 folders in that require execution. I give 23 them back when I have executed them. When 24 they do the actual notaries in each of 25 their cubicles they have an exemplary 114 1 A. Garbis 2 signature for everybody who can actually 3 sign it is all across so they can confirm 4 the signatures match from whichever vice 5 president it is who signs whatever 6 documents that they are going through. 7 Q. Now, with respect to your 8 signature on November 1, 2008 -- 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. -- were you in fact a vice 11 president at that time at JP Morgan Chase 12 or with an affiliated entity of Morgan 13 Chase? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. You said I think that it was 16 Chase Home Lending who would have been the 17 direct employer? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And it was your understanding 20 that at that time you had the actual 21 authority as a vice president to execute 22 this document? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Now, let me take you to the 25 document which is marked as Garbis Exhibit 115 1 A. Garbis 2 2. 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. You see up in the left-hand 5 column or corner there is a loan number? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And can you just read that? 8 A. 0697215101. 9 Q. Let me direct your attention 10 to Exhibit 5. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Does that same loan number 13 appear anywhere on Exhibit 5? 14 A. Yes, it does. 15 Q. Where is that? 16 A. It is actually on both pages. 17 Q. And what does that loan number 18 reference, if you know? 19 A. That's the loan number that 20 was assigned in the MSP loan servicing 21 system when the loan boarded. 22 Q. What does that mean? 23 A. Originated -- well, not even 24 necessarily originated. It's as it comes 25 into the MSP system even if you boarded a 116 1 A. Garbis 2 pool of loans. 3 Q. So would this loan number the 4 one that you just read that ends in 5101 5 is that a Chase loan number? 6 A. This would be a Heritage WAMU 7 loan number. 8 Q. So this loan was not 9 originated by Chase, was it? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Who was the originator? 12 A. Long Beach Mortgage. 13 Q. Is there another loan number 14 on any of these documents that's reflected 15 on either of these documents? 16 A. Yes, on both of them. 17 Q. Can you read that? 18 A. It is 6641562. 19 Q. Why would the loan have two 20 loan numbers? 21 A. Well, it has the origination 22 loan number and then once it's boarded 23 onto the system it is assigned a system 24 loan number for the new system because the 25 origination loan number may not conform to 117 1 A. Garbis 2 the system, it may not have sufficient 3 digits, it may have to be preceded by 4 zeros. 5 In order for the servicing 6 system to function so -- and not only that 7 even if you added zeros to the originating 8 loan number it is not as simple as that 9 because that loan number might already 10 exist in the servicing system. So the 11 simplest way is to assign a new loan 12 number. 13 Q. Is there any doubt in your 14 mind that the loan numbers that end in 15 1562 and 15101 are the same; do you have 16 any doubt those are the same? 17 A. No. 18 Q. Now, there's been a good 19 amount of testimony as to who the investor 20 is and who the holder is. As a legal 21 matter, do you actually know who the legal 22 owner of this loan is? 23 A. No. 24 Q. And your testimony is based 25 upon what then? 118 1 A. Garbis 2 A. How the system sets out who 3 the investor is and the system that is 4 appearing.. 5 Q. Now, I believe that you 6 testified that prior to becoming a Chase 7 employee you were a WAMU employee; is that 8 correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. As a WAMU employee, did you 11 have any familiarity or understanding of 12 the company Long Beach Mortgage Company? 13 A. I know they were an entity 14 that originated a lot of Washington Mutual 15 loans. I participated in the transition 16 of the functions from Chatsworth, 17 California to Jacksonville, Florida as 18 Long Beach Mortgage was being shut down as 19 an originating entity. 20 Q. Did you have actual knowledge 21 that at some point Long Beach Mortgage was 22 merged into WAMU? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And that was as a result of 25 what, was it your employment? 119 1 A. Garbis 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. So when you testified earlier 4 about your review of assignments that you 5 executed having, quote, red flags -- 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. -- in your experience had you 8 seen assignments identifying Long Beach 9 Mortgage on the document as the 10 originator? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And so was there any issue or 13 red flag regarding the fact that this loan 14 was originated by Long Beach Mortgage? 15 A. No. 16 Q. What was your understanding 17 then as to how it came to be that Chase 18 was executing this as an assignment? 19 A. That Long Beach Mortgage and 20 WAMU had merged, and that the assets of 21 WAMU were now owned by Morgan Chase. 22 Q. And Ms. Tirelli asked you did 23 you have a understanding at the time you 24 executed this document in November of '08 25 that you were actually conveying anything 120 1 A. Garbis 2 to the assignee in this case that Chase 3 was -- 4 MR. ZIPES: She testified she 5 has no remembrance of what she 6 signed here. 7 Q. Do you have an understanding 8 of what the purpose of this document was? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And I will even rephrase it. 11 In general, do you have an understanding 12 of what the purpose was of having 13 assignments go from Chase, quote, as the 14 purchaser of the loans and other assets of 15 the savings banks, et cetera, what was 16 that signature block designed to reflect? 17 A. It was designed to reflect 18 what had occurred in September of 2008 19 when JP Morgan Chase purchased the assets 20 of Washington Mutual. 21 Q. So is it your testimony that 22 this assignment was executed in Chase's 23 capacity as a successor? 24 A. As an executor in interest of 25 the assets of Washington Mutual. 121 1 A. Garbis 2 Q. You testified I think both for 3 Mr. Zipes and Ms. Tirelli that prior to 4 executing the assignment you did not 5 review the underlying loan documents to 6 verify the information in this document; 7 is that correct? 8 A. That's correct. 9 Q. Can you tell me why you did 10 not do that? 11 A. Well, I was aware of the 12 actual QC that goes on in our own document 13 execution area in that they do confirm the 14 specific data points in the system, and 15 that ultimately the document execution 16 area relies on outside counsel to present 17 the pleadings, assignments, or whatever, 18 in the correct legal entities under the 19 correct loan number with the correct name, 20 and all that. 21 Q. Your expectation is that the 22 attorney at the actual law firm is 23 submitting the correct assignments. So is 24 it fair to say that you relied upon the 25 practices and policies of Chase at the 122 1 A. Garbis 2 time -- 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. -- to verify the information, 5 and that is why you did not need to verify 6 other information? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. I have a question about LPS? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Is LPS an affiliate of Chase, 11 to your knowledge? 12 A. No. 13 Q. Are LPS employees employees of 14 Chase, to your knowledge? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Presently does LPS function on 17 what you have termed "Heritage Chase 18 loans"? 19 A. No. 20 Q. Is it correct that they only 21 function on what were Washington Mutual 22 loans? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Now, is it your understanding 25 that the employees of LPS had a power of 123 1 A. Garbis 2 attorney to execute certain documents on 3 behalf of Washington Mutual? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Do you have understanding as 6 to whether Chase granted LPS a limited 7 power of attorney once the acquisition 8 from the FDIC was completed? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What is that understanding? 11 A. That the previous power of 12 attorney was pretty much resigned, so they 13 produced another power of attorney so that 14 LPS could continue to function on Heritage 15 WAMU loans as they had been with the same 16 documents and the people. 17 Q. Is it correct that at the time 18 of the FDIC transaction in 2008 that LPS 19 was handling some number of defaulted 20 loans for WAMU; is that correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And so is it correct that the 23 intent was that as part of the transition 24 that LPS would continue to handle those 25 Heritage WAMU transactions? 124 1 A. Garbis 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Is it your testimony that that 4 power of attorney then was necessary for 5 LPS to continue to do that? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And I want to just try to 8 clarify this. 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. The incumbency certificate 11 that was marked as Exhibit 3 you testified 12 that there was a problem. 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Other than the fact that you 15 in your professional capacity executed 16 documents as Ann Garbis, and the 17 incumbency picked up your legal name as 18 Helen Ann Garbis, was there any other 19 problem with the incumbency certificate? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Was there any problem with 22 your authority to execute a document as 23 Ann Garbis? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Were you ever advised by Chase 125 1 A. Garbis 2 that you did not have the authority to 3 execute a document as Ann Garbis? 4 A. No. 5 MR. TEITELBAUM: I have 6 nothing further. 7 MR. ZIPES: I have another 8 question. 9 EXAMINATION BY 10 MR. ZIPES: 11 Q. You testified before that it 12 was Chase's policy to rely on the law firm 13 to make sure the assignments are accurate; 14 was that your testimony? 15 A. Since they are the ones that 16 produce them. 17 Q. Is there anybody as part of 18 Chase's policy before you as a VP with 19 signing authority signs the assignment, 20 who would review that assignment for 21 accuracy at Chase? 22 A. That's what the document 23 execution department does. 24 Q. And then so what do they 25 review with respect to the assignment? 126 1 A. Garbis 2 A. They are reviewing that the 3 loan number and the borrower's name, that 4 that is the borrower's name under that 5 loan number when we put it into the 6 system, and that investor sets forth what 7 is on the actual assignment of mortgage. 8 Q. Do you know if they are 9 checking the underlying loan documents? 10 A. They are not. 11 MR. ZIPES: I have nothing 12 further. 13 MS. TIRELLI: I have a couple 14 of more questions. 15 EXAMINATION BY 16 MS. TIRELLI: 17 Q. Prior to the takeover of Chase 18 taking over through the FDIC purchasing 19 the assumption agreement -- 20 MR. TEITELBAUM: Note my 21 objection. We are all using 22 shorthand as to that, but there is a 23 legal implication to it and we are 24 sort of short cutting it. 25 Q. Prior to that takeover, is it 127 1 A. Garbis 2 your understanding that Washington Mutual 3 was the servicer of this loan? 4 MR. TEITELBAUM: Objection. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Was it your understanding that 7 Washington Mutual was the owner of this 8 loan? 9 A. No. 10 Q. Do you know Washington Mutual 11 to have ever owned this loan? 12 A. No. 13 Q. And Washington Mutual was 14 servicing the loan for the true owner; is 15 that your understanding? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And that true owner being who? 18 A. Deutsche Bank National Trust. 19 MS. TIRELLI: Thank you. I 20 have nothing further. 21 (Whereupon, at 12:40 P.M., the 22 examination of this witness was 23 concluded.) 24 (Jurat contained on following page) 25 128 1 A. Garbis 2 _________________________ 3 ANN GARBIS 4 5 Subscribed and sworn to before me 6 This _____ day of _______. 2010 7 _____________________ 8 NOTARY PUBLIC 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 129 1 I N D E X 2 WITNESS: Ann Garbis 3 EXAMINATION PAGE By Mr. Zipes 4, 125 4 By Ms. Tirelli 83, 127 By Mr. Teitelbaum 112 5 E X H I B I T S 6 GARBIS/UST DESCRIPTION PAGE 7 8 Exhibit 1, recording document 40 9 and assignment 10 Exhibit 2, assignment 41 11 Exhibit 3, document entitled 52 12 "JP Morgan Chase Bank National 13 Association Incumbency 14 Certificate" was 15 Exhibit 4, affidavit signed by 60 16 Ann Garbis 17 Exhibit 5, two pages bearing 62 18 Bates stamps 1219 and 1220 19 20 REQUEST 21 Page Line 22 79 12 23 81 20 24 82 17 25 92 25 130 1 2 3 C E R T I F I C A T E 4 5 I, WILLIAM BYRNE, a Notary Public 6 within and for the State of New York, do 7 hereby certify: 8 That ANN GARBIS, the witness whose 9 deposition is hereinbefore set forth, was 10 duly sworn by me and that such deposition 11 is a true record of the testimony given by 12 the witness. 13 I further certify that I am not 14 related to any of the parties to this 15 action by blood or marriage, and that I am 16 in no way interested in the outcome of this 17 matter. 18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 19 set my hand this 12th day of March, 2010. 20 21 22 _____________________ 23 WILLIAM BYRNE 24 25