Wells Fargo Bank, National Association et al v. City of Richmond, California et al

Filing 49

Declaration of John Ertman in Support of 45 Reply to Opposition/Response, 46 Opposition/Response to Motion, 45 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 46 Motion to Dismiss filed byDeutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA)(Related document(s) 45 , 46 ) (Tsai, Rocky) (Filed on 8/29/2013)

EXHIBIT P

From:
Sent:
To:

Cc:
Subject:

Bruce Goodmiller [[e-mail]]
Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:24 PM
Patrick Lynch; Carlos A. Privat
Bill Lindsay
RE: Recommended Next Steps in Foreclosure Prevention

As noted when we chatted this afternoon, I am interested in Carlos's reading ofthe agreement re next steps.
BRUCE REED GOODMILLER
City Attorney
City ofRichmond
510.620.6509
From: Patrick Lynch
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 9:41AM
To: Bruce Goodmiller; Carlos A. Privat
Cc: Bill Lindsay
Subject: FW: Recommended Next Steps in Foreclosure Prevention
Good morning Bruce and Carlos,
I'm forwarding this email to your attention because, I noticed that Graham did not include you in his email. Let's discuss
our (the City's) next steps in matters related to the proposed JPA and Mortgage Resolution Partners. I'll stop by your
office later today and speak with Krystal or Patrick regarding scheduling a convenient time for us to meet. Thank you,
Patrick.

From: Graham Williams [mailto:[e-mail]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 12:29 PM
To: Bill Lindsay; Patrick Lynch; [e-mail]
Subject: Recommended Next Steps in Foreclosure Prevention

This email sets out our recommended next steps for acquiring underwater securitized loans. We would
appreciate the opportunity to discuss it with you at your earliest convenience.
California law provides detailed steps for acquiring real property. Although we do not believe that these rules
apply to the acquisition of mortgage loans and related deeds of trust, we believe that it can be useful to follow
those rules initially because (a) the rules provide a several step, graduated approach that is consistent with our
view of taking the process step by step, and (b) doing so can forestall having to litigate the issue later.

Step 1: The first step is to have initial discussions with the trusts to determine the appropriate party or parties
with whom MRP should deal in subsequent negotiations and whether there is any potential for cooperation. We
will not make any offers or engage in any negotiations at this stage. Securitization trusts have numerous
representatives, including trustees and servicers, and it is often difficult to determine who has the authority or
responsibility to act for a trust in a given circumstance. We will first approach trust servicers because we
believe that they are the likeliest party to represent the trust. If the servicers disclaim authority or do not
respond, then we will approach the trustees.
Step 2: After completing the first step we will report back to you and discuss the timing for the next step. The
second step is to appraise the loans. In the case of real property, the law requires permitting the owner "to

accompany the appraiser during his or her inspection of the property." Although we do not believe that the real
property rules apply, and even though it is not possible to physically inspect intangible property like loans, we
recommend using best efforts to comply with the spirit of this rule by offering the trusts the opportunity to
communicate with the appraiser during the appraisal process
This Step 2 can be particularly useful if no servicer or trustee responds or acknowledges its authority in Step 1.
It offers a second chance to engage the trusts, and it shows steady progress toward the goal. Again, there will
be no offers or negotiations at this stage.
If you want to utilize a joint powers authority then we recommend putting it into place before taking Step 2, so
that the JP A can take Step 2 as part of its normal process.
Step 3: At this point the city or JP A can make an offer and enter into negotiations with the trusts. The offer
letter would include a summary of the basis for the appraisal and a pamphlet detailing the eminent domain
process and the trust's rights under the eminent domain law. In the case of real property, the law requires the
condemnor to offer to pay for the reasonable costs of an independent appraisal of the property, up to $5,000.
We recommend that the city or JP A evaluate at the time whether to offer to pay for the appraisal (given that we
do not believe that this rule applies in this case).
Finally, the real property rules permit the offer to be contingent on specified occurrences that the city or JP A
considers to be appropriate, including the adoption of a resolution of necessity or the ratification of a contract of
acquisition. We recommend that the offer letter include these two contingencies, so that the city or JP A can
later exclude any loans for which the borrower has not opted into the program.

Graham Williams
Partner & CEO
Mortgage Resolution Partners
(o) 415.423.0016
(m) 415.971.1771

2