Archive for 'foreclosure process'

 

Bank of America said Friday it is halting all foreclosure sales and foreclosure proceedings nationwide while it reviews the documents being used to justify homeowner evictions.
 
It is the first bank to put a moratorium on foreclosures in all 50 states. Previously, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and others were only pausing foreclosures in states where a court has to participate in foreclosure proceedings.
 
"Bank of America has extended our review of foreclosure documents to all fifty states," the bank said in a statement. "We will stop foreclosure sales until our assessment has been satisfactorily completed. Our ongoing assessment shows the basis for foreclosure decisions are accurate. We continue to serve the interests of our customers, investors and communities. Providing solutions for distressed homeowners remains our primary focus." 
 
Article from

Breaking News Alert: President Obama will not sign foreclosure measure, says official 
October 7, 2010 1:38:33 PM
—————————————-

 
Obama won’t sign bill that would affect foreclosure proceedings


Thousands of foreclosures are put on hold
 
During the housing boom, millions of homeowners got easy access to mortgages. Now, some mortgage lenders and state governments have discovered many mortgage documents were mishandled.

By Jia Lynn Yang and Ariana Eunjung Cha
Washington Post Staff Writers 
Thursday, October 7, 2010; 4:48 PM


Amid growing furor over the legitimacy of foreclosure proceedings, White House officials said Thursday that President Obama will not sign a bill passed by Congress without public debate after critics said the legislation could loosen standards for foreclosure documents.

The bill, named the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act, would require courts to accept document notarizations made out of state. Its sponsors intended to promote interstate commerce. But homeowner advocates warn the bill could allow lenders to cut even more corners as they seek to evict homeowners.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the president did not believe Congress meant to undermine consumer protections regarding foreclosure challenges. Still, Obama will use a "pocket veto" on the bill, which will effectively kill it.

Democratic leaders on the Hill were scrambling to figure out how the legislation managed to sail through the House and Senate without any objection.
 
The episode may prove embarrassing for Democrats, who in recent weeks have been calling for federal investigations into flawed paperwork, forged documents and other misconduct in foreclosure proceedings initiated by big lenders.

The House passed the bill in April by a voice vote, meaning there’s no record of who voted for or against the legislation. The Senate passed the bill on Sept. 27, just before recess, without any debate.

Even the bill’s main sponsor, Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), was surprised by how quickly the legislation was greenlighted, according to D.J. Jordan, a representative for Aderholt.

Congressional staffers said lawmakers will revisit the bill to add protections for consumers.

Jordan said Aderholt had been working on the issue since April 2005, soon after hearing complaints from a court stenographer in his district that courts in other states were having trouble using documents notarized in Alabama.

"The authors of this bill no doubt had the best of intentions in mind when trying to remove impediments to interstate commerce," said Dan Pfeiffer, White House communications director. "We will work with them and other leaders in Congress to explore the best ways to achieve this goal going forward."

This would be Obama’s second pocket veto. Last December, he killed a short-term resolution that turned out to be unnecessary for extending defense funding.

Obama’s veto comes as the uproar over document processing from lawmakers, law enforcement and union officials and other stakeholders intensified on Thursday, turning the foreclosure mess into a political issue.

National civil rights groups, including the NAACP, National Council of La Raza and the Center for Responsible Lending, joined labor unions Thursday in calling for an immediate national moratorium on foreclosures.

"If we don’t take drastic measures now, we can expect millions of additional foreclosures in the coming years, with a disproportionate number of them involving Latino and African American families," Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, said in a statement.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) also called for a national foreclosure moratorium on Thursday, while Michigan Democratic gubernatorial candidate Virg Bernero stunned an audience in Detroit with a forceful challenge to banks to halt home foreclosures in Michigan. Bernero vowed to withdraw $1 billion in state money from J.P Morgan and Chase banks because they have refused to ease up on foreclosures – an idea that is likely please the United Autoworkers of America, which has also been critical of J.P. Morgan Chase.

As many as 40 state attorneys general are joining together to coordinate investigations into the foreclosure paperwork problem.

Patrick Madigan, the Iowa assistant attorney general who is the chairman of the group, said in an interview that they have begun to call lenders to try to ascertain the scope of the problem. He said companies that have known issues with affidavits should broaden their foreclosure moratoriums beyond the 23 states that require a court to foreclose.

"We intend to fully investigate and get to the bottom of this and find out how many companies have this issue, and for those that do to remedy the situation," Madigan said.

Also on Thursday, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller called on three large mortgage lenders to freeze foreclosures in the state and said Iowa will take the lead in coordinating with other states investigating allegations of mishandled foreclosures.

He urged other firms with "with anything less than absolute confidence in its internal foreclosure review procedures" to also stop foreclosures.

"There appears to be an emerging pattern of careless and perhaps cavalier attitudes by a growing number of lenders when it came to the seriousness of the foreclosure process," Miller said.

The nation’s banks are also being pressured by investors.

Chris Katopis, executive director of the Washington-based Association of Mortgage Investors, said securities trustees should "audit and review the resulting losses to hold servicers accountable for negligence in maintaining the assets of trusts."

"We are afraid that people’s pensions and retirement savings are being impacted," Katopis said in an interview Thursday. "Investors are deeply concerned about possible documentation inconsistencies related to mortgages. It is vital that trustees promptly address these matters."

Staff writer Scott Wilson contributed to this report.
 
Read The Entire Article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100704254.html?hpid=topnews

 
Amid growing furor over the legitimacy of foreclosure proceedings, a White House official said President Obama will not sign a two-page bill passed by lawmakers without public debate after details emerged that the legislation could loosen standards for foreclosure documents.
http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/5O5UA2/WLT7JI/8AWG7O/0KHCE9/Z41ZI/4O/h
For more information, visit washingtonpost.com

 Mike,

Here is the latest, this is some pretty grim and scary stuff. The following information comes form John Stuart’s blog. If you’re not familiar with John he is a former attorney in Arizona who has been working feverishly, day and night uncovering the bank fraud involved in the mortgage industry.
 
It is almost game over. Whenever we discover their crimes the politicians make it not a crime.
 
It is coming quicker than anyone could have expected.  
 
– Nick Capra, Vegas
 
 
PRESIDENT OBAMA has headed for his desk a bill that would ratify the illegal practices revealed for the past three years on this blog and for the past three weeks and mainstream media. He might just as well issue Robo signed presidential pardons for the thousands of people involved in defrauding homeowners, investors and the entire judicial system. Send him a letter and tell him not to sign it.
 
Under the guise of simply reflecting changes in technology, the bill would force state and federal courts to recognize and accept the notarization from another state. This would be true even if the notary signed in blank.
– It would be true even if the witnesses were not present despite the recitation to the contrary signed by the notary.
– It would be true even if the main person signing the alleged document was not the person named as having signed the alleged document.
– t would be true even if the main person signing the alleged document was not present or identified by the notary.
– In other words under this new bill passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, both essentially bought and paid for by the financial services industry, all of the illegal, improper and criminal acts performed by the “lenders” (mainstream media insists on using this term even though it is not true) would be made legal.
 
That sounds like a pardon to me, how about you?
 
If Pres. Obama signs this bill it will become law.
 
At that point, more than half of the meritorious defenses of borrowers (homeowners) or petitioners in bankruptcy courts will go down the drain.
 
The fact that this bill even got introduced without the mainstream media taking note is not really surprising considering the fact that mainstream media has failed to grasp the true  scope of this fraud which began with the first sale of a fake mortgage bond to an investor.
 
A fake financial services product was marketed to investors who believed they were lenders and to homeowners who believed they were borrowers, both of whom were mere pawns in the Wall Street game.
 
In fact they supplied the only two ingredients that Wall Street wanted —money from the lenders and a signature from the homeowners. The nature of the document was immaterial.
 
Now that the foreclosures are obviously fake, lawmakers responsive to the demands of the financial services industry have quietly passed a bill in both houses of Congress that would allow the fraud to be ratified and the perpetrators to escape any accountability whatsoever.
 
If Pres. Obama signs this bill he will be condemning the victims of this fraud to bear the full cost of the losses.
 
If Pres. Obama signs this bill he will be awarding the perpetrators of this fraud all of their winnings. In case anybody hasn’t been looking, another development which has been ignored by our mainstream media is that countries around the world are looking for an alternative reserve currency to replace the once almighty US dollar. The reason they are looking is because they no longer have confidence in a system that produced a Wall Street scheme which in essence depreciated the value and viability of currencies and economies all over the world.
 
If Pres. Obama signs this bill he will be giving a signal to the world that the United States will be more vigilant, more sophisticated and much more involved in enforcement of laws, rules and regulations already existing in the marketplace and upon which all investors, lenders, homeowners, borrowers and foreign governments had placed reasonable reliance and suffered to their detriment. The loss of our status as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency will have profound consequences on our nation, our citizens, our businesses, and the prospects for generations of Americans yet unborn.
 

FULL TEXT OF BILL

SHARE YOUR COMMENTS!!!

Sep 29, 2010 – Enrolled Bill. This is the final text of the bill or resolution as approved by both the Senate and House. This is the latest version of the bill currently available on GovTrack.
H.R.3808
One Hundred Eleventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten
An Act
To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010’.
SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL COURTS.
Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the Federal court is located if–
(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and
(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or
(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.
SEC. 3. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE COURTS.
Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the court is located if–
(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and
(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or
(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) ELECTRONIC RECORD- The term ‘electronic record’ has the meaning given that term in section 106 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006).
(2) LOGICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH- Seal information is ‘logically associated with’ an electronic record if the seal information is securely bound to the electronic record in such a manner as to make it impracticable to falsify or alter, without detection, either the record or the seal information.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
 
SHARE YOUR COMMENTS!

 

This keeps getting uglier and uglier. I’m not trying to promote "doom and gloom" so don’t shoot the messenger. My objective is to keep  you on top of today’s insane turbulent real estate market.

"He Who Masters The New Rules Firstest, WINS The MOSTEST"

 

 

Foreclosure Furor Rises; Many Call for a Freeze

By DAVID STREITFELD and GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: October 5, 2010
 
The uproar over bad conduct by mortgage lenders intensified Tuesday, as lawmakers in Washington requested a federal investigation and the attorney general in Texas joined a chorus of state law enforcement figures calling for freezes on all foreclosures.
 
Flawed Paperwork Aggravates a Foreclosure Crisis (October 4, 2010)
 
Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, and 30 other Democratic representatives from California told the Justice Department, the Federal Reserve and the comptroller of the currency that “it is time that banks are held accountable for their practices.”
 
In a request for an investigation into questionable foreclosure practices by lenders, the lawmakers said that “the excuses we have heard from financial institutions are simply not credible."
 
Officials from the federal agencies declined to comment.
 
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, sent letters to 30 lenders demanding they stop foreclosures, evictions and the sale of foreclosed properties until they could provide assurances that they were proceeding legally.
 
Both developments indicated that scarcely two weeks after the country’s fourth-biggest lender, GMAC Mortgage, revealed that it was suspending all foreclosures in the 23 states where the process requires judicial approval, concerns about flawed foreclosures had mushroomed into a nationwide problem.
 
Some of the finger-pointing was also being directed back at Congress. The Ohio secretary of state, Jennifer Brunner, suggested in a telephone interview on Tuesday that a bill passed by Congress last week about notarizations could facilitate foreclosure fraud.
 
Dubious notary practices used by banks to justify foreclosures have come under scrutiny in recent weeks as GMAC and other top lenders suspended homeowner evictions over possible improper procedures.
 
Ms. Brunner, who has recently referred possible cases of notary fraud in her state to federal authorities, worries that the legislation would allow the lowest standard for notaries to become a nationwide practice. She said she also worried that the changes were coming in the middle of a foreclosure storm where people could lose their homes improperly.
 
“A notary’s signature is that of a trusted, impartial third party, whose notarization bolsters the integrity of the document,” Ms. Brunner said. “To take away the safeguards of notarization means foreclosure procedures could be more susceptible to fraud.”
 
As banks’ foreclosure practices have come under the microscope, problems with notarizations on mortgage assignments have emerged. These documents transfer the ownership of the underlying note from one institution to another and are required for foreclosures to proceed.
 
In some cases, the notarizations predated the preparation of the legal documents, suggesting that signatures were not reviewed by a notary. Other notarizations took place in offices far away from where the documents were signed, indicating that the notaries might not have witnessed the signings as the law required.
 
Notary practices vary from state to state and the bill, sponsored by Representative Robert B. Aderholt, a Republican from Alabama, would essentially require that one state’s rules be accepted by others. If one state allows its notaries to sign off on electronic signatures, for example, documents carrying such signatures and notarized by officials in that state would have to be recognized and accepted in any state or federal court.
 
Ms. Brunner pointed out that some states had adopted “electronic notarization” laws that ignored the requirement of a signer’s personal appearance before a notary. “Many of these policies for electronic notarization are driven by technology rather than by principle, and they are dangerous to consumers,” she said.
 
Mr. Aderholt had introduced the bill twice before and both times it passed the House of Representatives but not the Senate. Mr. Aderholt reintroduced the bill last October and it passed the Senate on Sept. 29. It is awaiting President Obama’s signature.
 
Mr. Aderholt’s press secretary, Darrell Jordan, said there was no connection between the timing of the bill and the current notarization problems with foreclosures. In a statement announcing the bill’s passage, Mr. Aderholt said: “This legislation will help businesses around the nation by eliminating the confusion which arises when states refuse to acknowledge the integrity of documents notarized out of state.”
 
Last week, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America joined GMAC in suspending foreclosures in the states where they must be approved by a judge. The judicial states do not include California or Texas. But Mr. Abbott, the Texas attorney general, told lenders in letters dated Oct. 4 that if they used so-called robo-signers — employees who signed thousands of foreclosure affidavits a month, falsely attesting that they had reviewed the material — it would be a violation of Texas law.
 
As a result, he wrote, “the document and therefore the foreclosure sale would have been invalid.”
 
The three lenders who are at the center of the controversy, GMAC Mortgage, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, declined to comment. Other lenders singled out by Mr. Abbott include Wells Fargo, CitiMortgage, HSBC and National City.
 
Meanwhile, shares of a major foreclosure outsourcing company, Lender Processing Services of Jacksonville, Fla., fell 5 percent on Tuesday, adding to a slide that began last week.
 
The company’s documentation practices are stirring questions, including how the same employee can have wildly varying signatures on mortgage documents. L.P.S. blamed a midlevel manager’s decision to allow employees to sign forms in the name of an authorized employee. It says it has stopped the practice.
 
The United States Attorney’s Office in Tampa began investigating L.P.S. in February. An L.P.S. representative could not be reached Tuesday for comment.
 
Other calls for investigations came from Senators Al Franken, a Democrat from Minnesota, and Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey.
 
 

 This article from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/business/06mortgage.html

 Racketeering Case Filed Against Ally And Citigroup

POSTED ON OCTOBER 5TH 2010
 
A popular bank and a mortgage servicer are being sued by homeowners in Kentucky for conspiring with a mortgage transfers company for falsely foreclosing on loans. It is a serious allegation and when proven true, then a lot of homeowners who are currently facing foreclosures just might get a chance to save their homes.
 
Homeowners in Kentucky have filed a lawsuit against Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial Inc., alleging that the two have conspired with Reston, Virginia-based Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. in falsely foreclosing on loans.


Filed as a civil-racketeering class action on behalf of the Kentucky homeowners facing foreclosures, the lawsuit claims that banks – via MERS, which handles mortgage transfers among banks – are foreclosing on homes to which they don’t hold titles to properties. The complaint was filed in a federal court in Louisville, Kentucky on the 24th of September.
 
The complaint reads, “Defendants have filed foreclosures throughout the state of Kentucky and the United States of America knowing that they were not the ‘owners’ or beneficiaries of the loan they filed foreclosure upon.”
 
According to the lawsuit, the defendants either filed or caused to be filed mortgages through forged signatures. It also stated that foreclosure actions were filed months before any legal interests are acquired in the properties. Own notes executed with mortgages were also falsely claimed by the defendants, the lawsuit further says.
 
The case also claims that the defendants have violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Though originally passed to pursue organized crime, RICO was brought to the case since the attorneys say the cases were well-thought out.
 
The Kentucky homeowners’ case is just one of the multiple cases against several banks and MERS for wrongful foreclosures. Several cases, which were combined in a multi-district litigation in Phoenix, have been dismissed last September 30. The judge allowed the plaintiffs to re-file their complaints, though.
 
In an emailed statement, Ally spokeswoman Gina Proia called the allegations “inflammatory” and without merit. Citigroup Inc. declined to comment, while MERS had no immediate comment.
 
This article originally posited at  http://bit.ly/9IzJOe
 

 How Will This Foreclosure Mess Affect You & Your Business?
(15 min Video)

 


Share Your Comments Below

Your Comments are very valuable and important

 Hey Mike,

 
Here’s a good one, there is a company called DocX, that, for a fee researches mortgages for banks, find  what the defects are in the paperwork, then, they create new docs to make it appear everything has been done correctly. 
They even have a price list for the various docs that would need to be "created" have a look at this http://bit.ly/bcNlQC
Take care,
Nicholas Capra
 
 
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2010
4ClosureFraud Posts Lender Processing Services Mortgage Document Fabrication Price Sheet
A bombshell has dropped in mortgage land.
 
We’ve said for some time that document fabrication is widespread in foreclosures. The reason is that the note, which is the borrower IOU, is the critical instrument to establishing the right to foreclose in 45 states (in those states, the mortgage, which is the lien on the property, is a mere “accessory” to the note).
 
The pooling and servicing agreement, which governs the creation of mortgage backed securities, called for the note to be endorsed (wet ink signatures) through the full chain of title. That means that the originator had to sign the note over to an intermediary party (there were usually at least two), who’d then have to endorse it over to the next intermediary party, and the final intermediary would have to endorse it over to the trustee on behalf of a specified trust (the entity that holds all the notes). This had to be done by closing; there were limited exceptions up to 90 days out; after that, no tickie, no laundry.
 
Evidence is mounting that for cost reasons, starting in the 2004-2005 time frame, originators like Countrywide simply quit conveying the note. We are told this practice was widespread, probably endemic. The notes are apparently are still in originator warehouses. That means the trust does not have them (the legalese is it is not the real party of interest), therefore it is not in a position to foreclose on behalf of the RMBS investors. So various ruses have been used to finesse this rather large problem.
 
The foreclosing party often obtains the note from the originator at the time of foreclosure, but that isn’t kosher under the rules governing the mortgage backed security. First, it’s too late to assign the mortgage to the trust. Second. IRS rules forbid a REMIC (real estate mortgage investment trust) from accepting a non-performing asset, meaning a dud loan. And it’s also problematic to assign a note from the originator if it’s bankrupt (the bankruptcy trustee must approve, and from what we can discern, the note are being conveyed without approval, plus there is no employee of the bankrupt entity authorized to endorse the note properly, another wee problem).
 
We finally have concrete proof of how widespread document fabrication was. For some reason the ScribD embeds aren’t working correctly, you can view the entire Lender Processing Services price sheet here, and here are the germane sections.
 
 Picture 21
 
 
Picture 22 
 
 
Not only are there prices up for creating, which means fabricating documents out of whole cloth, and look at the extent of the offerings. The collateral file is ALL the documents the trustee (or the custodian as an agent of the trustee) needs to have pursuant to its obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement on behalf of the mortgage backed security holder. This means most importantly the original of the note (the borrower IOU), copies of the mortgage (the lien on the property), the securitization agreement, and title insurance.
 
Also notice that there is a price for creating allonges. We discussed earlier that phony allonges have become the preferred fix for the failure to convey notes properly:
 
The cure for the mortgage documents puts the loan out of eligibility for the trust. In order to cure, on a current basis, they have to argue that the loan goes retroactively back into the trust. This is the cure that the banks have been unwilling to do, because it is a big problem for the MBS. So instead they forge and fabricate documents.
 
The letter in particular mentions an allonge. An allonge is a separate sheet of paper which is attached to a note to allow for more signatures, in this case, endorsements, to be added. Allonges have had a way of magically appearing in collateral files while trails are in progress (I’ve seen it happen in cases I was tracking; it’s gotten so common that some attorneys warn judges to be on the alert for “ta dah” moments).
 
The wee problem with an allonge miraculously being discovered is that the allonges that show up are inherently in violation of UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) provisions (UCC has been adopted by all states, a few states have minor quirks, but the broad provisions are very similar).
 
An allonge is NOT to be used unless all the space on the original note, including the margins and the back side of pages, has been used up. This is never the case. Second, an allonge has to be so firmly attached to the original document as to be inseparable. Thus an allonge suddenly being discovered is an impossibility (well impossible if it were legit), yet it seems to happen all the time.
 
This revelation touches every major servicer and RMBS trustee in the US. DocX is a part of of Lender Processing Services. Lender Processing Services has three lines of business, the biggest of which is “default services”, representing close to half its revenues of this over $2 billion in revenues company. DocX is its technology platform it uses to manage its national network of foreclosure mills. Note that DocX closed one of its offices in Alpharatta, Georgia earlier this year, per StopForeclosures:
 
On April 12, 2010, Lender Processing Services closed the offices of its subsidiary, Docx, LLC, in Alpharetta, Georgia. That office was responsible for pumping out over a million mortgage assignments in the last two years so that banks could foreclose on residential real estate. The law firms handling the foreclosures were retained and largely controlled by Lender Processing Services, according to a Sanctions Order entered by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Diane Weiss Sigmund (In re Niles C. Taylor, EDPA, Case 07-15385-sr, Doc. 193). Lender Processing Services, the largest “default management services company” in the country, has already made at least partial admissions that there were faults in the documents produced by the Docx office – although courts and homeowners were never notified. According to Lender Processing Services, over 50 major banks use their default management services. The banks that especially need the services provided by Lender Processing Services include Deutsche Bank, Citibank, Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank, acting as trustees for mortgage-backed securitized trusts. These trusts, in the rush to securitize mortgages and sell them to investors, often ignored the critical step of obtaining mortgage assignments from the original lenders to the securities companies to the trusts. Now, years later, when the companies “servicing” the trusts need to foreclose, they retain Lender Processing Services to draft the missing documents. The mortgage servicers, including American Home Mortgage Services, Saxon Mortgage Services, and American Servicing Company, never disclose that the trusts are missing essential documents – they just rely on Lender Processing Services to “fix” the problems. Although the Alpharetta office has been closed, Lender Processing Services continues to mass produce “replacement” assignments from its Jacksonville, Florida, and Dakota County, Minnesota offices. Law firms retained by Lender Processing Services also often use their own employees, posing as officer of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, to produce the needed Assignments.
 
So wake up and smell the coffee. The story that banks have been trying to sell has been that document problems like improper affidavits are mere technicalities. We’ve said from the get go that they were the tip of the iceberg of widespread document forgeries and fraud. This price sheet provides concrete proof that the practices we pointed to not only existed, but are a routine way of doing business in servicer and trustee land. LPS is the major platform used by all the large servicers; it oversees the work of foreclosure mills in every state.
 
And this means document forgeries and fraud are not just a servicer problem or a borrower problem but a mortgage industry and ultimately a policy problem. These dishonest practices are so widespread that they raise serious questions about the residential mortgage backed securities market, the major trustees (such as JP Morgan, US Bank, Bank of New York) who repeatedly provided affirmations as required by the pooling and servicing agreement that all the tasks necessary for the trust to own the securitization assets had been completed, and the inattention of the various government bodies (in particular Fannie and Freddie) that are major clients of LPS.
 
Amar Bhide, in a 1994 Harvard Business Review article, said the US capital markets were the deepest and most liquid in major part because they were recognized around the world as being the fairest and best policed. As remarkable as it may seem now, his statement was seem as an obvious truth back then. In a mere decade, we managed to allow a “free markets” ideology on steroids to gut investor and borrower protection. The result is a train wreck in US residential mortgage securities, the biggest asset class in the world. The problems are too widespread for the authorities to pretend they don’t exist, and there is no obvious way to put this Humpty Dumpty back together.

 

Another article sent from Roger

 

Flawed Paperwork Aggravates a Foreclosure Crisis

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: October 3, 2010
 
As some of the nation’s largest lenders have conceded that their foreclosure procedures might have been improperly handled, lawsuits have revealed myriad missteps in crucial documents.
 
Jay LaPrete/Associated Press
Jennifer Brunner, the secretary of state of Ohio, has highlighted examples of what her office considers possible notary abuse.
The flawed practices that GMAC Mortgage, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have recently begun investigating are so prevalent, lawyers and legal experts say, that additional lenders and loan servicers are likely to halt foreclosure proceedings and may have to reconsider past evictions.
 
Problems emerging in courts across the nation are varied but all involve documents that must be submitted before foreclosures can proceed legally. Homeowners, lawyers and analysts have been citing such problems for the last few years, but it appears to have reached such intensity recently that banks are beginning to re-examine whether all of the foreclosure papers were prepared properly.
 
In some cases, documents have been signed by employees who say they have not verified crucial information like amounts owed by borrowers. Other problems involve questionable legal notarization of documents, in which, for example, the notarizations predate the actual preparation of documents — suggesting that signatures were never actually reviewed by a notary.
 
Other problems occurred when notarizations took place so far from where the documents were signed that it was highly unlikely that the notaries witnessed the signings, as the law requires.
 
On still other important documents, a single official’s name is signed in such radically different ways that some appear to be forgeries. Additional problems have emerged when multiple banks have all argued that they have the right to foreclose on the same property, a result of a murky trail of documentation and ownership.
 
There is no doubt that the enormous increase in foreclosures in recent years has strained the resources of lenders and their legal representatives, creating challenges that any institution might find overwhelming. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the percentage of loans that were delinquent by 90 days or more stood at 9.5 percent in the first quarter of 2010, up from 4 percent in the same period of 2008.
 
But analysts say that the wave of defaults still does not excuse lenders’ failures to meet their legal obligations before trying to remove defaulting borrowers from their homes.
 
“It reflects the hubris that as long as the money was going through the pipeline, these companies didn’t really have to make sure the documents were in order,” said Kathleen C. Engel, dean for intellectual life at Suffolk University Law School and an expert in mortgage law. “Suddenly they have a lot at stake, and playing fast and loose is going to be more costly than it was in the past.”
 
Attorneys general in at least six states, including Massachusetts, Iowa, Florida and Illinois, are investigating improper foreclosure practices. Last week, Jennifer Brunner, the secretary of state of Ohio, referred examples of what her office considers possible notary abuse by Chase Home Mortgage to federal prosecutors for investigation.
 
The implications are not yet clear for borrowers who have been evicted from their homes as a result of improper filings. But legal experts say that courts may impose sanctions on lenders or their representatives or may force banks to pay borrowers’ legal costs in these cases.
 
Judges may dismiss the foreclosures altogether, barring lenders from refiling and awarding the home to the borrower. That would create a loss for the lender or investor holding the note underlying the property. Almost certainly, lawyers say, lawsuits on behalf of borrowers will multiply.
 
In Florida, problems with foreclosure cases are especially acute. A recent sample of foreclosure cases in the 12th Judicial Circuit of Florida showed that 20 percent of those set for summary judgment involved deficient documents, according to chief judge Lee E. Haworth.
 
“We have sent repeated notices to law firms saying, ‘You are not following the rules, and if you don’t clean up your act, we are going to impose sanctions on you,’ ” Mr. Haworth said in an interview. “They say, ‘We’ll fix it, we’ll fix it, we’ll fix it.’ But they don’t.”
 
As a result, Mr. Haworth said, on Sept. 17, Harry Rapkin, a judge overseeing foreclosures in the district, dismissed 61 foreclosure cases. The plaintiffs can refile but they need to pay new filing fees, Mr. Haworth said.
 
The byzantine mortgage securitization process that helped inflate the housing bubble allowed home loans to change hands so many times before they were eventually pooled and sold to investors that it is now extremely difficult to track exactly which lenders have claims to a home.
 
Many lenders or loan servicers that begin the foreclosure process after a borrower defaults do not produce documentation proving that they have the legal right to foreclosure, known as standing.
 
As a substitute, the banks usually present affidavits attesting to ownership of the note signed by an employee of a legal services firm acting as an agent for the lender or loan servicer. Such affidavits allow foreclosures to proceed, but because they are often dubiously prepared, many questions have arisen about their validity.
 
Although lawyers for troubled borrowers have contended for years that banks in many cases have not properly documented their rights to foreclose, the issue erupted in mid-September when GMAC said it was halting foreclosure proceedings in 23 states because of problems with its legal practices. The move by GMAC followed testimony by an employee who signed affidavits for the lender; he said that he executed 400 of them each day without reading them or verifying that the information in them was correct.
 
JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America followed with similar announcements.
 
But these three large lenders are not the only companies employing people who have failed to verify crucial aspects of a foreclosure case, court documents show.
 
Last May, Herman John Kennerty, a loan administration manager in the default document group of Wells Fargo Mortgage, testified to lawyers representing a troubled borrower that he typically signed 50 to 150 foreclosure documents a day. In that case, in King County Superior Court in Seattle, he also stated that he did not independently verify the information to which he was attesting.
 
Wells Fargo did not respond to requests for comment.
 
In other cases, judges are finding that banks’ claims of standing in a foreclosure case can conflict with other evidence.
 
Last Thursday, Paul F. Isaacs, a judge in Bourbon County Circuit Court in Kentucky, reversed a ruling he had made in August giving Bank of New York Mellon the right to foreclose on a couple’s home. According to court filings, Mr. Isaacs had relied on the bank’s documentation that it said showed it held the note underlying the property in a trust. But after the borrowers supplied evidence indicating that the note may in fact reside in a different trust, the judge reversed himself. The court will revisit the matter soon.
 
Bank of New York said it was reviewing the ruling and could not comment.
 
Another problematic case involves a foreclosure action taken by Deutsche Bank against a borrower in the Bronx in New York. The bank says it has the right to foreclose because the mortgage was assigned to it on Oct. 15, 2009.
 
But according to court filings made by David B. Shaev, a lawyer at Shaev & Fleischman who represents the borrower, the assignment to Deutsche Bank is riddled with problems. First, the company that Deutsche said had assigned it the mortgage, the Sand Canyon Corporation, no longer had any rights to the underlying property when the transfer was supposed to have occurred.
 
Additional questions have arisen over the signature verifying an assignment of the mortgage. Court documents show that Tywanna Thomas, assistant vice president of American Home Mortgage Servicing, assigned the mortgage from Sand Canyon to Deutsche Bank in October 2009. On assignments of mortgages in other cases, Ms. Thomas’s signatures differ so wildly that it appears that three people signed the documents using Ms. Thomas’s name.
 
Given the differences in the signatures, Mr. Shaev filed court papers last July contending that the assignment is a sham, “prepared to create an appearance of a creditor as a real party in interest/standing, when in fact it is likely that the chain of title required in these matters was not performed, lost or both.”
 
Mr. Shaev also asked the judge overseeing the case, Shelley C. Chapman, to order Ms. Thomas to appear to answer questions the lawyer has raised.
 
John Gallagher, a spokesman for Deutsche Bank, which is trustee for the securitization that holds the note in this case, said companies servicing mortgage loans engaged the law firms that oversee foreclosure proceedings. “Loan servicers are obligated to adhere to all legal requirements,” he said, “and Deutsche Bank, as trustee, has consistently informed servicers that they are required to execute these actions in a proper and timely manner.”
 
Reached by phone on Saturday, Ms. Thomas declined to comment.
 
The United States Trustee, a unit of the Justice Department, is also weighing in on dubious court documents filed by lenders. Last January, it supported a request by Silvia Nuer, a borrower in foreclosure in the Bronx, for sanctions against JPMorgan Chase.
 
In testimony, a lawyer for Chase conceded that a law firm that had previously represented the bank, the Steven J. Baum firm of Buffalo, had filed inaccurate documents as it sought to take over the property from Ms. Nuer.
 
The Chase lawyer told a judge last January that his predecessors had combed through the chain of title on the property and could not find a proper assignment. The firm found “something didn’t happen that needed to be fixed,” he explained, and then, according to court documents, it prepared inaccurate documents to fill in the gaps.
 
The Baum firm did not return calls to comment.
 
A lawyer for the United States Trustee said that the Nuer case “does not represent an isolated example of misconduct by Chase in the Southern District of New York.”
 
Chase declined to comment.
 
“The servicers have it in their control to get the right documents and do this properly, but it is so much cheaper to run it through a foreclosure mill,” said Linda M. Tirelli, a lawyer in White Plains who represents Ms. Nuer in the case against Chase. “This is not about getting a free house for my client. It’s about a level playing field. If I submitted false documents like this to the court, I’d have my license handed to me.”
 
Link to Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/business/04mortgage.html

Attorney Harry Borders sent this article from the Federal Trade Commission

 

Forensic Mortgage Loan Audit Scams:

A New Twist on Foreclosure Rescue Fraud

Fraudulent foreclosure “rescue” professionals use half-truths and outright lies to sell services that promise relief to homeowners in distress. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation’s consumer protection agency, the latest foreclosure rescue scam to exploit financially strapped homeowners pitches forensic mortgage loan audits.

In exchange for an upfront fee of several hundred dollars, so-called forensic loan auditors, mortgage loan auditors, or foreclosure prevention auditors backed by forensic attorneys offer to review your mortgage loan documents to determine whether your lender complied with state and federal mortgage lending laws. The “auditors” say you can use the audit report to avoid foreclosure, accelerate the loan modification process, reduce your loan principal, or even cancel your loan.

Nothing could be further from the truth. According to the FTC and its law enforcement partners:

  • there is no evidence that forensic loan audits will help you get a loan modification or any other foreclosure relief, even if they’re conducted by a licensed, legitimate and trained auditor, mortgage professional or lawyer.
  • some federal laws allow you to sue your lender based on errors in your loan documents. But even if you sue and win, your lender is not required to modify your loan simply to make your payments more affordable.
  • if you cancel your loan, you will have to return the borrowed money, which may result in you losing your home.

If you are in default on your mortgage or facing foreclosure, you may be targeted by a foreclosure rescue scam. The FTC wants you to know how to recognize the telltale signs and report them. If you are faced with foreclosure, the FTC says legitimate options are available to help you save your home.

Spotting a Scam

If you’re looking for foreclosure prevention help, avoid any business that:

  • guarantees to stop the foreclosure process – no matter what your circumstances are
  • instructs you not to contact your lender, lawyer or credit or housing counselor
  • collects a fee before providing any services accepts payment only by cashier’s check or wire transfer
  • encourages you to lease your home so you can buy it back over time
  • recommends that you make your mortgage payments directly to it, rather than your lender
  • urges you to transfer your property deed or title to it
  • offers to buy your house for cash at a fixed price that is inappropriate for the housing market
  • pressures you to sign papers you haven’t had a chance to read thoroughly or that you don’t understand.
Finding Legitimate Help

Housing experts say that when you’re behind on your mortgage payments, maintaining communication with your lender is the most important thing you can do. Contact your lender or servicer immediately if you’re having trouble paying your mortgage or you have received a foreclosure notice. You may be able to negotiate a new repayment schedule. 

 Gold Member Tom Kennedy in Los Angeles emailed the following chart and information.

State Judicial Non-
Judicial
Comments Process
Period

(Days)
Sale
Publication

(Days)
Redemption
Period

(Days)
Sale/NTS
Alabama 49-74 21 365 Trustee
Alaska 105 65 365* Trustee
Arizona 90+ 41 30-180* Trustee
Arkansas 70 30 365* Trustee
California 117 21 365* Trustee
Colorado 145 60 None Trustee
Connecticut   62 NA Court Decides Court
Delaware   170-210 60-90 None Sheriff
District of Columbia   47 18 None Trustee
Florida   135 NA None Court
Georgia 37 32 None Trustee
Hawaii 220 60 None Trustee
Idaho 150 45 365 Trustee
Illinois   300 NA 90 Court
Indiana   261 120 None Sheriff
Iowa 160 30 20 Sheriff
Kansas   130 21 365 Sheriff
Kentucky   147 NA 365 Court
Louisiana   180 NA None Sheriff
Maine   240 30 90 Court
Maryland   46 30 Court Decides Court
Massachusetts   75 41 None Court
Michigan   60 30 30-365 Sheriff
Minnesota 90-100 7 1825 Sheriff
Mississippi 90 30 None Trustee
Missouri 60 10 365 Trustee
Montana 150 50 None Trustee
Nebraska   142 NA None Sheriff
Nevada 116 80 None Trustee
New Hampshire   59 24 None Trustee
New Jersey   270 NA 10 Sheriff
New Mexico   180 NA 30-270 Court
New York   445 NA None Court
North Carolina 110 25 None Sheriff
North Dakota   150 NA 180-365 Sheriff
Ohio   217 NA None Sheriff
Oklahoma 186 NA None Sheriff
Oregon 150 30 180 Trustee
Pennsylvania   270 NA None Sheriff
Rhode Island 62 21 None Trustee
South Carolina   150 NA None Court
South Dakota 150 23 30-365 Sheriff
Tennessee   40-45 20-25 730 Trustee
Texas 27 NA None Trustee
Utah     142 NA Court Decides Trustee
Vermont   95 NA 180-365 Court
Virginia 45 14-28 None Trustee
Washington 135 90 None Trustee
West Virginia 60-90 30-60 None Trustee
Wisconsin 290 NA 365 Sheriff
Wyoming 60 25 90-365 Sheriff

* Judicial Only Mouseover the  symbol to view state-specific comments


Chase primary servicing portfolio totaled roughly 6.8 million loans for an unpaid principal balance of roughly $1.2 trillion as of June 30.

Moody’s will assess delinquency transition rates, foreclosure timelines, loan cure rates, recoveries, loan resolution outcomes and REO management of both JPMorgan Chase and Ally. 

All factors are potentially affected by the foreclosure suspensions.

 Page 3 of 3 « 1  2  3