Archive for 'home loans'

 Consumer advocates, the press, investors and homeowners have already compiled a compelling list of transgressions: conflicts of interest that have banks pushing foreclosures, without a good-faith effort to modify troubled loans. Dubious fees that inflate mortgage balances. The hundreds of thousands of flawed foreclosure affidavits that violated homeowners’ legal protections. The misplaced documents. And it goes on. 

 
 
IN Congressional hearings last week, Obama administration officials acknowledged that uncertainty over foreclosures could delay the recovery of the housing market. The implications for the economy are serious. For instance, the International Monetary Fund found that the persistently high unemployment in the United States is largely the result of foreclosures and underwater mortgages, rather than widely cited causes like mismatches between job requirements and worker skills.
 
This chapter of the financial crisis is a self-inflicted wound. The major banks and their agents have for years taken shortcuts with their mortgage securitization documents — and not due to a momentary lack of attention, but as part of a systematic approach to save money and increase profits. The result can be seen in the stream of reports of colossal foreclosure mistakes: multiple banks foreclosing on the same borrower; banks trying to seize the homes of people who never had a mortgage or who had already entered into a refinancing program.
 
Banks are claiming that these are just accidents. But suppose that while absent-mindedly paying a bill, you wrote a check from a bank account that you had already closed. No one would have much sympathy with excuses that you were in a hurry and didn’t mean to do it, and it really was just a technicality.
 
The most visible symptoms of cutting corners have come up in the foreclosure process, but the roots lie much deeper. As has been widely documented in recent weeks, to speed up foreclosures, some banks hired low-level workers, including hair stylists and teenagers, to sign or simply stamp documents like affidavits — a job known as being a “robo-signer.”
 
Such documents were improper, since the person signing an affidavit is attesting that he has personal knowledge of the matters at issue, which was clearly impossible for people simply stamping hundreds of documents a day. As a result, several major financial firms froze foreclosures in many states, and attorneys general in all 50 states started an investigation.
 
However, the problems in the mortgage securitization market run much wider and deeper than robo-signing, and started much earlier than the foreclosure process.
 
When mortgage securitization took off in the 1980s, the contracts to govern these transactions were written carefully to satisfy not just well-settled, state-based real estate law, but other state and federal considerations. These included each state’s Uniform Commercial Code, which governed “secured” transactions that involve property with loans against them, and state trust law, since the packaged loans are put into a trust to protect investors. On the federal side, these deals needed to satisfy securities agencies and the Internal Revenue Service.
 
This process worked well enough until roughly 2004, when the volume of transactions exploded. Fee-hungry bankers broke the origination end of the machine. One problem is well known: many lenders ceased to be concerned about the quality of the loans they were creating, since if they turned bad, someone else (the investors in the securities) would suffer.
 
A second, potentially more significant, failure lay in how the rush to speed up the securitization process trampled traditional property rights protections for mortgages.
 
The procedures stipulated for these securitizations are labor-intensive. Each loan has to be signed over several times, first by the originator, then by typically at least two other parties, before it gets to the trust, “endorsed” the same way you might endorse a check to another party. In general, this process has to be completed within 90 days after a trust is closed.
 
Evidence is mounting that these requirements were widely ignored. Judges are noticing: more are finding that banks cannot prove that they have the standing to foreclose on the properties that were bundled into securities. If this were a mere procedural problem, the banks could foreclose once they marshaled their evidence. But banks who are challenged in many cases do not resume these foreclosures, indicating that their lapses go well beyond minor paperwork.
 
Increasingly, homeowners being foreclosed on are correctly demanding that servicers prove that the trust that is trying to foreclose actually has the right to do so. Problems with the mishandling of the loans have been compounded by the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, an electronic lien-registry service that was set up by the banks. While a standardized, centralized database was a good idea in theory, MERS has been widely accused of sloppy practices and is increasingly facing legal challenges.
 
By YVES SMITH
 
For more: http://nyti.ms/aPlvOQ
 
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller and a team of his attorneys fanned across nine counties to sue 10 so-called foreclosure counselors Thursday.
 
Zoeller said it was the next step in his campaign to beef up consumer protection statewide. Last month, the attorney general sued two local for-profit credit counseling companies for what he described as fraudulent practice.
 
Zoeller said his team is also taking a close look at banking behemoths like Chase and Bank of America after word of their representatives "robo-signing," or blindly signing foreclosure documents, tantamount to legal affidavits, on thousands of homeowners nationwide, including a fair number in Indiana.
 
With Lake County Clerk Mike Brown by his side, Zoeller filed a complaint in Lake Circuit Court for an injunction and restitution against Santa Ana, Calif., based Meridian Law Center, run by attorney Kamran Yusuf Malik, for trying to get $2,000 from Sandra Dobson for foreclosure help.
 
"I had way more sense than to send those people any money," said Dobson, from the home she’s owned for 33 years. "I filed a complaint with the Indiana Attorney General’s office last year because the package they sent me looked fraudulent."
 
According to Zoeller, the 10 companies his investigators and attorneys sued have been taking money from people in financial straits and promising to help them save their homes from foreclosures or lower their mortgage rates.
 
Zoeller said the companies did not register to do business in Indiana, did not obtain $25,000 bonds mandated by the state and violated the Consumer Protection Act and other deceptive practices laws.
 
He accused the companies of having agents who seek targets based on foreclosure filings.
 
"Each of the companies have the same modus operandi," Zoeller said. "They’re preying on people who are in financial trouble."
 
Zoeller said collecting any money in restitution or costs from such companies is difficult, but the action at least sends out a warning to unsuspecting homeowners.
 
Dobson said she was in no financial trouble when she received a glossy, "important looking package" from Meridian Law Center Aug. 24, 2009, and immediately filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s office. The last time she was in any foreclosure proceedings was more than 25 years ago, Dobson added.
 
Dobson still praised Zoeller and his actions.
 
"I just think it’s wonderful because we’re just little people, and it’s about time somebody steps up to protect little people," she said. "They’re just con artists ripping off people trying to lead a decent life."
 
Zoeller said he is headed to Oregon for a meeting with of the states’ attorneys general to address the "robo-signing" scandal, but he declined to comment on specific cases in Indiana.
 
"Maybe all the documents are correct, but, in my mind, when you sign your name on those papers, you’re signing a legal affidavit."
 
For more on this article:  http://bit.ly/dDkZFO
 
Please Share Your Comments Below

 Battle Lines Forming in Clash Over Foreclosures

 
That clash — expected to be played out in courtrooms across the country and scrutinized by law enforcement officials investigating possible wrongdoing by big lenders — leaped to the forefront of the mortgage crisis this week as big lenders began lifting their freezes on foreclosures and insisted the worst was behind them. 
 
Battle Lines Forming in Clash Over Foreclosures
 
 
About a month after Washington Mutual Bank made a multimillion-dollar mortgage loan on a mountain home near Santa Barbara, Calif., a crucial piece of paperwork disappeared.
 
Cynthia Veintemillas, a lawyer in Florida, met with a client, Patrick Jeffs, on Wednesday.
 
Herbert Newlands Jr. of Temple Terrace, Fla., getting foreclosure advice from his lawyer on Tuesday. Florida has been hit hard by foreclosures.
 
But bank officials were unperturbed. After conducting a “due and diligent search,” an assistant vice president simply drew up an affidavit stating that the paperwork — a promissory note committing the borrower to repay the mortgage — could not be found, according to court documents.
 
The handling of that lost note in 2006 was hardly unusual. Mortgage documents of all sorts were treated in an almost lackadaisical way during the dizzying mortgage lending spree from 2005 through 2007, according to court documents, analysts and interviews.
 
Now those missing and possibly fraudulent documents are at the center of a potentially seismic legal clash that pits big lenders against homeowners and their advocates concerned that the lenders’ rush to foreclose flouts private property rights.
 
That clash — expected to be played out in courtrooms across the country and scrutinized by law enforcement officials investigating possible wrongdoing by big lenders — leaped to the forefront of the mortgage crisis this week as big lenders began lifting their freezes on foreclosures and insisted the worst was behind them.
 
Federal officials meeting in Washington on Wednesday indicated that a government review of the problems would not be complete until the end of the year.
 
In short, the legal disagreement amounts to whether banks can rely on flawed documentation to repossess homes.
 
While even critics of the big lenders acknowledge that the vast majority of foreclosures involve homeowners who have not paid their mortgages, they argue that the borrowers are entitled to due legal process.
 
Banks “have essentially sidestepped 400 years of property law in the United States,” said Rebel A. Cole, a professor of finance and real estate at DePaul University. “There are so many questionable aspects to this thing it’s scary.”
 
Others are more sanguine about the dispute.
 
Joseph R. Mason, a finance professor who holds the Louisiana Bankers Association chair at Louisiana State University, said that concerns about proper foreclosure documentation were overblown. At the end of the day, he said, even if the banks botched the paperwork, homeowners who didn’t make their mortgage payments still needed to be held accountable.
 
“You borrowed money,” he said. “You are obligated to repay it.”
 
After freezing most foreclosures, Bank of America, the largest consumer bank in the country, said this week that it would soon resume foreclosures in about half of the country because it was confident that the cases had been properly documented. GMAC Mortgage said it was also proceeding with foreclosures, on a case-by-case basis.
 
While some other banks have also suggested they can wrap up faulty foreclosures in a matter of weeks, some judges, lawyers for homeowners and real estate experts like Mr. Cole expect the courts to be inundated with challenges to the banks’ actions.
 
“This is ultimately going to have to be resolved by the 50 state supreme courts who have jurisdiction for property law,” Professor Cole predicted.
 
Defaulting homeowners in states like Florida, among the hardest hit by foreclosures, are already showing up in bigger numbers this week to challenge repossessions. And judges in some states have halted or delayed foreclosures because of improper documentation. Court cases are likely to hinge on whether judges believe that banks properly fulfilled their legal obligations during the mortgage boom — and in the subsequent rush to expedite foreclosures.
 
The country’s mortgage lenders contend that any problems that might be identified are technical and will not change the fact that they have the right to foreclose en masse.
 
“We did a thorough review of the process, and we found the facts underlying the decision to foreclose have been accurate,” Barbara J. Desoer, president of Bank of America Home Loans, said earlier this week. “We paused while we were doing that, and now we’re moving forward.”
 
Some analysts are not sure that banks can proceed so freely. Katherine M. Porter, a visiting law professor at Harvard University and an expert on consumer credit law, said that lenders were wrong to minimize problems with the legal documentation.
 
“The misbehavior is clear: they lied to the courts,” she said. “The fact that they are saying no one was harmed, they are missing the point. They did actual harm to the court system, to the rule of law. We don’t say, ‘You can perjure yourself on the stand because the jury will come to the right verdict anyway.’ That’s what they are saying.”
 
Robert Willens, a tax expert, said that documentation issues had created potentially severe tax problems for investors in mortgage securities and that “there is enough of a question here that the courts might well have to resolve the issue.”
 
As the legal system begins sorting through the competing claims, one thing is not in dispute: the pell-mell origination of mortgage loans during the real estate boom and the patchwork of financial machinery and documentation that supported it were created with speed and profits in mind, and with little attention to detail.
 
Once the foreclosure wheels started turning, said analysts, practices became even shoddier.
 
For example, the foreclosure business often got so busy at the Plantation, Fla., law offices of David J. Stern — and so many documents had to be signed so banks could evict people from their homes — that a supervisor sometimes was too tired to write her own name.
 
When that happened, Cheryl Samons, the supervisor at the firm, who typically signed about 1,000 documents a day, just let someone else sign for her, court papers show.
 
“Cheryl would give certain paralegals rights to sign her name, because most of the time she was very tired, exhausted from signing her name numerous times per day,” said Kelly Scott, a Stern employee, in a deposition that the Florida attorney general released on Monday. A lawyer representing the law firm said Ms. Samons would not comment.
 
Bill McCollum, Florida’s attorney general, is investigating possible abuses at the Stern firm, a major foreclosure mill in the state, involving false or fabricated loan documents, calling into question the foreclosures the firm set in motion on behalf of banks.
 
That problem extends far beyond Florida.
 
As lenders and Wall Street firms bundled thousands of mortgage loans into securities so they could be sold quickly, efficiently and lucratively to legions of investors, slipshod practices took hold among lenders and their representatives, former employees of these operations say.
 
Banks routinely failed to record each link in the chain of documents that demonstrate ownership of a note and a property, according to court documents, analysts and interviews. When problems arose, executives and managers at lenders and loan servicers sometimes patched such holes by issuing affidavits meant to prove control of a mortgage.
 
In Broward County, Fla., alone, more than 1,700 affidavits were filed in the last two years attesting to lost notes, according to Legalprise, a legal services company that tracks foreclosure data.
 
When many mortgage loans went bad in the last few years, lenders outsourced crucial tasks like verifying the amount a borrower owed or determining which institution had a right to foreclose.
 
Now investors who bought mortgage trusts — investment vehicles composed of mortgages — are wondering if the loans inside them were recorded properly. If not, tax advantages of the trusts could be wiped out, leaving mortgage securities investors with significant tax bills.
 
For years, lenders bringing foreclosure cases commonly did not have to demonstrate proof of ownership of the note. Consumer advocates and consumer lawyers have complained about the practice, to little avail.
 
But a decision in October 2007 by Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the Federal District Court in northern Ohio to toss out 14 foreclosure cases put lenders on notice. Judge Boyko ruled that the entities trying to seize properties had not proved that they actually owned the notes, and he blasted the banks for worrying “less about jurisdictional requirements and more about maximizing returns.”
 
He also said that lenders “seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance.” Now that their practices were “put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the court to stop them at the gate,” the judge ruled.
 
Yet aside from the actions of a few random judges, little was done to force lenders to change their practices or slow things down. Since March 2009, more than 300,000 property owners a month have received foreclosure notices or lost their home in a foreclosure, according to RealtyTrac, which tracks foreclosure listings.
 
What finally prompted a re-examination of the foreclosure wave was the disclosure in court documents over the last several months of so-called robo-signers, employees like Ms. Samons of the Stern law firm in Florida who signed affidavits so quickly that they could not possibly have verified the information in the document under review.
 
Lenders and their representatives have sought to minimize the significance of robo-signing and, while acknowledging legal lapses in how they documented loans, have argued that foreclosures should proceed anyway. After all, the lenders say, the homeowners owe the money.
 
People who have worked at loan servicers for many years, who requested anonymity to protect their jobs, said robo-signing and other questionable foreclosure practices emanated from one goal: to increase efficiency and therefore profits. That rush, they say, allowed for the shoddy documentation that is expected to become evidence for homeowners in the coming court battles.
 
For example, years ago when banks made loans, they typically stored promissory notes in their vaults.
 
But the advent of securitization, in which loans are bundled and sold to investors, required that loan documents move quickly from one purchaser to another. Big banks servicing these loans began in 2002 to automate their systems, according to a former executive for a top servicer who requested anonymity because of a confidentiality agreement.
 
First to go was the use of actual people to determine who should be liable to a foreclosure action. They were replaced by computers that identified delinquent borrowers and automatically sent them letters saying they were in default. Inexperienced clerical workers often entered incorrect mortgage information into the computer programs, the former executive said, and borrowers rarely caught the errors.
 
Other record-keeping problems that are likely to become fodder for court battles involve endorsements, a process that occurs when notes are transferred and validated with a stamp to identify the institution that bought it. Eager to cut costs, most institutions left the notes blank, with no endorsements at all.
 
Problems are also likely to arise in court involving whether those who signed documents required in foreclosures actually had the authority to do so — or if the documents themselves are even authentic.
 
For example, Frederick B. Tygart, a circuit court judge overseeing a foreclosure case in Duval County, Fla., recently ruled that agents representing Deutsche Bank relied on documents that “must have been counterfeited.” He stopped the foreclosure. Deutsche Bank had no comment on Wednesday.
 
Cynthia Veintemillas, the lawyer representing the borrower in the case, Patrick Jeffs, said the paperwork surrounding her client’s foreclosure was riddled with problems.
 
“Everybody knows the banks screwed up and loaned out money to people who couldn’t pay it back,” she said. “Why are people surprised that they don’t know what they are doing here either?”
 
Meanwhile, another judge on Wednesday indicated that the courts would not simply sign off on the banks’ documentation. Jonathan Lippman, the chief judge of New York’s courts, ordered lawyers to verify the validity of all foreclosure paperwork.
 
“We cannot allow the courts in New York State to stand by idly and be party to what we now know is a deeply flawed process, especially when that process involves basic human needs — such as a family home — during this period of economic crisis,” Judge Lippman said in a statement.
 
For more: http://nyti.ms/clFAba
 

 Mortgage Mess May Cost Big Banks Billions

 
“I don’t see how it can be cleared up in a short period of time,” said Richard X. Bove, an analyst with Rochdale Securities. “The moratorium won’t last that long but the problem will last at least four or five years, maybe a decade.” In the short term, he said, “it could easily cost $1.5 billion per quarter.” 
 
After scratching their heads for weeks over how much the foreclosure mess will hurt banks’ bottom lines, investors got out their calculators Thursday to tally the potential costs — and sent bank stocks plunging.
 
Analyst estimates of the possible toll varied widely, but the fear was evident in the stock market. The share price of Bank of America fell 5.2 percent, while shares of JPMorgan Chase sank almost 2.8 percent.
 
“The market never likes uncertainty, and it seems like every day we’re adding to the list of things we need to worry about with the financials,” said Jason Goldberg, an analyst with Barclays Capital. “The industry needs to work quickly to put this issue behind them.”
 
Wall Street initially hoped the banks would do just that but as the political furor grew, a quick end to the crisis was looking less and less likely. On Wednesday, 50 state attorneys general announced they were investigating the practices of the mortgage servicing industry, while Florida’s attorney general subpoenaed the nation’s largest mortgage processor, L.P.S., as part of a broader investigation.
 
In some cases, officials at mortgage servicers signed hundreds of documents a day with barely a chance to review them — the so-called robo-signers — while doubts have arisen about the veracity of the original documents compiled as part of the foreclosure process.
 
“I don’t see how it can be cleared up in a short period of time,” said Richard X. Bove, an analyst with Rochdale Securities. “The moratorium won’t last that long but the problem will last at least four or five years, maybe a decade.” In the short term, he said, “it could easily cost $1.5 billion per quarter.”
 
Meanwhile, the foreclosure machinery in many states has ground to a halt. Major institutions like Bank of America, JPMorgan and GMAC Mortgage have halted foreclosures in many states, and have not said when they would resume. As a result, foreclosed homes will remain on the bank’s books while racking up thousands of dollars a month in extra costs.
 
Until Thursday, Wall Street regarded the foreclosure issue as a risk to the banks’ reputations, rather than their bottom lines. Indeed, some analysts insisted it was unlikely that wide-scale abuses would be found.
 
“It’s inexcusable that the banks didn’t staff up to meet the surge in foreclosures,” said Christopher Kotowski, an analyst with Oppenheimer. “On the other hand, we need to look at whether they are filing foreclosures on a massive basis against people who are not delinquent. So far, I haven’t seen any evidence that they are.”
 
Inside the investment houses, several traders said nerves were frazzled further by worries that banks could face much bigger mortgage related losses, not from foreclosures, but because of questions about how the money was lent in the first place. If it turns out that mortgages were bundled together and sold improperly, more holders could sue the banks and force them to buy back tens of billions in mortgage-backed securities.
 
An alarming report on Bank of America, compiled by Branch Hill Capital, a San Francisco hedge fund, circulated widely on Wall Street on Thursday. Branch Hill suggested that the bank, the nation’s largest, could be facing more than $70 billion in losses from mortgage securities that it may have to repurchase from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as private investors.
 
“We think this is a very important issue, and the liability will be substantial,” said Manal Mehta, a partner at Branch Hill. “There has been pervasive bad behavior throughout the system.” The fund is betting that Bank of America shares could decline because of the potential liability.
 
Bank of America declined to comment Thursday. But the company’s chief executive, Brian T. Moynihan, said last month at an investor conference that adequate reserves had been taken to protect against any losses that could materialize if it was forced to repurchase mortgage securities. “This will be manageable over time, but it has cost us a lot of money so I’m not making light of it,” he said. “We’ll continue to manage it.”
 
On Wednesday, JPMorgan said it had added $1 billion to its reserves to cover faulty home loans that it was obligated to repurchase from Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and private insurers. It has set aside a total of $3 billion for potential repurchases.
 
Even if the larger losses envisioned by Mr. Mehta do not materialize, the foreclosure issue remains a worry. In a report, Paul Miller, an analyst with FBR Capital Markets, forecast that the controversy would cost the banking industry $6 billion to $10 billion. He estimated that each month’s delay cost the banks $1,000 per home loan, so if there was a three-month delay on the roughly two million homes currently in foreclosure, that translated into a $6 billion hit.
 
In addition to the losses directly caused by the delay, Mr. Miller foresees additional charges totaling $3 billion to $4 billion to cover lawsuits stemming from faulty foreclosure procedures.
 
For now, bank executives are not making any predictions how long the foreclosure halt will last.
 
“If you’re talking about three or four weeks it will be a blip in the housing market,” said Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, in a conference call on Wednesday. “If it went on for a long period of time, it will have a lot of consequences, most of which will be adverse on everybody.”
 
For more: http://nyti.ms/diFs2w

 See How Responsible Tax Payers Get Another Door SLAMMED In Their Face

 
Here is some food for thought.
 
There has been a lot of focus on borrowers are behind on payments and those who are facing foreclosure. But what about the responsible borrower who are being responsible living up to their financial obligations?
 
The credit scoring machine has really kicked into high gear and lenders are actually relying on credit scores like never before. 
 
With all of the "Re-Focus" and "tightening up" of lender’s qualifying standards, this has literally slammed the door shut on millions of borrowers who are current on their home loans.
 
Many borrowers who are current have been affected by this screwed up economy. Just imagine all of the variables affecting credit scores. 
 
Combine these variables with lenders having raised the bar (your credit score) to perhaps the highest since they have been lending, and you will see exactly what this involves.
 
Another Door SLAMMED in the face of responsible tax payers struggling to do the right thing.
 
Right now, the interest rates are the lowest on record. 30 year fixed rates at 4% and this is just the ballpark.
 
But what good is it, if you can not qualify for a re-finance, or a purchase?
 
Interesting food for thought.

What Do You Think?
 
 
Please Share Your Comments
 

 

 Harry and Mike:

 
Here is some additional foreclosure information.
 
Bill
 
Subject: U.S. Bank v. Ibanez – AMICUS BRIEF EXPOSES FORECLOSURE FRAUD
 
Dear Friends & Family,
 
I have just filed an Amicus Brief on Friday, October 1, 2010 with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the landmark cases that are presently on appeal from the Massachusetts Land Court styled:  U.S. Bank v. Ibanez and its companion case, Wells Fargo Bank v. LaRace. 
 
My brief reveals groundbreaking evidence that Antonio Ibanez’s loan was most likely securitized twice – a hidden fact unknown until now. 
 
Moreover, the Assignment of Mortgage allegedly conveying the Ibanez loan to U.S. Bank, executed by “robo-signer” Linda Green, violated the Pooling and Servicing Agreement and other Trust documents. 
 
Finally I expose the fact that U.S. Bank, who bought the Ibanez property at foreclosure for $94,350, sold it on December 15, 2008 for $0.00.  That’s right, they foreclosed on Ibanez’s property so that they could give it away!
 
With respect to Mark and Tammy LaRace, I am happy to report that through the efforts of Attorney Glenn F. Russell, Jr. and myself, the LaRaces moved back into their home in January of this year, two and a half years post-foreclosure! 
 
My Amicus Brief reveals that Wells Fargo Bank’s own documents prove that they did not have the authority to foreclose on the LaRaces.  Therefore, the Assignment of Mortgage, Power of Attorney, Affidavit, and Foreclosure Deed executed by “robo-signer” Cindi Ellis were all unauthorized.
 
Wells Fargo Bank’s recent statement that it does not have the same “document” problem that GMAC, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America have admitted to is simply not true.  I have audited many, many foreclosure files where Wells Fargo Bank employees and their agents have manufactured false documents to prosecute wrongful foreclosures such as in the LaRaces’ case.
 
Share Your Comments

 

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

 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
 
 Page 3 of 4 « 1  2  3  4 »