Homeowners Justice Blog

Wells Fargo admits deception in $1.2 billion U.S. mortgage accord

2016-04-17T09:18:00.004-07:00

Posted on April 17, 2016 by GrayRider

Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N) admitted to deceiving the U.S. government into insuring thousands of risky mortgages, as it formally reached a record $1.2 billion settlement of a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit.

The settlement with Wells Fargo, the largest U.S. mortgage lender and third-largest U.S. bank by assets, was filed on Friday in Manhattan federal court. It also resolves claims against Kurt Lofrano, a former Wells Fargo vice president.

According to the settlement, Wells Fargo “admits, acknowledges, and accepts responsibility” for having from 2001 to 2008 falsely certified that many of its home loans qualified for Federal Housing Administration insurance. MORE

Arkansas homeowner wins verdict for damages caused by vibrations from nearby oil drilling operations

2016-02-07T05:05:00.000-08:00

From: Haygood, Orr & Pearson

Posted October 25, 2014
by John Chapman

Ruby Hiser filed a lawsuit against XTO Energy Inc. in Arkansas. Ms. Hiser had lived in her home for six years before XTO began drilling operations nearby. XTO began drilling a gas well on property adjacent to Ms. Hiser’s home in February 2009. According to Ms. Hiser, it was around this time that she started feeling vibrations. Ms. Hiser testified at trial that she feels the vibrations and hears her house “crackle” when XTO’s drill is in use. She testified that people who stayed the night in her home also felt the vibrations. Several witnesses also testified at trial they had felt the vibrations when visiting Ms. Hiser’s property.

Justin Hall, a licensed professional engineer, examined Ms. Hiser’s home on June 5, 2009. Mr. Hall testified that he could hear the nearby drilling during his inspection of Ms. Hiser’s home. Based on his experience, the inspection, and the proximity of the drilling equipment to Ms. Hiser’s home, approximately 150 feet at the time, Mr. Hall concluded that XTO’s drilling was the source of the vibrations. Mr. Hall opined that the damage to Ms. Hiser’s home is consistent with vibrations from drilling, not the result of poor construction. MORE

Posted October 25, 2014
by John Chapman

The federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a landowner who alleged her home was damages by vibrations from drilling operations. The judgment in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed in Hiser v. XTO Energy. Inc., No. 13–3443 (8th Cir. Oct. 3, 2014).
Ruby Hiser filed a lawsuit against XTO Energy Inc. in Arkansas. Ms. Hiser had lived in her home for six years before XTO began drilling operations nearby. XTO began drilling a gas well on property adjacent to Ms. Hiser’s home in February 2009. According to Ms. Hiser, it was around this time that she started feeling vibrations. Ms. Hiser testified at trial that she feels the vibrations and hears her house “crackle” when XTO’s drill is in use. She testified that people who stayed the night in her home also felt the vibrations. Several witnesses also testified at trial they had felt the vibrations when visiting Ms. Hiser’s property
Justin Hall, a licensed professional engineer, examined Ms. Hiser’s home on June 5, 2009. Mr. Hall testified that he could hear the nearby drilling during his inspection of Ms. Hiser’s home. Based on his experience, the inspection, and the proximity of the drilling equipment to Ms. Hiser’s home, approximately 150 feet at the time, Mr. Hall concluded that XTO’s drilling was the source of the vibrations. Mr. Hall opined that the damage to Ms. Hiser’s home is consistent with vibrations from drilling, not the result of poor construction.
Mr. Hall conducted a second inspection in January of 2011. He observed that the drilling area had moved closer to Ms. Hiser’s home. Mr. Hall noted, among other things, excessive shifting of the foundation and numerous nail pops in the sheetrock uncharacteristic of normal foundation settlement. Mr. Hall again attributed the damage to nearby drilling and vibration.
At trial, Ms. Hiser testified that she spent approximately $30,000 repairing her home. Mr. Hall testified that, based on his examination of Ms. Hiser’s home, it would cost $55,000 to repair the damage. Ms. Hiser also testified that she was not able to enjoy her house the same way she did before XTO started drilling and that she experienced noise on and off for approximately two years.
There was also evidence at trial that Ms. Hiser complained early and often about XTO’s drilling. She first complained in February 2009, shortly after XTO began drilling its first well on her neighbor’s property. XTO drilled six gas wells on Ms. Hiser’s neighbor’s property between February 2009 and August 2011. Despite Ms. Hiser’s insistence that the drilling was causing damage to her home, XTO never had a construction expert examine Ms. Hiser’s property. Instead, it relied on the assessment of Jay Jones, one of its landmen. XTO did not offer to test for vibrations until after Ms. Hiser filed her lawsuit and after substantial damage had been done to her home.
The trial resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on Ms. Hiser’s claims of negligence, private nuisance, and trespass under Arkansas state law. The jury awarded Ms. Hiser $100,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages.
XTO appealed the verdict to the Eighth Circuit. On appeal, XTO argued that a new trial was warranted because of evidence the trial had discussed fracking during deliberations but no evidence regarding fracking had been presented at trial.
- See more at: https://www.hop-law.com/arkansas-homeowner-wins-verdict-for-damages-caused-by-vibrations-from-nearby-oil-drilling-operations/#sthash.5yt9iGuC.dpuf

SEC charges former Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac executives with fraud

2015-10-20T17:22:00.002-07:00

From: Washington Post

By David S. Hilzenrath and Zachary A. Goldfarb December 16, 2011 Follow @Goldfarb

The SEC charged six former executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with securities fraud Friday, saying they misled the public about the companies’ exposure to subprime loans during the mortgage meltdown.

The executives charged in the civil suits include Daniel H. Mudd, former chief executive of Fannie Mae, and Richard F. Syron, who was chairman and chief executive at Freddie Mac.

The executives are among the most prominent individuals the Securities and Exchange Commission has accused of wrongdoing related to the financial crisis, and the legal action comes at a time when the SEC and the Justice Department are facing criticism for not doing more to hold executives accountable. MORE

Yuba jury awards homeowner $16 million in mortgage case

2014-07-19T10:21:00.002-07:00

By Dale Kasler dkasler @sacbee.com
Published: Friday, Jul. 18, 2014 - 2:43 pm

It started out as a simple loan modification for a troubled homeowner. It turned into a $16.2 million jury verdict against a nationwide loan-servicing company.

A Yuba Superior Court jury this week awarded $16.2 million in damages to a homeowner who nearly lost his home to foreclosure after the loan servicer botched his mortgage modification, the homeowner’s lawyers said Friday.

Phillip Linza, a homeowner in Plumas Lake, was awarded the damages after a three-year battle against PHH Mortgage Services, a loan servicer based in Mount Laurel, N.J.

Linza’s attorneys, Andre Chernay and Jon Oldenburg of the United Law Center in Roseville, said the award included $514,000 in compensatory damages and $15.7 million in punitive damages.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/18/6566661/yuba-jury-awards-16-million-in.html#storylink=cpy

Secret Inside BofA Office of CEO Stymied Needy Homeowners

2014-05-07T04:36:00.000-07:00

From: Bloomberg

REQUEST FROM A READER - We are trying to get the world's attention about the fraud. This article details some of it. We would like to share it with Bank of America's customers. Are you on facebook? If you would like to help please copy/paste onto Bank of America's facebook page on Monday, May 12. You cannot 'post' but you can 'comment'. Pick any of their posts and add attached link as a comment. Masses of people posting will get their attention and more people will understand what is happening to this country.

We are announcing this via email so the posts on Monday, 12th will be a surprise.

Please share with friends.

Many thanks,

Susan...and the million plus victims

by Hugh Son

Photographer: Phelan M. Ebenhack/Bloomberg

Isabel Santamaria, top right, her husband Abdiel Echeverria, top left, daughter Rebecca, 13, lower left, son... Read More

Isabel Santamaria thought she finally caught a break in her effort to save her Florida home from foreclosure after nine frustrating months: She reached Bank of America Corp.’s Office of the CEO and President.

What the mother of two autistic children didn’t know is that her case would find its way to contractors, including Urban Lending Solutions in Broomfield, Colorado, far from the bank’s headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. Bank of America hired the firm founded by Chuck Sanders, a former Pittsburgh Steelers running back, to clear a backlog of complaints about a federal program designed to prevent foreclosures.

“It felt like a big deal, reaching the CEO’s office,” Santamaria, 43, said of having her June 2010 call escalated to what she was told was the bank’s top level. “It only happened because I complained to my congressman, the attorney general, television stations. They only put you there if you make a big stink, but once you’re there, they still don’t help you.” MORE

Two Cent Foreclosure

2014-03-27T17:58:00.002-07:00

From: 7News - WSVN

Reported by Carmel Cafiero, Investigative Reporter - email

Produced by Danny Cohen, Special Projects Producer - email

WSVN-TV - 7NEWS Miami Ft. Lauderdale News, Weather, Deco

It's no secret that there have been a lot of abuses in the huge number of foreclosures filed in recent years, but can you imagine a foreclosure over two cents? Hard to believe, but Carmel Cafiero is on just such a case.

WSVN -- This Lighthouse Point condo has been home to Gloria Jacques for eight years, but for the last two of those years, the 80-year-old has been in fear of losing her home to foreclosure despite never having missed a mortgage payment.

Her attorney says Bank of America filed for foreclosure over two payments that were each one penny short, payments that the bank deducted from her account.

Tom Murphy: "Well, Bank of America shortchanged the payment that they were making to themselves for her mortgage."

Carmel Cafiero: "So it was a bill pay type thing?"

How a Bad-ass California Mayor is Taking on Big Banks

2014-03-07T03:44:00.003-08:00

From: Alternet

by Ellen Brown

Mayor Gayle McLaughlin is using eminent domain to help homeowners and challenge Too Big to Fail.

March 3, 2014 | In a nearly $13 billion settlement with the US Justice Department in November 2013, JPMorgan Chase admitted that it, along with every other large US bank, had engaged in mortgage fraud as a routine business practice, sowing the seeds of the mortgage meltdown. JPMorgan and other megabanks have now been caught in over a dozen major frauds, including LIBOR-rigging and bid-rigging; yet no prominent banker has gone to jail. Meanwhile, nearly a quarter of all mortgages nationally remain underwater (meaning the balance owed exceeds the current value of the home), sapping homeowners’ budgets, the housing market and the economy. Since the banks, the courts and the federal government have failed to give adequate relief to homeowners, some cities are taking matters into their own hands.

Gayle McLaughlin, the bold mayor of Richmond, California, has gone where no woman dared go before, threatening to take underwater mortgages by eminent domain from Wall Street banks and renegotiate them on behalf of beleaguered homeowners. A member of the Green Party, which takes no corporate campaign money, she proved her mettle standing up to Chevron, which dominates the Richmond landscape. But the banks have signaled that if Richmond or another city tries the eminent domain gambit, they will rush to court seeking an injunction. Their grounds: an unconstitutional taking of private property and breach of contract.

How to refute those charges? There is a way; but to understand it, you first need to grasp the massive fraud perpetrated on homeowners. It is how you were duped into paying more than your house was worth; why you should not just turn in your keys or short-sell your underwater property away; why you should urge Congress not to legalize the MERS scheme; and why you should insist that your local government help you acquire title to your home at a fair price if the banks won’t. That is exactly what Richmond and other city councils are attempting to do through the tool of eminent domain. MORE

Bradburn v. Bank of America N.A., ReconTrust, et al. Court Order Declaring Bank of America's Foreclosure Sale to be Void and Setting it Aside

2014-02-16T17:37:00.000-08:00

From: US Supra Business Advisor

2/11/2014 by Barry Fagan

Superior Court judge George Bowden ruled that Bank of America's actions had been "unfair and deceptive" and voided the foreclosure.

Judge George N. Bowden of the Superior Court in Washington State ruled against Bank of America (BoA) in a foreclosure battle that ended with the nonjudicial foreclosure sale under the Deed of Trust Act (DTA). Bowden acknowledged that this case was like most; “convoluted in the minefield” that is the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) system. Bradburn, the homeowner, was told by BoA “that he should stop making his mortgage payments so that he could qualify for refinancing.”

BoA ensured that this homeowner was in default of the mortgage by promising to refinance; then initiated litigation against the homeowner to retrieve the property for failure by Bradburn to remain current on his payments.

Bowden pointed out that the DTA “seems to contemplate a borrower and a lender with an independent trustee having the power to foreclose on the deed of trust in the event of default by the borrower. The lender would normally hold the underlying note and be the beneficiary of it. Here matters have been complicated by the sale of the underlying note from HomeStar Lending to Countrywide, which was later acquired by [BoA].”

This is another major victory against the unethical and illegal foreclosures industry that has left millions of Americans homeless. It's also a strike against the widespread practice of having companies that have an incentive to foreclose act as the "trustee" on the home—in this case it was ReconTrust, which itself is a subsidiary of Bank of America. They're supposed to be neutral under state law.

MERS GETS ITS ASS KICKED IN CALIFORNIA COURT! NOT A BENEFICIARY!

2014-02-10T07:01:00.001-08:00

From: Justice League

MERS GETS ITS ASS KICKED IN CALIFORNIA COURT! NOT A BENEFICIARY!

First Page, others at link.

Download Case (PDF)

A Bankruptcy Nightmare – “This story is Just Crazy!”

2014-02-07T23:20:00.004-08:00

From: Deadly Clear

By Sydney Sullivan

Just when you think you've heard it all - and it just couldn't get any worse than the last case... Well, in all honesty the following shockingly sad story is true - but if you have high blood pressure or a weak stomach for incompetent attorneys, or judicial conspiracy - you may not want to read or listen to it right before you go to bed because it contains facts and rulings that some readers and lawmakers may find disturbing.

Let's start first with the disclaimer that not all attorneys or judges are created equal. And as Honolulu foreclosure defense attorney Gary Dubin puts it - "this story is just crazy" - it is morally bankrupt from top to bottom. This is a saga about a homeowner that was not in default, was sued in a falsified foreclosure action, the bank admitted it made mistakes, the homeowner retained attorneys that filed the homeowner in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy (liquidation) when she had no debt (apparently not the best move?) - (BTW the link to Bar Grievances in on the DC front page right hand sidebar) - and the judges in both the bankruptcy and circuit courts ignored the fraud filed in their courts and ruled against the homeowner.

Bank of NY Mellon must face lawsuit on Countrywide

2014-02-07T23:20:00.002-08:00

From: Reuters

By Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) - A federal judge rejected Bank of New York Mellon Corp's bid to dismiss a lawsuit by investors over its role as trustee for mortgage-backed securities that led to an $8.5 billion settlement by Bank of America Corp.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan said on Tuesday that bondholders who invested in 26 trusts alleged to have contained risky mortgage loans from the former Countrywide Financial Corp may pursue claims against Bank of New York Mellon. He dismissed a variety of other claims.

The decision relates to a lawsuit challenging Bank of New York Mellon's performance of its day-to-day obligations as a trustee, which includes ensuring that underlying home loans are properly documented and that bondholders' rights are protected.

Beth Kaswan, a lawyer for four pension funds in Chicago, Michigan and Pennsylvania that brought the case, said the decision leaves intact claims over securities backed by more than $30 billion of loans, and which have suffered more than $9 billion of losses or delinquencies.

She said she believes the decision is the first to let investors in mortgage-backed securities pursue claims against a trustee under the 1939 federal Trust Indenture Act.

"The decision is a watershed," Kaswan said.

Kevin Heine, a spokesman for Bank of New York Mellon, said the company was pleased that the court narrowed the issues to be considered and removed the vast majority of trusts from the suit. "We respectfully disagree with ruling's application of the Trust Indenture Act to non-indenture securitizations and will continue to defend against those claims," he said. MORE

Enough Is Enough: Fraud-ridden Banks Are Not California’s Only Option

2014-01-30T16:31:00.000-08:00

From: Global Research

By Ellen Brown

Global Research, January 30, 2014

Web of Debt

“Epic in scale, unprecedented in world history.” That is how William K. Black, professor of law and economics and former bank fraud investigator, describes the frauds in which JPMorgan Chase (JPM) has now been implicated. They involve more than a dozen felonies, including bid-rigging on municipal bond debt; colluding to rig interest rates on hundreds of trillions of dollars in mortgages, derivatives and other contracts; exposing investors to excessive risk; failing to disclose known risks, including those in the Bernie Madoff scandal; and engaging in multiple forms of mortgage fraud.
So why, asks Chicago Alderwoman Leslie Hairston, are we still doing business with them? She plans to introduce a city council ordinance deleting JPM from the city’s list of designated municipal depositories. As quoted in the January 14^th Chicago Sun-Times:

The bank has violated the city code by making admissions of dishonesty and deceit in the way they dealt with their investors in the mortgage securities and Bernie Madoff Ponzi scandals. . . . We use this code against city contractors and all the small companies, why wouldn’t we use this against one of the largest banks in the world?

A similar move has been recommended for the City of Los Angeles by L.A. City Councilman Gil Cedillo. But in a January 19th editorial titled “There’s No Profit in L A. Bashing JPMorgan Chase,” the L.A. Times editorial board warned against pulling the city’s money out of JPM and other mega-banks – even though the city attorney is suing them for allegedly causing an epidemic of foreclosures in minority neighborhoods.
“L.A. relies on these banks,” says The Times, “for long-term financing to build bridges and restore lakes, and for short-term financing to pay the bills.” The editorial noted that a similar proposal brought in the fall of 2011 by then-Councilman Richard Alarcon, backed by Occupy L.A., was abandoned because it would have resulted in termination fees and higher interest payments by the city.
It seems we must bow to our oppressors because we have no viable alternative – or do we? What if there is an alternative that would not only save the city money but would be a safer place to deposit its funds than in Wall Street banks?

The Tiny State That Broke Free

MORE

8th USCCA W. Mo. reinstated $6 million punitive damage arbitration award against servicer

2014-01-29T04:38:00.001-08:00

From: What Lies In Your Debt

8th USCCA W. Mo. reinstated $6 million punitive damage arbitration award against servicer (Stark v. Sandperg, Phoenix & von Gontard, et al.) -

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2366

___________

Stanley William Stark; Patricia *

Garnet Stark, *

Plaintiffs - Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, *

P.C.; Scott Greenberg; EMC Mortgage *

Corporation; SpvG Trustee, *

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 15, 2004

Filed: August 26, 2004

Texas jury rules against Ocwen

2014-01-29T04:34:00.002-08:00

From: South Florida Business Journal

by Jim Freer

A jury in Galveston, Texas, has awarded $11.5 million to a customer of Ocwen Financial Corp. and its former Ocwen Federal Bank subsidiary, after determining they committed fraud in servicing her home equity loan.

The verdict against West Palm Beach-based Ocwen Financial (NYSE: OCN) and Ocwen Federal was issued Tuesday in Texas's 212th District Court. The jury ordered the Ocwen companies to pay Sealy Davis $10 million in actual damages and about $1.5 million for mental anguish and economic damages.

Ocwen Financial had $1.3 billion in assets on Sept. 30, according to its Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

The jury found the Ocwen companies made fraudulent, deceptive and misleading representations to Davis after she missed a loan payment while hospitalized in 2003.

Documents filed in the civil suit assert Ocwen began demanding additional money to make up for the missed payment and then began foreclosure proceedings on Davis's home in Texas City, Texas.

Davis retained the home after filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection, court documents state. MORE

Jury gives woman $1.25M in lawsuit over mortgage

2014-01-29T04:32:00.003-08:00

From: Baltimore Business Journal

by Eli Segall, Staff

A Baltimore native who defaulted on a subprime loan has been awarded $1.25 million in damages from her lender, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. The case may lead to similar lawsuits nationwide, and also may help Baltimore City's suit against the bank, claiming it targeted minority neighborhoods with subprime loans, legal and banking experts say.

Kimberly L. Thomas was awarded $250,000 in damages and $1 million in punitive damages in Montgomery County Circuit Court July 31. A six-member jury convicted Wells Fargo of fraud, negligence and other charges for inflating Thomas' income and assets on her mortgage application, and locking her into a bigger loan than she had applied for -- one she couldn't afford.

Thomas, 41, said in an interview with the Baltimore Business Journal that her case "destroys the myth" that the subprime mortgage meltdown is fueled by homebuyers taking loans they can't handle.

"They make it seem like it's the person's fault," Thomas said from her Silver Spring townhouse. "But they don't know what's going on behind the scenes."

Brian Maul, her attorney, said Thomas' loan agent pushed through a bigger mortgage to reap a higher commission. Teri Schrettenbrunner, a Wells Fargo spokeswoman, said the bank followed "responsible lending practices" and will appeal the verdict. MORE

Quicken Loans on losing end of $3 million predatory lending verdict

2014-01-29T04:30:00.000-08:00

From: West Virginia Record

By Kyla Asbury

WHEELING – An Ohio County judge has ruled against Quicken Loans in a $3 million predatory lending case.

Circuit Court Judge Arthur M. Recht concluded an eight-day trial that spanned 17 months by awarding punitive damages, attorney fees and costs to mother and daughter Wheeling residents Lourie Jefferson and Monique Brown.

The award of more than $2.1 million in punitive damages, along with attorney fees and costs, brought the total verdict in the case against Quicken Loans to more than $3 million.

Jefferson and Brown also had previously reached a settlement for a confidential amount with the loan appraiser.

Bordas & Bordas attorneys were representing Jefferson and Brown in foreclosure proceedings initiated by Quicken Loans, their mortgage lender.

They alleged abusive and predatory conduct on Quicken Loans’ part and filed a 12-count complaint on behalf of Jefferson and Brown, detailing predatory lending practices against Quicken Loans and its appraiser in Ohio Circuit Court.

At the first phase of the trial, the Court ruled in favor of Jefferson and Brown on numerous counts. The court found the lending practices of Quicken Loans unconscionable, based in part on Quicken’s utilization of a highly inflated appraisal in making the loan.

The court also found that Quicken Loans defrauded the homeowners by misleading them into paying excessive loan origination fees; falsely promising to favorably refinance the loan in the near future; and concealing an enormous balloon payment from its own borrowers.

As a result, the court ruled the $144,800 loan that grew to $227,000 was unenforceable as a matter of law and would not have to be repaid and that Quicken Loans must return $17,000 in payments to Jefferson.

The second phase of the trial resulted in the punitive damage award and an order that Quicken Loans must pay Jefferson and Brown’s attorney fees and costs. MORE

Real / NTC Sees Fewer Differences Among Lenders / SLS Expands

2014-01-25T07:47:00.002-08:00

From: Inside Mortgage Finance

By Paul Muolo

pumuolo@imfpubs.com

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the Treasury Department’s point man on GSE reform, Michael Stegman, doesn’t think all that much about the huge profits Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been generating the past year. As IMFnews reported this week, Stegman noted that $86 billion of GSE profits were tied to “one-time” tax reversals and the recapture of loan loss reserves. Okay, fair enough. But then the question becomes: who at the GSEs (or at the Federal Housing Finance Agency) was responsible for telling the two to set aside so much money for loan losses and were those assumptions way off base? It’s not an unfair question – and maybe it’s time for the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee or Senate Banking Committee to press for an investigation into why Fannie and Freddie’s loan loss reserves were so high. Anyone familiar with the GSEs knows that when they bought non-agency securities most of the product was AAA rated. Also, some of the underlying loans had coverage from mortgage insurance firms. Well, guess what? The MIs made good on their policies. Might someone in government conclude that the two GSEs should never have been taken over in the first place, or is all this Monday morning quarterbacking? Will Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-TX, lead the charge of an investigation into potential government abuse? Will Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky? Don’t hold your breath…

Keep in mind that one of the plaintiff’s in the “takings” case against the government estimated that the GSEs were over-reserved by $109 billion…

Meanwhile, certain investors in Fannie/Freddie junior preferred shares are sitting on huge paper gains on their investments. Fairholme Capital Management, run by Bruce Berkowitz, is one of them. A few weeks ago there were scattered reports that FCM was unloading some of its holdings in the GSE, only to be followed by speculation that the investment firm was doubling down…

Adapt or die – that’s how mortgage firms have always survived light production years. Late this week we were hearing reports that two banks were in the process of rolling out first lien HELOCs as hybrid ARM products “as a way to circumvent” the qualified mortgage rule. We’re not sure what that means exactly, but look for additional coverage in the week ahead…

Fourth quarter earnings are rolling in. Thus far, most banks reporting have earned money on their mortgage operations – but a lot less than in earlier periods. However, some are actually losing money. Cardinal Financial Corp., Tysons Corner, VA, reported that its mortgage banking affiliate, George Mason Mortgage, had a net loss of $1.6 million in the fourth quarter. In the year ago quarter, it earned $3.7 million…

Also, competition for new production will be intense this year. John Hillman, CEO of Nationwide Title Clearing, noted recently that the new ability-to-repay will play a role as well. “The new rules are likely to regiment the industry, so there will be fewer differences between mortgages offered by different lenders, thereby intensifying the competition and making compliance of the utmost importance”…

MORE

History of Mortgage Assignment Fraud

2014-01-16T03:05:00.001-08:00

From: REI Maverick

by Phil Grove

Much has been made recently on the news about mortgage assignment fraud and the bank’s overall bad behavior during the housing crisis. The purpose of this article is to give you an understanding about why banks did what they did and how it constitutes mortgage assignment fraud.

Mortgage Assignment Fraud | Background

Mortgage Assignment Fraud

In the past ten years, thousands of residential mortgages were bundled together into securitized trusts, with banks selling shares off to Wall Street investors in a manner similar to selling shares of stock. Since banks were no longer holding onto their mortgages, their motivation was to create mortgages rather than to avoid creating ‘bad mortgages’ because these bad mortgages would be someone else’s problem.

These trusts were given a name, and the name of the trust detailed the bank involved and the year the trust was created. For example, a trust name may be ”XXX Home Loan Trust 2006 Bank.” The name indicates information about the particular trust such as the year it was created (2006). Each securitized trust had a Closing Date. The closing date is the date that the individual mortgages were put into the Trust by its custodian. The custodian must certify that each mortgage note is endorsed in blank and that the ownership of the note has been transferred. This proof is most often an Assignment of Mortgage.

Mortgage Assignment Fraud | The foreclosure problem

Once loans began defaulting, Trustees discovered that the laws regarding Mortgage Assignments varied significantly from state to state. One of the most significant issues was whether Mortgage Assignments could be back-dated or have retroactive effective dates. This issue arose because Trustees and their lawyers discovered in the foreclosure process that the Assignments could not actually be located, or that certain states did not allow blank Assignments. Since this issue hadn’t yet been resolved, the assignments were signed and notarized as if the

transfer took place many years after the actual transfer date.

Mortgage Assignment Fraud | The solution

To solve the dilemma of the missing Assignments, new Assignments were created and recorded, and most of these Assignments did not state the actual date that the Assignment took place. These new Assignments were prepared by specially selected law firms that specialized in providing mortgage default services to lenders. The new Assignments were prepared in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as “nominee” for the mortgage company.

Mortgage Assignment Fraud | The solution hitting the fan

The new Assignments were prepared to conceal the actual date that the property was acquired by the Trust. An examination of the Assignments filed showing the grantee as the Trust – such as our earlier example of “XXX Home Loan Trust 2006 Bank” – shows that most of these new Assignments were prepared and filed in 2008 and 2009. While the exact closing date can only be determined by looking at the trust documents, any Trust that includes the year in 2006 in its title most likely closed in 2006. These assignments showing dates 2-3 years later obviously didn’t add up. The reason is that if a Mortgage Assignment is dated, notarized, and filed in a year after the year set forth in the name of the grantee trust on the Assignment, it is actually an Assignment specially, and in many cases, fraudulently, made to facilitate foreclosures. In many cases, some of these new Assignments were created after the foreclosure process had been initiated. Hence, we have mortgage assignment fraud.

The mortgage industry was so concerned about this type of mortgage assignment fraud that in the Fall of 2010 it took the unbelievably ballsy step of trying to cram through Congress legislation that would have validated foreclosures by rubber stamping the questionable documentation behind securitized mortgages. Thankfullly, President Obama vetoed that legislation that would’ve allowed mortgage assignment fraud.

Duck Dynasty and the Secular Theocracy

2014-01-15T04:48:00.000-08:00

From: Independent Institute

by David Theroux

With A&E Network facing an avalanche of public protest and in just over one week of its decision to place family-patriarch Phil Robertson on “indefinite hiatus” from its megahit reality series Duck Dynasty, the network caved.

When the PC outrage industry went into high gear with an angry Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) demanding Robertson’s head regarding his comments on homosexuality in an article by Drew Magery in the January 2014 issue of GQ (the magazine commonly viewed as having branded the concept of “metrosexual”), A&E executives promptly suspended Robertson from the enormously popular, cable-TV program, and support for his suspension echoed throughout the conventional media with cries of his being “homophobic” and “antigay.”

In the article, when asked about his religious faith, Robertson noted that his own youthful debauchery was self-destructive and put his marriage on the rocks, and that these were reversed only by his conversion to Christianity. He added that he now considers sexual relations other than those between a man and woman in wedlock to be sinful. In so doing, Robertson did not support bans on homosexual advocacy or relations but instead paraphrased Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

In subsequent comments, he included himself as a “sexual sinner”:

A Requirement for Every Foreclosure Judge – Watch The Wolf of Wall Street

2014-01-15T04:32:00.002-08:00

From: Deadly Clear

Posted on January 14, 2014

By Sydney Sullivan

Without a doubt every foreclosure judge and any judge who has ruled in favor of the banks over duped homeowners should be required to watch The Wolf of Wall Street - not once but several times.

Every time the Courts consider ruling in favor of these decadent Wall Street creatures – they should be shoved into a room with a wide flat screen TV, handed a box of popcorn and ice cold Coca Cola and locked in there for 180 minutes – so they can see exactly what they are sustaining by ruling in favor of the banks.

The Wolf of Wall Street is based on the true story of Jordan Belfort, from his rise to a wealthy stockbroker living the high life to his fall involving crime, corruption and the federal government. Martin Scorcese’s The Wolf of Wall Street with Leonardo DiCaprio in the role of Jordan Belfort opened recently to critical and popular acclaim. MORE

Isn’t it a Bitch When They Lie…

2014-01-09T04:28:00.002-08:00

From: Deadly Clear

And then they get caught?! No sense of consequence.

Failing to be honest costs a lot of money… omitting the truth is just as bad as lying.

Government extracts $2 billion in fines from JPMorgan in Madoff case

By Danielle Douglas, Published: January 7 E-mail the writer

Years of high investment returns at Madoff Securities left bankers in the London office of JPMorgan Chase skeptical of the methods of company chief Bernard L. Madoff. While the bank reported its suspicions to British authorities in 2008, it never said a word to anyone in Washington, the Justice Department says.On Tuesday, Madoff’s primary banker agreed to pay federal prosecutors and regulators more than $2 billion to resolve criminal charges that it failed to alert the government about Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. [Read more HERE]

Connecticut parents say court-ordered expenses bankrupt them

2014-01-08T00:06:00.002-08:00

From: Love Fraud

by Donna Andersen

In an article for Washington Times Communities, Lovefraud reader Anne Stevenson writes that Connecticut parents allege they are being forced to hire court appointed vendors such as psychologists and guardians.
In 2013, a group of parents complained to the Legislature that these vendors were bankrupting them through their questionable billing practices. One guardian ad litem allegedly charged $40,000, but billing records indicated she spent very little time with the child she represented.
A task force established to assess Connecticut’s family courts disagreed with the parents and determined that an audit of the court’s books and contracts would be unnecessary.
Anne invites Lovefraud readers to comment on the article on the Washington Times website. More comments will mean more exposure for the article — and the problem.

CT task force spars with parents over billing fraud in family court, from The Washington Times Communities.

PROBLEMS IN MORTGAGE SERVICING FROM MODIFICATION TO FORECLOSURE

2014-01-06T20:56:00.001-08:00

From: [From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

Looong document

S. Hrg. 111-987

PROBLEMS IN MORTGAGE SERVICING FROM MODIFICATION TO
FORECLOSURE

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

EXAMINING PROBLEMS IN MORTGAGE SERVICING FROM MODIFICATION TO
FORECLOSURE AND THE IMPACT THESE PROBLEMS HAVE HAD ON U.S. HOMEOWNERS
AND THE HOUSING MARKET DURING THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN

----------

NOVEMBER 16 AND DECEMBER 1, 2010

----------

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs

S. Hrg. 111-987

PROBLEMS IN MORTGAGE SERVICING FROM MODIFICATION TO FORECLOSURE

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

EXAMINING PROBLEMS IN MORTGAGE SERVICING FROM MODIFICATION TO
FORECLOSURE AND THE IMPACT THESE PROBLEMS HAVE HAD ON U.S. HOMEOWNERS
AND THE HOUSING MARKET DURING THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN

__________

NOVEMBER 16 AND DECEMBER 1, 2010

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs

Available at: http: //www.fdsys.gov /

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-258 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JACK REED, Rhode Island ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey BOB CORKER, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JON TESTER, Montana MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado

McGinnis, Acting Staff Director
William D. Duhnke, Republican Staff Director and Counsel

Jonathan Miller, Professional Staff Member
Marc Jarsulic, Chief Economist
Beth Cooper, Professional Staff Member
William Fields, Legislative Assistant
Drew Colbert, Legislative Assistant

Mark Oesterle, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Jim Johnson, Republican Counsel
Jeff Wrase, Republican Chief Economist
Chad Davis, Republican Professional Staff Member

Erin Barry, Legislative Assistant

Dawn Ratliff, Chief Clerk
Levon Bagramian, Legislative Assistant and Hearing Clerk
Brett Hewitt, Legislative Assistant and Hearing Clerk
Shelvin Simmons, IT Director
Jim Crowell, Editor

C O N T E N T S

----------

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010

Page

Opening statement of Chairman Dodd............................... 1

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statement of:
Senator Shelby............................................... 5
Prepared Statement....................................... 50
Senator Akaka................................................ 51
Senator Brown................................................ 51

WITNESSES

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, State of Iowa................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Response to written questions of:
Senator Shelby........................................... 190
Senator Brown............................................ 194
Barbara J. Desoer, President, Bank of America Home Loans......... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Response to written questions of:
Chairman Dodd............................................ 195
Senator Shelby........................................... 197
Senator Brown............................................ 204
R.K. Arnold, President and Chief Executive Officer, Merscorp,
Inc............................................................ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Response to written questions of:
Chairman Dodd............................................ 208
Senator Shelby........................................... 209
Senator Brown............................................ 212
Adam J. Levitin, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown
University Law Center.......................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 102
Response to written questions of:
Senator Shelby........................................... 218
Senator Brown............................................ 221
David B. Lowman, Chief Executive Officer for Home Lending,
JPMorgan Chase................................................. 13
Prepared statement........................................... 121
Response to written questions of:
Chairman Dodd............................................ 224
Senator Shelby........................................... 225
Senator Brown............................................ 230
Diane E. Thompson, Counsel, National Consumer Law Center......... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 126
Response to written questions of:
Senator Shelby........................................... 235
Senator Brown............................................ 246

Additional Material Supplied for the Record

Letter from Gibbs & Bruns LLP to Countrywide Home Loans Servicing
regarding Pooling Service Agreements........................... 255
Letter from Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz regarding Gibbs &
Bruns LLP letter............................................... 270
Denver Post article, Foreclosure paperwork miscues piling, up,
November 14, 2010.............................................. 274

----------

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2010

Opening statement of Chairman Dodd............................... 277

Opening statements, comments, or prepared statement of:
Senator Shelby............................................... 280
Prepared statement....................................... 340
Senator Johnson
Prepared statement....................................... 340
Senator Menendez............................................. 280
Senator Akaka
Prepared statement....................................... 340
Senator Tester............................................... 281
Senator Bailey Hutchison
Prepared statement....................................... 341

WITNESSES

Phyllis Caldwell, Chief, Homeownership Preservation Office,
Department of the Treasury..................................... 283
Prepared statement........................................... 342
Sheila C. Bair, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.. 284
Prepared statement........................................... 352
Daniel K. Tarullo, Member, Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve
System......................................................... 286
Prepared statement........................................... 358
John Walsh, Acting Comptroller of the Currency, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency.................................... 288
Prepared statement........................................... 368
Response to written questions of:
Chairman Dodd............................................ 475
Senator Johnson.......................................... 476
Senator Brown............................................ 477
Senator Merkley.......................................... 481
Edward J. DeMarco, Acting Director, Federal Housing Finance
Agency......................................................... 289
Prepared statement........................................... 381
Response to written questions of:
Senator Johnson.......................................... 481
Terence Edwards, Executive Vice President, Credit Portfolio
Management, Fannie Mae......................................... 321
Prepared statement........................................... 386
Response to written questions of:
Senator Johnson.......................................... 483
Donald Bisenius, Executive Vice President, Single Family Credit
Guarantee Business, Freddie Mac................................ 323
Prepared statement........................................... 392
Tom Deutsch, Executive Director, American Securitization Forum... 324
Prepared statement........................................... 399
Kurt Eggert, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law.. 326
Prepared statement........................................... 451
Response to written questions of:
Senator Johnson.......................................... 487

Additional Material Supplied for the Record

Federal Housing Finance Agency Foreclosure Prevention & Refinance
Report, August 2010............................................ 500

PROBLEMS IN MORTGAGE SERVICING FROM MODIFICATION TO FORECLOSURE

----------

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2010

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 3:20 p.m., in room SD-538, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Christopher J. Dodd, Chairman of
the Committee, presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CHRISTOPHER J. DODD

Chairman Dodd. The Committee will come to order. Let me
first of all thank my colleagues and our witnesses for their
patience and indulgence. This is a gathering today with the
various caucuses meeting, unfortunately not at the same time,
so it has made this a little awkward to try and schedule, Tim,
the hearing. But you have all come a long way, my good friend
Tom Miller, the Attorney General from Iowa as well, so I wanted
to make sure we could have the hearing and yet accommodate the
interests of all Members of the Committee. So we moved it to
this time, Bob, and I am sure Senator Shelby will be here at
some point shortly, and the idea being that I guess the
Democratic caucus is sort of wrapping up, but there is a
Republican caucus which is going to start in about an hour.
Chairman Dodd. To which you are not invited.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Dodd. And so I am going to try, and what I would
like to do--and I have already asked the witnesses to do this.
I will make some brief opening comments. Senator Shelby
obviously will do so as well. And then we will turn to our
witnesses and ask them if they can to try and abbreviate their
comments even further so I can then accommodate--and I know
this is a bit awkward, but to accommodate our Republican
colleagues who are here, who still have an obligation to get to
that caucus, in which case our own Members as they come out of
the caucus will be showing up here. So it is a little different
than we would normally proceed, but I want to make sure we give
all Members a chance to be heard, and the witnesses who have
come a long way with prepared testimony are going to get a
good, healthy discussion.
I will also, at the appropriate time when we have a quorum,
ask the Committee to fulfill its obligation of voting on the
Diamond nomination to serve on the Federal Reserve Board. As my
colleagues will recall, at the recess period the nomination
under the law had to be--was sent back to the White House and
resubmitted, therefore requiring yet another vote by the
Committee, even though we have had a hearing and voted on the
Diamond nomination once before. And so when that time comes, I
will interrupt the hearing to perform that function, knowing
that a quorum could slip from time to time.
So with that in mind, I would like to begin, and I will
make my own opening comments, and then turn to Senator Shelby
or Senator Bennett, whoever is here, for any thoughts they may
have. And then we will turn to our witnesses. So I again thank
all for participating.
Richard, how are you? Good to see you.
The hearing today, as you are all aware, is on the problems
in mortgage servicing from modification to foreclosure.
Obviously, it has received a great deal of attention over the
last number of weeks in the media, and we thought it was
appropriate that even in this lame duck session we invite those
who have been involved in it, including our Attorneys General,
represented by Tom Miller, and others including the
institutions involved, to come and share their thoughts as to
where we are with this matter and give us an opportunity to
move forward. And, obviously, as I prepare to leave, Tim
Johnson, Richard Shelby, and other Members here will pick up
this issue. Evan Bayh will be traveling out the door with me,
and then they will be moving to analyze this issue and respond
accordingly.
I want to welcome again and thank our witnesses for
appearing today and for their testimony about the problems in
mortgage servicing from modification, as I said, to
foreclosure. As many of us know, or all of you know, we have
had numerous hearings on the problems of the mortgage industry.
In fact, the second hearing that I held as Chairman of this
Committee in the first week of February 2007 was on the
residential mortgage markets and the problems. During that year
of 2007, we had almost 80 different hearings on this subject
matter at one time or another, including informal gatherings in
this very room with some of the leading servicing companies in
the Nation to talk about what plans they had to minimize the
fallout from the mortgage crisis. So it is a subject matter
over the last 4 years that this Committee has spent a great
deal of time and attention on.
In addition to today's hearing, I intend to have another
hearing--and, again, I will consult with Senator Shelby about
timing to do this. We are only here for a couple of weeks. We
have got the break for Thanksgiving. But if we can, we want to
fit that hearing in to invite the regulators to come before us
as well to share with us their thoughts on the subject matter.
First let me explain what we mean by mortgage servicing.
When a homeowner takes out a mortgage, that loan is often
bundled with a pool of similar mortgages and sold in the
secondary market as a mortgage-backed security, commonly known
as MBSs. After the origination, all processing related to the
loan is managed by a mortgage servicing company. The four
largest banks--JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America,
and Citi--are also the largest mortgage servicers. Mortgage
servicers bill and collect monthly payments, operate customer
service centers, maintain records of payments and balances, and
distribute payments according to the terms of a trust.
Principal and interest are distributed to the investors of the
mortgage-backed securities through a trustee. Taxes and
insurance are paid to local governments and insurers--servicers
retain a servicing fee. That is a brief description of how this
is supposed to work.
It is the problems that have arisen with this process that
have led me to call the hearing today. It has not generally
been my habit to quote the Wall Street Journal editorials in my
Committee statements, but I thought the following from a column
last month captured perfectly the essence of the issues we will
examine today. The column is entitled ``A Foreclosure Sitcom.''
It starts by saying, ``First we learned America's biggest banks
could not properly lend.'' It goes on to say:

Then we learned they could not keep themselves solvent without
taxpayer assistance. Then we learned they could not effectively
work with troubled borrowers in a bursting housing bubble. And
now we have learned they do not even know how to foreclose.

``This is more than just a little paperwork problem,'' it
went on.

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray put it best: `This is
about the private property rights of homeowners facing
foreclosure and the integrity of our court system, which cannot
enter judgments based on fraudulent evidence.'

This editorial provides a sharp description, in my view, of
the situation in which millions of Americans find themselves
today, whether we are talking about a homeowner facing possible
eviction, an investor in an MBS, or simply an average American
family watching the value of their home drop as more and more
homes go into foreclosure around them.
I want to provide a bit more context, if I can, for today's
proceedings. In April of 2007, after holding a number of
hearings on predatory lending, as my colleagues will recall,
and the foreclosure crisis to which it would lead, I hosted a
meeting of large mortgage servicers in this very room,
including regulators, civil rights and consumer groups, and
others, to discuss ways that we could better prepare for the
wave of loan defaults and foreclosures many of us expected.
That summit that we held in this very room resulted in a
statement of principles to which all participants agreed on May
2nd of 2007.
Among the items to which the servicers agreed were the
following: early contact and evaluation, modification to create
long-term affordability, and providing dedicated teams or
resources to achieve the kind of scale many knew would be
necessary to face the coming tidal wave of foreclosures.
Unfortunately, rather than living up to these commitments,
many in the industry wasted a lot of time denying culpability
for the mortgage problems or arguing that the problems would
not be as severe as they turned out to be. As a result, we see
even today, more than 2 years later, a number of points:
servicers struggling to keep up with demand; numerous and
repeated cases of lost paperwork; serious allegations by
investors, including the New York Federal Reserve, and
advocates of self-dealing at some of the largest mortgage
servicers in the country and people needlessly losing their
homes, including, according to some press reports, people who
have no mortgages on their homes at all.
More than a month ago, the robo-signing scandal, of course,
hit the press. Many in the industry were too quick, in my view,
to call the problems technical alone and to insist that nobody
is losing a home to foreclosure without cause.
However, the focus of the robo-signing problem is too
limited, in my view. Many believe that the robo-signing errors
are simply the tip of a much larger iceberg, that they are
emblematic of much deeper problems at the mortgage servicing
business, problems that have resulted in homeowners, of course,
losing their homes and unjustifiable foreclosures. In fact,
servicing practices may be putting homeowners at risk.
Even the industry now acknowledges that the current
mortgage servicing business model is broken and is simply not
equipped to deal with the current crisis. Many observers point
out that the interests of third-party mortgage servicers are
not aligned with the interests of either homeowners or
investors. So, for example, a permanent modification might
result in a homeowner keeping the family's home and the
investor being assured of a better return. But that same
modification could cause the servicer to lose money.
The upshot is that there could be extensive problems
throughout the servicing process that may have led to, in the
words of the Federal Reserve Board Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin,
and I quote her, ``a Pandora's box of predatory servicing
tactics.''
According to Governor Bloom Raskin, these tactics include
padding of fees, strategic misapplication of payments which can
sometimes cause the loan to be considered in default, what some
people call service-driven defaults, and the inappropriate
assessment of forced placed insurance, which is extremely
costly to the homeowner.
To her list let me add other issues that have arisen,
including failure to properly record transfer and ownership of
notes and/or mortgages, failure to maintain proper custody of
title, failure to properly administer the Home Affordable
Modification Program, failure to meet the requirements of the
foreclosure process, such as by the use of robo-signers, and
failure to establish or administer mortgage trusts in
accordance with applicable law or contractual agreements. This
hearing will explore these potential problems and their
implications.
In addition, the Congressional Oversight Panel has raised
concerns today that the failure of servicers and others to
correctly handle mortgages and mortgage documents could create
systemic risk for the financial system. Professor Levitin will
also discuss this in his testimony this afternoon.
This is a very important issue to explore, both here today
and with the regulators at our next hearing. In my view, we
created the Financial Stability Oversight Council to examine
exactly this kind of issue. The FSOC needs to really drill
down, in my view, and find out the scope of the problem and
determine the steps that may need to be taken to prevent
systemic problems from growing, if they conclude that there are
systemic implications, in fact.
Let me assure everyone here that I do not want this hearing
to be simply about casting blame. It is extremely important to
lay out the problems and challenges, and today's hearing is
designed to do exactly that. But I also hope we can work toward
solutions. As we do, we need to keep in mind that bad mortgage
servicing is far more than a technical issue. At the same time,
we must all acknowledge that not every delinquent borrower's
home ought to be saved or can be saved. In my view, we need to
strike a balance; we need more robust loan modifications,
including loan modifications that result in real principal
forgiveness that will finally help put an end to our housing
crisis.
At the same time, I hope we can agree that we should
expedite foreclosures that cannot be prevented. For example, a
significant portion of homes awaiting foreclosure are vacant
today in the country. There is no reason in the world to slow
down the process on these homes. We will need to work together
going forward if we hope to finally put an end to this housing
crisis, and I look forward to these witnesses' testimony and
the comments and questions raised by my colleagues.
We do have a quorum? Oh, good.
[Whereupon, at 3:33 p.m., the Committee proceed to other
business and reconvened at 3:44 p.m.]
Chairman Dodd. Richard, before you came in, what I said is
I know you have got a caucus to go to as well, so we are going
to do this a little differently. You make your opening
statement; they are going to make brief comments, our
witnesses.
Senator Shelby. OK.
Chairman Dodd. And then I am going to turn to my Republican
colleagues for questions so that you can get your questions in
before you have to go to the caucus.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

Senator Shelby. Thank you. You are charitable. We like you
as Chairman right now. We are going to miss you. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will go back to the subject
matter now. On October the sixth, I called for an investigation
into the growing controversy surrounding home foreclosures. At
this point, there appear to be a number of key issues--Senator
Dodd has raised a lot of them--that need to be examined very
thoroughly.
First, we need to determine the extent of the problem. It
appears that thousands of so-called robo-signers working on
behalf of banks to service loans signed foreclosure-related
court documents swearing that they had personal knowledge of
the facts of each foreclosure case. It now appears that few, if
any, of these people had such knowledge that they swore to.
Second, we need to determine whether the flaws in the
process led to improper results. In other words, were any
homeowners foreclosed upon when they should not have been? I
think that is a big issue.
Third, we need to examine the activities of the law firms
that work for the servicers. Many questions have been raised
regarding the conduct of these firms during their engagement in
foreclosure proceedings.
Fourth, what role did the GSEs and the larger
securitization market play in this debacle? Did their actions
contribute to the problem? Were Fannie and Freddie complicit in
any way?
Finally, we need to examine the role of the regulators
here. Where were they in this process? What were they supposed
to be doing, and what were they doing, and if not, why not? I
think these questions have got to be asked and answered.
And in order to determine the extent of the problem, we
need to speak with all of the major servicers. Unfortunately,
we only have a small subset present today. For example, Allied
Financial was the first major servicer to recognize that it had
problems with its process. That firm, among others, Mr.
Chairman, for some reason is not here today.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that many, if not all,
of the law firms under investigation were selected by the
housing GSEs. In order to best understand how and why these
firms were chosen, I believe we need to hear from Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. Unfortunately, they also did not make the
witness list today.
Perhaps the most complex facet of this examination involves
securitization. As highlighted in the Congressional Oversight
Panel's most recent report, the most severe potential fallout
from this will be found in the securitization market. According
to that report, this could have a devastating effect on our
broader financial system.

MUCH MORE

KaBoom!! Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Erobobo | NYSC – REMIC Fail, Plaintiff obtained the mortgage and note without an intervening assignment, in violation of the PSA to closed Trust

2014-01-05T22:11:00.000-08:00

From: Deadly Clear

by Deadly Clear

Reblogged from Justice League:

stopforeclosurefraud.com | January 2, 2014

Decided on April 29, 2013

Supreme Court, Kings County

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for ABFC 2006-OPT3 TRUST, ABFC ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OPT3, Plaintiff,

against

Rotimi Erobobo, THE CITY OF NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD, “JOHN DOE” AND “JANE DOE” said names being fictitious, it being the intention of Plaintiff to designate any and all occupants of the premises being foreclosed herein, Defendants.

June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards Were Fired After Revealing Widespread Foreclosure Fraud

2014-01-01T06:58:00.002-08:00

From: New Times News

By Stefan Kamph Thursday, Jun 21 2012

June Clarkson

went to Ernie's Bar-B-Q in Fort Lauderdale to have lunch with her supervisor, Bob Julian; and some coworkers. It was a Friday in May 2011, the end of a hectic workweek at the local economic crimes unit of the Office of the Attorney General.

Clarkson, a small, lively woman with glasses and blond hair, had left a private law firm to accept the sub-$60,000-a-year job. She relished the idea of being a public watchdog, of digging into the records of companies to catch them trying to cheat customer

"It was just right up my alley: people defrauding other people, companies defrauding the public. I thought it was the best thing that had ever fallen into my lap," Clarkson recalls.

She worked closely with colleague Theresa Edwards. Their typical assignments involved consumer fraud, but in 2010, they started getting calls from hard-up homeowners. Millions of families had faced foreclosure in the wake of the housing collapse; most had capitulated under the power of giant banks and simply surrendered their homes. But more and more, Clarkson was hearing from individuals who were fighting back.

These homeowners noticed mistakes in the documents that the banks were using as the basis to seize people's homes: strange signatures, missing information, notary seals with no signature, dates in the future. Skeptics began wondering whether these were in fact not innocent mistakes but symptoms of intentional and possibly systemic fraud. Clarkson and Edwards were some of the first public officials willing to listen to these accusations.

Clarkson noticed Julian's phone ringing during lunch but didn't pay much attention. They drove back to the downtown Fort Lauderdale office building they shared with several of the area's most powerful law firms.

Clarkson returned to her desk, reading through piles of documents. Recently she had been investigating Lender Processing Services (LPS), a company that, by some estimates, helped prepare paperwork for half the foreclosures in the country. Every time she found a red flag — a suspect signature, perhaps, or an intriguing memo — she went next door to Julian's office and showed him. But since lunch, he hadn't been acting normally, she thought. Clarkson came back a couple of times, and each time she announced a discovery, it seemed to pain Julian. Eventually he closed his door, but Clarkson knocked again. Julian just looked up at her. She thought he might be sick. "What's the matter?" she asked. "I'm doing a good job!"