The Foreclosure Fiasco and Wall Street’s Shrug

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
Obama backs foreclosure probe

source: Bloomberg


Obama Backs State Foreclosure Probe, Against Nationwide Freeze, Gibbs Says

President Barack Obama is throwing his support behind state attorneys general looking into filings of allegedly faulty home foreclosures while rejecting a nationwide freeze on home foreclosures because of potential “unintended consequences,” said a White House spokesman.

“We’re supportive of getting to the bottom of the process and insuring that these banks are following the legal process for making these decisions,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters. “There are a series of unintended consequences to a broader moratorium.”

Attorneys general in about 40 states are planning a joint investigation into potentially faulty foreclosures at the largest banks and mortgage firms, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter. The investigation may center on claims that employees at home lenders and loan servicers signed court documents without ensuring the information was accurate.

Bank of America Corp. halted foreclosures in all 50 states last week, while lenders including JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Ally Financial Inc. have stopped evictions in 23 states where courts supervise home seizures. They’re checking allegations that employees used unverified or false data to speed the process.

Officials in at least seven states have already announced probes into claims that employees at home lenders and loan servicers signed court documents without ensuring the information was accurate.

The Senate Banking Committee plans to hold a hearing Nov. 16 to investigate mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices, according to its website.

The remarks by Gibbs reinforce comments by White House senior adviser David Axelrod, who said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” program Oct. 10 that there are valid foreclosures that ought to proceed, and the White House is urging the industry to get the situation “unwound very, very quickly.”
 
source: New York Observer

"The first thing that needs to happen, I think, is to get these people out of their homes," a man wearing a bespoke blue-striped shirt, a Hermés tie patterned with elephants and Ferragamo loafers said recently. "Correct! I'll explain," the veteran member of a bank restructuring and advisory team said.

Amid evidence of sham documents and widespread paperwork gaffes, if not systemic fraud that increasingly looks like it may be terrifically deep, Bank of America recently halted all foreclosure proceedings around the country. That followed similar announcements from the home-loan giants JPMorgan Chase and GMAC.

But Wall Street does not sympathize. "You had people putting zero down to get massive houses they couldn't afford to be in," he said Monday morning, "but now they want to stay. And the government wants to let them stay, because they're voters." A few hours later, the Goldman Sachs arm Litton Loan Servicing said it had suspended certain foreclosure proceedings, too. "Talk about a financial scandal," a Wall Street Journal editorial this weekend joked. "A consumer borrows money to buy a house, doesn't make the mortgage payments and then loses the house in foreclosure—only to learn that the wrong guy at the bank signed the foreclosure paperwork. Can you imagine?"

"The problem is they don't deserve to be in that place. They probably deserve to be there less than they used to," the source continued, referring to incomes lower now than they'd been when the loans were made in the first place. "You do need to foreclose, and you need to go back to people living in houses that are consistent with their income levels."

In order to understand Wall Street's shrug during this foreclosure crisis, which as many as 40 attorneys general are expected to announce an investigation into this week, the key is to appreciate just how deeply connected the gesture is to Wall Street's view of who's to blame for the financial crisis.

The feeling, the idea at the bottom of all the others, is that even if Wall Street aggravated the crisis by bundling and betting on mortgage-backed securities that turned out not to live up to high ratings, it was not a matter of, as Citi chairman Richard D. Parsons told The Observer this summer, "bad people trying to do bad things." The loans wouldn't have been there in the first place if American home buyers, driven by what The Weekly Standard calls immediate gratification without personal responsibility, hadn't overstepped their bounds.

So when Ken Bentsen, the executive vice president for public policy and advocacy at Wall Street's largest trade group, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, talks about this foreclosure fraud crisis, he points out that the homeowners arguing about administrative problems are the ones who've gotten themselves tied up in the foreclosure route in the first place, regrettably. "No one has raised the question that anyone who's going through this process shouldn't have been in the foreclosure process," said Mr. Bentsen, who, as a congressman from Texas, helped write the Sarbanes-Oxley and Gramm-Leach-Bliley acts.

"Look, I think it's just human nature. People want to have a bogeyman," Ralph Cioffi, the former Bear Stearns hedge fund manager, who was found not guilty of fraud, said in a recent Observer profile about anger at banks and bankers. "People don't want to take responsibility for their own actions."

"Again," said Mr. Bensten, "we're dealing with mortgages that are in default, which is, again, what we're dealing with here."

"WE'RE NOT AWARE of a single case so far of a substantive error," The Journal's editorial said. "Out of tens of thousands of potentially affected borrowers, we're still waiting for the first victim claiming that he was current on his mortgage when the bank seized the home." The fund manager Barry Ritholtz, who writes the blog The Big Picture, and Naked Capitalism's Yves Smith, whose chronicle of the foreclosure jumble has been encyclopedic, furious and convincing, would disagree. They've linked to stories in papers like the Sarasota Herald-Tribune and The South Florida Sun Sentinel about banks mistakenly taking over homes that hadn't been foreclosed on. Not only was Fort Lauderdale's Jason Grodensky not late on the payments on the house that Bank of American foreclosed on, but he didn't even have a mortgage.

"Thanks for the query," The Journal's editorial page editor said, responding to an interview request, "but I think I'll let the editorial speak for itself."

"If there was a preponderance of evidence, massive, or a large amount of misfiled, not misfiled, but incorrectly foreclosed actions on people that were not in default," Mr. Bensten, who said he hadn't seen those stories, explained, "that's something that should be looked at."

SLIDESHOW>>EIGHT HEAD-SHAKING HORROR STORIES FROM THE FORECLOSURE CRISIS

A former member of the Goldman Sachs management committee was not so sure. "Don't you think, out of 10 million data points, there will be 500 unbelievably screwy examples? It's a little bit so what," he said on Tuesday. "I don't get it. It doesn't feel like this is fraud. Maybe there is sloppiness, but at the end of the day, people took out mortgages they can't pay back. Now I worry that if anything, the government is making something that is just a clerical error into something that would be nefarious or whatever."

Officials like the House Committee on Financial Services' Alan Grayson have called for a nationwide foreclosure moratorium to investigate two levels of potential fraud. The first is what banks would call paperwork problems: In sworn depositions, a GMAC middle manager named Jeffrey Stephen testified that some months, he had to sign more than 10,000 foreclosure documents without looking at them, and without proper notarization.

But then there's the potential layer of fraud below those "robo-signed" documents, which goes back to the mortgages themselves. As Mr. Grayson wrote in a letter to the administration, not only is it unclear who owns cities of foreclosed houses, because of negligent record keeping, but many of the loans that now make up trillions of dollars of securities are in "a legal gray area."

"It seems a lot about it is, like, notaries," the Goldman source said. "I didn't know anyone even focused on what a notary did! It almost struck me as some kind of anachronism that must have had some value in the past—which I don't understand."

On Monday, Mr. Bentsen's SIFMA released a statement that warned that a moratorium would catastrophically hurt housing sales, and the economy. But wouldn't investors be nervous about investing in mortgages from here on out if the gray areas weren't looked into? The flip side of that, Mr. Bentsen said, is that you don't want to make those investors uncertain about their ability "to get at their capital if at any time the government can impose a moratorium."

Reuters' Felix Salmon pointed out that it was the association's own member banks that had voluntarily imposed the foreclosure halts. Mr. Bensten said that there was "no discrepancy," because a voluntary moratorium is much different than one imposed by the federal government.

As it happens, David Axelrod had told Meet the Press a day earlier that the White House does not support a big moratorium. "Because," he declared, "there are in fact valid foreclosures that probably should go forward."

ON TUESDAY, CITIGROUP announced it would stop providing foreclosure work to the huge Florida law firm run by David J. Stern, which the state attorney general has been investigating. In addition to a deposition from an ex-employee who described rampant fraud, Mr. Stern himself has been accused of sexual harassment, and is the target of a class-action case accusing him of racketeering. He is said to have a jet-propelled yacht called Misunderstood.

This year, Mr. Stern's foreclosure-processing business was essentially acquired by a New York investor named Kerry Propper. "I believe in efficient markets," Mr. Propper, who has spent his free time working on and funding an upcoming documentary on genocide, told The Observer this year. "An efficient market needs certain things, and the main thing, I've learned over many years, is a rule of law." Mr. Propper believes in systems. "If someone is borrowing money and they don't pay, and the bank decides it's all right," he said, "then the system will break, O.K?"

The fate of those borrowers is something Wall Street is going to be thinking about for a long time. "They were trying to ride a bubble. They were not just innocent victims," said Robert Shiller, the Yale economist who co-created the Case-Shiller housing price index, and who predicted the collapse in his book Irrational Exuberance. "But on the other hand ... they were lured into betting on a speculative bubble. And there were people who benefited from continuing that feeling—wealthy people making money."

"The question to me is not do you foreclose or do you not foreclose. The question is when and with what philosophy you foreclose," the man on the bank restructuring team said. "If you want to reduce the amount of leveraged homeowners you have, you need to ultimately kick them out of their homes." A colleague walked up: His recommendation was to burn houses. It would lower the supply
 
Jesus, I hate banks..they got their bailout, but don't give a fuck about the people. I hate them all.
 
At the heart of this matter is MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems)! It’s the biggest, littlest company you have never heard of before and in the thirteen years of its existence, it has utterly destroyed the real property ownership records system in every county in the United States. The MERS system was created to hide the ownership of the mortgages and hide the fact that they were being sold to multiple "investors." That's why nobody knows what the true obligation is because nobody knows how many investors own the same note. The only way to find out is stop payment and see who comes forward.

BGOL - FORECLOSURE is the ONLY Way the Banks Can Cover their Tracks, of their Underwriting FRAUD!

Brooklyn judge Arthur Schack is a Local Hero, Decision Casts Light On Fraudulent Mortgage Paperwork

Brooklyn State Supreme Court Judge Arthur Schack has done it again.

The self-described "little judge from Brooklyn" has dismissed another foreclosure case, this time in favor of an East New York homeowner who did not even have a lawyer.

Schack ruled Thursday that California's OneWest, the last of several banks that relied on an admitted "robo-signer" to transfer the $492,000 mortgage on Covan Drayton's Hemlock St. home among them, failed to prove it even owns the property in question.

"To prevent the waste of judicial resources, the instant foreclosure is dismissed without prejudice," Schack wrote.

His startling, 37-page decision is the latest of several that have turned him into a hero of troubled homeowners across the nation.

With 6 million homes nationwide in foreclosure or facing the imminent risk of foreclosure, the federal government's response has been shamefully slow.

Only 475,000 homes are in some form of permanent modification. The Obama administration has spent more effort bailing out a few big lenders than millions of little borrowers.


Shack's opinion, released by the courts Tuesday, is the most detailed picture yet of the shoddy or fraudulent mortgage paperwork too many of those lenders used.

This is not just a matter of minor technicalities, as the banks and their spin masters want us the believe - the same ones who told us the subprime crisis would blow over.

At the heart of the Drayton case is an Austin, Tex., robo-signer named Erica Johnson-Seck. In July, Johnson-Seck admitted in a Florida deposition in another case that she "executes 750 foreclosure documents a week; without a notary present; does not spend more than 30 seconds signing each document; [and] does not read the documents before signing them," Schack noted.

Johnson-Seck's signature appears repeatedly in documents connected to Drayton's mortgage, and in several other foreclosure cases Schack dismissed in the past three years.

At different times, she signed notarized documents assigning the loan, claiming to be a vice president of MERS (a private financial recording service for major banks), a vice president of INDYMAC, a vice president of Deutsche Bank and a vice president of OneWest.

She also claimed to have "signing authority" from several banking institutions, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Bank of New York and U.S. Bank, noting, "That's all I can think of off the top of my head."

In one particularly pointed exchange, Johnson-Seck admitted she was not employed by MERS and didn't know who its president was or the location of it headquarters.

As he has in previous cases involving her, Schack insisted that Johnson-Seck "must explain to the court ... her employment history for the past three years and why a conflict of interest does not exist" in her various titles.

Johnson-Seck did not respond to calls to her home and office in Austin for comment.

When asked during her deposition about Schack's repeated requests that she appear in his Brooklyn court and explain her employment history, Johnson-Seck claimed she'd gotten no notice.

"I wonder if he has the right address," she said. "Maybe that's what we should do, send Judge Schack the most recent [address], and I will gladly show up in his court and provide him everything he wants."

Until then, Schack said, case dismissed.
 
Obama should have made this issue the cornerstone of his admin instead he bailed out the banks and mortgage companies. Even if the bailouts were unavoidable he could have done more for the little guys.
 
Obama should have made this issue the cornerstone of his admin instead he bailed out the banks and mortgage companies. Even if the bailouts were unavoidable he could have done more for the little guys.


I thought he should have made jobs the issue cornerstone? Can't please anyone! Of course laissez-faire capitalism is not to blame.
 
I thought he should have made jobs the issue cornerstone? Can't please anyone! Of course laissez-faire capitalism is not to blame.

:smh: blame everything on Capitalism. Maaaan, this is blatant fraud. Let's all watch & see if Pres. Obama comes wit this Too Big To Fail BS. FinReg Put to the Test?

Eric Holder, where U at?

But this aint even a left vs. right issue. The issue is simply; the banks cannot produce the Note. M.E.R.S. was created to hide the ownership of the mortgages and hide the fact that they were being sold to multiple "investors." That's why nobody knows what the true obligation is because nobody knows how many investors own the same note.
 
:smh: blame everything on Capitalism. Maaaan, this is blatant fraud. Let's all watch & see if Pres. Obama comes wit this Too Big To Fail BS. FinReg Put to the Test?

Eric Holder, where U at?

But this aint even a left vs. right issue. The issue is simply; the banks cannot produce the Note. M.E.R.S. was created to hide the ownership of the mortgages and hide the fact that they were being sold to multiple "investors." That's why nobody knows what the true obligation is because nobody knows how many investors own the same note.

Man, I was about to come and straight choke this thread to death but you hit it on the head.

I dont think folks know how serious this shit is...The potential losses for the banks could spell instant death which is why they're trying to foreclose on as many people as possible before all of them damn skeletons fall out of the closet. Shit, one of my dudes who works for Wells Fargo Securities says that Bank of America is knee deep in some shit because of it and that its going to hurt them as well. Interesting times indeed.
 
:smh: blame everything on Capitalism. Maaaan, this is blatant fraud. Let's all watch & see if Pres. Obama comes wit this Too Big To Fail BS. FinReg Put to the Test?

Eric Holder, where U at?

But this aint even a left vs. right issue. The issue is simply; the banks cannot produce the Note. M.E.R.S. was created to hide the ownership of the mortgages and hide the fact that they were being sold to multiple "investors." That's why nobody knows what the true obligation is because nobody knows how many investors own the same note.


blame everything on Capitalism

You see what happens without regulation? Wasn't the repeal of Glass Steagall freeing up (freedom) business from government burdens?
 
:smh: blame everything on Capitalism. Maaaan, this is blatant fraud. Let's all watch & see if Pres. Obama comes wit this Too Big To Fail BS. FinReg Put to the Test?

"Too Big To Fail" is pure capitalism.

It is socializing the losses and privatizing the gains.

Obama is a pure CAPITALIST President, as all Presidents of the United States are.

The honkeys like to call him socialist (or any other "euphemism" they can imagine), but it is just a cover for racism.

The bank bailouts are purely capitalist actions because they are based on transferring property from society (the "public") through the state (the "government") to the bankers (private). The property concentrates and makes everyone else poorer.

If that's not capitalism, I don't know what is.
 
"Too Big To Fail" is pure capitalism.

TBTF is nothin but 'spin' & a clever marketing tool use by the Powers That Be to protect their wealth.

Obama is a pure CAPITALIST President, as all Presidents of the United States are.

I disagree, this Pres has nationalized the Housing, Auto, & Banking sectors. The 'free' market is tellin us that these institutions have no market value. Capitalism thrives when failure is allowed to take its course, Bush, Bernanke & Obama avoided 'free' market solutions.

The bank bailouts are purely capitalist actions because they are based on transferring property from society (the "public") through the state (the "government") to the bankers (private). The property concentrates and makes everyone else poorer.

I don't get it: What you're failing to mention is the contract between the buyer & seller. Not to mention the fraudulent nature in which they were contrived but: Once the Promissory Note and Security Instrument are split, the loan is considered NULL. But the contract is being wrongfully enforced (Foreclosure), damn near, by the barrel of a gun. Capitalism? I think not

These cats just got caught, they stuck! Let me add this:

these bankers are now saying that it's no big deal, they'll just refile some paperwork and it's all fixed! Na! Fraud was committed, and therefore by "refiling", your tampering with evidence of a crime.

Eric Holder, Where U At?
 
Last edited:
TBTF is nothin but 'spin' & a clever marketing tool use by the Powers That Be to protect their wealth.

In the United States, before the Federal Reserve ever existed (late 1800s), the bankers were using the reserve city system. They were trying to figure out how to keep things running without a catastrophic collapse. (e.g. a big merchant defaults on a debt.)

To prevent a large default or large class of defaults, reserve cities required certain banks to be TOO BIG TO FAIL.

It is a concept that goes back 200 years, to the Bank of England, after it got in trouble paying for England's latest war with France.

Obama is just doing what Bush Sr. did in the Savings & Loan fiasco, what Hoover & FDR did with the Great Depression, and what Benjamin Strong did with the Bank of England after WWI.

Business as usual. It's just new to us because of these things called derivatives that blew things way out of proportion to any previous bailout.

I disagree, this Pres has nationalized the Housing, Auto, & Banking sectors. The 'free' market is tellin us that these institutions have no market value. Capitalism thrives when failure is allowed to take its course, Bush, Bernanke & Obama avoided 'free' market solutions.

Capitalism is exploitation.

Protected markets, reduced/eliminated labor rights, trade sanctions, currency controls, gunboat diplomacy, intellectual property, artificial scarcity, planned obsolescence, and conspicuous consumption are the attributes of capitalism through history.

The free market is NOT capitalism.


I don't get it: What you're failing to mention is the contract between the buyer & seller. Not to mention the fraudulent nature in which they were contrived but: Once the Promissory Note and Security Instrument are split, the loan is considered NULL. But the contract is being wrongfully enforced (Foreclosure), damn near, by the barrel of a gun. Capitalism? I think not

These cats just got caught, they stuck! Let me add this:

these bankers are now saying that it's no big deal, they'll just refile some paperwork and it's all fixed! Na! Fraud was committed, and therefore by "refiling", your tampering with evidence of a crime.

Eric Holder, Where U At?

We both know fractional-reserve banking is a fraud.

It's hard for me to be outraged when a fraud is perpetrated on top of a fraud.
 
Last edited:
Once the Promissory Note and Security Instrument are split, the loan is considered NULL. But the contract is being wrongfully enforced (Foreclosure), damn near, by the barrel of a gun. Capitalism? I think not

What do you mean by splitting the note from the security ? Explain.

QueEx
 
"Too Big To Fail" is pure capitalism.

It is socializing the losses and privatizing the gains.

Obama is a pure CAPITALIST President, as all Presidents of the United States are.

The honkeys like to call him socialist (or any other "euphemism" they can imagine), but it is just a cover for racism.

The bank bailouts are purely capitalist actions because they are based on transferring property from society (the "public") through the state (the "government") to the bankers (private). The property concentrates and makes everyone else poorer.

If that's not capitalism, I don't know what is.


Obama is a pure CAPITALIST President, as all Presidents of the United States are.

For once you are making sense. I was hoping for a little FDR or Truman, instead we got a bit more Clinton that we wanted. President Obama's refusal to intervene in the foreclose mess may be his undoing. We'll see see if he draws the line against the conservatives.
 
What do you mean by splitting the note from the security ? Explain.

QueEx

One Source

ok, this is what I understand thus far, anyone with more insight, please jump in for further understanding & clarification.

The promissory note was signed by the actual lender (Say B of A), then the actual lender forfeited its rights to be the beneficiary of the loan, with the power to sale to MERS, to have and to hold until the terms of the loan are met...... this is the split. The party at risk (B of A) is operating through proxy to secure the loan, but legally the entity securing the loan has no right to the loan because the chain of title has been broken / "clouded".

My Source

Homeowners can only be foreclosed and evicted from their homes by the person or institution who actually has the loan paper—only the note-holder has legal standing to ask a court to foreclose and evict. Not the mortgage—the note, which is the actual IOU that people sign, promising to pay back the mortgage loan.

Before Mortgage Backed Securities, most mortgage loans were issued by the local Savings & Loan. So the note usually didn’t go anywhere: It stayed in the offices of the S&L down the street.

But once mortgage loan securitization happened, things got sloppy—they got sloppy by the very nature of Mortgage Backed Securities.

The whole purpose of MBS’s was for different investors to have their different risk appetites satiated with different bonds. Some bond customers wanted super-safe bonds with low returns, some others wanted riskier bonds with therefore higher rates of return.

Therefore, as everyone knows, the loans were “bundled” into REMIC’s (Real-Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits, a special vehicle designed to hold the loans for tax purposes), and then “sliced & diced”—split up and put into tranches, according to their likelihood of default, their interest rates, and other characteristics.

This slicing and dicing created “senior tranches”, where the loans would likely be paid in full, if past history of mortgage loan statistics was to be believed. And it also created “junior tranches”, where the loans might well default, again according to past history and statistics. (A whole range of tranches were created, of course, but for purposes of this discussion, we can ignore all those countless other variations.)

These various tranches were sold to different investors, according to their risk appetite. That’s why some of the MBS bonds were rated as safe as Treasury bonds, and others were rated by the ratings agencies as risky as junk bonds.

But here’s the key issue: When an MBS was first created, all the mortgages were pristine—none had defaulted yet, because they were all brand new loans. Statistically, some would default and some others would be paid back in full—but which ones specifically would default? No one knew, of course. If I toss a coin 1,000 times, statistically, 500 tosses the coin will land heads—but what will the result be of, say, the 723rd toss specifically? I dunno.

Same with mortgages.

So in fact, it wasn’t that the riskier loans were in junior tranches and the safer mortgage loans were in the senior tranches: Rather, all the loans were in all the tranches, and if and when a mortgage in a given bundle of mortgages defaulted, the junior tranche holders would take the losses first, and the senior tranche holder take the loss last.

But who was the owner of the junior tranche bond and the senior tranche bond? Two different people. Therefore, the mortgage note was not actually signed over to the bond holder. In fact, it couldn’t be signed over. Because, again, since no one knew which mortgage would default first, it was impossible to assign a specific mortgage to a specific bond.

Therefore, how to make sure the safe mortgage loan stayed with the safe MBS tranche, and the risky and/or defaulting mortgage went to the riskier MBS tranche?

Enter stage right, the famed MERS—the Mortgage Electronic Registration System.

MERS was the repository of these digitized mortgage notes that the banks originated from the actual mortgage loans signed by homebuyers. MERS was jointly owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (yes, those two, again, I know, I know: Like the chlamydia and the gonorrhea of the financial world—you cure ‘em, but they just keep coming back).

The purpose of MERS was to help in the securitization process. Basically, MERS directed defaulting mortgages to the appropriate tranches of mortgage bonds. MERS was essentially the operating table where the digitized mortgage notes were sliced and diced and rearranged so as to create the Mortgage Backed Securities. Think of MERS as Dr. Frankenstein’s operating table, where the beast got put together.

However, legally—and this is the important part—MERS didn’t hold any mortgage note: The true owner of the mortgage notes should have been the REMIC’s.

But the REMIC’s didn’t own the note either, because of a fluke of the ratings agencies: The REMIC’s had to be “bankruptcy remote”, in order to get the precious ratings needed to peddle Mortgage Backed Securities to insitutional investors.

So somewhere between the REMIC’s and the MERS, the chain of title was broken.

Now, what does “broken chain of title” mean? Simple: When a homebuyer signs a mortgage, the key document is the note. As I said before, it’s the actual IOU. In order for the mortgage note to be sold or transferred to someone else (and therefore turned into a Mortgage Backed Security), this document has to be physically endorsed to the next person. All of these signatures on the note are called the “chain of title”.

You can endorse the note as many times as you please—but you have to have a clear chain of title right on the actual note: I sold the note to Moe, who sold it to Larry, who sold it to Curly, and all our notarized signatures are actually, physically on the note, one after the other.

If for whatever reason, any of these signatures is skipped, then the chain of title is said to be broken. Therefore, legally, the mortgage note is no longer valid. That is, the person who took out the mortgage loan to pay for the house no longer owes the loan, because he no longer knows whom to pay.

To repeat: If the chain of title of the note is broken, then the borrower no longer owes any money on the loan.
 
"If you go back to the savings and loan debacle, we got more than a thousand felony convictions of the elite. These are not, you know, tellers or something. We today have zero convictions, zero indictments, zero arrests of any of the elite, non-prime lenders that, through their fraud, drove this crisis."
- William Black / chief regulator for S & L crisis of the 80's
 
Just curious; what criminal acts do you see ? ? ?

QueEx

I was hoping you would have some input, seeing that you have a legal mind.

one observation I've made is MERS (from the decisions of judges I've cited earlier in this thread) doesn't have authority to foreclose on people. 2) they cannot produce the promissory note. 3) The MERS system was created to hide the ownership of the mortgages and hide the fact that they were being sold to multiple "investors." Thats just off the top of my head

Here's an excerpt from an article I read yesterday.

William Black's Article

HUD Secetary Donovan
"We will not tolerate business as usual in the mortgage market," he said. "Where there have been mistakes made or errors, we will hold those entities, those institutions, accountable to stop those processes, review them and fix them as quickly as possible."

Note the language: "mistakes", "errors", "processes" (following the initial use of "paperwork"). No mention of "fraud", "felony", "criminal investigations", or "prosecutions" for the tens of thousands of felonies that representatives of the entities foreclosing on homes have admitted that they committed. Note that Donovan does not even demand that the felons remedy the harm caused by their past fraudulent foreclosures. Donovan wants them to "fix" "processes" -- not repair the harm their frauds caused to their victims.

What a joke! You can't go back and fix fraud. That's a crime in itself. "Resubmitting paperwork" ain't going to cut it. Once the fraudulent paperwork is submitted to the courts, the crime is committed. It can't be fixed.
 
Last edited:
Foreclose on the Foreclosure Fraudsters, Part 1: Put Bank of America in Receivership

After a quick review of its procedures, Bank of America this week announced that it will resume its foreclosures in 23 lucky states next Monday. While the evidence is overwhelming that the entire foreclosure process is riddled with fraud, President Obama refuses to support a national moratorium. Indeed, his spokesmen on the issue told reporters three key things. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

A government review of botched foreclosure paperwork so far has found that the problems do not pose a "systemic" threat to the financial system, a top Obama administration official said Wednesday.

Yes, that's right. HUD reviewed the "paperwork" problem to see whether it threatened the banks -- not the homeowners who were the victims of foreclosure fraud. But it got worse, for the second point was how the government would respond to the epidemic of foreclosure fraud.

The Justice Department is leading an investigation of possible crimes involving mortgage fraud.
That language was carefully chosen to sound reassuring. But the fact is that despite our pleas the FBI has continued its "partnership" with the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA). The MBA is the trade association of the "perps." It created a ridiculous on its face definition of "mortgage fraud." Under that definition the lenders -- who led the mortgage frauds -- are the victims. The FBI still parrots this long discredited "definition." That is one of the primary reasons why -- in complete contrast to prior financial crises -- the Justice Department has not convicted a single senior officer of the large nonprime lenders who directed, committed, and profited enormously from the frauds.

Note that the Justice Department is not investigating foreclosure fraud. HUD Secretary Donovan's statement shows why:

"We will not tolerate business as usual in the mortgage market," he said. "Where there have been mistakes made or errors, we will hold those entities, those institutions, accountable to stop those processes, review them and fix them as quickly as possible."

Note the language: "mistakes", "errors", "processes" (following the initial use of "paperwork"). No mention of "fraud", "felony", "criminal investigations", or "prosecutions" for the tens of thousands of felonies that representatives of the entities foreclosing on homes have admitted that they committed. Note that Donovan does not even demand that the felons remedy the harm caused by their past fraudulent foreclosures. Donovan wants them to "fix" "processes" -- not repair the harm their frauds caused to their victims.

The fraudulent CEOs looted with impunity, were left in power, and were granted their fondest wish when Congress, at the behest of the Chamber of Commerce, Chairman Bernanke, and the bankers' trade associations, successfully extorted the professional Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to turn the accounting rules into a farce. The FASB's new rules allowed the banks (and the Fed, which has taken over a trillion dollars in toxic mortgages as wholly inadequate collateral) to refuse to recognize hundreds of billions of dollars of losses. This accounting scam produces enormous fictional "income" and "capital" at the banks. The fictional income produces real bonuses to the CEOs that make them even wealthier. The fictional bank capital allows the regulators to evade their statutory duties under the Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) law to close the insolvent and failing banks.

The inflated asset values allow the Fed and the administration to ignore the Fed's massive loss exposure and allow Treasury to spread propaganda claiming that TARP resolved all the problems -- at virtually no cost. Donovan claims that we have held the elite frauds accountable -- but we have done the opposite. We have made the CEOs of the largest financial firms -- typically already among the 500 wealthiest Americans -- even wealthier. We have rewarded fraud, incompetence, and venality by our most powerful elites.

If the government does not hold the fraudulent CEOs responsible, who is supposed to stop the epidemic of elite financial fraud? The Obama administration's answer is the fraudulent CEOs themselves, at a time of their choosing. You can't make this stuff up.

But ultimately resolving the problems is not the government's responsibility, said Michael Barr, assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions.

"Fundamentally, this is up to the banks and the servicers to fix," he said. "They can fix it as fast as they feel like."

So who is Michael Barr and why is saying things on behalf of the Obama administration that make it appear to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the fraudulent lenders and servicers? He's a Robert Rubin protégé and he's the senior Treasury official for banking policy.

We have a different policy view. We believe that only the government can stop fraud from growing to catastrophic levels and that among the government's highest responsibilities is to provide the regulatory "cops on the beat" with the competence, resources, courage, and integrity to take on our most elite frauds. We believe that anything less is a travesty that causes tens of millions of Americans to be defrauded and poses a grave threat to our economy and democracy.


Prompt Corrective Action

First, it is time to stop the foreclosures until the banks and servicers adopt corrective steps, certified as adequate by FDIC, that will prevent all future foreclosure fraud. They must also adopt plans to remedy the injuries their foreclosure frauds have already caused, and assist the FBI, Department of Justice, and legal ethics officials investigations of their officers' and attorneys' frauds and ethical violations.

Second, it is time to place the financial institutions that committed widespread fraud in receivership. We should remove the senior leadership of the banks and replace them with experienced bankers with a reputation for integrity and competence, i.e., the honest officers that quit or were fired because they refused to engage in fraud. We should prioritize the receiverships to deal with the worst known "control frauds" among the "systemically dangerous institutions" (SDIs). The SDIs' frauds and fraudulent leaders endanger the global economy.

We propose Bank of America for the first receivership. In the last few weeks, the SEC has obtained a large (albeit grossly inadequate) settlement of its civil fraud charges against the former senior leaders of Countrywide. (Bank of America acquired Countrywide and is responsible for its frauds.) Fannie and Freddie's investigations -- with their findings reviewed by their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) -- have identified many billions of dollars of fraudulent loans originated by Countrywide that were sold fraudulently to Fannie and Freddie through false representations and warranties. The Fed, BlackRock, and Pimco's investigations have identified many billions of dollars of fraudulent loans provided by Countrywide under false reps and warranties. Ambac's investigation found that 97% of the Countrywide loans reviewed by Ambac were had false reps and warranties. Countrywide also engaged in widespread foreclosure fraud. This is not surprising, for every aspect of Countrywide's nonprime mortgage operations that has been examined by a truly independent body has found widespread fraud -- in loan origination, loan sales, appraisals, and foreclosures. Fraud begets fraud. Lenders that are control frauds create criminogenic environments that produce "echo" epidemics of control fraud in other professions and industries.

We have been amazed that, as one financially sophisticated entity after another found widespread fraud by Countrywide in the entire gamut of its operations, the administration, the industry, and the financial media act as if this is acceptable. Countrywide made hundreds of thousands of fraudulent loans. It fraudulently sold hundreds of thousands of loans through false reps and warranties. It fraudulently foreclosed on large numbers of loans. It victimized hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of financial institutions, causing hundreds of billions of dollars of losses. It has defrauded more people, at a greater cost, than any entity in history.

Bank of America chose to purchase Countrywide at a point when it -- and its senior leaders -- were infamous. Bank of America made some of these Countrywide leaders its senior leaders. Yet, Bank of America is not treated as a criminal entity. President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Donovan, and Barr cannot even bring themselves to use the "f" word -- fraud. They substitute euphemisms designed to trivialize elite criminality. The administration officials do not call for Bank of America to be the subject of a criminal investigation. They do not demand that Fannie, Freddie, Ambac, the FHFA, and Pimco file criminal referrals about Countrywide's frauds. They do not demand that Fannie, Freddie, and the Fed refuse to purchase or take as collateral any mortgage instrument from Bank of America. No one at the Harvard Club in New York moves to kick Bank of America's officers out of their club! The financial media treats Bank of America as if it were a legitimate bank rather than a "vector" spreading the mortgage fraud epidemic throughout much of the Western world.

For the sake of our (and the global) economy, our democracy, and our souls this willingness to allow elite control frauds to loot with impunity must end immediately. The control frauds must be taken down and their officers removed promptly. Receivership is the way to begin to reclaim our souls, our economy, and our democracy and Bank of America has the track record that makes it a good place to start. It is sufficiently large and powerful that its receivership will send the credible signal that America is restoring the rule of law and that even the most elite frauds will be held accountable.

Next we need to remove the rest of the "too big to fail" institutions -- we call them systemically dangerous institutions, or SDIs -- to reduce the global systemic risks that they pose. We are rolling the dice with disaster every day. The SDIs are inefficient, so shrinking them will reduce risk and increase efficiency. We need to follow three types of policies with respect to SDIs.

They cannot grow larger and compound the systemic risk they pose.
They must create an enforceable plan to shrink to a level and functions such that they no longer pose a systemic risk within five years.
Until they shrink to the point that they no longer pose systemic risks they must be regulated with far greater intensity than other banks. In particular, control fraud poses so severe a risk of triggering another global financial crisis that there must be no regulatory tolerance for control frauds at the SDIs. One of the best ways to reduce their risks is to mandate that high levels of executive compensation be paid only after sustained and superior performance (at least five years), and with "claw back" provisions if compensation was obtained by fraudulent reported income or seriously inadequate loss reserves.
Appointing a receiver for an SDI will be a major undertaking for the FDIC, but it is also well within its capabilities. Contrary to the scare mongering about "nationalizing" banks, receivers are used to returning failed banks to private ownership. Receiverships are managed by experienced bankers with records of competence and integrity rather than the dread "bureaucrats." We appointed roughly a thousand receivers during the S&L and banking crises of the 1980s and early 1990s under Presidents Reagan and Bush.

Here is how it works. A receiver is appointed on Friday. The bank opens for business as normal (from the bank's customers' perspective) on Monday. The checks clear, the ATMs work, and the branches all open. The receiver's managers direct the business operations, find the true facts about the bank's operations, senior managers, and financial condition, recognize the real losses, and make the appropriate referrals to the FBI and the SEC so that the frauds can be investigated and prosecuted.

The receiver is also a well-proven device for splitting up banks that are too large and incoherent by selling units of the business to different bidders who most value the operations.

Dealing with the "Dirty Dozen" Control Frauds

Simultaneously, we should put in place a system to replace the existing cover up of the condition of other banks with vigorous investigations and honest accounting. The priority for these investigations should be the "Dirty Dozen" -- the twelve largest banks. The Fed cannot conduct a credible investigation. It has taken so many fraudulent nonprime loans and securities as collateral that it is the leading proponent of covering up these losses.

The FDIC should lead the investigations (it has "backup" regulatory authority over all banks), but it should hire investigative experts to add expertise to its Dirty Dozen examination teams. The priorities of the teams will be identifying existing losses and requiring their immediate recognition (the regulatory authorities have the authority to "classify" assets that can trump the accounting scams that Congress extorted from FASB). The FDIC should prioritize the order of its examinations of the largest SDIs on the basis of known indicia of fraud. For example, Citi's senior credit manager for mortgages testified under oath that 80% of the loans it sold to Fannie and Freddie were made under false reps and warranties. The Senate investigation has documented endemic fraud at WaMu (acquired by Wells Fargo). The FDIC should sample nonprime loans and securities held by Fannie, Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Banks, and the Fed to determine which nonprime mortgage players originated and sold the most fraudulent loans. This will allow the FDIC to prioritize which SDIs it examines first.

We should also create a strong incentive for financial entities to voluntarily disclose to the regulators, the SEC, and the FBI their frauds, their unrecognized losses, and the officers that led the frauds -- and to fire any officer (VP level and above) who committed (or knew about and did not report) financial fraud. Any SDI that originated or sold more than $2 billion in fraudulent nonprime loans or securities should be placed in receivership unless it has conducted a thorough investigation and made the voluntary disclosures discussed above prior to the commencement of the FDIC examination, and developed a plan that will promptly recompense fully all victims that suffered losses from mortgages that were fraudulently originated, sold, or serviced.

We make three propositions concerning what we believe to be institutions that are run as "control frauds". To date, this situation has been ignored in the policy debates about how to respond to the crisis. The propositions rest on a firm (but ignored) empirical and theoretical foundation developed and confirmed by white-collar criminologists, economists, and effective financial regulators. The key facts are that there was massive fraud by nonprime lenders and packagers of fraudulent nonprime loans at the direction of their controlling officers. By "massive" we mean that lenders made millions of fraudulent loans annually and that packagers turned most of these fraudulent loans into fraudulent securities. These fraudulent loans and securities made the senior officers (and corrupted professionals that blessed their frauds) rich, hyper-inflated the bubble, devastated millions of working class borrowers and middle class home owners, and contributed significantly to the Great Recession -- by far the worst economic collapse since the 1930s.

Our first proposition is this: The entities that made and securitized large numbers of fraudulent loans must be sanctioned before they produce the next, larger crisis. Second: The officers and professionals that directed, participated in, and profited from the frauds should be sanctioned before they cause the next crisis. Third: The lenders, officers, and professional that directed, participated in, and profited from the fraudulent loans and securities should be prevented from causing further damage to the victims of their frauds, e.g., through fraudulent foreclosures. Foreclosure fraud is an inevitable consequence of the underlying "epidemic" of mortgage fraud by nonprime lenders, not a new, unrelated epidemic of fraud by mortgage servicers with flawed processes. We propose a policy response designed to achieve these propositions.

S&L regulators, criminologists, and economists recognize that the same recipe that produced guaranteed, record (fictional) accounting income (and executive compensation) until 2007 produced another guarantee: massive (real) losses, particularly if the frauds hyper-inflated a bubble. CEOs who loot "their" banks do so by perverting the bank into a wealth destroying monster -- a control fraud. What could be worse than deliberately growing massively by making loans likely to default, converting large amounts of bank assets to the personal benefit of the senior officers looting the bank and to those the CEO suborns to assist his looting (appraisers, auditors, attorneys, economists, rating agencies, and politicians), while simultaneously providing minimal capital (extreme leverage) and only grossly inadequate loss reserves, and causing bubbles to hyper-inflate?

This nation's most elite bankers originated and packaged fraudulent nonprime loans that destroyed wealth -- and working class families' savings -- at a prodigious rate never seen before in the history of white-collar crime. They created the worst bubble in financial history, echo epidemics of fraud among elite professionals, loan brokers, and loan servicers, and would (if left to their own devices) have caused the Second Great Depression.

Nothing short of removing all senior officers who directed, committed, or acquiesced in fraud can be effective against control fraud. We repeat: Foreclosure fraud is the necessary outcome of the epidemic of mortgage fraud that began early this decade. The banks that are foreclosing on fraudulently originated mortgages frequently cannot produce legitimate documents and have committed "fraud in the inducement." Now, only fraud will let them take the homes. Many of the required documents do not exist, and those that do exist would provide proof of the fraud that was involved in loan origination, securitization, and marketing. This in turn would allow investors to force the banks to buy-back the fraudulent securities. In other words, to keep the investors at bay the foreclosing banks must manufacture fake documents. If the original documents do not exist the securities might be ruled no good. If the original docs do exist they will demonstrate that proper underwriting was not done -- so the securities might be no good. Foreclosure fraud is the only thing standing between the banks and Armageddon.

We will deal with objections to our proposal in the next piece.
 
ForeclosureGate

The banks want you to think that this is just a document crisis. Foreclosuregate is more about the mortgages and the transfer of ownership paperwork, than whether a robo signer signed the foreclosure documents. It turns out that the mortgage industry has pledged the same home mortgage for multiple mortgage backed securities. That means that there are multiple owners of the same mortgage. Bank of America has already filed court documents showing that is reality not fiction.

Funny thing, if the homeowner pledged the same house as collateral for multiple loans this is considered fraud, yet when the mortgage industry does the same thing it is a paperwork problem? What we have here is a mortgage industry generated Ponzi scheme that is about to come crumbing down.

The law requires that the actual owner of the mortgage is the only person or entity that can foreclosure upon a mortgage. So, who really owns these home mortgages? Think about it. The days of one bank owing your home mortgage are long gone. Your mortgage was divided into 50 billion pieces. In many cases, each piece was used to back a different mortgage backed securities and in many cases that same piece was used to back up many mortgage backed securities.

So do all the holders who hold your home as collateral to the mortgage, don't they all have to show up at once to the court to foreclose? Problem is that no one even knows which homes are backing up which securities. There is no database where you can type in a home address or mortgage number and find out if a home is part of one or multiple mortgage backed securities.

Next question, who is going to pay the bill for the mortgage industries Ponzi scheme. Most banks have already started the process of ensuring that the American taxpayer will foot this bill as well. Too big to fail means that there is no option of bankruptcy and therefore the taxpayer will once again take the brunt of the housing crisis created by the mortgage industry.

What does this mean for the average family? First this problem will make the foreclosure process harder and take more time, making now the perfect opportunity for families to determine if walking away is a good financial decision. Should you walkawayok? Second, buying a foreclosed property now became almost impossible; no title insurance company will insure these houses because title is in question. Finally, those who purchased foreclosed houses may be stuck with a house they cannot sell, a house they may not even legally own?
 
I was hoping you would have some input, seeing that you have a legal mind.
I will; but I've been too busy lately. As you've pointed out, this tiger has several tails and requires some sorting out. I've read most of the articles you've posted; some appear factual, some are themselves confused and some again appear alarmist.

QueEx
 
I will; but I've been too busy lately. As you've pointed out, this tiger has several tails and requires some sorting out. I've read most of the articles you've posted; some appear factual, some are themselves confused and some again appear alarmist.

QueEx


some appear factual, some are themselves confused and some again appear alarmist.


Isn't that the MO?
 
Source

TOMORROW Congress Will Try - By Secret Vote - to Retroactively Legalize Foreclosure Fraud and Forgery By the Big Banks ... Call Congress and Say NO

H.R. 3808:
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

Obama vetoed H.R. 3808, but tomorrow, Congress will try - again by secret vote - to retroactively legalize foreclosure fraud and forgery by the big banks.
 
<font size="5"><center>
Think you've read the worst
about foreclosures? Read this</font size></center>





Miami Herald
By Toluse Olorunnipa
November 21, 2010


MIAMI — All she wanted was $50,000 from the equity in her house to help pay the bills while looking for a job in nursing. What Imogene Hall got was a brutal lesson in the sometimes shady ways of the mortgage industry.

It's a lesson learned by untold numbers of homeowners in Florida, epicenter of the foreclosure crisis gripping the nation.

"Everywhere I turn, someone else is scamming me,'' said Hall, a 49-year-old Jamaican immigrant who stands to lose her Miami Gardens home the Monday after Thanksgiving. "All I do is work hard, and I get surrounded by thieves.''

A review of court records found evidence of misconduct at nearly every stage of Hall's experience. Consider:

  • Johnson Cuffy, a former mortgage broker now serving an 11-year prison sentence for grand theft, handled Hall's refinancing in early 2006, using a strategy a state investigator described as ``outright mortgage fraud.'' He faces up to 30 more years in prison if convicted of 16 other mortgage fraud charges he's facing.

  • The title agent who signed the crucial deed transfers that Hall's fraud claim rests on operated an unlicensed title company that stole more than $1.5 million from South Florida home buyers during closing proceedings between 2005 and 2007, according to Florida Supreme Court records.

  • A man who listed his employer as a nonexistent Blockbuster Video store in New York somehow used Hall's home as collateral to secure a $230,000 loan from subprime lender Argent Mortgage.

  • Hall's foreclosure was processed by the Florida Default Law Group, one of four Florida law firms being investigated by the state attorney general for using flawed documents to repossess homes from thousands of owners.


QUICKIE OUTCOME

After spending more than three years in the judicial system, Hall's case was transferred to Miami-Dade's County Court's new foreclosure-only division in July. There, Judge Jeffrey Rosinek, who was fresh to the case, quickly tossed out Hall's fraud defense, and granted the bank a swift summary judgment in a process critics describe as a "rocket docket.''

Hall's foreclosure defense lawyers, in what has become a booming -- and sometimes predatory -- business, charged her more than $20,000 while regularly failing to show up in court. One lawyer charged Hall $2,800 for work he did trying to withdraw himself from the case.

Law enforcement officers are scheduled to come to Hall's house to evict her and her family next week, nearly five years after a mortgage broker showed up on her doorstep unannounced, pitching a stress-free refinance.

Hall, who lives in the modest home with four children and three grandchildren, says her troubles began in late 2005 when she was struggling to find work as a home health nursing aide. As her bills piled up, she considered tapping into the equity she had built in her three-bedroom home. The market was booming, and homeowners all around her were using equity to take vacations, remodel kitchens and pay down consumer debt.

She says she received an unsolicited visit from Cuffy, manager of BlueKap Financial Group, who promised to handle a refinance and help her get $50,000 equity out of her home.

According to state investigators, Cuffy's strategy was steeped in fraud. In a scheme he allegedly used multiple times in South Florida, he recruited a ``straw buyer'' -- someone with no real intention of occupying the property -- to take deed to Hall's home. He then used an inflated appraisal and the straw buyer's credit information to take out a $230,000 mortgage before transferring the deed back to Hall.

The Miami-Dade County property appraiser had valued the home at just under $132,000 the year before the loan was taken out.


$25,000 FEE

Closing documents from the sale show that Cuffy and his affiliates made more than $25,000 in transaction fees, and pocketed more than $180,000 from subprime lender Argent Mortgage Company, without Hall's knowledge, she says. Hall received the balance of the $230,000 loan -- about $50,000 -- the proceeds of what she thought was a simple refinance.

R. Scott Palmer, the attorney general's Mortgage Fraud Task Force chief, said similar mortgage fraud schemes were prevalent during the boom years as fraudsters looked to take advantage of a rising market and unsuspecting homeowners.

"They preyed on people who had equity in their homes that they could strip, and what you described happened to this person has happened to a lot of people,'' he said.

John Swope, a Department of Financial Services agent who has been investigating Cuffy and his entourage for the last three years, said the mortgage fraud ring made millions of dollars in Florida real estate transactions that closely mirrored Hall's.

"The loan is never anticipated to be paid back,'' he said. "Unfortunately, I've had people who have become homeless because of this individual.''

Others involved in the sale -- closing agent O.J. Odunna, title issuing company Organized Title and BlueKap affiliate Cliff Johnson -- have all been either charged or convicted by law enforcement officials of mortgage-related offenses in other South Florida cases.

Unlike most homeowners fighting foreclosures, Hall claims she had been making her mortgage payments when she received a default notice from the bank. At the urging of Cuffy, she made monthly mortgage payments of $1,500 to Tamarac-based BlueKap Financial, but the money was never used to pay the lender, she said.

Court records show that BlueKap sent her bogus receipts each month indicating ``mortgage paid,'' but a few days after receiving her eighth receipt, she got a letter from Argent Mortgage saying the lender intended to foreclose on her home.

"None of the money I gave [Cuffy] went to pay the mortgage,'' said Hall, whose monthly mortgage bill more than doubled after the refinance. ``Such a wicked man. He did nothing but lie to me.''

Cuffy is currently serving an 11-year stint for grand theft, and faces a host of mortgage fraud charges, along with family members who helped him run the now-defunct BlueKap. Swope said the company targeted homeowners who were in distress.


GUY FROM NEW YORK

His alleged straw buyer, Kervyn Harris, is a prime example of how easy it was to get a home loan during the housing boom as money moved fast and due diligence was often scarce in banks' loan origination departments. Harris, of New York, ran up a quick $1.3 million bank tab in South Florida with five different mortgage loans in an eight-week period between Dec. 8, 2005 and Feb. 1, 2006.

Although his mortgage applications listed a job at a nonexistent Blockbuster Video in New York, he had no trouble getting $230,000 in loans from Argent Mortgage for Hall's Miami Gardens house. All of the homes Harris bought during his spree -- each at inflated prices and with subprime financing -- immediately went into foreclosure, court records show. He is listed as the borrower and main defendant in Hall's foreclosure case, but has never been to any of the court hearings. He could not be reached for comment, and the Department of Financial Services wants to reach him for questioning, Swope said.

In a case where mortgage fraud is alleged and the victims include both the lender and the homesteaded property owner, foreclosure court proceedings between those two parties are especially complex.

Deutsche Bank, a trustee representing Argent Mortgage in Hall's foreclosure, has denied knowledge of any fraud in court, claiming that it is entitled to recoup the lender's losses. A Deutsche spokesman said the bank does not comment on individual cases.

Deutsche Bank is a trustee for several lenders and it became the trustee for Hall's loan after it acquired a pool of loans that included hers, in 2006.

Jonathan Heller, a defense lawyer representing a Miami homeowner who is facing foreclosure and claiming mortgage fraud, said banks are generally determined to foreclose in spite of evidence of fraud, and judges are too overwhelmed with huge case backlogs to consider complicated defenses.


LARGE VOLUME

``These cases are handled in large volume -- and the majority of them are pro forma -- but many of the files are tinged with fraud and irregularities,'' he said. ``The court simply does not have the time to hear the grievances of a homeowner raising fraud issues, which are fairly prevalent.''

Hall's court hearings started in 2006 -- before the tsunami of defaulting loans flooded the court systems -- and lawyers sparred over the legitimacy of the loan for more than three years. In the early stages of Hall's foreclosure proceedings, Judge Ronald Friedman prevented the lender from closing the case on multiple occasions, pointing out irregularities and allowing Hall to mount a legal defense.

But lingering case-files like Hall's have become the bane of the Miami-Dade court system as it has amassed the largest foreclosure backlog in the state and new filings have poured in faster than judges can close out old cases.

In July, armed with $862,053 in state funding, Miami-Dade initiated sweeping changes to the way it handled foreclosures. The funding came with strings attached: the county was expected to clear out 52,000 cases in a year -- about 200 per day -- more than have ever been solved in such a short span of time. Miami-Dade's backlog currently stands at about 70,000 cases. The number is about 39,000 in Broward County and nearly 3,000 in Monroe County.

The reform measures included the creation of Section 50, a floating courtroom designed specifically to take on foreclosure cases that were more than two years old, and make them quickly disappear.

Hall's foreclosure case-file was transferred to Section 50 in July.

A new judge, called back from retirement, made quick work of the proceedings in August, approving the foreclosure in the type of swift hearing that many have criticized as a ``rocket docket'' that favors lenders. Between July and September, some 46,940 foreclosure cases in Florida were decided by summary judgment, according to the Office of State Courts Administration. Only 23 cases in the entire state went to trial.

Hall claims that during her 15-minute hearing, the judge did not allow her or her lawyer to get in a word.

``The first judge was so nice -- helping me, helping me,'' Hall said. ``Then they [transferred] my case, and the second judge wouldn't listen to anything. He just said `You're going to lose the house, you're going to lose the house.' ''


BAD TO WORSE

Hall has had even worse luck with her legal representation along the way. Foreclosure defense is a growing business in Florida, where hundreds of thousands of homeowners are facing the prospect of losing their most valuable asset. Many are turning to lawyers and foreclosure rescue agencies.

Hall paid her first lawyer, Alan Soven, more than $10,000 to fight the foreclosure. At one point Judge Friedman rebuked the Miami lawyer for subpar legal work, and the Florida Bar ordered him to refund $2,000 in legal fees to Hall in a mediation settlement. With a $400 hourly rate, he charged Hall nearly $3,000 for the 7.2 hours he spent trying to get legal approval to quit the case, court records show.


Soven declined to comment on the case.

Hall's next lawyer, Johnny Kincaide of The Kincaide Law Group in Weston, routinely skipped crucial court hearings and failed to file a response to a court ruling, causing the judge to penalize Hall with an order of default. Kincaide's firm is being investigated by Attorney General Bill McCollum after several homeowners said he promised to help them get a mortgage modification and then disappeared after taking their initial deposits. He did not return calls seeking comment.

The unlikely common denominator for all of this is a humble home on a quiet side-street in Miami Gardens, where Hall has lived for 13 years. She paid just over $80,000 for the home in 1997. Despite overwhelming evidence that Hall was likely a victim of mortgage fraud, Deutsche Bank won its foreclosure case, with a final judgment of $303,000 for the home, which the county appraiser valued at $98,310 this year.

Hall, who grows emotional when she talks about what now appears to be an inevitable eviction, says losing her home would be a devastating end to what has been a nightmarish ordeal.

``I can't sleep at night -- I worry, worry, worry about where I'm going to go,'' she said. ``I looked for help but nobody wanted to help me. I don't know what I'm going to do.''




http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/21/104082/think-youve-read-the-worst-about.html
 

Law chief takes hard line on US foreclosures



Financial Times
By Suzanne Kapner in New York
March 20, 2011


The Iowa state attorney-general leading a nationwide investigation into improper foreclosure practices said he had no plans to back away from a controversial plan to force banks to write down the principal balance on some mortgage loans, in spite of growing opposition from lawmakers and other enforcement officers.

“I’m perfectly willing to hear from the banks on how we should do this,” Tom Miller told the Financial Times. “But we’re not depending on them to come up with a solution.”

Mr Miller is adopting a hard line as he prepares to begin negotiations with banks over serious lapses in foreclosure proceedings that led to at least some borrowers losing their homes inappropriately.

The programme, which would use as yet unspecified fines that could total an estimated $20bn to reduce mortgage balances for the neediest borrowers, has also exposed differences among some attorneys-general. Those from Alabama, Nebraska and Oklahoma – all Republicans – have said that any plan to require principal reduction would be unacceptable

FULL STORY

 

US banks in ‘cash for keys’ foreclosure talks





Financial Times

By Tom Braithwaite in Washington
and Francesco Guerrera, Suzanne
Kapner and Justin Baer in New York
March 25 2011


The five biggest US mortgage servicers were told this week at a private meeting with regulators to consider paying delinquent borrowers up to $21,000 each as part of a broader settlement of the foreclosure crisis.

People who attended the meeting, chaired by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on Monday, said the industry-wide “cash for keys” programme would involve the biggest servicers, led by Bank of America, paying borrowers as an incentive to leave their homes.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Banks would pay borrowers who are more than 90 days behind on mortgage payments up to $1,000 to seek independent financial advice and up to $20,000 in cash as a “fresh start” payment towards living costs in a new home. They would have to vacate their properties quickly and leave them in good condition</span>.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage guarantors, and private investors who own mortgage loans were also mentioned as possible providers of cash in the scheme. Eligible borrowers would likely include some, but not all, of the 4.8m who are more than 90 days in arrears.

The Department of Justice; state attorneys-general; banking regulators, including the FDIC; the Treasury; and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are among the agencies trying to come to a settlement with the industry. A combined penalty of about $20bn has been discussed, with one idea to use the money to write down the outstanding debt of struggling homeowners.

However, prospects for a single “mega settlement” have worsened because officials disagree on the level of penalty and whether money raised in fines should be used for a principal writedown. The banking regulators, who do not agree among themselves, are nonetheless keen to come to an agreement quickly.


FULL STORY





 

SEC charges ex-Fannie and Freddie chiefs



48a137d0-0ff3-11e1-a36b-00144feabdc0.img


From the: Financial Times
By Shahien Nasiripour
and Kara Scannell in New York
December 16, 2011




Six former top executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been charged with securities fraud in a civil case brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly misleading investors, becoming some of the most senior financial executives yet to be accused of wrongdoing in the financial crisis.

The accused executives at the mortgage finance companies include Daniel Mudd, who served as Fannie chief executive from 2004 to 2008, and Richard Syron, a former Freddie chief executive.


They were accused of significantly understating Fannie and Freddie’s holdings of high-risk home loans. Those loans eventually soured, leading to a government bailout that could cost US taxpayers $193bn until the end of 2014, excluding dividend payments, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was,” said Robert Khuzami, SEC enforcement director. He said these “material misstatements” misled the market about the risk held on the company’s books “during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions’ exposure to subprime loans”.

From 2006 until the end of 2008, Freddie Mac said its subprime exposure was no more than $2bn to $6bn when its actual exposure was between $141bn and $244bn, Mr Khuzami said.

Others charged include Freddie’s former chief business officer, Patrick Cook, and head of single-family loans, Donald Bisenius. Fannie’s former chief risk officer, Enrico Dallavecchia, and former chief of single-family loans, Thomas Lund, are also accused.

The SEC agreed not to bring charges against the companies, now owned by US taxpayers. The companies neither admitted nor denied liability, although they agreed to “accept responsibility” for their conduct. Fannie and Freddie also agreed to help the SEC in their suits against the former executives.

The charges come as the regulator faces criticism for not holding enough senior executives to account for losses sustained in the financial crisis. The SEC has launched 38 actions against 87 defendants – more than half of them senior executives – related to the financial crisis, it said.

The SEC said it was seeking cash penalties from the executives, although it declined to specify the precise amount. The agency also wants the executives to be forbidden from serving as directors or officers of public companies.

In a statement, Mr Mudd, currently chief executive of Fortress Investment Group, defended his actions. “The government reviewed and approved the company’s disclosures during my tenure, and through the present. Now it appears that the government has negotiated a deal to hold the government, and government-appointed executives who have signed the same disclosures since my departure, blameless – so that it can sue individuals it fired years ago.”

A representative said Mr Lund “did not mislead anyone”. Representatives for the other executives either could not be reached or did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

“At its core, today’s action is about holding individuals accountable for their role in misleading the public about their companies’ subprime exposure,” Mr Khuzami said.

Both companies adopted broad definitions of what mortgages should be classified as subprime, which mistakenly led investors to conclude they received a full picture of subprime exposure when in fact large categories of loans that shared subprime characteristics were not disclosed to investors, Mr Khuzami said.

In 2006, Fannie Mae paid $400m in penalties after regulators said the company engaged in “extensive financial fraud” by manipulating earnings so executives could collect hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses. In 2007, Freddie Mac paid $50m to resolve similar accusations.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9fcf8556-27fa-11e1-9433-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1gjSYHwHL
 
Back
Top