That would be a nasty little lawsuit (well, maybe not so little) against Countrywide (and its successor, Bank of America) in which it is alleged that Countrywide sold a lot of bogus paper to pretty much every large insurance company in the world.
In point, here’s the salient section:
1. This action concerns a massive fraud perpetrated by Defendant Countrywide Financial and certain of its officers and affiliates against the Plaintiffs, which are investors in mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) issued by Countrywide’s subsidiaries. The Plaintiffs are institutional investors that wanted conservative, low-risk investments and thus bought Countrywide MBS (the “Certificates”) that were represented to be backed by mortgages issued pursuant to specific underwriting guidelines and rated investment-grade (primarily AAA). In purchasing the Certificates, the Plaintiffs and their investment managers relied on term sheets, prospectuses and other materials prepared by and provided to them by the Defendants, which made representations about the Countrywide Defendants’ purportedly conservative mortgage underwriting standards, the appraisals of the mortgaged properties, the mortgages’ loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratios, and other facts that were material to Plaintiffs’ investment decisions. Plaintiffs and their investment managers also relied on Defendants’ public statements concerning the Countrywide Defendants’ adherence to prudent underwriting guidelines and careful credit analysis. These representations by Defendants were recklessly or knowingly false when made. In reality, Countrywide was an enterprise driven by only one purpose – to originate and securitize as many mortgage loans as possible into MBS to generate profits for the Countrywide Defendants, without regard to the investors that relied on the critical, false information provided to them with respect to the related Certificates.
Read starting at page 62. Oh I’ll do it for you…
H. Countrywide Failed To Ensure That Title To The Underlying Loans Was Effectively Transferred
147. The rules for these transfers are governed by the law of the state where the property is located, by the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement (“PSA”) for each securitization, and by the law governing the issuing trust (with respect to matters of trust law). Generally, state laws and the PSAs require the promissory note and security instrument to be transferred by indorsement, in the same way that a check can be transferred by indorsement, or by sale. In addition, state laws generally require that the trustee have physical possession of the original, manually signed note in order for the loan to be enforceable by the trustee against the borrower in case of default.
Life Insurance Companies v Country Wide, Mozillo, Bank of America, et al
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
US Judge Temporarily Delays Shredding of Fraudulant Loan Documents
* Two defunct lenders seeking to destroy boxes of records
* One judge temporarily blocks document destruction
* In separate hearing, destruction partially allowed
* Rulings come amid wide concerns of missing loan docs
By Scot J. Paltrow
WILMINGTON, Del., Jan 24 (Reuters) – A U.S. bankruptcy judge temporarily blocked bankrupt subprime lender Mortgage Lenders Network USA from destroying 18,000 boxes of original loan files after federal prosecutors said documents in them may be needed as evidence in more than 50 criminal investigations.
In a hearing Monday before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter J. Walsh, a representative from the Delaware U.S. Attorneys’ Office said she did not know details of any of the investigations.
But she said prosecutors and FBI offices around the country had requested time to access to the boxes and assess whether the contents contain needed evidence before the judge permits any destruction.
Walsh granted a 30-day delay, and said he would hold another hearing on Mortgage Lenders’ request.
A series of recent court rulings have increased the importance of original loan documents, holding that they are essential for investors to prove ownership of mortgages and to have the right to foreclose.
Connecticut-based Mortgage Lenders Network closed down and filed for bankruptcy protection in February 2007, and now is being liquidated.
Dozens of subprime lenders went out of business in 2007 with the collapse of the housing market. There is increasing tension as trustees for several of these defunct lenders seek to destroy documents to save storage costs, while law enforcement officials and advocates for homeowners and investors in mortgage-backed securities argue that the documents should be preserved.
Concern about missing mortgage documents emerged beginning in October 2010, with disclosures that large numbers of original loan documents were missing and that falsified ones were being submitted in foreclosure cases.
Check out the rest here…
* One judge temporarily blocks document destruction
* In separate hearing, destruction partially allowed
* Rulings come amid wide concerns of missing loan docs
By Scot J. Paltrow
WILMINGTON, Del., Jan 24 (Reuters) – A U.S. bankruptcy judge temporarily blocked bankrupt subprime lender Mortgage Lenders Network USA from destroying 18,000 boxes of original loan files after federal prosecutors said documents in them may be needed as evidence in more than 50 criminal investigations.
In a hearing Monday before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter J. Walsh, a representative from the Delaware U.S. Attorneys’ Office said she did not know details of any of the investigations.
But she said prosecutors and FBI offices around the country had requested time to access to the boxes and assess whether the contents contain needed evidence before the judge permits any destruction.
Walsh granted a 30-day delay, and said he would hold another hearing on Mortgage Lenders’ request.
A series of recent court rulings have increased the importance of original loan documents, holding that they are essential for investors to prove ownership of mortgages and to have the right to foreclose.
Connecticut-based Mortgage Lenders Network closed down and filed for bankruptcy protection in February 2007, and now is being liquidated.
Dozens of subprime lenders went out of business in 2007 with the collapse of the housing market. There is increasing tension as trustees for several of these defunct lenders seek to destroy documents to save storage costs, while law enforcement officials and advocates for homeowners and investors in mortgage-backed securities argue that the documents should be preserved.
Concern about missing mortgage documents emerged beginning in October 2010, with disclosures that large numbers of original loan documents were missing and that falsified ones were being submitted in foreclosure cases.
Check out the rest here…
Financial Crisis Commission Finds Cause For Prosecution Of Wall Street
The bipartisan panel appointed by Congress to investigate the financial crisis has concluded that several financial industry figures appear to have broken the law and has referred multiple cases to state or federal authorities for potential prosecution, according to two sources directly involved in the deliberations.
The sources, who spoke on condition they not be named, declined to identify the people implicated or the names of their institutions. But they characterized the panel's decision to make referrals to prosecutors as a significant escalation in the government's response to the financial crisis. The panel plans to release its final report in Washington on Thursday morning.
Read on.
Read more on FCIC website. Click here.
The sources, who spoke on condition they not be named, declined to identify the people implicated or the names of their institutions. But they characterized the panel's decision to make referrals to prosecutors as a significant escalation in the government's response to the financial crisis. The panel plans to release its final report in Washington on Thursday morning.
Read on.
Read more on FCIC website. Click here.
Biloxi Buzz for Tuesday
Obama won't endorse raising retirement age or reducing Social Security benefits — President Obama has decided not to endorse his deficit commission's recommendation to raise the retirement age, and otherwise reduce Social Security benefits, in Tuesday's State of the Union address … Report: George W. Bush aides violated Hatch Act — During the 2006 midterm elections, White House political aides to President George W. Bush engaged in widespread violations of a federal law which limits partisan political activity by government employees, a long-running federal investigation has found.
Justice Clarence Thomas Amends 20 Years of Disclosure Forms With Wife's Employers — Virginia Thomas' Place of Employment Had Been Omitted From Justice's Reports — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas amended 20 years worth of financial disclosure forms today after a liberal watchdog group questioned …NBC: U.S. can't link accused Army private to Assange — Military also denies allegations that Bradley Manning is being mistreated — Below: — U.S. military officials tell NBC News that investigators have been unable to make any direct connection between a jailed army private suspected
Supreme Court To Consider Miranda Rights Case
Joe Biden Called For Jury Duty
Heads to Illinois Supreme Court
Mortgage investors are duped by false owner-occupancy claims, study finds
Source: Bloomberg
Borrowers either never moved into or later vacated homes for at least 25 percent of U.S. mortgages that were described as being for “owner occupied” properties when bundled into securities, according to 1010data.
Misrepresentation of a mortgage’s intended use as a residence accounts for about half of the falsely labeled loans, with the rest reflecting borrowers that subsequently moved out, according to a study by the New York-based firm, which sells software used to analyze data. The mortgages were packaged into bonds without government backing from 2004 through 2008.
Read the full story >>
Borrowers either never moved into or later vacated homes for at least 25 percent of U.S. mortgages that were described as being for “owner occupied” properties when bundled into securities, according to 1010data.
Misrepresentation of a mortgage’s intended use as a residence accounts for about half of the falsely labeled loans, with the rest reflecting borrowers that subsequently moved out, according to a study by the New York-based firm, which sells software used to analyze data. The mortgages were packaged into bonds without government backing from 2004 through 2008.
Read the full story >>
The Consumer Law Group Sues to Stop FL A.G.’s Probe, Insisting That Law is not ‘Commerce’
4losurefraud:
WEST PALM BEACH (CN) – The Consumer Law Group, of Boca Raton, claims the Florida attorney general has no authority to investigate its business practices because “the practice of law does not constitute ‘trade or commerce’ as such term is defined by FDUTPA [Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act].” The law office says “at least ten (10) depositions have recently been conducted by the Attorney General regarding CLG’s practice of law,” and it wants to head off a lawsuit “that the Attorney General will soon file … under the guise of FDUPTA.”
Joining as plaintiffs are the law office’s managing attorney, Michael Metzner, and American Debt Negotiators and its president Ran Barnea and secretary Daniel Post.
The Consumer Law Group is a multistate law firm and, according to its website, specializes in debt management and debt settlements.
The law office says it hires American Debt Negotiators, also of Boca Raton, to provide “administrative services,” including “IT solutions for, among other things, CLG’s debt settlement programs pursuant to contract.”
In its complaint in Palm Beach County Court, the plaintiffs claim that the Florida Supreme Court, not the attorney general, has exclusive jurisdiction over the practice of law and lawyers.
The law office concedes that the attorney general has the power to enforce the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, but says that “such investigation and the threatened law suit, however, exceed the attorney general’s statutory authority, as the practice of law does not constitute ‘trade or commerce’ as such term is defined by FDUTPA.”
The Consumer Law Group claims that “the attorney general, who, as alleged above, does not have the statutory authority to pursue this investigation, also does not have the constitutional authority to travel under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act in order to investigate and or punish CLG, a multistate law firm, in its alleged malfeasance in the practice of law.”
The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment. They are represented by Richard Epstein with Greenspoon Marder of Fort Lauderdale.
WEST PALM BEACH (CN) – The Consumer Law Group, of Boca Raton, claims the Florida attorney general has no authority to investigate its business practices because “the practice of law does not constitute ‘trade or commerce’ as such term is defined by FDUTPA [Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act].” The law office says “at least ten (10) depositions have recently been conducted by the Attorney General regarding CLG’s practice of law,” and it wants to head off a lawsuit “that the Attorney General will soon file … under the guise of FDUPTA.”
Joining as plaintiffs are the law office’s managing attorney, Michael Metzner, and American Debt Negotiators and its president Ran Barnea and secretary Daniel Post.
The Consumer Law Group is a multistate law firm and, according to its website, specializes in debt management and debt settlements.
The law office says it hires American Debt Negotiators, also of Boca Raton, to provide “administrative services,” including “IT solutions for, among other things, CLG’s debt settlement programs pursuant to contract.”
In its complaint in Palm Beach County Court, the plaintiffs claim that the Florida Supreme Court, not the attorney general, has exclusive jurisdiction over the practice of law and lawyers.
The law office concedes that the attorney general has the power to enforce the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, but says that “such investigation and the threatened law suit, however, exceed the attorney general’s statutory authority, as the practice of law does not constitute ‘trade or commerce’ as such term is defined by FDUTPA.”
The Consumer Law Group claims that “the attorney general, who, as alleged above, does not have the statutory authority to pursue this investigation, also does not have the constitutional authority to travel under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act in order to investigate and or punish CLG, a multistate law firm, in its alleged malfeasance in the practice of law.”
The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment. They are represented by Richard Epstein with Greenspoon Marder of Fort Lauderdale.
2 Banks, 1 House – SI Foreclosure Shows Paperwork Nightmare
A house divided cannot stand. A house foreclosure case divided by two banks probably doesn’t have standing — in court — either.
Two banks, Home123 Corporation and US Bank, both lay claim to owning a house in Staten Island, according to a foreclosure filing. The original lender, Home123, is the mortgage holder on the county’s tax rolls, but US Bank and its servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, have filed the court papers, saying they have the right to the action.
US Bank claims that they purchased the mortgage from Home123. But, the bank admits, “due to unforseen circumstances, the original Assignment of Mortgage and Endorsement Note were lost before they could be recorded.”
That doesn’t sit well with Joseph Sant, the lawyer representing the homeowner, who did not wish to be named.
“US Bank is foreclosing on a home without proof that it owns the mortgage. That should not surprise anyone after the revelations of widespread robo-signing and document falsification in foreclosures,” Sant says.
“What does surprise me is that the bank admits that it lacks key evidence needed to foreclose, yet is trying to bulldoze through the legal process anyways,” Sant adds.
A US Bank spokesman said the bank, acting as a trustee, did not bring the action. He said the bank is named so there is a plaintiff to send paperwork to.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/banks_house_oMnXCm9lhY86EATINgQsgP#ixzz1ByTvaFpx
Two banks, Home123 Corporation and US Bank, both lay claim to owning a house in Staten Island, according to a foreclosure filing. The original lender, Home123, is the mortgage holder on the county’s tax rolls, but US Bank and its servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, have filed the court papers, saying they have the right to the action.
US Bank claims that they purchased the mortgage from Home123. But, the bank admits, “due to unforseen circumstances, the original Assignment of Mortgage and Endorsement Note were lost before they could be recorded.”
That doesn’t sit well with Joseph Sant, the lawyer representing the homeowner, who did not wish to be named.
“US Bank is foreclosing on a home without proof that it owns the mortgage. That should not surprise anyone after the revelations of widespread robo-signing and document falsification in foreclosures,” Sant says.
“What does surprise me is that the bank admits that it lacks key evidence needed to foreclose, yet is trying to bulldoze through the legal process anyways,” Sant adds.
A US Bank spokesman said the bank, acting as a trustee, did not bring the action. He said the bank is named so there is a plaintiff to send paperwork to.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/banks_house_oMnXCm9lhY86EATINgQsgP#ixzz1ByTvaFpx
Monday, January 24, 2011
Loan mod nightmare by prominent attorney and laid off homeowner
Written by Biloxi
We keep hearing everyday of deceptive loan modifications by banks to homeowners. Here is a story of the loan modification hell by Bank of America by a laid off homeowners and a prominent Las Vegas attorney.
Linn B. Taylor, a laid off truck driver from Tennessee, is suing Bank of America for breach of contract of loan modification, violation of Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and negligence. Mr. Taylor is asking for $100,000. Here is the story. Mr. Taylor agreed to modify mortgage payments. Mr. Taylor send his payments, and they were cashed. However, Bank of America began to reject three payments and didn't cash those three payments. Bank of America declined Mr. Taylor of a loan modifcation and threaten to foreclose on his home. When Mr. Taylor asked Bank of america represenative why they rejected his three payments yet cash the other payments, Mr. Taylor told the court that the bank representative told him, "We don't have to accept [the modified] payments if we don't want to." Here is the Mr. Taylor's lawsuit. Click here.
In the case of prominent Las Vegas attorney Matthew Callister and his wife, Mr. Callister accused Bank of America of not only deceiving him with a loan modification but stalling for approval of a short sale of his home in Utah. Mr. Callister sues Bank of America for violation of Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Callister this week sued the bank in Clark County District Court, charging he and his wife have been trying for nine months to get Bank of America to approve a short sale for a property in Park City, Utah, but that "Bank of America has been repetitively stalling the approval of the short sale in an attempt to foreclose upon the home first."
Callister said in the suit that he and his spouse Jacqueline purchased the property as both an office and as the place they will retire, but now "defendants have intensely intervened with every possible effort by plaintiffs to short sale the home or to modify the loan."
"Defendants have done everything possible to avoid compliance with federal programs," charges the suit filed by Mathew Callister through his law office Callister + Associates LLC. "Bank of America has made a pattern of telling consumers, such as plaintiffs, that short sales are an available option. However, Bank of America makes these statements knowing that these statements are misleading and in fact, a short sale will not be approved."
Callister said Friday that instead of pursuing the case he filed this week, it was dismissed and he sued the bank over the same issues in state court in Utah. He said he's also considering filing an additional suit in behalf of hundreds of other borrowers or joining an existing suit filed against Bank of America by the Nevada Attorney General's office in Clark County District Court Dec. 17.
The abuse and refusal of the banks to negotiate in good faith with borrowers is a never ending story. The constant nickeling and diming the homeowners with excessive charges and the threats of foreclosure to the homeowners will continue to hurt Bank of America' finances and reputation. It will be much harder for Bank of Bank of America to repair and rebuild. Bank of America had posted this week their 4th quarter $1.6 billion quarterly loss.
We keep hearing everyday of deceptive loan modifications by banks to homeowners. Here is a story of the loan modification hell by Bank of America by a laid off homeowners and a prominent Las Vegas attorney.
Linn B. Taylor, a laid off truck driver from Tennessee, is suing Bank of America for breach of contract of loan modification, violation of Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and negligence. Mr. Taylor is asking for $100,000. Here is the story. Mr. Taylor agreed to modify mortgage payments. Mr. Taylor send his payments, and they were cashed. However, Bank of America began to reject three payments and didn't cash those three payments. Bank of America declined Mr. Taylor of a loan modifcation and threaten to foreclose on his home. When Mr. Taylor asked Bank of america represenative why they rejected his three payments yet cash the other payments, Mr. Taylor told the court that the bank representative told him, "We don't have to accept [the modified] payments if we don't want to." Here is the Mr. Taylor's lawsuit. Click here.
In the case of prominent Las Vegas attorney Matthew Callister and his wife, Mr. Callister accused Bank of America of not only deceiving him with a loan modification but stalling for approval of a short sale of his home in Utah. Mr. Callister sues Bank of America for violation of Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Callister this week sued the bank in Clark County District Court, charging he and his wife have been trying for nine months to get Bank of America to approve a short sale for a property in Park City, Utah, but that "Bank of America has been repetitively stalling the approval of the short sale in an attempt to foreclose upon the home first."
Callister said in the suit that he and his spouse Jacqueline purchased the property as both an office and as the place they will retire, but now "defendants have intensely intervened with every possible effort by plaintiffs to short sale the home or to modify the loan."
"Defendants have done everything possible to avoid compliance with federal programs," charges the suit filed by Mathew Callister through his law office Callister + Associates LLC. "Bank of America has made a pattern of telling consumers, such as plaintiffs, that short sales are an available option. However, Bank of America makes these statements knowing that these statements are misleading and in fact, a short sale will not be approved."
Callister said Friday that instead of pursuing the case he filed this week, it was dismissed and he sued the bank over the same issues in state court in Utah. He said he's also considering filing an additional suit in behalf of hundreds of other borrowers or joining an existing suit filed against Bank of America by the Nevada Attorney General's office in Clark County District Court Dec. 17.
The abuse and refusal of the banks to negotiate in good faith with borrowers is a never ending story. The constant nickeling and diming the homeowners with excessive charges and the threats of foreclosure to the homeowners will continue to hurt Bank of America' finances and reputation. It will be much harder for Bank of Bank of America to repair and rebuild. Bank of America had posted this week their 4th quarter $1.6 billion quarterly loss.
Biloxi Buzz for Monday
MORTGAGE GIANTS LEAVE LEGAL BILLS TO TAXPAYERS
Fitness Guru Jack LaLanne Dies
Arizona 'Hero Intern' To Sit With Michelle Obama At State Of The Union
Repealing Health Care Reform Could Force Seniors To Repay $250 To The Government
Quantico MPs harass Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com,
impound her car as she tries to help deliver petition
calling for humane treatment of Bradley Manning
George Allen to announce Senate bid Monday — Former Sen. George Allen will end weeks of speculation and formally declare his candidacy for U.S. Senate in Virginia on Monday, two Republican advisers tell POLITICO. — Allen, who has been making all the moves of a candidate in recent weeks …
A new complicated robo-signing method: Notice of Default
Written by Biloxi
This new method of robo-signing could complicate judicial and non-judicial states. A notice of Default is the first letter that the mortgage servicer or lender sends to the homeowner who has fallen behind on payments. And every Notice of Default has a signature. We are now introduced to Notice of Default robo-signing. Like the robo-signing cases of rubberstamping affidavits, default notices are signed by employees who didn't verify the information in them.
In a lawsuit against Wells Fargo & Co. in Nevada, Stanley Silva, a title officer at Ticor Title of Nevada Inc., who signed default notices, had admitted in a deposition this month that he did not review any documents or know who had the right to foreclose.
Robert Hager, an attorney with the Reno, Nev., law firm Hager & Hearne who is representing borrower Joseph and Meisa Jones in the case, said, “They are starting foreclosures on behalf of companies with no authority to foreclose. The policy of these companies is to just have a signer execute a notice of default starting foreclosure without any documentation to determine whether they are starting an illegal foreclosure.”
In the deposition of Stanley Silva, he said that he “technically signed” default notices for clients, which were often acting as agents of other parties, which in turn worked for others. Silva said under oath that he never reviewed any documents or knew what company was the holder of the original note at the time he signed the notice of default. When asked by Mr. Hager if he signed notices of default “without verifying the accuracy of the information,” Silva replied: “Correct.
Here is the full deposition of Stanley Silva. Click here.
This new method of robo-signing in a different context could be very bad for the banks if more notice of default robo-signing appears in other states.
This new method of robo-signing could complicate judicial and non-judicial states. A notice of Default is the first letter that the mortgage servicer or lender sends to the homeowner who has fallen behind on payments. And every Notice of Default has a signature. We are now introduced to Notice of Default robo-signing. Like the robo-signing cases of rubberstamping affidavits, default notices are signed by employees who didn't verify the information in them.
In a lawsuit against Wells Fargo & Co. in Nevada, Stanley Silva, a title officer at Ticor Title of Nevada Inc., who signed default notices, had admitted in a deposition this month that he did not review any documents or know who had the right to foreclose.
Robert Hager, an attorney with the Reno, Nev., law firm Hager & Hearne who is representing borrower Joseph and Meisa Jones in the case, said, “They are starting foreclosures on behalf of companies with no authority to foreclose. The policy of these companies is to just have a signer execute a notice of default starting foreclosure without any documentation to determine whether they are starting an illegal foreclosure.”
In the deposition of Stanley Silva, he said that he “technically signed” default notices for clients, which were often acting as agents of other parties, which in turn worked for others. Silva said under oath that he never reviewed any documents or knew what company was the holder of the original note at the time he signed the notice of default. When asked by Mr. Hager if he signed notices of default “without verifying the accuracy of the information,” Silva replied: “Correct.
Here is the full deposition of Stanley Silva. Click here.
This new method of robo-signing in a different context could be very bad for the banks if more notice of default robo-signing appears in other states.
An example of BofA refusing to provide an original mortgage note
Written by Biloxi:
A reader on Zerohedge website requested from Bank of America to provide information on original note on his home. Zerohedge website posted Bank of America's letter to the Zerohedge reader refusing to provide an original note. Here is more from Zerohedge:
Two months ago, there were a variety of campaigns launched to get the mass public to demand from their bank an original, wet ink signature note for their mortgage. Many of these fizzled out. That said, we would like to present one instance of Bank of America responding negatively to just such a demand by a Zero Hedge reader, in which the bank's Home Loans unit outright refuses to provide the requested information hiding behind a lack of affirmative responsibility. Specifically, the response from the Qualified Written Request Group notes: "you cite no legal authority that supports your claim that you are entitled to view the original Note, and we are not aware of the existence of any such authority. Accordingly BAC Home Loans respectfully declines this request. If you wish to pursue this matter further, please provide such legal authority." In other words, banks continue to hide behind a legal defense that ultimately involves the jurisdiction of various (if not all) state attorneys general. In the meantime, odds are (99%) that the bank has absolutely no copy of the original and should the reader proceed to default (in a judicial state), the bank will likely ultimately be forced to give up its claim on the mortgage.
Here the Bank of America letter. Click here.
This is certainly a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act or RESPA. Under 12 US code Section 2605 Servicing of Mortgage Loans and Administration of Escrow Accounts:
Sec. 2605. Servicing of mortgage loans and administration of escrow accounts
(a) Disclosure to applicant relating to assignment, sale, or transfer of
loan servicing
Each person who makes a federally related mortgage loan shall
disclose to each person who applies for the loan, at the time of
application for the loan, whether the servicing of the loan may be
assigned, sold, or transferred to any other person at any time while the
loan is outstanding.
(b) Notice by transferor of loan servicing at time of transfer
(1) Notice requirement
Each servicer of any federally related mortgage loan shall
notify the borrower in writing of any assignment, sale, or transfer
of the servicing of the loan to any other person.
Bank servicers like Bank of America have forgotten that they, too, have to apply to the federal law to disclose to borrower mortgage loan servicing while the loan is outstanding and they are not above the law. Lastly, Bank of America has violated the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act that President Obama signed into law in 2009:
Establishes right of a homeowner to know who owns their mortgage
Often mortgage loans are sold and transferred a number of times. Borrowers often have difficulty determining who owns their loan, and who to contact with questions, problems or complaints about their loan. This legislation requires that borrowers be informed whenever their loan is sold or transferred, so that they will always know who owns their loan.
Until the federal regulators start clamping down on the Wall Street bank kings and their practices, the bank will continue to sit on their throne and rule and ignore the law.
A reader on Zerohedge website requested from Bank of America to provide information on original note on his home. Zerohedge website posted Bank of America's letter to the Zerohedge reader refusing to provide an original note. Here is more from Zerohedge:
Two months ago, there were a variety of campaigns launched to get the mass public to demand from their bank an original, wet ink signature note for their mortgage. Many of these fizzled out. That said, we would like to present one instance of Bank of America responding negatively to just such a demand by a Zero Hedge reader, in which the bank's Home Loans unit outright refuses to provide the requested information hiding behind a lack of affirmative responsibility. Specifically, the response from the Qualified Written Request Group notes: "you cite no legal authority that supports your claim that you are entitled to view the original Note, and we are not aware of the existence of any such authority. Accordingly BAC Home Loans respectfully declines this request. If you wish to pursue this matter further, please provide such legal authority." In other words, banks continue to hide behind a legal defense that ultimately involves the jurisdiction of various (if not all) state attorneys general. In the meantime, odds are (99%) that the bank has absolutely no copy of the original and should the reader proceed to default (in a judicial state), the bank will likely ultimately be forced to give up its claim on the mortgage.
Here the Bank of America letter. Click here.
This is certainly a violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act or RESPA. Under 12 US code Section 2605 Servicing of Mortgage Loans and Administration of Escrow Accounts:
Sec. 2605. Servicing of mortgage loans and administration of escrow accounts
(a) Disclosure to applicant relating to assignment, sale, or transfer of
loan servicing
Each person who makes a federally related mortgage loan shall
disclose to each person who applies for the loan, at the time of
application for the loan, whether the servicing of the loan may be
assigned, sold, or transferred to any other person at any time while the
loan is outstanding.
(b) Notice by transferor of loan servicing at time of transfer
(1) Notice requirement
Each servicer of any federally related mortgage loan shall
notify the borrower in writing of any assignment, sale, or transfer
of the servicing of the loan to any other person.
Bank servicers like Bank of America have forgotten that they, too, have to apply to the federal law to disclose to borrower mortgage loan servicing while the loan is outstanding and they are not above the law. Lastly, Bank of America has violated the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act that President Obama signed into law in 2009:
Establishes right of a homeowner to know who owns their mortgage
Often mortgage loans are sold and transferred a number of times. Borrowers often have difficulty determining who owns their loan, and who to contact with questions, problems or complaints about their loan. This legislation requires that borrowers be informed whenever their loan is sold or transferred, so that they will always know who owns their loan.
Until the federal regulators start clamping down on the Wall Street bank kings and their practices, the bank will continue to sit on their throne and rule and ignore the law.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Clarence Thomas failed to report wife's income, watchdog says
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife's income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.
Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed.
A Supreme Court spokesperson could not be reached for comment late Friday. But Virginia Thomas' employment by the Heritage Foundation was well known at the time.
Read on.
Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation's IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled "none" where "spousal noninvestment income" would be disclosed.
A Supreme Court spokesperson could not be reached for comment late Friday. But Virginia Thomas' employment by the Heritage Foundation was well known at the time.
Read on.
Biloxi Buzz for Sunday
Keith Olbermann's Exit — Secret Deal — Keith Olbermann saw the handwriting on the wall with the new owner of NBC and cut a deal for his exit that will give him money and options — sources tell TMZ. — Here's how it went down. Sources familiar with the situation tell us …
Obama to Push New Spending — State of Union Speech to Call for Boosting ‘Competitiveness’ While Nodding to Need for Budget Cuts — President Barack Obama and GE's Jeffrey Immelt, left, with plant manager Kevin Sharkey, visited a GE factory Friday to talk about green jobs.
Amanda Knox 'Murder Knife' DNA Evidence To Be Retested
Citigroup CEO Gets A 175 Million Percent Raise
Free manuretv: Sunday's bobblehead show
Here are the line-ups for the Sunday talk shows this weekend:
• ABC, This Week: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX).
• CBS, Face The Nation: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
• CNN, State Of The Union: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
• Fox News Sunday: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL).
• NBC, Meet The Press: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Assistant House Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-SC), former George W. Bush adviser Karen Hughes, former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta.
• ABC, This Week: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX).
• CBS, Face The Nation: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
• CNN, State Of The Union: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
• Fox News Sunday: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL).
• NBC, Meet The Press: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Assistant House Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-SC), former George W. Bush adviser Karen Hughes, former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Las Vegas attorney: Bank of America deceived him over loan modification
Bank of America faces another lawsuit in Las Vegas alleging it deceived a homeowner about a loan modification -- the homeowner in this case being prominent Las Vegas attorney Matthew Callister.
Callister this week sued the bank in Clark County District Court, charging he and his wife have been trying for nine months to get Bank of America to approve a short sale for a property in Park City, Utah, but that "Bank of America has been repetitively stalling the approval of the short sale in an attempt to foreclose upon the home first."
Callister said in the suit that he and his spouse Jacqueline purchased the property as both an office and as the place they will retire, but now "defendants have intensely intervened with every possible effort by plaintiffs to short sale the home or to modify the loan."
"Defendants have done everything possible to avoid compliance with federal programs," charges the suit filed by Mathew Callister through his law office Callister + Associates LLC. "Bank of America has made a pattern of telling consumers, such as plaintiffs, that short sales are an available option. However, Bank of America makes these statements knowing that these statements are misleading and in fact, a short sale will not be approved."
Callister said Friday that instead of pursuing the case he filed this week, it was dismissed and he sued the bank over the same issues in state court in Utah. He said he's also considering filing an additional suit in behalf of hundreds of other borrowers or joining an existing suit filed against Bank of America by the Nevada Attorney General's office in Clark County District Court Dec. 17.
Callister's initial suit alleged violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act and includes allegations similar to those leveled in the Attorney General's Office lawsuit.
Read on.
Callister this week sued the bank in Clark County District Court, charging he and his wife have been trying for nine months to get Bank of America to approve a short sale for a property in Park City, Utah, but that "Bank of America has been repetitively stalling the approval of the short sale in an attempt to foreclose upon the home first."
Callister said in the suit that he and his spouse Jacqueline purchased the property as both an office and as the place they will retire, but now "defendants have intensely intervened with every possible effort by plaintiffs to short sale the home or to modify the loan."
"Defendants have done everything possible to avoid compliance with federal programs," charges the suit filed by Mathew Callister through his law office Callister + Associates LLC. "Bank of America has made a pattern of telling consumers, such as plaintiffs, that short sales are an available option. However, Bank of America makes these statements knowing that these statements are misleading and in fact, a short sale will not be approved."
Callister said Friday that instead of pursuing the case he filed this week, it was dismissed and he sued the bank over the same issues in state court in Utah. He said he's also considering filing an additional suit in behalf of hundreds of other borrowers or joining an existing suit filed against Bank of America by the Nevada Attorney General's office in Clark County District Court Dec. 17.
Callister's initial suit alleged violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act and includes allegations similar to those leveled in the Attorney General's Office lawsuit.
Read on.
Palin to be prosecuted for inciting violence if she visits Australia, attorney says
Sarah Palin better watch out.
Under Australian law, inciting violence is a serious crime: an offense which could even trigger the prosecution of members of the US political class and mainstream media who called for the assassination of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, according to his attorney.
Comments by Robert Stary, Assange's Melbourne-based lawyer, were carried in the US by a Friday broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition.
"Our main concern is really the possible extradition to the US," he said. "We've been troubled by the sort of rhetoric that has come out of various commentators and principally Republican politicians — Sarah Palin and the like — saying Mr. Assange should be executed, assassinated."
Stary added: "Certainly if Sarah Palin or any of those other politicians come to Australia, for whatever purpose, then we can initiate a private prosecution, and that's what we intend to do."
Read on.
Under Australian law, inciting violence is a serious crime: an offense which could even trigger the prosecution of members of the US political class and mainstream media who called for the assassination of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, according to his attorney.
Comments by Robert Stary, Assange's Melbourne-based lawyer, were carried in the US by a Friday broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition.
"Our main concern is really the possible extradition to the US," he said. "We've been troubled by the sort of rhetoric that has come out of various commentators and principally Republican politicians — Sarah Palin and the like — saying Mr. Assange should be executed, assassinated."
Stary added: "Certainly if Sarah Palin or any of those other politicians come to Australia, for whatever purpose, then we can initiate a private prosecution, and that's what we intend to do."
Read on.
MERS CEO R.K. Arnold Leaving Company
Zerohedge:
From the WSJ:
The chief executive of the privately-held Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, or MERS, is planning to leave the company and an announcement could come within days, according to people familiar with the matter.
The company has been under fire by Congress and state officials for its role in the mortgage-document crisis. The firm's board of directors has met in recent days to address the fate of the company and its chief executive, R.K. Arnold, the people said.
Arnold and other MERS executives didn't respond to requests for comment. A MERS spokeswoman Friday declined comment. Arnold, a former U.S. Army Ranger, has served as the CEO and president of Merscorp Inc., the parent company of MERS, since 1998 and has been with the company since its inception 15 years ago, according to a corporate biography.
MERS was built by Fannie Mae (FNMA), Freddie Mac (FMCC), and several large U.S. banks in 1996 as an electronic registry of land records. That created a parallel database to facilitate the packaging of loans into securities that could be sold and re-sold without being recorded in local county courthouses, reducing costs for banks. The company's name is listed as the agent for mortgage lenders on more than 65 million home loans.
But the company's practices have begun to receive heavy scrutiny from state prosecutors and federal regulators, particularly in light of foreclosure-document problems that surfaced last fall. State and federal lawmakers have begun to consider bills that would make it harder for banks to use or foreclose on properties through MERS.
MERS's legal standing also has been challenged by legal experts because it doesn't own the underlying debt. Previously, the mortgage and the promissory note weren't split between different parties.
Critics of the company have raised concerns over whether notes were properly assigned or tracked within the electronic system. Judges have also begun to question the company's practices of "deputizing" hundreds of bank executives to handle foreclosures by naming them "vice presidents" of MERS.
From the WSJ:
The chief executive of the privately-held Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, or MERS, is planning to leave the company and an announcement could come within days, according to people familiar with the matter.
The company has been under fire by Congress and state officials for its role in the mortgage-document crisis. The firm's board of directors has met in recent days to address the fate of the company and its chief executive, R.K. Arnold, the people said.
Arnold and other MERS executives didn't respond to requests for comment. A MERS spokeswoman Friday declined comment. Arnold, a former U.S. Army Ranger, has served as the CEO and president of Merscorp Inc., the parent company of MERS, since 1998 and has been with the company since its inception 15 years ago, according to a corporate biography.
MERS was built by Fannie Mae (FNMA), Freddie Mac (FMCC), and several large U.S. banks in 1996 as an electronic registry of land records. That created a parallel database to facilitate the packaging of loans into securities that could be sold and re-sold without being recorded in local county courthouses, reducing costs for banks. The company's name is listed as the agent for mortgage lenders on more than 65 million home loans.
But the company's practices have begun to receive heavy scrutiny from state prosecutors and federal regulators, particularly in light of foreclosure-document problems that surfaced last fall. State and federal lawmakers have begun to consider bills that would make it harder for banks to use or foreclose on properties through MERS.
MERS's legal standing also has been challenged by legal experts because it doesn't own the underlying debt. Previously, the mortgage and the promissory note weren't split between different parties.
Critics of the company have raised concerns over whether notes were properly assigned or tracked within the electronic system. Judges have also begun to question the company's practices of "deputizing" hundreds of bank executives to handle foreclosures by naming them "vice presidents" of MERS.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Why Paperwork Matters: Consider This Mortgage Mess
Judge Shelley C. Chapman, of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, has ordered HSBC and Litton Loan Servicing (a Goldman Sachs subsidiary) to send officers with some juice — and not low-level types — to her Manhattan courtroom on Feb. 10 to explain themselves. More specifically, to explain their failure to provide adequate documentation about a mortgage they claim to own and service. Judge Chapman also ordered the Texas attorney who signed the documents to show up.
At issue is the fact that HSBC (HBC) hasn’t come close to proving it owns the loan, and the documents it has submitted look funny. It also doesn’t appear to have been acting in good faith when it comes to trying to modify the loan (also known as “loss mitigation”). So, the judge wants to talk to people who actually know things and can make decisions.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/fYURAC
At issue is the fact that HSBC (HBC) hasn’t come close to proving it owns the loan, and the documents it has submitted look funny. It also doesn’t appear to have been acting in good faith when it comes to trying to modify the loan (also known as “loss mitigation”). So, the judge wants to talk to people who actually know things and can make decisions.
See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/fYURAC
Homeowner Class Action Filed Against BofA, Challenging Ownership of Homes Obtained Through Improper Mortgage Foreclosures
Teresa O’Neal and Marco Delgado, through the law firm of Forizs & Dogali, P.A., have filed a statewide class action against Bank of America alleging improper action during mortgage foreclosures.
This case is different from other similar lawsuits because it focuses on Bank of America’s current ownership of the foreclosed property. The Plaintiff group includes only borrowers who were improperly foreclosed out of homes which are now, after foreclosure sales, owned by Bank of America. The complaint seeks to restore the borrowers’ rights in their homes, and seeks to establish that Bank of America’s claim of ownership can be invalidated. The number of Florida homes which Bank of America now owns after improper foreclosures is unknown, but the Plaintiffs estimate the number in the thousands.
The Plaintiffs allege the improper foreclosure practices by which Bank of America obtained ownership of the properties includes false and forged affidavits, certificates of service, and other documents. They also allege that the documents systematically contained inaccurate facts, or were signed by persons who lacked required knowledge, or were forged. The Plaintiffs propose that all prior foreclosure sales which were based upon such documents are subject to being invalidated by the borrowers.
In addition to seeking a declaration regarding the invalidity of prior foreclosure sales through which Bank of America took ownership of their homes, Ms. O’Neal and Mr. Delgado allege that Bank of America violated Florida’s racketeering laws, and that Bank of America’s use of the court system to deprive them of their homes was in violation of their civil rights, and that Bank of America’s conduct violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs’ damages are alleged to exceed $5 million.
Read on.
This case is different from other similar lawsuits because it focuses on Bank of America’s current ownership of the foreclosed property. The Plaintiff group includes only borrowers who were improperly foreclosed out of homes which are now, after foreclosure sales, owned by Bank of America. The complaint seeks to restore the borrowers’ rights in their homes, and seeks to establish that Bank of America’s claim of ownership can be invalidated. The number of Florida homes which Bank of America now owns after improper foreclosures is unknown, but the Plaintiffs estimate the number in the thousands.
The Plaintiffs allege the improper foreclosure practices by which Bank of America obtained ownership of the properties includes false and forged affidavits, certificates of service, and other documents. They also allege that the documents systematically contained inaccurate facts, or were signed by persons who lacked required knowledge, or were forged. The Plaintiffs propose that all prior foreclosure sales which were based upon such documents are subject to being invalidated by the borrowers.
In addition to seeking a declaration regarding the invalidity of prior foreclosure sales through which Bank of America took ownership of their homes, Ms. O’Neal and Mr. Delgado allege that Bank of America violated Florida’s racketeering laws, and that Bank of America’s use of the court system to deprive them of their homes was in violation of their civil rights, and that Bank of America’s conduct violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs’ damages are alleged to exceed $5 million.
Read on.
Biloxi Buzz for Friday
9-Year-Old Boy Sells Toys To Help Gabrielle Giffords
Exclusive: Over a million immigrants land U.S. jobs in 2008-10 — (Reuters) - Over the past two years, as U.S. unemployment remained near double-digit levels and the economy shed jobs in the wake of the financial crisis, over a million foreign-born arrivals to America found work, many illegally.
Common Cause Seeking Ethics Probe of Scalia and Thomas
The public interest group Common Cause today announced that it has asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas should have recused in last year's Citizens United case because of their alleged ties to Koch Industries, a company described as a "major beneficiary" of the ruling.
The public interest group Common Cause today announced that it has asked the Justice Department to investigate whether Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas should have recused in last year's Citizens United case because of their alleged ties to Koch Industries, a company described as a "major beneficiary" of the ruling.
Judge Slaps Wells Fargo in Foreclosure
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A woman can stay in her home, for now, after a federal judge granted her a temporary restraining order preventing Wells Fargo from proceeding with a foreclosure. Keng Hee Paik said the bank had not provided her “with ‘any documents whatsoever’” when she took out a $750,000 home loan.
Paik said she “‘performed dutifully under the loans until 2010′” when her income was drastically reduced, and that Wells Fargo never notified of her of her rights or provided a notice of default before it initiated foreclosure proceedings.
“On the current record it appears likely that – at the least – defendants didnot comply with their legal obligations attending contacting plaintiff prior to entry of notice of default, and that failure must be cured before any foreclosure sale can proceed,” wrote U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who found Paik would likely suffer irreparable harm if the foreclosure proceeds.
“And, importantly, plaintiff is entitled to her day in court to vindicate her right to statutorily required notice,” Alsup wrote.
“This would not be the first time that a bank shirked its legal responsibilities to aid a struggling borrower trying to pay back her loan. It is in the public interest to allow such borrowers a full and fair opportunity to show that they were not given all the benefits that the law afforded when they make a preliminary showing that something was amiss.”
Read on.
Paik said she “‘performed dutifully under the loans until 2010′” when her income was drastically reduced, and that Wells Fargo never notified of her of her rights or provided a notice of default before it initiated foreclosure proceedings.
“On the current record it appears likely that – at the least – defendants didnot comply with their legal obligations attending contacting plaintiff prior to entry of notice of default, and that failure must be cured before any foreclosure sale can proceed,” wrote U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who found Paik would likely suffer irreparable harm if the foreclosure proceeds.
“And, importantly, plaintiff is entitled to her day in court to vindicate her right to statutorily required notice,” Alsup wrote.
“This would not be the first time that a bank shirked its legal responsibilities to aid a struggling borrower trying to pay back her loan. It is in the public interest to allow such borrowers a full and fair opportunity to show that they were not given all the benefits that the law afforded when they make a preliminary showing that something was amiss.”
Read on.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Florida Judge Rules Chase/US Bank Failed to Prove Ownership of Couple’s Mortgage
The facts aren’t unusual: In 2008, a couple in Reddick defaulted on a home mortgage and the bank pursued foreclosure. The couple contested the action.
But the outcome defies the usual pattern. The defendants prevailed at a non-jury trial and, to date, have been allowed to keep the home.
According to the attorney handling the homeowners’ case, this didn’t happen because of some ground breaking ruling or unexpected turn of events during litigation. Rather, it’s a sign that judges are starting to hold more plaintiffs accountable in foreclosure actions.
Since May 2008, the Reddick couple has owed $482,170 on their home. Chase Home Finance, LLC filed a foreclosure lawsuit in August 2008. The case went all the way to a bench trial before Circuit Judge Brian Lambert in August 2010. The couple had a private attorney.
One month before the trial, however, U.S. Bank National Association, the new lender, and therefore the new plaintiff, filed an affidavit acknowledging the loss of the original promissory note.
It had been delivered to the law offices of Marshall C. Watson in October 2008 via Federal Express, then “placed in a secured and locked vault” in Fort Lauderdale.
The note had been “inadvertently lost or destroyed,” according to an affidavit. The note could not be located.
This past December, Lambert issued a final judgment in favor of the homeowners, saying that the plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of proof of showing that Chase — the previous lender and plaintiff — had standing to bring the lawsuit. He also ruled that U.S. Bank failed to meet its burden of proof re-establishing the mortgage note or that it was the owner of the note at the time of trial.
“I think the judges have been giving the banks the benefit of the doubt with these foreclosures and I think they’ve learned a valuable lesson with that,” he said. “You have to make them prove up their case and I think judges are starting to do that.”
Roger S. Rathbun, an attorney with the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson who pursued the Evans case on behalf of U.S. Bank, expressed caution when it comes to these types of judgments.
“I wish the tenants luck,” he said Friday. “I don’t expect the banks to give them a free house. I expect the bank to re-file the case. Even if the foreclosure was invalid, I can file under a different equitable theory and still take the property.”
Read the article in full here…
But the outcome defies the usual pattern. The defendants prevailed at a non-jury trial and, to date, have been allowed to keep the home.
According to the attorney handling the homeowners’ case, this didn’t happen because of some ground breaking ruling or unexpected turn of events during litigation. Rather, it’s a sign that judges are starting to hold more plaintiffs accountable in foreclosure actions.
Since May 2008, the Reddick couple has owed $482,170 on their home. Chase Home Finance, LLC filed a foreclosure lawsuit in August 2008. The case went all the way to a bench trial before Circuit Judge Brian Lambert in August 2010. The couple had a private attorney.
One month before the trial, however, U.S. Bank National Association, the new lender, and therefore the new plaintiff, filed an affidavit acknowledging the loss of the original promissory note.
It had been delivered to the law offices of Marshall C. Watson in October 2008 via Federal Express, then “placed in a secured and locked vault” in Fort Lauderdale.
The note had been “inadvertently lost or destroyed,” according to an affidavit. The note could not be located.
This past December, Lambert issued a final judgment in favor of the homeowners, saying that the plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of proof of showing that Chase — the previous lender and plaintiff — had standing to bring the lawsuit. He also ruled that U.S. Bank failed to meet its burden of proof re-establishing the mortgage note or that it was the owner of the note at the time of trial.
“I think the judges have been giving the banks the benefit of the doubt with these foreclosures and I think they’ve learned a valuable lesson with that,” he said. “You have to make them prove up their case and I think judges are starting to do that.”
Roger S. Rathbun, an attorney with the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson who pursued the Evans case on behalf of U.S. Bank, expressed caution when it comes to these types of judgments.
“I wish the tenants luck,” he said Friday. “I don’t expect the banks to give them a free house. I expect the bank to re-file the case. Even if the foreclosure was invalid, I can file under a different equitable theory and still take the property.”
Read the article in full here…
Biloxi Buzz for Thursday
MORE: Giffords To Be Moved To Houston
Vermont Lawmakers Lay Groundwork For Single Payer System In Place Of 'Obamacare'
House repeals healthcare law, 245-189 — The House voted on Wednesday to repeal the sweeping healthcare law enacted last year, as Republicans made good on a central campaign pledge and laid down the first major policy marker of their new majority. — The vote was 245-189.
Philly show dump Hannity and BeckLast week's poll had asked:
Will the shooting in Arizona change the tone of US political debate? JL readers answered maybe. this week's poll is now up.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Citigroup 46% Gain Masks Flawed Mortgages Freddie Mac Calls Not Acceptable
As Vikram Pandit celebrates his first full-year profit as head of Citigroup Inc., an old nemesis clouds the bank’s future: defective mortgages.
Three years after bad home loans helped trigger the recession and six weeks after the government cashed in the last of its $45 billion Citigroup investment, the New York-based bank is still selling mortgages that violate quality standards, according to an internal Freddie Mac review obtained by Bloomberg.
Fifteen percent of the performing loans Citigroup sold to the government-owned mortgage-finance company in the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010 had such flaws as missing appraisals or insurance documents or income miscalculations, according to the review of 375 mortgages. The target for defects should be about 5 percent, said Tim Rood, a former executive with Freddie’s sister agency, Fannie Mae, and now managing director at Washington-based advisory firm Collingwood Group LLC.
Pandit, Citigroup’s chief executive officer since December 2007, faces $100 million in payouts on the loans if customers demand refunds for mortgages that stop paying, according to Paul J. Miller of FBR Capital Markets in Arlington, Virginia. Miller based his estimate on the numbers in the Freddie Mac memo. Underwriting gaps that led to failed mortgages contributed to $83.7 billion in credit losses since 2007 for Citigroup and to the government takeover of the mortgage-finance business.
‘Surprising Statistic’
“What you hear from the banks is it’s overwhelmingly mortgages that were originated in ‘05, ‘06, ‘07 and a bit into ’08 that are getting put back to the banks,” said Chris Kotowski, an analyst for New York-based Oppenheimer & Co. “In 2010, if Freddie still finds 15 percent of performing mortgages had flaws, that’s a surprising statistic. I assume thoughtful investors will be surprised.”
Check out the rest here…
Three years after bad home loans helped trigger the recession and six weeks after the government cashed in the last of its $45 billion Citigroup investment, the New York-based bank is still selling mortgages that violate quality standards, according to an internal Freddie Mac review obtained by Bloomberg.
Fifteen percent of the performing loans Citigroup sold to the government-owned mortgage-finance company in the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010 had such flaws as missing appraisals or insurance documents or income miscalculations, according to the review of 375 mortgages. The target for defects should be about 5 percent, said Tim Rood, a former executive with Freddie’s sister agency, Fannie Mae, and now managing director at Washington-based advisory firm Collingwood Group LLC.
Pandit, Citigroup’s chief executive officer since December 2007, faces $100 million in payouts on the loans if customers demand refunds for mortgages that stop paying, according to Paul J. Miller of FBR Capital Markets in Arlington, Virginia. Miller based his estimate on the numbers in the Freddie Mac memo. Underwriting gaps that led to failed mortgages contributed to $83.7 billion in credit losses since 2007 for Citigroup and to the government takeover of the mortgage-finance business.
‘Surprising Statistic’
“What you hear from the banks is it’s overwhelmingly mortgages that were originated in ‘05, ‘06, ‘07 and a bit into ’08 that are getting put back to the banks,” said Chris Kotowski, an analyst for New York-based Oppenheimer & Co. “In 2010, if Freddie still finds 15 percent of performing mortgages had flaws, that’s a surprising statistic. I assume thoughtful investors will be surprised.”
Check out the rest here…
Obama launches rule review, pledging to spur jobs, growth
Source: The Wall Street Journal
President Barack Obama plans a government-wide review of federal regulations, aiming to eliminate rules that stymie economic growth.
In an article published in the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Obama said he intends to issue an executive order initiating a review to "make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation," focusing on rules that "stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive." He also suggested future regulations must do their job "while promoting economic growth."
Read the full story >>
President Barack Obama plans a government-wide review of federal regulations, aiming to eliminate rules that stymie economic growth.
In an article published in the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Obama said he intends to issue an executive order initiating a review to "make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation," focusing on rules that "stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive." He also suggested future regulations must do their job "while promoting economic growth."
Read the full story >>
Biloxi Buzz for Wednesday
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac to consider new fee structure for mortgage servicers
Government OKs Comcast-NBC Merger
'Smoking Gun' Of Vatican Sex Abuse Cover-Up Reportedly Found
Lieberman won't run again — Sen. Joe Lieberman is retiring from the Senate in 2012, closing out a two-decade career that saw him rise to the Democratic presidential ticket only to be dismissed by his own state party a few years later over his support for the war in Iraq.
Kent Conrad to retire in 2012 — North Dakota Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad is retiring. Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post — North Dakota Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad announced today that he will not seek reelection, creating a potentially prime pickup opportunity for Republicans in a GOP-leaning state.
Government finds up to half of Americans under 65 have preexisting conditions — As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems that are red flags for health insurers, according to an analysis that marks the government's first attempt to quantify the number of people …
New DOJ Unit Will Handle Disciplining Lawyers For Prosecutorial Misconduct
Attorney General Eric Holder announced Tuesday that the Justice Department has created a new unit to handle disciplinary actions arising from findings of misconduct by career federal prosecutors.
The new Professional Misconduct Review Unit will handle disciplinary actions for career attorneys at the Department of Justice that arise from Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigations, DOJ said.
"The current procedures for resolving these disciplinary matters consume too much time, and risk inconsistent resolutions, but this new Unit will help change that by providing consistent, fair, and timely resolution of these cases," Holder in a statement.
"In the vast majority of cases, Department attorneys meet their professional obligations but when allegations of misconduct occur, all parties deserve a fair and timely resolution," he said. "This Unit will be instrumental in achieving that goal and will also further the Department's mission of meeting its ethical obligations in every case."
OPR has come under fire from Justice Department inspector generals and federal judges because of how it handles allegations of misconduct, which derailed the prosecution of high profile cases like that of the late Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).
The Justice Department said in a news release that the unit will only review cases involving findings of intentional or reckless professional misconduct. Said DOJ:
The Unit was created as a result of a comprehensive review of existing disciplinary procedures and processes with the aim of creating a more efficient and uniform system. OPR, EOUSA, the Criminal Division, the Justice Management Division and the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management conducted the review and recommended the creation of the Unit. At the outset, the Unit will focus on cases involving career attorneys from the recommending components though the Department expects to expand the jurisdiction of the Unit to cover other litigating components over time.
Read on.
The new Professional Misconduct Review Unit will handle disciplinary actions for career attorneys at the Department of Justice that arise from Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigations, DOJ said.
"The current procedures for resolving these disciplinary matters consume too much time, and risk inconsistent resolutions, but this new Unit will help change that by providing consistent, fair, and timely resolution of these cases," Holder in a statement.
"In the vast majority of cases, Department attorneys meet their professional obligations but when allegations of misconduct occur, all parties deserve a fair and timely resolution," he said. "This Unit will be instrumental in achieving that goal and will also further the Department's mission of meeting its ethical obligations in every case."
OPR has come under fire from Justice Department inspector generals and federal judges because of how it handles allegations of misconduct, which derailed the prosecution of high profile cases like that of the late Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).
The Justice Department said in a news release that the unit will only review cases involving findings of intentional or reckless professional misconduct. Said DOJ:
The Unit was created as a result of a comprehensive review of existing disciplinary procedures and processes with the aim of creating a more efficient and uniform system. OPR, EOUSA, the Criminal Division, the Justice Management Division and the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management conducted the review and recommended the creation of the Unit. At the outset, the Unit will focus on cases involving career attorneys from the recommending components though the Department expects to expand the jurisdiction of the Unit to cover other litigating components over time.
Read on.
JP Morgan Chase lawsuit attracts other military members
Written by Biloxi
There is more fall out from JP Morgan Chase's announcement yesterday that they admitted to overcharging on mortgages or wrongfully foreclosed homes of military families. The bank said to be mailing $2 million in refunds to the military families and looking to other military families' accounts. Well, the bank's story didn't sit with other military families that may have been victims of excessive overcharges and may have had their homes foreclosed. Richard Harpootlian, a South Carolina attorney who has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Marine Corps Capt. Jonathan Rowles, and his wife, Julie, of Colorado, said that his phone is ringing off the hook from other military members. Mr. Harpootlian is looking beyond a class action lawsuit. He wants a criminal investigation to the bank. Mr. Richard Harpootlian said,"Foreclosing on someone or repossessing their vehicle while they're on active-duty deployment does not only give rise to a civil suit, the United States attorney has the authority to prosecute people for that, so there's a potential criminal case here."
In addtion, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) sits on the Senate Banking Committee, wrote a letter yesterday to Attorney General Eric Holder that he wants an investigation. Senator Reed said, "JPMorgan Chase was violating the law, and I am concerned other banks may also be wrongly overcharging our troops or taking unfair advantage of their situation. "I urge all the banks to review, acknowledge, and rectify any and all violations.'
Marine Corps Capt. Jonathan Rowles, and his wife, Julie has released their class-action lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase today. The lawsuit is an eye opener which proves the bank continue to violate the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which protects active-duty personnel from foreclosure and prohibits banks from charging more than 6 percent for a mortgage. Here is an excerpt of the complaint:
COMPLAINT
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of 50 U.S.C. App. 527(b)(2)—Failure to properly implement
the protection of the SCRA)
32. Plaintiff Rowles was called to active duty in the United States Marine Corps on
January 22, 2006. Plaintiff Rowles promptly notified Defendant Chase of his calling to active
duty pursuant to the requirements set forth within Section 527(b)(1) of the SCRA.
33. Section 527(b)(2) of the SCRA requires creditors to apply the 6% interest rate
limitation to an eligible servicemember’s debt “effective as of the date on which the
servicemember is called to military service.”
34. Despite receiving prompt notification of Plaintiff Rowles’ calling to active duty,
Defendant Chase failed to apply the statutorily-mandated 6% rate until Rowles’ August 2006
payment. Upon information and belief, Chase has invoked the same unlawful procedure for all
members of Plaintiff Class. Defendant Chase’s violation of the SCRA has caused the Plaintiff
and the Plaintiff Class actual damages, including consequential damages.
34. Chase is therefore liable to Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for damages including
actual and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys fees.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of 50 U.S.C. App. 527—Failure to maintain the 6% rate during the
servicemember’s active duty status)
35. Between December 2007 and March 2010, Chase required Rowles to re-verify his
active duty status in writing on six separate occasions despite having written notice of the
duration of his active duty term. And no fewer than four times per year between August of 2006
and the date of this filing, Chase essentially required Rowles to re-apply for SCRA protections
by forcing him to call various company customer service representatives after being verbally
informed or receiving documentation that the interest rate on the loan was going to be adjusted
above 6%.
36. Section 527(b)(2) of the SCRA requires creditors to apply the interest rate
limitation to an eligible servicemember’s debt “effective as of the date on which the
servicemember is called to military service.” This action is to be taken “[U]pon receipt of
written notice and a copy of orders calling a servicemember to military service.”
37. Section 527(a)(1) requires the creditor to maintain the 6% interest rate limitation
“during the period of military service.” Defendant Chase’s violation of this statutory mandate
has caused the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff class actual damages, including consequential damages.
38. Chase is therefore liable to Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for damages including
actual and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys fees.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of 50 U.S.C. App. 518—Employment of collection methods
unlawful under the SCRA)
39. After unlawfully adjusting the interest rate on the loan above 6% and determining
that Rowles had a past-due balance, Chase began to employ collection methods which included
repeated phone calls and correspondence from Chase debt collection departments in various
locations. These calls often came at a rate of three per day and included calls to his workplace
and his mother – who lives at a different address – as well as calls made to his residence after
midnight. In telephone conversations, voicemails and correspondence during this time, Chase
representatives repeatedly threatened to report Rowles to the credit bureaus and to initiate
foreclosure proceedings on the house in Castle Rock, CO.
40. This pattern of conduct by Chase caused Rowles to spend considerable time
communicating with Chase via telephone, email and written correspondence and to take leave
from his unit to travel from South Carolina to Colorado in order to preserve protections to which
he was already entitled and to prevent the carrying out by Chase of threatened actions which are
unlawful under the SCRA.
41. Section 518 (1) of the SCRA makes it unlawful for a creditor to determine that a
servicemember’s invocation of protection under the act renders him “unable to pay the civil
obligation or liability in accordance with its terms.”
42. Section 518(3) of the SCRA makes it unlawful for a servicemember’s invocation
of protection under the act to serve as the basis for a creditor to provide “an adverse report
relating to creditworthiness of the servicemember by or to a person engaged in the practice of
assembling or evaluating consumer credit information.”
43. Defendant Chase’s willful breach of these provisions of the SCRA has caused the
Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class actual damages, including consequential damages.
44. Chase is therefore liable to Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for damages including
actual damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys fees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Plaintiff Class, prays for relief and
judgment as follows:
a. Determining that this action is a proper class action, and certifying Plaintiff as
Lead Plaintiff and as Class Representative under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;
b. Awarding compensatory and consequential damages in favor of Plaintiff and all
other Class Members against Defendant for all damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s
wrongdoing in an amount to be proven at trial;
c. Awarding Plaintiff and Class Members their costs and disbursements of this suit,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ fees and experts’ fees;
d. Awarding Plaintiff an incentive payment for serving as Class Plaintiff; and
e. Awarding such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Read more on the FULL COMPLAINT, PETITION FOR TRO, CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC’S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, and REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Click here.
While JP Morgan Chase admitted their mistakes in a statement yesterday and are fixing the problem, this is not simply an "error" made my the bank. They continued to overcharge and foreclosed on the military families and violate Servicemembers Civil Relief Act month after month and year after year. I have noticed that the Rowles filed their complaint in July 2010 which tells me that the bank knew for 6 months that they violated the law and continued to harrass and threaten the Rowles with foreclosure even though they were current on their mortgage. Isn't it interesting that JP Morgan Chase admitted their mistake on a federal holiday yet, the bank announced last week's their fourth-quarter earnings climbed to $4.8 billion, or $1.12 a share. JP Morgan Chase's profits continue to soar while dishing out millions in blunders and fraudulent mistakes. What other shoe will drop on JP Morgan Chase?
There is more fall out from JP Morgan Chase's announcement yesterday that they admitted to overcharging on mortgages or wrongfully foreclosed homes of military families. The bank said to be mailing $2 million in refunds to the military families and looking to other military families' accounts. Well, the bank's story didn't sit with other military families that may have been victims of excessive overcharges and may have had their homes foreclosed. Richard Harpootlian, a South Carolina attorney who has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Marine Corps Capt. Jonathan Rowles, and his wife, Julie, of Colorado, said that his phone is ringing off the hook from other military members. Mr. Harpootlian is looking beyond a class action lawsuit. He wants a criminal investigation to the bank. Mr. Richard Harpootlian said,"Foreclosing on someone or repossessing their vehicle while they're on active-duty deployment does not only give rise to a civil suit, the United States attorney has the authority to prosecute people for that, so there's a potential criminal case here."
In addtion, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) sits on the Senate Banking Committee, wrote a letter yesterday to Attorney General Eric Holder that he wants an investigation. Senator Reed said, "JPMorgan Chase was violating the law, and I am concerned other banks may also be wrongly overcharging our troops or taking unfair advantage of their situation. "I urge all the banks to review, acknowledge, and rectify any and all violations.'
Marine Corps Capt. Jonathan Rowles, and his wife, Julie has released their class-action lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase today. The lawsuit is an eye opener which proves the bank continue to violate the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, which protects active-duty personnel from foreclosure and prohibits banks from charging more than 6 percent for a mortgage. Here is an excerpt of the complaint:
COMPLAINT
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of 50 U.S.C. App. 527(b)(2)—Failure to properly implement
the protection of the SCRA)
32. Plaintiff Rowles was called to active duty in the United States Marine Corps on
January 22, 2006. Plaintiff Rowles promptly notified Defendant Chase of his calling to active
duty pursuant to the requirements set forth within Section 527(b)(1) of the SCRA.
33. Section 527(b)(2) of the SCRA requires creditors to apply the 6% interest rate
limitation to an eligible servicemember’s debt “effective as of the date on which the
servicemember is called to military service.”
34. Despite receiving prompt notification of Plaintiff Rowles’ calling to active duty,
Defendant Chase failed to apply the statutorily-mandated 6% rate until Rowles’ August 2006
payment. Upon information and belief, Chase has invoked the same unlawful procedure for all
members of Plaintiff Class. Defendant Chase’s violation of the SCRA has caused the Plaintiff
and the Plaintiff Class actual damages, including consequential damages.
34. Chase is therefore liable to Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for damages including
actual and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys fees.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of 50 U.S.C. App. 527—Failure to maintain the 6% rate during the
servicemember’s active duty status)
35. Between December 2007 and March 2010, Chase required Rowles to re-verify his
active duty status in writing on six separate occasions despite having written notice of the
duration of his active duty term. And no fewer than four times per year between August of 2006
and the date of this filing, Chase essentially required Rowles to re-apply for SCRA protections
by forcing him to call various company customer service representatives after being verbally
informed or receiving documentation that the interest rate on the loan was going to be adjusted
above 6%.
36. Section 527(b)(2) of the SCRA requires creditors to apply the interest rate
limitation to an eligible servicemember’s debt “effective as of the date on which the
servicemember is called to military service.” This action is to be taken “[U]pon receipt of
written notice and a copy of orders calling a servicemember to military service.”
37. Section 527(a)(1) requires the creditor to maintain the 6% interest rate limitation
“during the period of military service.” Defendant Chase’s violation of this statutory mandate
has caused the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff class actual damages, including consequential damages.
38. Chase is therefore liable to Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for damages including
actual and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys fees.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of 50 U.S.C. App. 518—Employment of collection methods
unlawful under the SCRA)
39. After unlawfully adjusting the interest rate on the loan above 6% and determining
that Rowles had a past-due balance, Chase began to employ collection methods which included
repeated phone calls and correspondence from Chase debt collection departments in various
locations. These calls often came at a rate of three per day and included calls to his workplace
and his mother – who lives at a different address – as well as calls made to his residence after
midnight. In telephone conversations, voicemails and correspondence during this time, Chase
representatives repeatedly threatened to report Rowles to the credit bureaus and to initiate
foreclosure proceedings on the house in Castle Rock, CO.
40. This pattern of conduct by Chase caused Rowles to spend considerable time
communicating with Chase via telephone, email and written correspondence and to take leave
from his unit to travel from South Carolina to Colorado in order to preserve protections to which
he was already entitled and to prevent the carrying out by Chase of threatened actions which are
unlawful under the SCRA.
41. Section 518 (1) of the SCRA makes it unlawful for a creditor to determine that a
servicemember’s invocation of protection under the act renders him “unable to pay the civil
obligation or liability in accordance with its terms.”
42. Section 518(3) of the SCRA makes it unlawful for a servicemember’s invocation
of protection under the act to serve as the basis for a creditor to provide “an adverse report
relating to creditworthiness of the servicemember by or to a person engaged in the practice of
assembling or evaluating consumer credit information.”
43. Defendant Chase’s willful breach of these provisions of the SCRA has caused the
Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class actual damages, including consequential damages.
44. Chase is therefore liable to Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class for damages including
actual damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys fees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Plaintiff Class, prays for relief and
judgment as follows:
a. Determining that this action is a proper class action, and certifying Plaintiff as
Lead Plaintiff and as Class Representative under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;
b. Awarding compensatory and consequential damages in favor of Plaintiff and all
other Class Members against Defendant for all damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s
wrongdoing in an amount to be proven at trial;
c. Awarding Plaintiff and Class Members their costs and disbursements of this suit,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ fees and experts’ fees;
d. Awarding Plaintiff an incentive payment for serving as Class Plaintiff; and
e. Awarding such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Read more on the FULL COMPLAINT, PETITION FOR TRO, CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC’S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, and REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Click here.
While JP Morgan Chase admitted their mistakes in a statement yesterday and are fixing the problem, this is not simply an "error" made my the bank. They continued to overcharge and foreclosed on the military families and violate Servicemembers Civil Relief Act month after month and year after year. I have noticed that the Rowles filed their complaint in July 2010 which tells me that the bank knew for 6 months that they violated the law and continued to harrass and threaten the Rowles with foreclosure even though they were current on their mortgage. Isn't it interesting that JP Morgan Chase admitted their mistake on a federal holiday yet, the bank announced last week's their fourth-quarter earnings climbed to $4.8 billion, or $1.12 a share. JP Morgan Chase's profits continue to soar while dishing out millions in blunders and fraudulent mistakes. What other shoe will drop on JP Morgan Chase?
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
JP Morgan Chase overcharged troops on mortgages
Written by Biloxi
Can you imagine serving and protecting your country overseas while a bank sets up website for military families devoted to the financial needs of military veterans, overcharges and forecloses on your home? This is what JP Morgan Chase did to military families. NBC news reports that JP Morgan Chase admitted that they overcharged some 4,000 military families on their mortgages and improperly foreclosed on homes of 14 military families.
Marine Capt. Jonathan Rowles,a backseat pilot of an F/A 18 Delta fighter jet for the Marines, is one of the victims that JP Chase overcharged. Mr. Rowles and his wife, Julia, said they’ve been battling the bank for quite some time. Mr. Rowles filed a lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase when the bank not only refused to lower his interest rate but also called him at all times of the day and saying that he owed as much as 10% and hounding him with debt collection calls for as much as $15,000 in arrears, according to NBC news.
Here's how it apparently happened:
Under a law known as the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), active-duty troops generally get their mortgage interest rates lowered to 6 percent and are protected from foreclosure according to NBC News. Now, the bank appears to have violated that law, which is designed to protect troops and their families from financial stress while they're in active duty. In a statement to NBC News, JP Morgan Chase chief communications officer Kristin Lemkau said:
"We are deeply appreciative of those who fight to protect our country and Chase funds a number of programs that provide benefits to military personnel and veterans, and while any customer mistake is regrettable, we feel particularly badly about the mistakes we made here."
Also, Ms. Lemkau said that beginning this week the bank will be mailing a total of about $2 million in refunds to families that may have been overcharged. She said most of the families improperly foreclosed on have gotten or will get their homes back. A bank official described what happened here as "grim," but emphasized the mistakes were inadvertent, not malicious.
Mr. Rowles' lawsuit is still pending. We are not sure if any of the military families that were overcharged and/or had their homes improperly foreclosed are going to file a lawsuit. Chase's blunder and dysfunctional financial institution can't sweep this issue under the rug. These are not just mistakes but a broken mortgage servicing business model. And I wonder if JP Morgan executives that testified to the House and Senate hearing last year will be charged with perjury with their statements of claims that foreclosure is the last option and they had fixed all their problems. Congresswoman Waters releases a statement today. "While their Nov. 18 testimony at a hearing of my Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity claimed that the bank had fixed all problems in their servicing operations, the stories of these families clearly suggest otherwise. It is particularly disgraceful that these errors affected military families, some of whom are already dealing with the stress of deployments."
Rep. Waters calls mortgage servicing an industry in crisis and calls for servicing reform.
Can you imagine serving and protecting your country overseas while a bank sets up website for military families devoted to the financial needs of military veterans, overcharges and forecloses on your home? This is what JP Morgan Chase did to military families. NBC news reports that JP Morgan Chase admitted that they overcharged some 4,000 military families on their mortgages and improperly foreclosed on homes of 14 military families.
Marine Capt. Jonathan Rowles,a backseat pilot of an F/A 18 Delta fighter jet for the Marines, is one of the victims that JP Chase overcharged. Mr. Rowles and his wife, Julia, said they’ve been battling the bank for quite some time. Mr. Rowles filed a lawsuit against JP Morgan Chase when the bank not only refused to lower his interest rate but also called him at all times of the day and saying that he owed as much as 10% and hounding him with debt collection calls for as much as $15,000 in arrears, according to NBC news.
Here's how it apparently happened:
Under a law known as the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), active-duty troops generally get their mortgage interest rates lowered to 6 percent and are protected from foreclosure according to NBC News. Now, the bank appears to have violated that law, which is designed to protect troops and their families from financial stress while they're in active duty. In a statement to NBC News, JP Morgan Chase chief communications officer Kristin Lemkau said:
"We are deeply appreciative of those who fight to protect our country and Chase funds a number of programs that provide benefits to military personnel and veterans, and while any customer mistake is regrettable, we feel particularly badly about the mistakes we made here."
Also, Ms. Lemkau said that beginning this week the bank will be mailing a total of about $2 million in refunds to families that may have been overcharged. She said most of the families improperly foreclosed on have gotten or will get their homes back. A bank official described what happened here as "grim," but emphasized the mistakes were inadvertent, not malicious.
Mr. Rowles' lawsuit is still pending. We are not sure if any of the military families that were overcharged and/or had their homes improperly foreclosed are going to file a lawsuit. Chase's blunder and dysfunctional financial institution can't sweep this issue under the rug. These are not just mistakes but a broken mortgage servicing business model. And I wonder if JP Morgan executives that testified to the House and Senate hearing last year will be charged with perjury with their statements of claims that foreclosure is the last option and they had fixed all their problems. Congresswoman Waters releases a statement today. "While their Nov. 18 testimony at a hearing of my Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity claimed that the bank had fixed all problems in their servicing operations, the stories of these families clearly suggest otherwise. It is particularly disgraceful that these errors affected military families, some of whom are already dealing with the stress of deployments."
Rep. Waters calls mortgage servicing an industry in crisis and calls for servicing reform.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Biloxi Buzz for Tuesday
Steve Jobs Taking Medical Leave Of Absence
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said the latest misstep by JPMorgan Chase (JPM: 44.91 +1.03%), which led to improper foreclosures for military families, has pushed the industry into "crisis."
Goldman Won't Sell Facebook Stock To U.S. Clients
Virginia legislators rally to change state foreclosure process
The Courts of Justice Civil Laws subcommittee in the Virginia House of Representatives reviewed a bill Monday that would force banks to maintain up-to-date records tracking the ownership of mortgage loans.
Although the committee was scheduled to vote on the bill, the vote was pushed back to next Monday Jan. 24, according to a legislative aide in Republican Delegate Bob Marshall's office.
Marshall introduced the bill, formally called House Bill No. 1506, on Jan. 12.
Under the bill, lenders would have to provide written notification of a title sale at least 45 days before the transaction is made. In addition, the written notice must be provided to the owner of a property if a proposed foreclosure is taking place.
Read on.
Although the committee was scheduled to vote on the bill, the vote was pushed back to next Monday Jan. 24, according to a legislative aide in Republican Delegate Bob Marshall's office.
Marshall introduced the bill, formally called House Bill No. 1506, on Jan. 12.
Under the bill, lenders would have to provide written notification of a title sale at least 45 days before the transaction is made. In addition, the written notice must be provided to the owner of a property if a proposed foreclosure is taking place.
Read on.
Monday, January 17, 2011
SIGTARP Report | Extraordinary Financial Assistance Provided to Citigroup, Inc.
The government’s decision to bail out Citigroup during the financial crisis was made in a “strikingly ad hoc” manner—based on “gut instinct and fear of the unknown” and not on any objective criteria.
Extraordinary Financial Assistance Provided to Citigroup Inc
defined a clear strategy and made Citi a more focused enterprise by returning to banking as the core of our business,” she said.
Biloxi Buzz for Monday
Hannity: U.S. Can 'Go In' To Kuwait, 'Take All Their Oil'
Lawmakers call for hearings, help for the mentally ill after Giffords shooting
U.S. journalists back away from WikiLeaks founder
Youngest Arizona Victim's Organs Help Another Girl
Chuck Schumer & Tom Coburn Agree To Sit Together At State Of The Union
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords condition improves — TUCSON, Ariz. - Rep. Gabrielle Giffords condition is improving and she is now in serious condition at a hospital after being shot in the head about a week ago. — The University of Arizona said in a news release Sunday that the congresswoman is continuing to do well.
House panel wants Homeland Security documents — WASHINGTON - A House committee has asked the Homeland Security Department to provide documents about an agency policy that required political appointees to review many Freedom of Information Act requests, according to a letter obtained Sunday by The Associated Press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)