From Mark Fiore; well worth watching 'til the end.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Chase Fails To Prove Standing To Foreclose (Oklahoma)
2012 OK 24
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
DAVID S. ELDRIDGE, MARY K. ELDRIDGE, Defendants/Appellants,JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, RAILEND LLC, EQUITY TRUST COMPANY CUSTODIAN FBO WILLIAM TRAVIS POINTON IRA,
NORTHWOOD LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., DOUGLAS SHELTON, Defendants.
SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
DAVID S. ELDRIDGE, MARY K. ELDRIDGE, Defendants/Appellants,JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, RAILEND LLC, EQUITY TRUST COMPANY CUSTODIAN FBO WILLIAM TRAVIS POINTON IRA,
NORTHWOOD LAKE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., DOUGLAS SHELTON, Defendants.
Case Number: 109900
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Decided: March 6, 2012
Summaries:
Source: Justia
In 2007, Appellants David and Mary Eldridge executed a promissory note and mortgage in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee J.P. MorganChase Bank, N.A. In both the Note and the Mortgage, "JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." was explicitly designated as the lender and payee, or entity to whom payment under the Note and Mortgage was due. Appellants voluntarily filed bankruptcy in 2009. In their amended statement of intentions, Appellants agreed to reaffirm the outstanding balance on the Note. Shortly thereafter, the Note went into default. Appellee Chase Home Finance Milwaukee initiated foreclosure proceedings in 2010, claiming to be the present holder of the Note and Mortgage. Chase Home Finance Milwaukee claimed to have acquired the Note and Mortgage by assignment from J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. in their motion for summary judgment filed several months later. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Bank, finding the Bank was the undisputed owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage. Accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of the Bank and Appellants' counterclaims were dismissed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellants argued the trial court erred ruling in favor of the Bank. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no evidence in the record to support the Bank's contention that it was the holder of the Note. Therefore, the Court reversed the granting of summary judgment by the trial court and remanded the case back for further proceedings.
Florida attorney Matt Weidner | Why Are The Banks Foreclosing On Homes Then Holding Them? What Is Going On Here? (VIDEO)
The two excel spreadsheets come from my county’s foreclosure sales website. The first shows the results of all auctions 1/1/12 through 2/29/12; the second shows all upcoming auctions 3/18/12-4/30/12…both data sets show the banks taking the vast majority of the properties back, the banks bidding up the properties to far, far, far more than they are worth. Are the feds paying them to take properties back? Do the banks not want to report the real value of their mortgages? Right now they show the assets as the value of their judgments…if they put them all up for public sale would that force them to report the MASSIVE losses that are very much real, but hidden today? Why are the banks forcing people into the streets then not selling the properties?
AuctionResults11229 here…
AUCTIONSMARCH18APRIL30 here…
AuctionResults11229 here…
AUCTIONSMARCH18APRIL30 here…
Friday, March 09, 2012
A real foreclosure case: Your Honor, We don’t represent the plaintiff (US Bank)….EXACTLY!
From Florida lawyer Matt Weidner:
The following is a transcript from a hearing when I was sitting in a courtroom where a most extraordinary exchange occurred.
The Plaintiff in the case is, “US Bank”. “US Bank” is suing a homeowner, trying to throw them into the street. There is an attorney standing in the courtroom arguing on behalf of “US BANK”….the judge is upset because she’s been trying to figure out who to hold responsible when the Plaintiffs who are foreclosing are ignoring rules of the Florida Supreme Court, abusing homeowners and just generally making a real mess of things and the responses out of the Plaintiff sound like an Abbott and Costello Routine called, “Who’s On First”….
Who owns the note? We don’t own the note, “they” own the note. Who’s “they”? “They” who? The who that owns the note.
And then that’s when this exchange occurs:
“U.S. Bank is not our client. We have no communication with them on this loan.”
Whoa, say what?
“U.S. Bank is not our client. We have no communication with them on this loan.”
WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS ENTIRE STINKING SYSTEM CALLED THE AMERICAN LEGAL, FINANCIAL AND FORECLOSURE MESS.
A bank, US BANK, is foreclosing, but they are not represented by an attorney. US Bank is the Wizard Behind The Curtain, somewhere there’s someone else calling the shots. Someone else deciding not to accept a modification. Someone else not accepting a short sale. Someone else pulling the strings. To which my friend Rand, quite correctly responds:
MR. PEACOCK: Your Honor, I’m a little bit
troubled because plaintiff’s counsel just said
that the plaintiff — she is not their client or
vice versa. That makes a real representation
issue. If they are not represented by her firm,
she cannot advocate on their behalf, and they
can’t continue this lawsuit.
troubled because plaintiff’s counsel just said
that the plaintiff — she is not their client or
vice versa. That makes a real representation
issue. If they are not represented by her firm,
she cannot advocate on their behalf, and they
can’t continue this lawsuit.
This is precisely what is wrong with this country. Exactly what what is wrong with what is choking our court system. Exactly why our court system has such problems with what is happening.
Full transcript below:
Wells Fargo LOSES at Seventh Circuit Appellate – Excoriating opinion regarding a HAMP Class Action. AND a Judicial Request for a Federal Amicus Curiae
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 11-1423
LORI WIGOD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:10-cv-02348—Blanche M. Manning, Judge.
ARGUED OCTOBER 26, 2011—DECIDED MARCH 7, 2012
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 11-1423
LORI WIGOD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:10-cv-02348—Blanche M. Manning, Judge.
ARGUED OCTOBER 26, 2011—DECIDED MARCH 7, 2012
HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. We are asked in this appeal
to determine whether Lori Wigod has stated claims
under Illinois law against her home mortgage servicer
for refusing to modify her loan pursuant to the federal
Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP).
—
She brought this putative class action alleging violations
of Illinois law under common-law contract and tort
theories and under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA). The district
court dismissed the complaint in its entirety under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
—
This appeal followed, and it presents two sets of issues.
The first set of issues concerns whether Wigod
has stated viable claims under Illinois common law and
the ICFA. We conclude that she has on four counts …
—
These allegations support garden-variety
claims for breach of contract or promissory estoppel.
She has also plausibly alleged that Wells Fargo com-
mitted fraud under Illinois common law and engaged in
unfair or deceptive business practices in violation of the
ICFA.
—
The second set of issues concerns whether these
state-law claims are preempted or otherwise barred by
federal law. We hold that they are not.
—
We accordingly reverse the judgment of
the district court on the contract, promissory estoppel,
fraudulent misrepresentation, and ICFA claims …
—
IV. Conclusion
The judgment of the district court is therefore
REVERSEDas to Counts I, II, and VII, and the
fraudulent misrepresentation claim of Count V …
—
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge, concurring. I am very pleased
to join the excellent opinion of the court written by
Judge Hamilton. I write separately only to note that, in
my view, our task of adjudicating this matter would
have been assisted significantly if the United States had
entered this case as an amicus curiae.
—
In this case, this last consideration justifies the
decision to proceed without further delay. Prompt resolution
of this matter is necessary not only for the good
of the litigants but for the good of the Country.
~
Lori Wigod v. Wells Fargo
Thursday, March 08, 2012
‘Forced’ Home Insurance Policies Face New Scrutiny
Home buyers take out homeowners’ insurance policies to protect the value of their home and personal property in the event of a burglary or a natural disaster. The insurance is typically required to get a home loan, and if borrowers fall into default, banks have the right to make sure the property still has such coverage.
However, officials at the state and federal level have been concerned that insurers have been charging too much for something known as “force-placed insurance,” which takes the place of a lapsed policy.
This week, a new U.S. consumer watchdog and mortgage giant Fannie Mae have been promising a crackdown on those homeowners insurance policies.
In a speech Tuesday, the director of the new federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray, said his agency will issue rules “to prevent (mortgage) servicers from charging for this product unless there is a reasonable basis to believe that borrowers have failed to maintain their own insurance.”
Unsealed complaint: Whistleblower says BofA defrauded HAMP
(Reuters) - Bank of America NA prevented homeowners from receiving mortgage-loan modifications under a federal program in order to avoid millions of dollars in losses while benefitting from financial incentives for participating in the program, according to a complaint unsealed in federal court Wednesday.
The suit is the second whistleblower complaint unsealed so far with apparent ties to the $1 billion False Claims Act settlement announced by Bank of America and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York on February 9.
…..
The complaint unsealed Wednesday was filed by whistleblower Gregory Mackler, a Colorado resident who said he worked alongside Bank of America executives while an employee at Urban Lending Solutions, a company to which Bank of America contracted some of its HAMP work.
While working at Urban Lending, Mackler said he saw BofA and its loan servicing subsidiary, BAC Homes Loans Servicing LP, implement "business practices designed to intentionally prevent scores of eligible homeowners from becoming eligible or staying eligible for permanent HAMP modification."
The bank and its agents routinely pretended to have lost homeowners' documents, failed to credit payments during trial modifications and intentionally misled homeowners about their eligibility for the program, the complaint alleged.
BofA False Claims Case 2
Inspector general redacts key Freddie Mac financial data
Housingwire:
If you gave someone $72.2 billion to keep them afloat, you would probably want to know how they plan to save money in the future.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency and Freddie Mac don't agree with you. Both the government-sponsored enterprise and its regulator redacted this very information in an Office of Inspector General report released Tuesday.
So what was blacked out of the report? Oh, just how much money Freddie could save if its mortgage servicers complete a certain amount of modifications and short sales.
If you gave someone $72.2 billion to keep them afloat, you would probably want to know how they plan to save money in the future.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency and Freddie Mac don't agree with you. Both the government-sponsored enterprise and its regulator redacted this very information in an Office of Inspector General report released Tuesday.
So what was blacked out of the report? Oh, just how much money Freddie could save if its mortgage servicers complete a certain amount of modifications and short sales.
AUD 2012-001
Florida foreclosure courts to get money to speed cases
Florida’s courts will get a $4 million boost to hire additional judges and case managers who can tackle the state’s foreclosure backlog.
The one-time stipend, which is in the 2012-2013 state appropriations bill released this afternoon, still faces legislative approval.
It isn’t yet decided how the money will be allocated among the state’s 20 circuit courts, but Palm Beach County Chief Judge Peter Blanc said the statewide amount is “meaningful.”
“It will give us an opportunity to bring down some of the backlog,” Blanc said. “A lot of the debate these days is why are the cases still there and we do have some difficulty getting timely hearings sometimes.”
Statewide there is a 368,000 case backlog, including about 34,800 pending cases in Palm Beach County.
Rest here…
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Goldman Made Big Bank Playing Both Sides Of Deal
Lloyd C. Blankfein had a script for his phone call.
“Hello, Doug — it’s been a long time since we have had the chance to visit,” say the notes prepared for his call with Douglas L. Foshee, chief executive of the El Paso Corporation, the big energy company that last fall was in talks to be sold to Kinder Morgan. “I was very pleased you reached out to us on this most recent matter,” the script goes, thanking Mr. Foshee for using Goldman as El Paso’s adviser in the transaction. Mr. Blankfein added that he knew Mr. Foshee was aware of Goldman’s investment in Kinder Morgan “and that we are very sensitive to the appearance of conflict.”
Somewhat awkwardly, Goldman had a 19.1 percent stake in Kinder Morgan, the pipeline and energy storage company, and two seats on its board. So the script went on, “We have asked our board members to recuse themselves and I know you have taken on a second adviser.” He added, “Really just wanted to reach out and say thank you.”
About a month later, Kinder Morgan announced it had agreed to acquire El Paso for $21.1 billion in cash and stock.
When the deal was announced, buried at the end of the news release was a list of Wall Street banks that had advised on the deal, including Goldman Sachs. Goldman received a $20 million fee for playing matchmaker for El Paso. The fee, of course, was not disclosed, nor was the Kinder Morgan stake owned by Goldman Sachs’s private equity arm, worth some $4 billion. Nor did the release disclose that the Goldman banker who advised El Paso to accept Kinder Morgan’s bid owned $340,000 worth of Kinder Morgan stock.
Read on.
“Hello, Doug — it’s been a long time since we have had the chance to visit,” say the notes prepared for his call with Douglas L. Foshee, chief executive of the El Paso Corporation, the big energy company that last fall was in talks to be sold to Kinder Morgan. “I was very pleased you reached out to us on this most recent matter,” the script goes, thanking Mr. Foshee for using Goldman as El Paso’s adviser in the transaction. Mr. Blankfein added that he knew Mr. Foshee was aware of Goldman’s investment in Kinder Morgan “and that we are very sensitive to the appearance of conflict.”
Somewhat awkwardly, Goldman had a 19.1 percent stake in Kinder Morgan, the pipeline and energy storage company, and two seats on its board. So the script went on, “We have asked our board members to recuse themselves and I know you have taken on a second adviser.” He added, “Really just wanted to reach out and say thank you.”
About a month later, Kinder Morgan announced it had agreed to acquire El Paso for $21.1 billion in cash and stock.
When the deal was announced, buried at the end of the news release was a list of Wall Street banks that had advised on the deal, including Goldman Sachs. Goldman received a $20 million fee for playing matchmaker for El Paso. The fee, of course, was not disclosed, nor was the Kinder Morgan stake owned by Goldman Sachs’s private equity arm, worth some $4 billion. Nor did the release disclose that the Goldman banker who advised El Paso to accept Kinder Morgan’s bid owned $340,000 worth of Kinder Morgan stock.
Read on.
Houston’s County Joins Texas Suit Seeking $10 Billion From MERS, Banks
Harris County Texas, which includes the city of Houston, won a bid to join a group lawsuit seeking damages from the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., Bank of America Corp. and Stewart Title Co.
U.S. District Judge Reed C. O’Connor allowed Harris and nearby Brazoria County (66583MF) to enter the case that could result in payouts of a much as $10 billion for all Texas counties, according to court papers filed by the plaintiffs.
The counties accuse MERS, which runs an electronic registry of mortgages, and members of the mortgage banking industry including Bank of America of filing false lien claims in the real property records of Texas counties. The suit also alleges the defendants failed “to record subsequent assignments of mortgage loans and pay the attendant filing fees.”
Rest here…
U.S. District Judge Reed C. O’Connor allowed Harris and nearby Brazoria County (66583MF) to enter the case that could result in payouts of a much as $10 billion for all Texas counties, according to court papers filed by the plaintiffs.
The counties accuse MERS, which runs an electronic registry of mortgages, and members of the mortgage banking industry including Bank of America of filing false lien claims in the real property records of Texas counties. The suit also alleges the defendants failed “to record subsequent assignments of mortgage loans and pay the attendant filing fees.”
Rest here…
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Couple Spends Five Years In $1.2 Mansion Without Ever Making Mortgage Payment
It now takes an average of 634 to foreclose on a home in Maryland, but one couple has managed to live large in their 4,900 square-foot abode on the Potomac River for nearly three times as long — all without ever having made a single mortgage payment.
The couple, former house-flippers turned foreclosure-fighters, actually spent very little on the $1.2 million property that they purchased in late 2005. Not only they get a mortgage for $1 million, they also found another lender to foot the down payment.
But when the first $7,600 mortgage payment came due in 2007, the couple, who owned several buildings at the time, decided to focus on keeping up their income properties rather than the one that only served to drain their income.
"Do we put the money we had left in this one? Or is it better to spread it to the others?" the husband explains to the Washington Post about their mindset at the time.
The first foreclosure attempt in 2007 was stalled after the wife declared bankruptcy, a claim that was later dismissed at her own request.
In 2010, the latest company to buy the note on the couple's home attempted to foreclose. They agreed to a short sale at the low, low price of $799,000 but no one was willing to pay even that price.
The couple says they offered to make payments to this particular servicer, but were told "no thanks," and that the servicer preferred to foreclose instead.
They requested mediation from the state, but didn't show up to the hearing, claiming they never received the notice. A Circuit Court judge ordered the house sold.
But the wife then filed for bankruptcy again, this time in Georgia, where she owned another property. This stalled the foreclosure process until this past July, when it was finally auctioned off.
The end? Nope
Wells Fargo and Former Employee Go Toe To Toe Over Promissory Note and Deferred Compensation
In a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) Arbitration Statement of Claim filed in December 2009, Claimant Wells Fargo Advisors sought to recover the principal balance allegedly due and owing on a promissory note executed on August 17, 2004 in the amount of $1,110,592.00 by former employee Respondent Elliott. As a result of Respondent’s alleged breach, Claimant requested damages of $631,473.56 plus interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the January 5, 2009, date of default, attorneys’ fees, and costs. At the close of the hearing, Claimant requested $150,729.46 in attorneys’ fees; $4,700 in FINRA filing fees; and $139,148.88 in interest through February 29, 2012. In the Matter of the FINRA Arbitration Between Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, Claimant/Counter-Respondent vs. Kent Robert Elliott, Respondent/ Counter-Claimant (FINRA Arbitration 09-06810, February 29, 2012).
Bank practices cause register of deeds offices to be flooded with fraudulent documents
It used to be that if you wanted to find out who owned your mortgage, you could go to the office of your local register of deeds, the final authority on questions of property ownership.
But when banks set up their own private registration system to help them bundle and resell mortgages in a whirlwind of securities exchanges, the land offices of record had no hope of keeping up.
And when some banks later foreclosed on many of those properties, often cutting corners or worse — creating phony documents — it left register of deeds offices across Wisconsin awash in forged and fraudulent documents.
That’s a “serious problem” for registrars charged with maintaining property records, said Brown County Register of Deeds Cathy Williquette Lindsay, who heads a committee studying foreclosure fraud on behalf of the Wisconsin Register of Deeds Association.
“It’s troubling to know that in each of our offices, are thousands — and I mean thousands — of fraudulent documents,” Williquette Lindsay said.
Registrars’ offices across Wisconsin are littered with paperwork signed and sworn to by fictitious people, including “Linda Green,” a handle commonly used by “robo-signers” — workers who signed off on foreclosure documents without verifying them.
“Not only did ‘Linda Green’ not sign it,” Williquette Lindsay said, “but somebody fraudulently notorized it.”
Rest here…
But when banks set up their own private registration system to help them bundle and resell mortgages in a whirlwind of securities exchanges, the land offices of record had no hope of keeping up.
And when some banks later foreclosed on many of those properties, often cutting corners or worse — creating phony documents — it left register of deeds offices across Wisconsin awash in forged and fraudulent documents.
That’s a “serious problem” for registrars charged with maintaining property records, said Brown County Register of Deeds Cathy Williquette Lindsay, who heads a committee studying foreclosure fraud on behalf of the Wisconsin Register of Deeds Association.
“It’s troubling to know that in each of our offices, are thousands — and I mean thousands — of fraudulent documents,” Williquette Lindsay said.
Registrars’ offices across Wisconsin are littered with paperwork signed and sworn to by fictitious people, including “Linda Green,” a handle commonly used by “robo-signers” — workers who signed off on foreclosure documents without verifying them.
“Not only did ‘Linda Green’ not sign it,” Williquette Lindsay said, “but somebody fraudulently notorized it.”
Rest here…
Court sides with Nevada in BofA foreclosure case
* 9th Circuit sends case back to Nevada state court
* Lawsuit alleges mortgage abuses against Bank of America
By Andrew Longstreth
NEW YORK, March 2 (Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Friday granted Nevada’s request to send its lawsuit alleging mortgage modification and foreclosure abuses against Bank of America Corp back to Nevada state court.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision by a lower court, which had concluded that the lawsuit belonged in federal court.
Nevada’s complaint, filed in Clark County, Nevada, in January 2011, alleges that Bank of America misled consumers about the terms of its home mortgage modification and foreclosure processes.
Nevada also accused the bank of violating terms of a consent judgment it and several of its subsidiaries had entered into with the state in February 2009.
After Bank of America removed the lawsuit to federal court, Nevada’s request to send it back to state court was denied.
Rest here…
Copy of the ruling and the original filing below…
State of Nevada v. Bank of America Opinion
State of Nevada vs Bank of America
* Lawsuit alleges mortgage abuses against Bank of America
By Andrew Longstreth
NEW YORK, March 2 (Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Friday granted Nevada’s request to send its lawsuit alleging mortgage modification and foreclosure abuses against Bank of America Corp back to Nevada state court.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision by a lower court, which had concluded that the lawsuit belonged in federal court.
Nevada’s complaint, filed in Clark County, Nevada, in January 2011, alleges that Bank of America misled consumers about the terms of its home mortgage modification and foreclosure processes.
Nevada also accused the bank of violating terms of a consent judgment it and several of its subsidiaries had entered into with the state in February 2009.
After Bank of America removed the lawsuit to federal court, Nevada’s request to send it back to state court was denied.
Rest here…
Copy of the ruling and the original filing below…
State of Nevada v. Bank of America Opinion
State of Nevada vs Bank of America
Federal Court Strikes Down Oregon GOP’s Attempt To Validate MERS
A federal judge has yet again issued a ruling that effectively questions the validity of scores of foreclosures in Oregon, a crisis the Legislature could resolve in the mortgage industry’s favor this week if bank lobbyists and House Republican leaders have their way.
In an opinion issued Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon rejected a magistrate judge’s finding and rulings by two of his colleagues that big banks could avoid recording notices in local land records each time a loan is sold to other lenders or investors.
Simon sided with two other federal judges in Oregon in ruling that lenders have violated state recording law. They’ve done this, they say, by logging sales within its nationwide Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. and declaring MERS a “beneficiary” of the loan.
The mortgage industry created MERS to reduce the need for recording loan sales, or assignments. That enabled mortgages to be quickly bundled and sold to investors. MERS does not loan money, collect loan payments or invest in mortgages. It is, however, named in certain loan documents as the mortgagee or beneficiary of record.
Simon ruled that under state law, lenders must file a notice in county records each time they sell or transfer a note, or a promise from a borrower to pay.
MERS, he ruled, can file those notices on the lenders’ behalf, if a lender has authorized it to do so. MERS cannot, however, simply log those notices within its own database without also recording it publicly, he found. In millions of loans nationwide, it has.
Read more here
In an opinion issued Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon rejected a magistrate judge’s finding and rulings by two of his colleagues that big banks could avoid recording notices in local land records each time a loan is sold to other lenders or investors.
Simon sided with two other federal judges in Oregon in ruling that lenders have violated state recording law. They’ve done this, they say, by logging sales within its nationwide Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. and declaring MERS a “beneficiary” of the loan.
The mortgage industry created MERS to reduce the need for recording loan sales, or assignments. That enabled mortgages to be quickly bundled and sold to investors. MERS does not loan money, collect loan payments or invest in mortgages. It is, however, named in certain loan documents as the mortgagee or beneficiary of record.
Simon ruled that under state law, lenders must file a notice in county records each time they sell or transfer a note, or a promise from a borrower to pay.
MERS, he ruled, can file those notices on the lenders’ behalf, if a lender has authorized it to do so. MERS cannot, however, simply log those notices within its own database without also recording it publicly, he found. In millions of loans nationwide, it has.
Read more here
The Great Swindle: How to Stomach Knowing the Banks Are Stealing a Nation's Worth of Homes, One Home at a Time
"I did not lose my home, they stole it from me," explains Bertha Herrera, 63-year-old chaplain from Van Nuys, Calif. Bertha was evicted from her home of 32 years at gunpoint by LA County Sheriffs on Jan. 5, 2012. An hour later, with her possessions spread out over the lawn she'd tended since Jimmy Carter was in office, while a dozen Occupy LA and Occupy the Hood activists helped gather her belongings, 10 LAPD squad cars arrived to "protect and serve" the crew Coldwell Banker had sent over to board up her house.
Bertha had been late on one payment.
"There must be more to the story," you might insist. Yes, plenty more. But first, check your assumptions. Are you thinking the homeowner probably did something wrong? Or are you thinking the banks and auction house and Sheriff and LAPD probably did something wrong?
Bertha had been late on one payment.
"There must be more to the story," you might insist. Yes, plenty more. But first, check your assumptions. Are you thinking the homeowner probably did something wrong? Or are you thinking the banks and auction house and Sheriff and LAPD probably did something wrong?
Monday, March 05, 2012
City Fines Man For Not Cutting Grass At House He Lost Through Foreclosure
A man in Arlington, Texas, recently found out that even though the bank foreclosed on his house two years ago, the city thinks he should be held responsible for maintaining the property.
When the man went to renew his license last July, he found out the city had issued a handful of outstanding fines and warrants in his name over things like un-cut grass, an old fence and operating an alarm without a permit.
"I feel like I'm being punished for something I didn't do," he tells CBS 11 in Dallas. "It's really frustrating and costing me a lot of time."
He's currently fighting the city over the allegations, but in the meantime he's paid $150 so he could renew his license and has also been maintaining the property.
"I don't want to go to jail over nothing - never been to jail - don't want to go to jail," he explains.
The City of Arlington tells CBS 11 that because the title has changed to a new homeowner, the old one is still responsible.
However, the TV station's legal expert disagrees: "If it's foreclosed, it's not his... You have to remember cities are all about grabbing money from you I mean they try anyway they can."
Biloxi Buzz for Monday
Laid-Off Factory Worker Shoots His Former Boss
Putin Wins Presidency, but Opposition Keeps Pressure — MOSCOW — Russian voters overwhelmingly granted Vladimir V. Putin a six-year term as president on Sunday, a widely expected outcome that set the stage for a far more suspenseful post-election confrontation between the freshly emboldened leader …
Toddler Found Alone In Field After Tornado DiesDeception: Agents advised to keep “bank-owned” quiet
Looking to buy a home, but not sure you want one that fell into foreclosure?
Good luck finding out before you tour the property.
It's a little-known fact that Wells Fargo Bank's Premier Asset Services division, which sells bank-owned homes, instructs agents who sell these houses to list the owner as "Owner of Record," and not Wells Fargo. Premier Asset Services also sells homes owned by other banks.
The Multiple Listing Service, which is used by real estate agents to list properties, includes a category for bank-owned property. But here again, agents are told by many banks not to disclose the fact that the property is, in fact, owned by a bank.
A number of agents who sell bank-owned properties privately say most banks have the same requirement. They say banks want their homes to be considered equally with non-distressed homes.
Tyler Smith, vice president of REO Community Development for Premier Asset Services, acknowledged that Wells Fargo prefers that the MLS not list a property as bank-owned, if the listing is optional. In some parts of the country, the MLS requires that the property be listed as bank-owned, and Wells Fargo asks its agents to comply with the rule, Smith said. But in the regional MLS that serves Palm Beach County, there is no requirement, and so the disclosure is discouraged.
North Miami mayor faces foreclosure
North Miami Mayor Andre Pierre has spent the better of his term dealing with economic issues in his Northeast Miami-Dade city.
He’s also facing economic woes on the home front: Records show that Bank of America is seeking to foreclose on Pierre’s house, according to court documents filed on Feb. 20.
In 2003 Pierre and his wife Bernadette bought the three bedroom, two bathroom home at 2125 NE 121st St, for $353,000, according to the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser’s Office.
Pierre, who is a lawyer, said he was not aware that the bank was looking to foreclose on his house and he is currently negotiating for a loan modification.
“It seems to me the banks don’t care about the people,” Pierre said. He said he stopped paying his mortgage when he realized his home was underwater. “If I can be negotiating with the bank and we are constantly on the phone trying to negotiate the best deal possible under the sun, then I can see how this is happening to ordinary folks.”
Pierre said when he bought the house he took out a 20 year loan of about $282,000. He said he was making monthly payments of roughly $3,250 on that loan. In November 2007, around the height of the real estate bubble, Pierre refinanced and borrowed $560,000 against the value of his home. He took out two loans, one for $417,000 and another for $150,000.
He said he took out the loans to make improvements to his 1975 one-story home, such as fixing electrical issues, updating the air conditioner and replacing wood flooring.
At the time Pierre said he was making his monthly payment without any problems.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Companies Foreclose; Blight Follows
Every few weeks, Alvin Chandra cleans up the garbage that has accumulated in the vacant lot next to his granite fabrication plant on Adeline Street in West Oakland — soiled mattresses, worn-out sofa beds and piles of used fast food containers.
“We’re constantly painting over the graffiti on our wall,” said Mr. Chandra, 47, pointing to the long flat exterior of his building that abuts the vacant lot. “It’s hard to make a good impression on clients when there’s a pile of trash in front of your building.”
The trash-strewn lot is owned by Fannie Mae. The government-controlled mortgage company acquired the property after a foreclosure on the previous owner last June. With the housing bust and continued recession, Fannie Mae, and its counterpart Freddie Mac, have quietly become major residential landowners in the Bay Area’s hardest-hit neighborhoods.
According to data from Foreclosure Radar.com, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now own 2,323 properties in the Bay Area worth an estimated $511 million. Like the vacant lot on Adeline Street, many are blighted, covered in trash, with overgrown lawns, junk cars, chipped paint and broken windows.
In Oakland, where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own 371 properties with an estimated value of $70 million, city officials inspected 142 homes and apartment buildings owned by the companies last year and found that nearly half of them violated the city’s blight ordinance. The two firms were fined $123,300 after they failed to fix problems quickly at nine of the properties.
Andrew Wilson, a spokesman for Fannie Mae in Washington, said the fact that most violations were quickly resolved after being identified by city officials showed “we are absolutely committed to stabilizing neighborhoods.”
Court sides with Nevada in BofA foreclosure case
A federal appeals court on Friday granted Nevada's request to send its lawsuit alleging mortgage modification and foreclosure abuses against Bank of America Corp back to Nevada state court.
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision by a lower court, which had concluded that the lawsuit belonged in federal court.
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision by a lower court, which had concluded that the lawsuit belonged in federal court.
Nevada's complaint, filed in Clark County, Nevada, in January 2011, alleges that Bank of America misled consumers about the terms of its home mortgage modification and foreclosure processes.
Nevada also accused the bank of violating terms of a consent judgement it and several of its subsidiaries had entered into with the state in February 2009.
Nevada also accused the bank of violating terms of a consent judgement it and several of its subsidiaries had entered into with the state in February 2009.
After Bank of America removed the lawsuit to federal court, Nevada's request to send it back to state court was denied.
THE "ORIGINAL" NOTE , but INVALID CHAIN OF TITLE ?
Foreclosure Hamlet:
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE LOST THE PROPERTY IN COURT....
IM NOT AND EXPERT AND IN 4 DAYS I FOUND MORE THINGS THAN THE PEOPLE WE PAID ALL THAT MONEY TO "DEFEND" US.
AND NOW THIS,,,
this document is clear...
ORIGINAL LENDER [closing date July 7 2005: GREAT COUNTRY MORTGAGE BANKERS, CORP
TRANSFERRED [ July 13 2005 ]TO : GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)