Posted on 22 July 2010.
From: b.daviesmd6605
THIS IS A GREAT LETTER FROM THE SENIOR COUNSEL AT THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY REGARDING FEDERAL PREEMPTION BY THE TRUSTEE OF A MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITY TRUST. THEY ARE NOT PREEMPTIVE BASED ON THE OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY AS THEY ARE NOT IN THE FUNCTION OF A LENDER. THIS IS EXCELLENT.
[ipaper docId=34676415 access_key=key-1g670yqhyn75qwrshpx4 height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.Posted in deutsche bank, OCC, trustee, Trusts1 Comment
Posted on 22 July 2010.
Posted in class action, djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, investigation, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD7 Comments
Posted on 22 July 2010.
BOULDER CREEK — Roberta and Randall Strand thought they were getting a great deal on a foreclosure and helping their daughter and future son-in-law become homeowners. Instead they are holding a worthless second mortgage.
The home they bought for just under $98,000 and fixed up for $25,000 is scheduled for a foreclosure auction this afternoon to satisfy a debt of more than $529,000.
They offered lender Wells Fargo $75,000, but it was to no avail.
Wells Fargo spokeswoman Michele Ashley issued a statement saying, “We believe the foreclosure auction of the property on which the Strand family bid was done correctly, and are confident the legal resolution to this matter will bear that out. Currently, Wells Fargo has presented the family with options that can help them through this matter.”
The Strands saw a newspaper notice last fall about the home, which is a mile from theirs, slated for a foreclosure auction. The unpaid debt was listed as $97,604.
Nestled under the redwoods on Cypress Trees Lane, the place needed work but their daughter, Hayley, 24, and her fiance, Bryan Janbay, 28, were willing to put in the effort.
Roberta looked up the property records. She saw there were two mortgages, a first and a second, recorded on the same date with the same lender. She figured the lender was auctioning the first and that the second mortgage would be wiped out.
“The price was right,” her husband said.
They took out a mortgage
on their own home to make their offer. At the auction on the steps of the county Governmental Center in November, they were the only bidders.The house had been stripped, and they spent $25,000 on improvements — windows, paint, carpet, lighting and appliances.
In January, before Hayley and Bryan could take out a mortgage to pay them back, a notice arrived from Wachovia Bank, saying the previous owners owed $529,259 on their loan.
Roberta thought it was a mistake.
“I tried speaking to someone at Wachovia, but no one would speak to me because my name was not on the loan,” she said.
She sent certified letters to Wachovia and didn’t hear back until April, when a foreclosure sale notice was posted on the property.
“Rather than foreclose on both loans at the same time, Wachovia chose to foreclose, market and sell the worthless junior lien, purporting it to be the real property, which is what we purchased,” she said.
The family sued Wells Fargo, which acquired Wachovia, and Cal-Western Reconveyance, which posted legal notices of the sale, claiming deceit, fraud and wrongful foreclosure. They want their money back.
The Strands’ attorney, Steve Vondran of Newport Beach, argued that “Wells Fargo and Cal-Western have set up a system that allows them to mutually profit off the sale of worthless second mortgages.”
Continue reading….santacruzsentinel.com
Posted in auction, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, wells fargo1 Comment
Posted on 22 July 2010.
Melanie Payne • Tellmel@news-press.com • July 22, 2010
1:10 A.M. — Nicole DePuy thought she was one of the lucky ones when she walked out of Harborside Event Center on Jan. 27 with a loan modification that would save her home from foreclosure.
After waiting hours to talk to her lender at the highly publicized event, the 40-year-old speech-language pathologist had been approved for a trial with the Home Affordable Modification Program.
Under the government-sponsored program called HAMP, DePuy’s mortgage payments were cut almost in half, dropping from $2,100 to $1,054.
And best of all, under the terms of the program, all foreclosure action would stop. The scheduled sale of DePuy’s Cape Coral home was prohibited under the terms of the agreement.
“I thought my problems were over,” DePuy said.
Nothing could be further from the truth. But DePuy didn’t know that until John Moffatt of Isla Blue Development LLC put a note on her door March 31 telling her to call about her property. Moffatt told DePuy the company he represented had purchased her home in a foreclosure sale at the courthouse.
DePuy called Bank of America to find out what happened and was told the bank had failed to notify the lawyer handling the foreclosure sale that DePuy was in the trial loan modification program.
Fort Myers attorney Robert D. Royston Jr. agreed to represent DePuy. He asked the court to set aside the sale “on the basis of the mistake by the plaintiff.”
Royston filed the contract showing the modification and the HAMP guidelines that read: “Foreclosure sales may not be conducted while the loan is being considered for a modification or during the trial period.”
The judge didn’t have an opportunity to read the pleadings.
“The judiciary is having difficulty given the volume to give the attention each case may require,” Royston said.
Because Isla Blue purchased the house fair and square, it belonged to it, the judge ruled.
Isla Blue could have kicked DePuy and her 11-year-old daughter out within days of the ruling, but she has been given until the end of the month to move.
Bank of America told me it would deal with this issue directly with DePuy. A customer advocate contacted her Tuesday, DePuy said, telling her she was looking into it.
DePuy’s story illustrates the pitfalls of homeowners going it alone when dealing with foreclosures. If DePuy had an attorney, the attorney would have seen the house was still on the foreclosure listings and taken action before the sale.
Martha Green, the executive assistant at the Home Ownership Resource Center, said that DePuy could have contacted the bank’s attorney herself and told the attorney she had worked out a modification. But going it alone, DePuy would not have known to do that.
The scary thing is that there are more than 1.2 million homeowners who have started a trial modification under the government’s “Making Home Affordable” plan. I hope it works better for them than it did for DePuy.
Posted in bank of america, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, hamp, mistake, mortgage, Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud1 Comment
Posted on 21 July 2010.
VIA: LawyersandSettlements.com
DJSP Enterprises, Inc. has been accused of securities fraud. If you are a current or former employee or are a member of any of DJSP Enterprises, Inc. investment plans or profit sharing retirement plans you may be included in this possible DJSP Enterprises, Inc. 401(k) or Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action. If you purchased or held DJSP Enterprises, Inc. stock in one of those plans during the periods Mar-16-10 to May-27-10, you may have a claim.
Under ERISA, DJSP Enterprises, Inc. employees can file a lawsuit against the company for putting stock options at risk. DJSP Enterprises, Inc. employees have a claim if they can prove their employer violated its fiduciary duty to its employees. Fiduciary duty refers to a company’s responsibility to the people who invest in it. If an employer puts the company’s interest ahead of the investors’, it has broken its fiduciary duty. A fiduciary is a person that exercises discretion over the management of plan assets or exercises discretionary control over the administration of the plan.
ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for pension and health plans set up by private businesses. ERISA was designed to protect people who participate in employee benefit plans, including employees with stock options in a company. Stock options are a form of compensation in which employees are given the opportunity to purchase shares of the company stock at a certain price.
If you have suffered from DJSP Enterprises, Inc. 401(k) plan losses, you may qualify for damages or remedies that may be awarded in a possible DJSP Enterprises, Inc. ERISA class action lawsuit. Please click the link below to submit your complaint and we will have a lawyer review your ERISA complaint. If you are NOT a current or former employee of this company, please use this form to register your complaint. Thank you.
Last updated on Jul-21-10
Posted in case, djsp enterprises, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., lawsuit, settlement1 Comment
Posted on 21 July 2010.
Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:44pm EDT
By Al Yoon
NEW YORK July 21 (Reuters) – U.S. mortgage bond investors have quietly banded together to gain the long-sought power needed to challenge loan servicers over losses the investors claim resulted from violations in securities contracts.
A group holding a third of the $1.5 trillion mortgage bond market has topped the key 25 percent threshold for voting rights on 2,300 “private-label” mortgage bonds, said Talcott Franklin, a Dallas-based lawyer who is shepherding the effort.
Reaching that threshold gives holders the means to identify misrepresentations in loans, and possibly force repurchases by banks, Franklin said.
Banks are already grappling with repurchase demands from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the U.S.-backed mortgage finance giants.
The investors, which include some of the largest in the nation, claim they have been unfairly taking losses as the housing market crumbled and defaulted loans hammered their bonds. Requests to servicers that collect and distribute payments — which include big banks — to investigate loans are often referred to clauses that prohibit action by individuals, investors have said.
Since loan servicers, lenders and loan sellers sometimes are affiliated, there are conflicts of interest when asking the companies to ferret out the loans that destined their private mortgage bonds for losses, Franklin said in a July 20 letter to trustees, who act on behalf of bondholders.
“There’s a lot of smoke out there about whether these loans were properly written, and about whether the servicing is appropriate and whether recoveries are maximized” for bondholders, Franklin said in an interview.
He wouldn’t disclose his clients, but said they represent more than $500 billion in securities managed for pension funds, 401(k) plans, endowments, and governments. The securities are private mortgage bonds issued by Wall Street firms that helped trigger the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.
Franklin’s effort, using a clearinghouse model to aggregate positions, is a milestone for investors who have been unable to organize. Some have wanted to fire servicers but couldn’t gather the necessary voting rights.
“Investors have finally reached a mechanism whereby they can act collectively to enforce their contractual rights,” said one portfolio manager involved in the effort, who declined to be named. “The trustees, the people that made representations and warranties to the trust, and the servicers have taken advantage of a very fractured asset management industry to perpetuate a circle of silence around these securities.”
Laurie Goodman, a senior managing director at Amherst Securities Group in New York, said at an industry conference last week, “Reps and warranties are not enforced.”
Increased pressure from bondholders comes as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been collecting billions of dollars from lender repurchases of loans in government-backed securities. With Fannie and Freddie also big buyers of Wall Street mortgage bonds, their regulator this month used its subpoena power to seek documents and see if it could recoup losses for the two companies, which have received tens of billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts.
Some U.S. Federal Home Loan banks and at least one hedge fund are looking to force repurchases or collect for losses.
Investors are eager to scrutinize loans against reps and warranties in ways haven’t been able to before. Where 50 percent voting rights are required for an action, the investors in the clearinghouse have power in more than 900 deals.
Franklin said the investors are hoping for a cooperative effort with servicers and trustees. While he did not disclose recipients of the letter, some of the biggest trustees include Bank of New York, US Bank and Deutsche Bank.
A Bank of New York spokesman declined to say if the firm received the trustee letter. US Bancorp and Deutsche Bank spokesmen did not immediately return calls.
“You have a trustee surrounded by smoke, steadfastly claiming there is no fire, and what the letter gets to is there is fire,” the portfolio manager said. “And we are now directing you … to take these steps to put out the fire and to do so by investigating and putting loans back to the seller.”
Servicers are most likely to spot a breach of a bond’s warranty, Franklin said in the letter.
Violations could be substantial, he said. In an Ambac Assurance Corp review of 695 defaulted subprime loans sold to a mortgage trust by a servicer, nearly 80 percent broke one or more warranties, he said in the letter, citing an Ambac lawsuit against EMC Mortgage Corp.
The investors are also now empowered to scrutinize how servicers decide on either modifying a loan for a troubled borrower, or proceed with foreclosure, Franklin said. Improper foreclosures may be done to save costs of creating a loan modification, he asserted. (Editing by Leslie Adler)
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.Posted in bank of america, conflict of interest, deutsche bank, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, mortgage, note, servicers, Trusts, us bank, Wall Street1 Comment
Posted on 21 July 2010.
CINCINNATI, Jul 21, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed by the Cincinnati law firms of Strauss & Troy and Statman Harris & Eyrich on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of DJSP Enterprises, Inc. (“DJSP” or the “Company”) /quotes/comstock/15*!djsp/quotes/nls/djsp (DJSP5.12, -0.21, -3.94%) between March 16, 2010 and May 27, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and who suffered damages as a result. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, DJSP and certain of its officers and/or directors (the “Defendants”) violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose adverse facts known to them regarding the Company’s business and financial results. As a result the stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
On March 16, 2010, DJSP informed the investing community that “…there is no stopping this inflow of continued defaults that we anticipate to go for another two or three years….foreclosure volumes through 2012 are expected to increase dramatically.” Then on May 27, 2010, DJSP shocked the market when it lowered its guidance for adjusted net income by $15 to $17 million and for adjusted EBIDTA by $18 to $22 million. On this news, the Company’s shares fell nearly 29%, opening on May 28, 2010 at $6.33 per share.
DJSP indicated that the lowered guidance was a result of (i) the foreclosure system conversion of one of its largest bank clients which resulted in a reduction in the referral of foreclosure files; and (ii) a temporary slowdown in foreclosures due to governmental intervention programs.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all individuals and entities who purchased DJSP common stock during the Class Period. If you purchased common stock between March 16, 2010 and May 27, 2010, you may, no later than October 20, 2010, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of the class members. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that you meet certain legal requirements.
If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact Richard S. Wayne, Esq., or Thomas P. Glass, Esq., Strauss & Troy, 150 East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, 800-669-9341 or by e-mail at rswayne@strausstroy.com or tpglass@strausstroy.com; or Melinda Nenning, Esq., Statman, Harris & Eyrich, 3700 Carew Tower, 441 Vine Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, (513) 345-8181 Ext. 3095, or by e-mail at mnenning@statmanharris.com.
The law firms of Strauss & Troy and Statman Harris & Eyrich are Cincinnati, Ohio law firms that have successfully represented shareholders in national securities class actions. For more information, visit Strauss & Troy’s website at http://www.strausstroy.com or Statman Harris & Eyrich’s website at http://www.statmanharris.com.
This news release was distributed by GlobeNewswire, www.globenewswire.com
SOURCE: Strauss & Troy; Statman, Harris & Eyrich
CONTACT: Strauss & Troy Richard S. Wayne, Esq. rswayne@strausstroy.com Thomas P. Glass, Esq. tpglass@strausstroy.com 800-669-9341 Statman, Harris & Eyrich Melinda Nenning, Esq. (513) 345-8181 Ext. 3095 mnenning@statmanharris.com (C) Copyright 2010 GlobeNewswire, Inc. All rights reserved.© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted in class action, CONTROL FRAUD, djsp enterprises, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., lawsuit, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD2 Comments
Posted on 21 July 2010.
Cooper et al v. DJSP Enterprises, Inc. et al
Filed: July 20, 2010 as 0:2010cv61261 Updated: July 20, 2010 21:15:00
Plaintiffs: Neeraj Methi and Stan Cooper
Defendants: David J. Stern, DJSP Enterprises, Inc. and Kumar Gursahaney
Presiding Judge: William J. Zloch
Referring Judge: Robin S. Rosenbaum
Cause Of Action: Securities Exchange Act
Court: Eleventh Circuit > Florida > Southern District Court
Type: Other Statutes > Securities/Commodities…
[ipaper docId=34650766 access_key=key-o3guj9p65fs5mzgvpv2 height=600 width=600 /]
After reading this, why don’t you take a hop over and take a listen to an audio recording of Mr. Stern at a recent DJSP Conference. Oh and Mr. Obama…According to Mr. Stern we will see historical levels of foreclosures going well into 2017 seems like “A Plan” for the future of whats to come?
It’s a little hard to listen to him because he sounds too excited and on helium but trust me it was close enough to what he says. I wonder if his “Clients” would be pleased to listen to this convo detailing what’s in store for the future?
He did say one thing that caught my attention…”there is 50,000 REO’s in Florida that are not in the system” or something like that…Go ahead and take a listen for yourself…I am not quite certain what to make of all this …if it’s even legal? Where is the Client-Attorney Privilege? http://www.americansunitedforjustice.org/Stern.html
Posted in djsp enterprises, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., stock, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD3 Comments
Posted on 21 July 2010.
WHERE’S THE NOTE, WHO’S THE HOLDER
INTRODUCTION
In an era where a very large portion of mortgage obligations have been securitized, by assignment to a trust indenture trustee, with the resulting pool of assets being then sold as mortgage backed securities, foreclosure becomes an interesting exercise, particularly where judicial process is involved. We are all familiar with the securitization process. The steps, if not the process, is simple. A borrower goes to a mortgage lender. The lender finances the purchase of real estate. The borrower signs a note and mortgage or deed of trust. The original lender sells the note and assigns the mortgage to an entity that securitizes the note by combining the note with hundreds or thousands of similar obligation to create a package of mortgage backed securities, which are then sold to investors.
Unfortunately, unless you represent borrowers, the vast flow of notes into the maw of the securitization industry meant that a lot of mistakes were made. When the borrower defaults, the party seeking to enforce the obligation and foreclose on the underlying collateral sometimes cannot find the note. A lawyer sophisticated in this area has speculated to one of the authors that perhaps a third of the notes “securitized” have been lost or destroyed. The cases we are going to look at reflect the stark fact that the unnamed source’s speculation may be well-founded.
UCC SECTION 3-309
If the issue were as simple as a missing note, UCC §3-309 would provide a simple solution. A person entitled to enforce an instrument which has been lost, destroyed or stolen may enforce the instrument. If the court is concerned that some third party may show up and attempt to enforce the instrument against the payee, it may order adequate protection. But, and however, a person seeking to enforce a missing instrument must be a person entitled to enforce the instrument, and that person must prove the instrument’s terms and that person’s right to enforce the instrument. §3-309 (a)(1) & (b).
continue below…
[ipaper docId=34639366 access_key=key-16iibafykexw94r9ex7k height=600 width=600 /]
Posted in conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, investigation, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, note, stopforeclosurefraud.com1 Comment
Posted on 20 July 2010.
Republican investigators believe the preferential treatment on the loans ranges from slashing interest rates and waiving third-party fees to giving enhanced customer service.
The investigation has also uncovered potential evidence that Countrywide was offering bad loans, which would lose money, to influential people at Fannie Mae. An e-mail, obtained by POLITICO, shows Countrywide employees discussing the refinancing of the loan of former Fannie Mae Chief Operating Officer Daniel Mudd, acknowledging the sensitivity and potential for financial loss.
“Make sure the branch … understand[s] the sensitivity of this deal,” the e-mail to former Countrywide Vice President Daniel Rector reads. “We are already taking a loss, it would be horrible to add a service complaint on top and lose any benefit we generate.”
Special-rate loans might violate Fannie Mae’s code of conduct, which prohibits discounted loans, according to a letter summarizing the investigation’s results.
The report redacted most of the names of employees who received VIP loans.
The investigation, headed by Reps. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) and Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), also identifies Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson, the company’s former CEO, Franklin Raines, former Vice Chairwoman Jamie Gorelick and Mudd as having received loans as part of the “Friends of Angelo” program — named for former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. The executives were previously identified as being part of the embattled lender’s loan program but have denied knowing that they had been singled out by the lender. Johnson alone received $10 million in loans, according to the letter.
The information was uncovered as part of a wider investigation into Countrywide Financial by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Issa, the panel’s top Republican, and Towns, its chairman, subpoenaed Countrywide for records dealing with the VIP loan program in October 2009.
Continue reading …POLITICO
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.Posted in concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, corruption, countrywide, fannie mae, Freddie Mac, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment
Posted on 20 July 2010.
By ALAN ZIBEL (AP) –
WASHINGTON — The number of people dropping out of the Obama administration’s program main program to help those at risk of losing their homes outstripped those who received aid for the second-straight month.
The Treasury Department says about 530,000 borrowers have dropped out of the program as of last month. That’s more than 40 percent of the nearly 1.3 million enrolled since March 2009. It’s a sign that foreclosures could rise and weaken an ailing housing market.
Treasury officials say few of these borrowers will wind up in foreclosure. But many analysts still fear a new wave of foreclosures will weaken the housing market.
Another 390,000 homeowners, or 30 percent of those who started the program, have received permanent loan modifications and are making payments on time.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.Posted in mortgage, mortgage modification, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment
Posted on 20 July 2010.
[ipaper docId=34239119 access_key=key-1bf047l437tloqamoswu height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
Posted on 20 July 2010.
TampaBay.com recently exposed how some foreclosure mills are striving with wealth. In particular one law firm in the Fort Lauderdale area.
Here is another ‘Mega Estate’ under a “CERTAIN TRUST AGREEMENT” c/o The Law Offices of David J. Stern, PA 900 S. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400, Plantation Florida 33324. This is not far from his other $15,000,000.00 dollar “Mega Estate” and his $5 million dollar Ft. Lauderdale Beach condo.
This Hillsborough Estate, like his Ft. Lauderdale Estate also features a tennis court. According to BCPA.net this double lot MEGA ESTATE was purchased for a combined total of $17,000,000.00 in 2008.
Mr. Stern’s ‘nonlegal’ company DJSP Enterprises, Inc recently filed their Form S-8 with the SEC. I wonder where all these SHARES are going?
SOURCE: BROWARD COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS
Posted in djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure mills, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A.2 Comments
Posted on 19 July 2010.
Via: Kenneth Eric Trent, Attorney at Law Fort Lauderdale, FL
This is the follow up to the latest Depositions posted on SFF taken from The Law Offices of David J. Sterns’ employees Cheryl Samons and Shannon Smith.
[ipaper docId=34550572 access_key=key-2cbgnrr6653palfl8a4w height=600 width=600 /]
Posted in aurora loan servicing, citimortgage, conflict of interest, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, dismissed, djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Notary, notary fraud, robo signers, settlement, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment
Posted on 19 July 2010.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Video sends a message…
FORECLOSURE FRAUD …”The Greatest American Bank Robbery” A GREED STORY!
Song by: Scala “Creep”
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.Posted in bogus, chain in title, CONTROL FRAUD, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, MERS, MERSCORP, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, notary fraud, note, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, Wall Street1 Comment
Posted on 19 July 2010.
Public-interest lawyer, activist, writer, and radio talk-show host
This is part of my Happened to ACORN series.
Last week a group called New York Communities for Change (NYCC) joined with New York City Comptroller John Liu and seven of New York’s largest unions to demand that Wall Street’s biggest banks reform their loan modification policies so families facing foreclosure will not lose their homes. If other groups follow that lead, we might make a big dent in the foreclosure crisis.
NYCC and its sister organization, Mutual Housing Association of New York, have been working with foreclosure victims neighborhoods like St. Albans in Queens, or Bed-Stuy in Brooklyn not far from Wall Street, where homeowners have been forced to make impossible choices: keep up their skyrocketing mortgage payments or provide their families with food and clothing.
Members of the group are angry at banks, who have been painfully slow to offer loan modifications, or simply refuse to lift a finger to help vulnerable families and neighborhoods to avoid foreclosure. Some banks often screw homeowners by sending numerous requests for already-submitted documents, and then foreclose on the hapless homeowner because the banks falsely claim that they never got those same documents!
The federal government’s attempt to solve the foreclosure crisis has failed. In 2009, 50,000 foreclosures swept New York state, with nearly half in NYC. Across the country the crisis is getting worse, not better. Katrina vanden Heuvel on July 15, in the Nation, reported that New York City foreclosures rose 16 percent in the first quarter of 2010 compared to the same period last year, with “…over 265,000 mortgages — 13 percent of the mortgages in New York State-are now past due or in the foreclosure process. Meanwhile, banks have made less than 12,000 permanent modifications in the state since May 2009.”
After several community meetings it became clear that many NYCC and union members need their mortgages modified because they are underwater or delinquent. The community and labor groups put together an action plan with Comptroller Liu, SEIU 32BJ & 1199, United Federation of Teachers, TWU, DC37, RWDSU, and the NY Hotel and Motel Trades Council.
To start they will send a letter to Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, criticizing them for dragging their feet and demanding they do “everything possible” to avert foreclosures, including mortgage modifications.
At a July 13th, press conference, Michael Mulgrew, President, UFT, said he has brought the issue to the pension funds and they will consider all options. John Samuelsen, President, TWU Local 100 said that “since he was on the board of the city pension fund, he would ask that the bank’s response be one of the ways in which they evaluate where they put their money.” NYCC member, Jean-Andre Sassine, caught in the mortgage bind, said, “if the big banks won’t listen to homeowners, we thought that they should hear from some of their biggest investors — the city, the unions and their pension funds.”
If the banks fail to act, all parties involved could move their pension funds and bank deposits to other institutions. That is why the groups call their plan the Move Your Money campaign.
They claim it will not only modify foreclosures and save homes, it will hold big banks accountable to the community where they take deposits and profit from government supported loans. After foreclosures, neighbors who remain behind suffer from declining property values, and local and state revenues plummet, contributing to a stagnant economy and high unemployment. The coalition is demanding answers by September 1.
Thus far the Obama administration plan — which relies on a voluntary mortgage modification program — has not worked, forcing New Yorkers to take matters into their own hands.
The groups put Wall Street on notice that unless the banks increase the number of modifications, including principal write-downs, expedite the modification process and stop foreclosure proceedings while applications are being reviewed, the group will increase the pressure. “This is just the first step in a campaign to win loan modifications that stop preventable foreclosures. We’re saying it loud and clear – if the banks won’t listen, it’s time to move our money,” Jon Kest, NYCC’s executive director.
What happened to ACORN?
It is a rare showing of both money and people power, with the unions representing over 500,000 working families. NYCC is a coalition of low- and moderate-income working families fighting for social and economic justice throughout New York State and includes some of the leaders and organizers from the now defunct ACORN. The group also uses many of the same tactics and strategies. NYCC’s members and leaders hope the action taken by New York City’s Comptroller and labor leaders will lead to a dramatic shift in how the banks deal with borrowers.
Civic leaders across the country should follow the coalition’s lead. Either big banks become part of the solution or the rest of us will have to Move the Money.
Posted in foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosures, Moratorium, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, Wall Street1 Comment
Posted on 18 July 2010.
If the beneficiary delayed delivery of the request and missed the 30-day deadline by even one day, the beneficiary would be liable to the grantor for $500, the legislation stated. This amount would be in addition to all actual damages incurred by the grantor.
Consequently, if a prospective sale of the property was lost because of a delay in following through with the reconveyance, the beneficiary would be held liable for substantial damages.
This can be a real trap if it takes more than 30 days to forward a request for reconveyance. The $500 fine could be just the beginning. In the opinion of George C. Reinmiller Trustee Inc., beneficiaries, loan servicers and trustees will probably see more of this type of legislation around the country, because a limited few have been slow in completing reconveyances.
The penalties and monetary losses don’t stop there.
With the rise in foreclosures and an increase in budget cutbacks, lenders and servicers have been seeing a higher demand to have complete and accurate collateral files to certify their pools of loans.
By completing an audit and ensuring everything is there, servicers will find it easier to close on the sale of the pool and will see a decrease in requests for the repurchase of certain assets in the file. These certified pools of loans are considered more valuable and are, therefore, sold relatively easily.
In today’s market, purchasers of pools look for any number of reasons for a seller to repurchase loans. One such reason – in fact, the most common reason – is incomplete files.
If there are problems within a pool, lenders and servicers can spend huge amounts of money trying to discover the missing pieces. Another possible headache is the time and money involved to go back and forth with the attorney trying to resolve these types of issues should the loan fall into foreclosure. If the issues cannot be resolved quickly, the seller may have to buy back the loans, which is something a struggling company shudders to hear.
What can lenders and loan servicers do to quickly correct these types of problems or keep them from occurring in the first place?
The more time that passes between origination and file verification, the more costly and difficult it becomes to obtain any missing documents. Sometimes, with cutbacks (such as loss of human resources) or, as we see happening more frequently these days, the relocation of offices, documents can be forgotten or misplaced and can end up sitting incomplete in an abandoned filing cabinet that will probably go untouched until someone accidentally comes across it.
Servicers should take aggressive document control and verify they have the documents they need in each file as soon as possible. If documents are missing, there are still strategies that can be employed.
Finding and obtaining missing original documents that have to be publicly recorded (e.g., mortgages, assignments and assumptions) are fairly easy to retrive. For instance, you can get a certified copy from the county recorder where the property is located, as long as the document was originally recorded.
Research can be done to verify whether the document was recorded by searching the county’s Web site or speaking with the recorder’s office. You may obtain a certified copy by phone or by mailing in a certified copy request to the county recorder. However, there are a few recording districts that require an abstractor to physically come in to research and/or request a copy of a document.
Obtaining copies of missing documents that were never recorded on the public record – such as title policies – can get much more complicated. One can always go directly to the title company or title agent that issued the policy, but with current conditions in the economy and mortgage industry, title companies have been closing their doors.
The next step is to contact the underwriter. Most underwriters will not send the original policy, because they normally do not have it. However, they should be able to send a certified copy. Because each purchaser is different and may have a different concept of what is acceptable, specificity is key. Get a clear definition of what a certified copy of a title policy is from the purchaser before obtaining one from the underwriter.
There is a chance that the underwriter may not have the policy, either. In that case, the underwriter might have to re-issue it, which can get pretty costly. To re-issue the policy, the underwriter will normally require a complete chain of assignments. Most underwriters will only reissue a title policy directly from the current beneficiary of the mortgage and will use the assignments on record to verify that person’s identity.
With Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), missing assignments have, in recent years, become less of a problem for some, but there are still many mortgages that are not registered with MERS. With the countless number of banks and mortgage companies being sold or closing, it can become a Sherlock Holmes case trying to find an entity that can sign and, therefore, complete the assignment chain. It usually starts with searching various Web sites and tracking down the current holder or entity of the company.
When all else fails
Then the phone calls start in an attempt to find the right person to sign the document. What happens if you can’t find anyone to sign? In many cases, when there is no one left that can sign an assignment, a lost assignment affidavit is a possible resolution. But keep in mind that only certain states and/or recording jurisdictions allow these affidavits. If all else fails, then it is up to the courts to resolve the problem, which is when the expenses start to increase once again.
By having all loan files complete, one is able to move quickly if a loan is paid in full, as well. Steep penalties can be avoided in certain states by providing a release or reconveyance in a timely manner. This is especially important if Reinmiller’s opinion holds true and the trend of shortened compliance time frames grows further.
Lenders and servicers should take a proactive approach in their daily functions and do whatever it takes to ensure that their files are complete from the start to avoid costly mistakes with unpredictable results.
Jessica Woods is vice president of Richmond Monroe Group Inc., an outsource services provider offering processing and technology solutions to the servicing industry. She can be reached at (417) 447-2931 or jessicaw@richmondmonroe.com.
Posted in conflict of interest, foreclosure, foreclosures, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, title company, trade secrets1 Comment
Posted on 18 July 2010.
I wonder if this was disclosed on DJSP Enterprise’s Prospectus letting investors be aware of this below…
David James Stern, 801 S. University Drive, Ste. 500, Plantation, reprimanded for professional misconduct following an October 24 court order. (Admitted to practice: 1991) Prior to 1999, Stern’s law firm filed potentially misleading affidavits in connection with abstraction work performed for foreclosures handled by the firm. Stern used personnel employed by his law firm to do the abstracting work rather than employees of his title company.(Case no. SC02-1991)
His address is also 900 South Pine Island Road Ste 400, Plantation FL 33324
[ipaper docId=34497819 access_key=key-1v3hmd3whnpyout9rn6l height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.Posted in djsp enterprises, foreclosure, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., stock1 Comment
Posted on 18 July 2010.
KUDOS to the Federal Housing Finance Agency, overseer of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the crippled mortgage finance giants. While some in Washington have continued to coddle the big banks even after they drove our economy into the ditch, this agency seems serious about recovering money for taxpayers by holding bad financial actors to account.
The agency announced last Monday that it had issued 64 subpoenas to a throng of unidentified financial services institutions, seeking documents related to mortgage securities that Fannie and Freddie bought from Wall Street during the boom years.
The subpoenas are designed to tell the agency what many of us want to know: How did Wall Street package and sell private-label mortgage securities to investors, even though the nature and quality of some of the loans crammed inside those tidy little packages were, at best, suspect?
Once that question has been answered, Fannie and Freddie can force the institutions that sold the securities to repurchase the improper loans, allowing taxpayers to recover some of the losses they’ve swallowed on Fannie’s and Freddie’s federal bailout.
Investigating this aspect of the mortgage mess seems a pretty logical step for a regulator. But in the topsy-turvy world of Washington, the housing finance agency’s move is unusually aggressive. Edward J. DeMarco, its acting director, seems to be that rarity — a regulator who not only talks about looking out for the taxpayer, but actually does something about it.
The subpoenas went to companies that act as trustees for mortgage pools or that service the loans in them. The housing finance agency wants to see loan files and transaction documents related to those pools, including mortgage applications and property appraisals. Recipients of the subpoenas have 30 days to produce the requested documents. Additional subpoenas may follow, it said.
The agency had to resort to subpoenas, it said, because when it asked the institutions for the records it got nowhere for many months. “Difficulty in obtaining the loan documents has presented a challenge to the enterprises’ efforts” to ascertain whether losses at the companies are the responsibility of others, its press release said.
Fannie and Freddie bought only the highest-rated pieces of these deals, but they bought buckets of them. During 2006-7, these entities bought $294 billion of so-called private-label securities. Not all of these purchases are under scrutiny, the agency said.
It is clearly turning up the heat on the major players in mortgage servicing and securitization. Among the bigger trustees in the business are Deutsche Bank and the Bank of New York, while loan servicers include Bank of America and many more. None of the banks would confirm if they had received subpoenas.
Continue reading…The New York Times
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.Posted in bank of america, bank of new york, deutsche bank, fannie mae, Freddie Mac, mbs, mortgage, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments
Posted on 18 July 2010.
Mortgage makers are going beyond tax returns and bank statements to determine whether you’re a good risk. They’re checking such things as where you have pizza delivered and where you shop online.
There’s a big stretch between making a house payment and paying for a pizza. But it’s not what you pay for carryout that matters, at least not in the eyes of lenders. It’s where the food was delivered.
Ordering takeout proves that you live where you say you do, and that helps lenders uncover the crook who claims to live in the property he is trying to refinance when he really lives hundreds of miles away. Or expose the 35-year-old who says he has a $1,200-a-month apartment when he really lives rent-free with Mom and Dad.
“If the data is available and it can be obtained legally, I’m going to test it,” says Alex Santos, president of Digital Risk, an Orlando, Fla., analytics firm that works with lenders and investors to build better underwriting mousetraps. “If it is inexpensive and makes my credit model better, I’m going to use it.”
Digital Risk is just one of numerous risk-management companies that are continuously probing for ways to help clients quantify their risk, prevent fraud and otherwise ensure the quality of their loans. And they’re going to extraordinary lengths to do so.
For example, they might peek into your online-buying habits. After all, the reasoning goes, someone who buys his shirts from a Brooks Brothers catalog may have more disposable income than someone who shops at JCPenney.
“At least that’s a theory we can test,” Santos says. “We’re looking for any type of data source that you can plug into a computer. It takes only a month of trial and error to determine whether the information can help [determine credit risk] or not. We have a hypothesis, push a button, and the computer tells us whether the data is predictive or not.”
This sort of data mining goes way beyond your credit score, that financial snapshot that measures your ability and willingness to repay your debt. And, Santos says, “there’s a tremendous amount of this kind of analytics going on right now.”
Lenders are still checking credit histories, not just when you apply for a mortgage but also a second time a day or two before the loan closes. But your credit score — known as a FICO score for the name of the company that created the scoring formula — is now considered “too broad.” Consequently, it has moved down in the hierarchy of tests that lenders are using to make certain that someone isn’t hoodwinking them.
First and foremost, lenders are pulling copies of your tax returns directly from Uncle Sam.
Don’t be alarmed. You give the lender permission to do that when you sign Form 4506-T. The idea here is to make sure that you haven’t altered the copy of your last two years’ tax returns that you provided when you signed your loan application. Lenders want to know if you might have exaggerated how much you earned.
Posted in credit score, fair isaac corporation, fico, non disclosure0 Comments
Posted on 17 July 2010.
David J. Stern, whose law firm helps banks foreclose on homeowners, owns three boats and lives in this $15 million, 16,500-square-foot Fort Lauderdale home with a tennis court.
Posted in CONTROL FRAUD, djsp enterprises, florida default law group, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., law offices of Marshall C. Watson pa, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, marshall watson, notary fraud, securitization, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment
Posted on 17 July 2010.
via: 83jjmack
Copyright (c) 2010 Pepperdine University School of Law
Pepperdine Law Review
The premise of this paper is that the concept of negotiability of promissory notes, which derives in modern law from Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, is not only useless but positively detrimental to the operation of the modern secondary mortgage market. Therefore, the concept ought to be eliminated from the law of mortgage notes.
This is not a new idea. More than a decade ago, Professor Ronald Mann made the point that negotiability is largely irrelevant in every field of consumer and commercial payment systems, including mortgages. 1 But Mann’s article made no specific recommendations for change, and no change has occurred.
I propose here to examine the ways in which negotiability and the holder in due course doctrine of Article 3 actually impair the trading of mortgages. Doing so, I conclude that these legal principles have no practical value to the parties in the mortgage system, but that they impose significant and unnecessary costs on those parties. I conclude with a recommendation for a simple change in Article 3 that would do away with the negotiability of mortgage notes.
I. The Secondary Mortgage Market
In this era, it is a relatively rare mortgage that is held in portfolio for its full term by the originating lender. Instead, the vast majority of mortgages are either traded on the secondary market to an investor who will hold them, 2 or to an issuer (commonly an investment banker) who will securitize them. Securitization …
[ipaper docId=32796250 access_key=key-n62ohszj7y8skrfnvs2 height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.Posted in foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, note, originator, securitization, servicers1 Comment
© 2010-20 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | Managed by INNZES SOLUTIONS.
Recent Comments