April, 2014 | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Archive | April, 2014

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: The Citigroup Clique —  Why is Obama appointing so many former employees of one Wall St. bank?

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: The Citigroup Clique — Why is Obama appointing so many former employees of one Wall St. bank?

Why? Because Wall Street owns the White House…this includes everyone inside!

Politico-

Today, I cast my vote on the Senate Banking Committee for Stanley Fischer to serve in the No. 2 position at the U.S. Federal Reserve. I asked Fischer tough questions – in person, at his nomination hearing, and in writing – and I have been impressed with the depth of his knowledge and experience.

But I cast my vote reluctantly because of my growing frustration over the concentration of people with ties to the megabank Citigroup in senior government positions.

In recent years, Wall Street institutions have exerted extraordinary influence in Washington’s corridors of power, but Citi has risen above the others in exercising a tight grip over the Democratic Party’s economic policymaking apparatus. Fischer, after all, is just the latest Citi alumnus to be tapped for a high-level government position. Starting with Robert Rubin – a former Citi CEO – three of the last four Treasury secretaries under Democratic presidents have had Citigroup affiliations before or after their Treasury service. (The fourth was offered, but declined, Citigroup’s CEO position.) Directors of the National Economic Council and Office of Management and Budget, as well as our current U.S. trade representative, also have had strong ties to Citigroup.

[POLITICO]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Former ‘foreclosure mill’ offshoot to lay off 116

Former ‘foreclosure mill’ offshoot to lay off 116

Tampa Bay Business Journal-

Ronald R. Wolfe & Associates — the offspring of Florida Default Group, an accused foreclosure mill caught up in the robo-signing scandal of 2010 — has filed a WARN notice with the State of Florida indicating it will lay off 116 workers from late May through mid-June.

Florida Default Group, which at its peak had more than 1,000 lawyers and staff, was investigated by the Florida Attorney General’s office for robo-signing and other sloppy work in 2010, but the case was dropped.

[Tampa Bay Business Journal]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Bill Black: GAO and Wall Street Journal Whitewash Huge Criminal Bank Frauds

Bill Black: GAO and Wall Street Journal Whitewash Huge Criminal Bank Frauds

Naked Capitalism-

Every day brings multiple new scandals. At least they used to be scandals. Now they’re simply news items strained of ethical content by business journalists who see no evil, hear no evil, and speak not about evil. The Wall Street Journal, our principal U.S. financial journal ran two such stories today.

The first story deals with tax evasion, and begins with this cheery (and tellingly inaccurate) headline: “U.S. Banks to Help Authorities With Tax Evasion Probe.” Here’s an alternative headline, drawn from the facts of the article: “Senior Officers of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley Aided and Abetted Tax Fraud by Wealthiest Americans, Failed to Make Required Criminal Referrals, and Demanded Immunity from Prosecution for Themselves and the Banks before Complying with the U.S. Subpoenas: U.S. Department of Justice Caves in to Banker’s Demands Continuing its Practice of Effectively Immunizing Fraud by Most Financial Elites.”

Oh, and the feckless DOJ (again) did not require any officer who committed the felony of aiding and abetting tax fraud to resign or to repay the bonuses he “earned” through his crimes. But not to worry, the banks – not the bankers – may have to pay fines as the cost of doing their felonious business. The feckless regulators did not even require Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to disclose to shareholders their participation in the program.

[NAKED CAPITALISM]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Fannie Mae Would Need New Bailout in Downturn, FHFA Says

Fannie Mae Would Need New Bailout in Downturn, FHFA Says

Bloomberg-

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (FMCC) could require an additional bailout of as much as $190 billion in a severe economic downturn, according to the results of stress tests released by the regulator for the U.S.-owned companies.

The two mortgage-finance giants, which have already taken $187.5 billion in taxpayer aid since 2008, would need more funds to stay afloat if home prices plummeted in a severe downturn, the Federal Housing Finance Agency said in a report today. The stress tests, mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, use the same assumptions that the Federal Reserve does in gauging the ability of the nation’s largest banks to withstand a recession.

The results reflect the terms of the companies’ bailout, which require them to send to the Treasury all of their quarterly profits above a minimum net worth threshold. That money, counted as a return on the U.S. investment, prevents them from rebuilding capital or paying down debt to taxpayers.

“These results of the severely adverse scenario are not surprising given the company’s limited capital,” Fannie Mae (FNMA) Senior Vice President Kelli Parsons said in a statement. “Under the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, Fannie Mae is not permitted to retain capital to withstand a sudden, unexpected economic shock of the magnitude required by the stress test.”

The companies would need $84 billion to $190 billion by the end of 2015 in the worst circumstances, depending on accounting assumptions, the tests showed.

[BLOOMBERG]

FHFA Announces Results of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Stress Tests

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
4/30/2014

Washington, DC – The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) today released a report providing updated information on possible ranges of future financial results of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under specified scenarios.  The report, Projections of the Enterprises’ Financial Performance, reflects results of stress tests Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to conduct, starting this year, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  The stress tests are designed to determine whether Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could absorb losses as a result of adverse economic conditions. 

The report also contains the results of annual financial results projections that FHFA has published since 2010 (the “FHFA scenarios”).  The FHFA scenarios reflect forward-looking financial projections across three possible house price paths and were developed in conjunction with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Next year, only the Dodd-Frank Act Stress Tests will be required.

Projections of the Enterprises’ Financial Performance

Additional links:

2014 Summary Instructions and Guidance
2014 Scenario Assumptions (PDF)
2014 Scenario Assumptions (spreadsheet)
2014 Global Market Shock Assumptions (spreadsheet)
2014 Reporting Templates – Enterprises (spreadsheet)

2014 Reporting Templates – Scenario Variables and Assumptions (spreadsheet)

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

Tax Extenders Bill Is Big Deal for Nevada, Florida

Tax Extenders Bill Is Big Deal for Nevada, Florida

Roll Call-

Taxpayers from Nevada and Florida can expect to get walloped if Congress doesn’t renew a package of expired tax breaks headed for the Senate floor.

Both states benefit disproportionately from two major expired provisions — the deductibility of state sales taxes and a mortgage forgiveness provision.

Unless Congress acts, homeowners getting relief from their banks in two of the states hit hardest by the housing crash would see a huge tax increase. And because neither state has an income tax, its taxpayers would be especially hurt if the sales tax deduction isn’t renewed.

“That’s a double whammy for at least those two states,” said Will McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan research think tank. “A sudden end to those tax breaks, it could be a significant hit.”

[ROLL CALL]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency | FULL REPORT | Foreclosure – Related Consent Orders Status Report: Observations, Payments, and Foreclosure Prevention Assistance | NR-OCC-2014-65a

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency | FULL REPORT | Foreclosure – Related Consent Orders Status Report: Observations, Payments, and Foreclosure Prevention Assistance | NR-OCC-2014-65a


Foreclosure – Related Consent Orders Status Report: Observations, Payments, and Foreclosure Prevention Assistance

April 2014

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Washington, D.C.

?Executive Summary
In 2013, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) amended consent orders against 15 mortgage servicers for deficient practices in mortgage servicing and foreclosure processing. In total, these Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR) Payment Agreements require the servicers to provide $3.9 billion in payments to 4.4 million eligible borrowers and $6.1 billion in other loss mitigation and foreclosure prevention assistance.1

Servicers covered by these amendments to the consent orders include: Aurora Bank FSB,2 Bank of America, N.A., Citibank, N.A., EverBank, GMAC Mortgage, Goldman Sachs, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., MetLife Bank,3 N.A., Morgan Stanley, PNC Bank, N.A., Sovereign Bank,4 SunTrust Bank,5 U.S. Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The amendments effectively ended requirements for these servicers to have an independent review of the files of their borrowers who were in the process of foreclosure at any time in 2009 and 2010. The independent review had been required by consent orders issued in 2011.6

In addition to these 15 servicers, OneWest Bank, FSB,7 which includes Financial Freedom and IndyMac Mortgage Services, has operated under a consent order since April 2011 that also required an independent review of its foreclosure activity in 2009 and 2010. That review is nearing completion. Where the independent consultant found errors that resulted in financial harm in reviews that have been completed, borrowers began to receive remediation in March 2014. Notifications to borrowers regarding the results of the OneWest Bank reviews will continue through the summer of 2014. This report provides data on the volume and categories of OneWest remediation determined thus far. OneWest is not subject to an amended consent order.

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD2 Comments

Money Watchers: Zombie foreclosures

Money Watchers: Zombie foreclosures

turnto10-

A house on a corner lot in Providence’s Olneyville section sits boarded up. Graffiti is scrawled on a wall.

It’s called a zombie foreclosure.

“The person who took a mortgage on it has been gone from the scene for a couple of years,” said Frank Shea, executive director of the Olneyville Housing Corp.

[TURNTO10]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

FHFA Announces $110 Million Settlement with First Horizon National Corporation

FHFA Announces $110 Million Settlement with First Horizon National Corporation

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
4/29/2014

Washington, DC — The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today announced a settlement for $110 million with First Horizon National Corporation, related companies and specifically named individuals.  The settlement resolves claims in the lawsuit FHFA v. First Horizon National Corporation, et al. (S.D.N.Y.), alleging violations of federal and District of Columbia securities laws in connection with private-label mortgage-backed securities purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during 2005-2007.   Pursuant to the agreement, First Horizon will pay $61.6 million to Fannie Mae and $48.4 million to Freddie Mac. 

This is the 14th settlement related to the 18 PLS lawsuits FHFA filed in 2011.  FHFA remains committed to satisfactory resolution of the remaining actions.

###

The Federal Housing Finance Agency regulates Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks. These government-sponsored enterprises provide more than $5.6 trillion in funding for the U.S. mortgage markets and financial institutions.”

Contacts:

Stefanie Johnson (202) 649-3030 / Corinne Russell (202) 649-3032

source: http://www.fhfa.gov/Media/PublicAffairs/Pages/FHFA-Announces-$110-Million-Settlement-with-First-Horizon-National-Corporation.aspx

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Widow devastated as judge rules her $280,000 home will be sold over unpaid $6.30 tax bill

Widow devastated as judge rules her $280,000 home will be sold over unpaid $6.30 tax bill

Daily Mail-

A widow has been told for the second time by a Pennsylvania court that her home’s sale at auction after she failed to pay property taxes is valid – she owed only $6.30 at the time it was sold.

Eileen Battisti, 53, of Aliquippa, lost legal rights to her $280,000 home over two years ago after failing to pay the paltry sum but has made multiple appeals on grounds she did not know it was owed.

The most recent decision made last week denied her request to reverse the September 2011 sale of a house she is still reportedly living in.

[DAILY MAIL]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

GAO-14-376 FULL REPORT | G.A.O. Report Sees Deeper Bank Flaws in Foreclosures

GAO-14-376 FULL REPORT | G.A.O. Report Sees Deeper Bank Flaws in Foreclosures

FORECLOSURE REVIEW:

Regulators Could Strengthen Oversight and Improve Transparency of the Process

?GAO-14-376: Published: Apr 29, 2014. Publicly Released: Apr 29, 2014.


VIEW REPORT (PDF, 93 PAGES)

What GAO Found

To negotiate the $3.9 billion cash payment amount in servicers’ amended consent orders, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) considered information from the incomplete foreclosure review, including factors such as projected costs for completing the file reviews and remediation amounts that would have been paid to borrowers. To evaluate the final cash payment amount, GAO tested regulators’ major assumptions and found that the final negotiated amount generally fell within a reasonable range. Regulators generally met their goals for timeliness and amount of the cash payments. By December 2013, cash payments of between $300 and $125,000 had been distributed to most eligible borrowers.

Rather than defining specific objectives for the $6 billion in foreclosure prevention actions regulators negotiated with servicers, regulators identified broad principles, including that actions be meaningful and that borrowers be kept in their homes. To inform the design of the actions, regulators did not analyze available data, such as servicers’ recent volume of foreclosure prevention actions, and did not analyze various approaches by which servicers’ actions could be credited toward the total of $6 billion. Most servicers GAO spoke with said they anticipated they would be able to meet their obligation using their existing level of foreclosure prevention activity. In their oversight of the principles, OCC and the Federal Reserve are verifying servicers’ foreclosure prevention policies, but are not testing policy implementation. Most Federal Reserve examination teams have not begun their verification activities and the extent to which these activities will incorporate additional evaluation or testing of servicers’ implementation of the principles is unclear. Regulators’ manuals and federal internal control standards note that policy verification includes targeted testing. Without specific procedures, regulators cannot assess implementation of the principles and may miss opportunities to protect borrowers.

Regulators are sharing findings from the file reviews and amended consent order activities among supervisory staff and plan to issue public reports on results, but they have not determined the content of those reports. The file reviews generally confirmed servicing weaknesses identified by regulators in 2010. Regulators are sharing information among examination teams that oversee servicers, and some regulator staff GAO spoke with are taking steps to address weaknesses identified. Regulators also have promoted transparency by releasing publicly information on the status of cash payments. However, these efforts provided limited information on the processes used, such as how decisions about borrower payments were made. Federal internal control standards and GAO’s prior work ( GAO-03-102 and GAO-03-669 ) highlight the importance of providing relevant information on the processes used to obtain results. According to regulators, borrowers could obtain information from other sources, such as the payment administrator, but information on how decisions were made is not available from these sources. In the absence of information on the processes, regulators face risks to public confidence in the mortgage market, the restoration of which was one of the goals of the file review process.

Why GAO Did This Study

In 2011 and 2012, OCC and the Federal Reserve signed consent orders with 16 mortgage servicers that required the servicers to hire consultants to review foreclosure files for errors and remediate harm to borrowers. In 2013, regulators amended the consent orders for all but one servicer, ending the file reviews and requiring servicers to provide $3.9 billion in cash payments to about 4.4 million borrowers and $6 billion in foreclosure prevention actions, such as loan modifications. One servicer continued file review activities. GAO was asked to examine the amended consent order process. This report addresses (1) factors considered during cash payment negotiations between regulators and servicers and regulators’ goals for the payments, (2) the objectives of foreclosure prevention actions and how well regulators designed and are overseeing those actions to achieve objectives, and (3) regulators’ actions to share information from the file review and amended consent order processes and transparency of the processes. GAO analyzed regulators’ negotiation documents, oversight memorandums, and information provided to borrowers and the public about the file review and amended consent orders. GAO also interviewed representatives of regulators, servicers, and consultants.

What GAO Recommends

OCC and the Federal Reserve should define testing activities to oversee foreclosure prevention principles and include information on processes in public documents. In their comment letters, the regulators agreed to consider the recommendations.

For more information, contact Lawrance L. Evans, Jr. at (202) 512-8678 or evansl@gao.gov.

Recommendations for Executive Action

Recommendation: To help ensure that foreclosure prevention principles are being incorporated into servicers’ practices, the Comptroller of the Currency should direct examination teams to take additional steps to evaluate and test servicers’ implementation of the foreclosure prevention principles.

Agency Affected: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To help ensure that foreclosure prevention principles are being incorporated into servicers’ practices, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should ensure that the planned activities to oversee the foreclosure prevention principles include evaluation and testing of servicers’ implementation of the principles.

Agency Affected: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors

Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To better ensure transparency and public confidence in the amended consent order processes and results, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should include in their forthcoming reports or other public documents information on the processes used to determine cash payment amounts, such as the criteria servicers use to place borrowers in various payment categories.

Agency Affected: Department of the Treasury: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To better ensure transparency and public confidence in the amended consent order processes and results, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System should include in their forthcoming reports or other public documents information on the processes used to determine cash payment amounts, such as the criteria servicers use to place borrowers in various payment categories.

Agency Affected: Federal Reserve System: Board of Governors

Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Lawrance L. Evans, Jr
(202) 512-8678
evansl@gao.gov

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

____________________________

SEE ALSO:

housing icon, source: Comstock

Federal Response to the Foreclosure Crisis

Default and foreclosure rates for home mortgages are showing signs of improvement but remain high. The federal government has been seeking ways to help stem the wave of foreclosures and defaults that has adversely affected homeowners, local communities, and the nation’s economic recovery.

    1. New York Times ?- 3 hours ago
      Last year, regulators had negotiated a $10 billion deal with 15 banks over foreclosure issues Carlos Barria/ReutersLast year, regulators had …

    More news for G.A.O. Report Sees Deeper Bank Flaws in Foreclosures

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

FREE MARY MCCULLEY – MORE DETAILS EMERGE

FREE MARY MCCULLEY – MORE DETAILS EMERGE

Original source: Liberty Road Media

Edited press release received by LRM:

For the millions who have lost their homes to foreclosure, or are still losing their homes to the “too big to fail” banks, Mary McCulley is a hero. In February she stood up to those who caused the fraud which led to her foreclosure–and won. She obtained a $6 million award–including punitive damages—against US Bank. 

Yet on April 25, 2014, Mary was forcibly hauled off to federal prison for accusations by former American Title Land Company’s  Tom Cahill. Based solely on Cahill’s word, Mary was sentenced to one year in Federal Prison, plus another year of very harsh probation. She was immediately taken away by Federal Marshalls, and reported severe bruising after being roughed up. Mary is 56 years old.

On February 7, 2014, US Bank was found guilty in a jury trial of fraudulently foreclosing on Mary’s home. The jury found proof U.S. Bank swapped her loan using forged and altered loan documents.

When Mary learned her loan was swapped and her deed was forged, she reported it to the local police. When they did nothing, she reported it to the FBI. When they failed to act, she sued.

After months and months of having her case thrown out and getting nowhere, Mary was left to investigate her own fraud. Cahill was deposed by Mary in her civil lawsuit.

After that—and shortly before her trial against US Bank—Cahill suddenly contacted the FBI and accused Mary of “impersonating an FBI agent”—though she denies she ever did.

To many fighting the banks, this is an example of the kind of abuse they must endure. These charges against Mary should have been thrown out. Instead, while those responsible for forging Mary’s loan and almost causing her to successfully commit suicide go free—Mary sits in Federal Prison.

Before Mary gets transferred to a Federal Prison, her attorney will go before the judge one last time on April 28th to request another review of Mary’s case. Mary has a SHOT at getting out of prison to be with her mom, who has Alzheimer’s.

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD6 Comments

Another Former Justice Dept. Official to Join Covington

Another Former Justice Dept. Official to Join Covington

Come one, come all because we’re having a ball…


NYT-

Two blocks separate Covington & Burling’s offices in Washington from the Justice Department’s headquarters. Covington’s roster of lawyers shows a closer link.

Covington, the firm where Eric H. Holder Jr. practiced law before becoming attorney general, will announce on Tuesday that Mythili Raman is the latest former senior Justice Department official to join its ranks. Ms. Raman, who will be a partner in Covington’s white-collar crime and litigation practices, led the Justice Department’s criminal division until last month.

After departing the criminal division, where she oversaw investigations into some of the world’s biggest banks, Ms. Raman followed a well-trod path to Covington. She is the fourth recent criminal division prosecutor to join Covington and the fifth senior official under Mr. Holder to do so. Lanny Breuer, her predecessor as chief of the criminal division, is now Covington’s vice chairman.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

image: Richard Drew/Associated Press

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

U.S. justices agree to hear homeowner case against bank

U.S. justices agree to hear homeowner case against bank

REUTERS-

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide what process struggling homeowners need to follow if they want to back out of mortgages issued when lenders fail to adhere to a federal disclosure law.

The court will weigh whether homeowners need to write a letter to their lender or file a lawsuit in order to benefit from a provision of the federal law, known as the Truth in Lending Act. The law allows consumers to rescind mortgages for up to three years after the agreement was made if the lender does not notify them of various details about the loan, including finance charges and rate of interest.

The provision is typically used by homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgages. Lawyers for consumers say mortgage companies routinely violated the law in the years prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

[REUTERS]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

FHFA Announces $280 Million Settlement with Barclays Bank PLC

FHFA Announces $280 Million Settlement with Barclays Bank PLC

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
4/24/2014

Washington, DC — The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today announced a settlement with Barclays Bank PLC, related companies and specifically named individuals for $280 million.  The settlement resolves claims in the lawsuit FHFA v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al., as well as claims against Barclays in FHFA v. Ally Financial Inc., et al, alleging violations of federal and state securities laws in connection with private-label mortgage-backed securities purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during 2005-2007.  Both cases are in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Pursuant to the agreement, Barclays will pay $227 million to Freddie Mac and $53 million to Fannie Mae. 

This is the 13th settlement related to the 18 PLS lawsuits FHFA filed in 2011.  FHFA remains committed to satisfactory resolution of the remaining actions.

Settlement agreement follows (confidential exhibit omitted).

Attachments:

###

The Federal Housing Finance Agency regulates Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks. These government-sponsored enterprises provide more than $5.6 trillion in funding for the U.S. mortgage markets and financial institutions.?

Contacts:

?Stefanie Johnson (202) 649-3030 / Corinne Russell (202) 649-3032

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Gretchen Morgenson: From Outside or Inside, the Deck Looks Stacked

Gretchen Morgenson: From Outside or Inside, the Deck Looks Stacked

NYT-

“The game is rigged and the American people know that. They get it right down to their toes.”

That’s Elizabeth Warren talking, the former consumer advocate and law school professor and now a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. I interviewed her about her new memoir, “A Fighting Chance,” in which she discusses one of America’s biggest challenges: how to level the playing field so that Main Street doesn’t always come second to Wall Street.

Although the book recounts Ms. Warren’s childhood and formative years as a law professor, mother and dog lover, it also examines in considerable detail the government’s deeply inequitable response to the financial crisis of 2008.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

image: AP

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

In re: Mark Anthony | NY BK Court – Creditor’s commencement of the foreclosure action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division of Hudson County under Docket No. F-045436-13 is declared void

In re: Mark Anthony | NY BK Court – Creditor’s commencement of the foreclosure action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division of Hudson County under Docket No. F-045436-13 is declared void

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
——————————————————————–X
In re: Mark Anthony
a/k/a Mark Naidu
Chapter 7
Case No: 13-13588(RG)
Debtor,
——————————————————————–X
Mark Anthony
a/k/a Mark Naidu
Movant,
-against-
Prime Properties USA 2011, LLC
Claimants/Respondents.
——————————————————————–X
__________________________________________________________________________
ORDER GRANTING DEBTOR’S MOTION TO DECLARE FORECLOSURE ACTION
COMMENCED IN VIOLATION OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY VOID AB INITIO
__________________________________________________________________________
Application having been made to this Court by Mark Anthony a/k/a Mark Naidu as the Debtor
herein, by Notice of Motion, dated February 3, 2014, for an order (a) Declaring the foreclosure action
commenced post-petition void ab initio; and (b) Compelling the Creditor to withdraw the State Court
foreclosure action commenced in violation of the automatic stay; and (c) Awarding actual and punitive
damages against Prime Properties, LLC pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362(k)(1), and 11 U.S.C. 362(h); and (d)
Granting such other relief as this court deems just and proper.

Upon the affirmation of Brian McCaffrey dated February 3, 2014, in support of the debtor’s
motion, and the Claimant/Respondent’s Affirmation in Opposition dated April 2, 2014 and, a hearing
having been conducted on April 8, 2014 before the Honorable Robert E. Grossman, United States
Bankruptcy Judge at the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York located
at One Bowling Green, New York, NY 10004 and the Respondent having appeared by Friedman
______________________________
Robert E. Grossman
United States Bankruptcy Judge

Sanchez, LLP by Andrew M Friedman, Esq., and the Debtor having appeared by Brian McCaffrey
Attorney at Law, P.C. by Brian McCaffrey, Esq., and after due deliberation and consideration, and on
the record before the Court, that part of the motion seeking to declare the foreclosure action void ab
initio is granted and, that part of the motion seeking damages against the creditor, Prime Properties
USA 2011, LLC is denied.

Therefore it is hereby;

ORDERED, that the creditor’s commencement of the foreclosure action in the Superior Court
of New Jersey, Chancery Division of Hudson County under Docket No. F-045436-13 is declared void;
and it is further

ORDERED, that the creditor, Prime Properties USA 2011, LLC is hereby directed to
discontinue the state court foreclosure action commenced in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division of Hudson County under Docket No. F-045436-13, within 10 days of the issuance
of this order.

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

U.S. Bank v. Bartram | FL 5DCA – Appeals court tosses five-year foreclosure deadline

U.S. Bank v. Bartram | FL 5DCA – Appeals court tosses five-year foreclosure deadline

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
ETC.,
Appellant,

v.                              Case No. 5D12-3823

PATRICIA J. BARTRAM ETC., ET AL.,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed April 25, 2014
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for St. Johns County,
John M. Alexander, Judge.

EXCERPT:

Because we believe the issue we resolve is a matter of great public importance,
we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:

Does acceleration of payments due under a note and mortgage in a
foreclosure action that was dismissed pursuant to rule 1.420(b), Florida
Rules of Civil Procedure, trigger application of the statute of limitations to
prevent a subsequent foreclosure action by the mortgagee based on all
payment defaults occurring subsequent to dismissal of the first foreclosure
suit?

REVERSED; REMANDED; QUESTION CERTIFIED.
SAWAYA, ORFINGER, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Down Load PDF of This Case

Palm Beach Post-

A Florida appeals court crushed the hopes of hundreds, if not thousands, of defaulted homeowners Friday in a benchmark decision on how the state’s five-year foreclosure deadline is interpreted.

With the first serious wave of foreclosures now six years past, some borrowers with aging or abandoned cases were counting on a common contract law that says a person has five years to sue on a debt or give up the right to collect.

[PALM BEACH POST] paid content

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD2 Comments

U.S. Said to Ask BofA for More Than $13 Billion Over RMBS

U.S. Said to Ask BofA for More Than $13 Billion Over RMBS

Bloomberg-

U.S. prosecutors are seeking more than $13 billion from Bank of America Corp. to resolve federal and state probes into the lender’s sale of bonds backed by home loans in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, according to people familiar with the matter.

The settlement would come on top of the $9.5 billion the bank agreed last month to pay to resolve Federal Housing Finance Agency claims, said two people who asked not to be named because the negotiations are private. A deal could come within the next two months, the people said.

[BLOOMBERG]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Exclusive: NY Judge in Largest Bankruptcy Case in History Receives IRS & SEC Whistleblower Filing

Exclusive: NY Judge in Largest Bankruptcy Case in History Receives IRS & SEC Whistleblower Filing

**WORLD EXCLUSIVE BREAKING STORY.** **MUST CREDIT INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST MARINKA PESCHMANN**

MARINKA PESCHMANN-

Creditor and Whistleblower evidence alleges securities fraud, income tax fraud and income tax evasion. Further investigation is necessary to protect millions of homeowners.

New York City, New York – U. S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York’s Judge Martin Glenn, presiding over the simultaneous Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings of 51 residential mortgage companies, received a whistleblower filing package today from one of the creditors in this case, a private American citizen, Greg Morse.

The Internal Revenue Service and Securities Exchange Commission received the same package today. Among its contents is Morse’s whistleblower submission of IRS Form 211—Application for Award for Original Information, and SEC Form TCR—SEC Tip, Complaint or Referral, accompanied by voluminous supporting documentation. These federal agencies are mandated to investigate allegations of corruption and fraud.

The 51 bankrupt residential mortgage companies are directly or indirectly owned by Residential Capital, also known as ResCap.

[MARINKA PESCHMANN]

Image: Judge Martin Glenn. Photo credit Cornell University Law School

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD2 Comments

Cummings Requests Hearing on Mortgage Settlement

Cummings Requests Hearing on Mortgage Settlement

New Documents Show High Error Rates at Banks, Foreclosure Review Terminated Before Full Harm Revealed  

Washington, D.C. (Apr. 24, 2014)—Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to Chairman Darrell Issa requesting a hearing to examine why federal regulators appear to have prematurely ended the Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR) and entered into a major settlement agreement with mortgage servicing companies in January 2013 just as the full extent of harm caused by abusive mortgage servicing practices was beginning to be revealed.

Cummings’ request is based on new documents obtained by the Committee showing that independent consultants brought in to review servicer abuses had identified high error rates in some categories directly before the IFR was terminated and the final settlement was announced.

For example, Bank of America’s independent consultant, Promontory Financial Group, LLC, found the bank had a 60% error rate in loan modification efforts; a 19% error rate in charging fees; and a 16% error rate in loans involving bankruptcy that were reviewed.  Promontory found similar trends in PNC Bank’s foreclosure activities, including “borrower financial injury” in 21% of cases reviewed.

The new documents also show that independent consultants had conducted significant preparatory work assembling files and creating systems to conduct more comprehensive reviews, but regulators suddenly halted these efforts in January 2013 despite projections that they would have been completed in months.

Promontory stated that “the peak of engagement was at the end of December 2012” and estimated that the projected time to complete its review of Bank of America was nine and a half months.  Similarly, PNC Bank’s independent consultant estimated that the review process could have been completed by June 2013.

“Now that we have obtained copies of these documents, they confirm that some mortgage servicing companies engaged in widespread and systemic foreclosure abuses, including charging improper and excessive fees, failing to process loan modifications in accordance with federal guidelines, and violating automatic stays after borrowers filed for bankruptcy,” Cummings wrote.  “It remains unclear why the regulators terminated the IFR prematurely, how regulators determined the compensation amounts servicers were required to pay under the settlement, and how regulators could claim that borrowers who were harmed by these servicers would benefit more from the settlement—including the settlement amounts paid for each error category—than by allowing the IFR to be completed.”

In his letter, Cummings requested that the Committee hold a hearing with representatives from the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), mortgage servicing companies, and independent consultants to address three key questions:

·        Why did the Federal Reserve and the OCC terminate the IFR prematurely before its objective had been achieved?

It is unclear why the regulators believed it was in the best interests of borrowers to end the IFR when high error rates were identified during preliminary reviews and consultants were poised to conduct more in-depth reviews to identify the full extent of harm. 

·        How did the regulators arrive at the compensation amounts in the settlement?

The settlement required banks to provide cash payments and other assistance to affected borrowers, but it is unclear what criteria were used to determine these settlement amounts, and whether these amounts were in any way related to the actual or estimated harm suffered by borrowers.

·        How did the regulators determine that the amounts mortgage servicers would pay—and the amounts borrowers would receive—would be more favorable under the settlement than if the IFR had been completed?

It is unclear how regulators determined that the settlement amounts would provide a greater benefit to borrowers than if the IFR had continued until the independent consultants could report reliable data on servicer error rates.

Cummings also commended Issa for conducting the investigation in a responsible and bipartisan manner and for helping to obtain the documents cited in today’s letter.

The full text of the letter is available here and copied below.

 

April 24, 2014
The Honorable Darrell E. Issa
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of RepresentativesWashington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing to request that the Committee hold a hearing on widespread foreclosure abuses and illegal activities engaged in by mortgage servicing companies.  I request that the hearing also examine why the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) appear to have prematurely ended the Independent Foreclosure Review (IFR) and entered into a major settlement agreement with most of the servicers just as the full extent of their harm was beginning to be revealed.

I want to thank you for the bipartisan and responsible manner in which you and your staff have conducted this investigation.  As you know, this issue has been a top priority for me over the past four years, and it affects more than 4 million borrowers who had homes in foreclosure in 2009 and 2010.

The Committee unanimously agreed on February 10, 2011, to include in our oversight plan a commitment to “examine the foreclosure crisis including wrongful foreclosures and other abuses by mortgage servicing companies.”[1]  In May 2013—after the Federal Reserve and the OCC entered into consent agreements with servicing companies—you and I sent bipartisan requests seeking documents about the settlement.[2]  Our staffs then conducted in camera review of these documents, and on March 4, 2014, we sent bipartisan follow-up requests seeking copies of a narrow subset of documents relevant to our investigation.[3]

Now that we have obtained copies of these documents, they confirm that some mortgage servicing companies engaged in widespread and systemic foreclosure abuses, including charging improper and excessive fees, failing to process loan modifications in accordance with federal guidelines, and violating automatic stays after borrowers filed for bankruptcy.  The documents show that several independent consultants that were brought in to review the activities of servicers had identified very high error rates in several categories of review directly before the settlement that terminated the IFR.  In addition, the documents show that independent consultants had conducted significant preparatory work assembling files and creating systems to conduct more comprehensive reviews, but these efforts were halted suddenly in January 2013. 

It remains unclear why the regulators terminated the IFR prematurely, how regulators determined the compensation amounts servicers were required to pay under the settlement,  and how regulators could claim that borrowers who were harmed by these servicers would benefit more from the settlement—including the amounts paid for each error category—than by allowing the IFR to be completed.

High Error Rates Identified by Independent Consultants

The documents obtained by the Committee show that independent consultants hired by mortgage servicing companies began to identify high error rates in several error categories as they started to review the activities of the servicers directly before the IFR was terminated.  It appears from the documents that some of these error rates were not yet included in reports when the IFR was suddenly halted.

In April 2011, the Federal Reserve, OCC, and the then-Office of Thrift Supervision issued consent agreements with 14 servicers regarding improper and abusive practices in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing.[4]  Two other servicers later entered into similar consent orders.[5]  The consent orders required the servicers to engage independent consultants “to conduct an independent review of certain residential foreclosure actions regarding individual borrowers with respect to the Bank’s mortgage servicing portfolio.”[6]

The purpose of the IFR was to determine whether foreclosures were conducted “in accordance with applicable state and federal law,” including “whether any errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies … resulted in financial injury to the borrower or the mortgagee.”[7]  Under the IFR, independent consultants were supposed to review 100% of files with certain types of potential errors, and they were required to develop sampling methodologies to estimate the extent of errors in other categories.  In addition, borrowers could request reviews of their foreclosures under a Request for Review process.[8]

As the IFR progressed, independent consultants began developing preliminary data on error rates for some categories of violations.  For example, the Committee has now obtained documents from Promontory Financial Group, LLC, an independent consultant that was hired to review the foreclosure activities of Bank of America, PNC Bank, and Wells Fargo.

On May 3, 2013, Promontory submitted a document describing preliminary information on errors it had identified in Bank of America’s “loan mitigation” efforts, including “modification adherence to HAMP or proprietary guidelines.”  Regarding the Loan Mitigation category, the independent consultant found:

Our preliminary error rate at closure of the review on a relatively low number of loans passed through senior review was 60%.  This indicated systemic issues in the accuracy and timeliness of processing loan modifications that were not yet reflected in our IC Data Report.[9]

After examining improper fees charged by Bank of America, the independent consultant found:

At the time of closure of the review our analysis of potential paid harm based on initial File Review Lookback fee testing through senior review was 19%.  This indicated systemic issues in the charging of fees that were not yet reflected in our IC Data Report.[10]

In a draft document entitled “File Review Lookback Preliminary Observations Update – Bankruptcy,” the independent consultant wrote:

All 2,899 loans identified for Bankruptcy review have been subjected to initial testing.  Senior review has been completed on approximately 57% of these loans and the preliminary exception rate of loans with potential financial harm is approximately 16% (465 of 2,899).[11]

Regarding these bankruptcy-related errors, the independent consultant also noted:  “Our error rate as provided in the IC Data Report provided a reasonable estimation of the Bankruptcy errors as we were substantially complete with these files.”[12]

The Committee also obtained documents from Promontory showing similar trends with respect to the foreclosure activities of PNC Bank.  For example, in a document dated December 19, 2012, identified as a “Briefing before the Compliance Committee of the Board of PNC Bank, N.A.,” the independent consultant issued an “Update on the Foreclosure Look-back Review and Complaints Solicitation Process.”  After reviewing a sample of 4,797 loans, the independent consultant found “borrower financial injury” in 21% of cases and “notable exception” errors in 24% of cases.[13]  The independent consultant also stated:

[R]eview has identified seven void foreclosure sales as a result of servicer error, misrepresentation or deficiency in the foreclosure process:  Bank did not provide appropriate notice to borrower prior to foreclosure sale, Complaint filed on incorrect facts (no due process) and lack of standing to bring foreclosure actions.[14]

Lack of Sufficient Data When IFR Terminated

            Although the documents described above indicated high error rates in several categories of foreclosure activities, other documents obtained by the Committee show that when the Federal Reserve and OCC terminated the IFR and agreed to the settlement in January 2013, the independent consultants had just begun to finalize review procedures, assemble complete loan files, and produce detailed data on foreclosure abuses.  With this complex and costly preparatory work completed, several independent consultants projected that they could finish their work in 2013, but the Federal Reserve and OCC ended the review in January 2013.

On January 7, 2013, the Federal Reserve and the OCC announced that they had reached an agreement with 10 of the 14 servicers subject to the 2011 consent orders.[15]  Under this settlement, the servicers agreed to provide $8.5 billion in “cash payments and other assistance,” including $3.3 billion in direct payments to borrowers who had homes in foreclosure in 2009 or 2010.[16]  Three additional mortgage servicers later agreed to similar settlement terms, which increased the amount of cash payments and assistance to $9.3 billion and resulted in 13 amended consent orders being issued on February 28, 2013.[17]

Significantly, under the terms of this new agreement, “the participating servicers would cease the Independent Foreclosure Review, which involved case-by-case reviews.”[18]

Documents obtained by the Committee show that, when the IFR was terminated and the Federal Reserve and OCC announced the settlement in January 2013, independent consultants were just completing the preparatory work necessary to conduct in-depth reviews of borrower files and were ready to proceed through the review process.  For example, the independent consultant for Bank of America stated: 

The peak of the engagement was at the end of December 2012.  At this time we had 22 Promontory employees and 1,055 contracted Promontory Consultants working on the IFR.[19]

This independent consultant estimated that since it had put in place the required systems and hired and trained essential personnel, the “projected time to complete the review was approximately nine and a half months.”[20]

The independent consultant also described the significant challenges it faced obtaining information from Bank of America in usable formats:

Due to the high volume of loans experiencing foreclosure difficulty, the information relating to a borrower’s history with loan modification applications, bankruptcy filing status, service dates, etc., was often entered in as free-form text “notes” within the servicing system, and was not readily available for analytical manipulation at the time of population or segment identification.[21]

It noted further:

The diverse and complex nature of the Servicer’s mortgage servicing and documentation systems and platforms, coupled with the number of rules we were required to create for testing and short timeframe, precluded the creation of a highly automated file management system.  Therefore, the majority of relevant borrower and servicing information had to be manually extracted from the Servicer’s various systems and platforms.[22]

The independent consultant made clear that its work was not complete at the time of the settlement:

Promontory envisioned a two-stage review, where “deep dives” to identify harm would follow the development of statistically robust, validated methods to identify borrowers with actual harm.  These statistical methods were in the process of development using the results from the stage-one review (Promontory’s initial work on the IFR lookback sample and our review of borrower outreach complaints) at the time that review process was terminated in early January 2013.  No deep dives had been identified or conducted at the time the review was ended. …

Because our data were not complete at the time of the closure of the review, however, the ICDR [Independent Consultant Data Report] does not form a sound basis for inference concerning the frequency of errors in the population within the scope of the April 13, 2011, Consent Orders.[23]

The independent consultant described a similar situation with its review of the foreclosure activities of PNC Bank.  It reported that “[a]s of December 7, 2012, Promontory’s initial sample review was completed,” but “[a]s a result of financial injury errors found in the initial sample, an expanded sample of loans was added to the review.”[24]

The independent consultant estimated that only a few additional months would have been necessary to complete the review process, stating that it “projected the completion of the remaining expanded sample reviews by 6/30/13.”[25]

Promontory also described similar challenges for its work examining the foreclosure activities of Wells Fargo:

Promontory encountered significant difficulty in obtaining complete files from Wells Fargo.  These difficulties were most acute at the project’s commencement, but difficulties continued for the duration of the project.  In general, these difficulties occurred for two reasons.  First, performing a comprehensive file review required many different documents.  These documents were located on different systems, housed in different locations and originated from different business lines (included mortgages originated by entities acquired by Wells Fargo) and various third party vendors such as law firms.  Second, specific document requirements evolved during the review period as the regulators finalized guidance on certain review methodologies and as Promontory developed greater familiarity with Wells Fargo’s systems.[26]

            PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), which was hired as the independent consultant for Citibank N.A., GMAC Mortgage, SunTrust Mortgage, and U.S. Bank National Association, also noted the lack of complete loan files.  PwC wrote:

Nearly as soon as the review began, PwC discovered that the files servicers had assembled were often incomplete or needed to be supplemented with additional information.[27]

This independent consultant also anticipated completing its work within one year, writing: 

Just prior to the January 2013 settlements, PwC projected completing the engagements in 2013 or, in the case of GMAC and due to constraints related to its bankruptcy, in early 2014.[28]

Questions for Hearing

On January 7, 2013, Comptroller of the Currency Thomas J. Curry stated that “it has become clear that carrying the process through to its conclusion would divert money away from the impacted homeowners and also needlessly delay the dispensation of compensation to affected borrowers.”[29]  He also stated that the settlement “will get more money to more people more quickly, and it will speed recovery in the nation’s housing markets.”[30]

Regulators repeatedly argued that ending the IFR was “in the interest of providing the greatest benefit to borrowers potentially affected by the practices … addressed in the 2011 Consent Order in a more timely manner than would have occurred under the Independent Foreclosure Review.”[31]

In response to questioning by Senator Elizabeth Warren during a hearing on April 11, 2013, Richard Ashton, Deputy General Counsel of the Federal Reserve, testified that “the approach that was taken in the settlement agreement really is focused on trying to get cash to the borrowers as quickly as possible.”[32]

The new documents obtained by the Committee raise three fundamental questions about these assertions that should be answered at a public hearing.

Why did the Federal Reserve and the OCC terminate the IFR prematurely before its objective had been achieved?

It is unclear why the regulators believed it was in the best interests of borrowers to end the IFR when high error rates were identified during preliminary reviews and more detailed reviews had been prepared to identify the full extent of harm.  It is also unclear what caused regulators to conclude that even in instances in which the extensive preparatory work needed to enable independent consultants to conduct in-depth loan file reviews had been completed, the IFR should be terminated before those reviews were actually conducted or before reviews requested by borrowers had begun.

How did the regulators arrive at the compensation amounts in the settlement?

The amended consent orders executed on February 28, 2013, required servicers to make cash payments into a Qualified Settlement Fund, from which payments were provided to borrowers.  For example, Bank of America was required to pay $1,127,453,261,[33]  PNC Bank was required to pay $69,433,224,[34] JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. was required to pay $753,250,131,[35] and Citibank, N.A. was required to pay $306,574,179.[36]  It is unclear what criteria were used to determine these settlement amounts.  It is also unclear whether these settlement amounts were in any way related to the actual or estimated harm suffered by borrowers.

How did the regulators determine that the amounts mortgage servicers would pay—and the amounts borrowers would receive—would be more favorable under the settlement than if the IFR had been completed?

When the IFR was terminated, at least some independent consultants had not reviewed enough loan files to determine reliable error rates.  In some cases, however, preliminary data had identified double-digit error rates.  Nonetheless, the Federal Reserve and the OCC argued that terminating the IFR would provide the “greatest benefit” to borrowers in a more timely manner than if the IFR had continued.

It is unclear how the Federal Reserve and the OCC made this determination.  It is also unclear how the regulators determined that the settlement amounts for each mortgage servicing company—and the payments ultimately provided to individual borrowers from these settlement amounts—would provide a greater benefit to borrowers than if the IFR had continued until the independent consultants could report reliable data on servicer error rates.  It is also unclear how regulators used these findings to assess whether terminating the IFR before the full extent of borrower harm was known was in the best interests of borrowers.

Conclusion

More than 4 million borrowers who had homes in foreclosure in 2009 and 2010 were directly affected by the actions of these mortgage servicing companies and the decisions of these regulators.  For the reasons set forth above, I believe the Committee should convene a hearing to examine these critical issues with representatives from the Federal Reserve, the OCC, mortgage servicers, and independent consultants.  Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

 

 

Elijah E. Cummings
Ranking Member

 



[1]House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Oversight Plans for All House Committees with Accompanying Recommendations, 112th Cong. (2011) (H. Rept. 112–48).  See also House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Oversight Plans for All House Committees, 113th Cong. (2013) (H. Rept. 113–23) (agreeing to continue examining this issue in the 113th Congress).

[2]Letter from Chairman Darrell E. Issa and Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (May 15, 2013); Letter from Chairman Darrell E. Issa and Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency (May 22, 2013).

[3]Letter from Chairman Darrell E. Issa and Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Chair Janet L. Yellen, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Mar. 4, 2014); Letter from Chairman Darrell E. Issa and Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency (Mar. 4, 2014).

[4]Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Press Release (Apr. 13, 2011) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/enforcement/20110413a.htm); Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, OCC Takes Enforcement Action Against Eight Servicers for Unsafe and Unsound Foreclosure Practices (Apr. 13, 2011) (online at www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-47.html).

[5]Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Press Release (Sept. 1, 2011) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/enforcement/20110901b.htm); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Press Release (Apr. 3, 2012) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/enforcement/20120403b.htm).

[6]Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Consent Order, in the Matter of Bank of America, N.A. (Apr. 13, 2011) (online at www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-47b.pdf).

[7]Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Consent Order, in the Matter of Bank of America, N.A. (Apr. 13, 2011) (online at www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-47b.pdf).

[8]Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Independent Foreclosure Review Underway (Nov. 1, 2011) (online at www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2011/nr-occ-2011-133.html).

[9]Promontory Financial Group, LLC, Mortgage Foreclosure Consent Order—Article VII; Independent Consultant (IC) Interviews (Bank of America) (May 3, 2013).

[10]Id.

[11]Promontory Financial Group, LLC, Article VII Foreclosure Review File Review Lookback, Preliminary Observations Update—Bankruptcy (draft dated Dec. 17, 2012).

[12]Promontory Financial Group, LLC, Mortgage Foreclosure Consent Order – Article VII; Independent Consultant (IC) Interviews (Bank of America) (May 3, 2013).

[13]Promontory Financial Group, LLC, Update on the Foreclosure Look-back Review and Complaints Solicitation Process (briefing before the Compliance Committee of the Board, PNC Bank, N.A.) (Dec. 19, 2012).

[14]Id.

[15]Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Independent Foreclosure Review to Provide $3.3 Billion in Payments, $5.2 Billion in Mortgage Assistance (Jan. 7, 2013) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20130107a.htm).

[16]Id.

[17]Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Amendments to Consent Orders Memorialize $9.3 Billion Foreclosure Agreement (Feb. 28, 2013) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/enforcement/20130228a.htm).

[18]Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Independent Foreclosure Review to Provide $3.3 Billion in Payments, $5.2 Billion in Mortgage Assistance (Jan. 7, 2013) (online at www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20130107a.htm).

[19]Promontory Financial Group, LLC, Mortgage Foreclosure Consent Order—Article VII; Independent Consultant (IC) Interviews (Bank of America) (May 3, 2013).

[20]Id.

[21]Id.

[22]Id.

[23]Id.

[24]Promontory Financial Group, LLC, Update on the Foreclosure Look-back Review and Complaints Solicitation Process (briefing before the Compliance Committee of the Board, PNC Bank, N.A.) (Dec. 19, 2012).

[25]Promontory Financial Group, LLC, Mortgage Foreclosure Consent Order—Article VII; Independent Consultant (IC) Interviews (PNC Bank, N.A.) (undated).

[26]Promontory Financial Group, LLC, Mortgage Foreclosure Consent Order—Article VII; Independent Consultant (IC) Interviews (Wells Fargo) (May 3, 2013).

[27]PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Mortgage Foreclosure Consent Order—Article VII; Independent Consultant (IC) Interviews (Citibank N.A., GMAC Mortgage, SunTrust Mortgage, and U.S. Bank National Association) (Apr. 16, 2013).

[28]Id.

[29]Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Statement from Comptroller of the Currency Thomas J. Curry on the IFR Settlement (Jan. 7, 2013) (online at www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2013/nr-occ-2013-4.html).

[30]Id.

[31]Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Amendment to April 13, 2011 Consent Order, in the Matter of PNC Bank, N.A. (Feb. 28, 2013) (online at www.occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/ea2013-124.pdf).

[32]Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection, Hearing on Outsourcing Accountability? Examining the Role of Independent Consultants, 113th Cong. (Apr. 11, 2013).

[33]Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Amendment to April 13, 2011 Consent Order, in the Matter of Bank of America, N.A. (Feb. 28, 2013) (online at www.occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/ea2013-127.pdf).

[34]Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Amendment to April 13, 2011 Consent Order, in the Matter of PNC Bank, N.A. (Feb. 28, 2013) (online at www.occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/ea2013-124.pdf).

[35]Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Amendment to April 13, 2011 Consent Order, in the Matter of JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Feb. 28, 2013) (online at www.occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/ea2013-129.pdf).

[36]Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Amendment to April 13, 2011 Consent Order, in the Matter of Citibank, N.A. (Feb. 28, 2013) (online at www.occ.gov/static/enforcement-actions/ea2013-131.pdf).

Source: http://democrats.oversight.house.gov/press-releases/cummings-requests-hearing-on-mortgage-settlement/

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD5 Comments

Meet Wall Street’s Secret Weapon — The Congress Members Who Work for Wall Street

Meet Wall Street’s Secret Weapon — The Congress Members Who Work for Wall Street

A handful of Congress members who do its bidding.


Slate-

The lawmakers were at an impasse.

More than two hours into a meeting of the House Financial Services Committee last month, the members were bickering over two versions of a bill designed to ease a new regulation that affected banks, part of the sweeping 2010 overhaul of financial laws known as the Dodd-Frank Act.

The dispute? Whether to give the banks everything they asked for, or whether to give them even more.

[SLATE]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

MEMORANDUM | MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, RECORDER OF DEEDS v. MERSCORP, INC. et al

MEMORANDUM | MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, RECORDER OF DEEDS v. MERSCORP, INC. et al

Via JUSTIA

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, RECORDER OF DEEDS v. MERSCORP, INC. et al

Defendant: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. and MERSCORP, INC.
Plaintiff: MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, RECORDER OF DEEDS
Case Number: 2:2011cv06968
Filed: November 7, 2011

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download.
Date Filed # Document Text
April 22, 2014 108 Featured Case MEMORANDUM. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 4/21/2014. 4/22/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(amas)
February 12, 2014 96 Featured Case MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 2/11/2014. 2/12/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (ems)
February 12, 2014 97 Featured Case MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (DOC. NO. 51) IS GRANTED AND THE CLASS IS HEREBY DEFINED AS CONSISTING OF “EACH COUNTY RECORDER OF DEEDS IN PENNSYLVANIA IN HIS OR HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY.” IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF NANCY J. BECKER IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS RECORDER OF DEEDS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IS APPOINTED AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND THE LAW FIRMS OF KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C., LAMB MCERLANE, PC, COOPER & SCHAFFER, LLC, WH ITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP AND CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP ARE APPOINTED AS CLASS COUNSEL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT CLASS COUNSEL ARE DIRECTED TO SUBMIT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE ENTRY DATE OF THIS ORDER, A PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER PROVIDING FOR NOTICE TO BE GIVEN TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CLASS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE J. CURTIS JOYNER ON 2/11/2014. 2/12/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (ems)

 Download PDF

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD3 Comments

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives