Homeowners struggling to repay adjustable-rate mortgages from Wachovia and World Savings Bank, subsidiaries of Wells Fargo (WFC), got some good news Wednesday. The company has agreed to pay $24 million to settle allegations of deceptive marketing about the risky loans from eight states and also to forgive more than $772 million in outstanding loan balances owed by more than 8,700 borrowers.The states’ probe was spurred by Wachovia’s so-called “Pick-A-Payment” adjustable-rate mortgages. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who led the investigation, said in a statement that Wachovia — which Wells Fargo acquired after the loans were granted — failed to sufficiently inform borrowers of the risks involved in such loan programs. Wells Fargo said it had already forgiven $3.4 billion in loans as of August.
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten
An Act
To require any Federal or State court to recognize any notarization made by a notary public licensed by a State other than the State where the court is located when such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010’.
SEC. 2. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN FEDERAL COURTS.
Each Federal court shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the Federal court is located if–
(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and
(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or
(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.
SEC. 3. RECOGNITION OF NOTARIZATIONS IN STATE COURTS.
Each court that operates under the jurisdiction of a State shall recognize any lawful notarization made by a notary public licensed or commissioned under the laws of a State other than the State where the court is located if–
(1) such notarization occurs in or affects interstate commerce; and
(2)(A) a seal of office, as symbol of the notary public’s authority, is used in the notarization; or
(B) in the case of an electronic record, the seal information is securely attached to, or logically associated with, the electronic record so as to render the record tamper-resistant.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) ELECTRONIC RECORD- The term ‘electronic record’ has the meaning given that term in section 106 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7006).
(2) LOGICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH- Seal information is ‘logically associated with’ an electronic record if the seal information is securely bound to the electronic record in such a manner as to make it impracticable to falsify or alter, without detection, either the record or the seal information.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.
Ally Financial Inc.’s GMAC Mortgage unit told brokers and agents to halt evictions tied to foreclosures on homeowners in 23 states including Florida, Connecticut and New York.
GMAC Mortgage may “need to take corrective action in connection with some foreclosures” in the affected states, according to a two-page memo dated Sept. 17 marked “urgent.” Ally Financial spokesman James Olecki confirmed the contents of the memo. Brokers were told to immediately stop evictions, cash- for-key transactions and lockouts, according to the document, addressed to GMAC preferred agents.
The lender will also suspend sales of properties on which it has already taken possession. The letter tells brokers to notify buyers that the company will extend closing dates by 30 days. Buyers will be able to cancel their agreement to purchase and get their deposit back, according to the letter.
Connecticut
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Vermont
Wisconsin
Again… look towards the “Common Thread”chances are MERS is involved if they’ve been securitized . Remember every loan needs a “MOM“
FBI crackdown on fraudulent mortgages may underestimate scope of problem
by CHRISTINE RICCIARDI
Tuesday, September 14th, 2010, 1:00 pm
When the Federal Bureau of Investigation began Operation Stolen Dreams in March 2010, the government’s largest mortgage fraud takedown, the FBI estimated about $2.3 billion of fraudulent mortgages were originated in 2009. However, recent estimates from a source monitoring the operation indicates that number is now closer to $14 billion.
The numbers were put together recently by an European investment bank in the run-up to a mortgage fraud conference in the U.K. next month. It found that mortgage fraud in the U.K. stood at $120 million in 2009. “The phenomenon, though worrying and one that certainly requires strong intervention from authorities, is not of the same scale as in the U.S.,” said the source. “Securitization is therefore well protected from this issue.”
So, how many of the foreclosure mills are now *mandated* to be used in Florida? That is exactly what CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal was questioning. That totally eliminates business revenue for all the other state/*local* foreclosure law firms.
I just got this tip that DBNT is selling it’s California address that is in many many SEC filings. I wish I can make more comments but am limited. I’ll leave it up to you all.
Katherine M. Porter
College of Law, University of Iowa
Abstract
The greatest fear of many families in serious financial trouble is that they will lose their homes. Bankruptcy offers a last chance for families save their houses by halting a foreclosure and by repaying any default on their mortgage loans over a period of years. Mortgage companies participate in bankruptcy by filing proofs of claims with the court for the amount of the mortgage debt. In turn, bankruptcy debtors pay these claims to retain their homes. This process is well established and, until now, uncontroversial. The assumption is that the protective elements of the federal bankruptcy shield vulnerable homeowners from harm.
This Article examines the actual behavior of mortgage companies in consumer bankruptcy cases. Using original data from 1700 recent Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, I conclude that mortgage servicers frequently do not comply with bankruptcy law. A majority of mortgage claims are missing one or more of the required pieces of documentation for a bankruptcy claims. Fees and charges on claims often are poorly identified and do not appear to be reasonable. The bankruptcy data reinforce concerns about the overall reliability of the mortgage service industry to charge homeowners only the correct and legal amount of the debt and to comply with applicable consumer protection laws. Mistakes or misbehavior by mortgage servicers can have grave consequences. Bloated claims can jeopardize a family’s ability to save their home in bankruptcy. On a system level, mistakes or misbehavior by mortgage servicers undermine America’s homeownership policies for all families trying to buy a home.
The data also reinforce concerns about whether consumers can trust financial institutions to adhere to applicable laws. The findings are a chilling reminder of the limits of formal law to protect consumers. Imposing unambiguous legal rules does not ensure that a system will actually function to safeguard the rights of parties. Observing the reality that laws can under perform or even misfire has crucial implications for designing legal systems that produce acceptable and just behavior. *
I am working on a special project & need your help to gather as many MERS Assignments as we can possibly get.
What is especially needed are the Certifying Officers signing these assignments for MERS. I don’t care if it’s old, new, signed, undated, unmarked, lender has gone bankrupt ages ago…I just want them ALL!
LMFAO!! Yet Another Bomb! Thank you for the rise in Real Estate sales…How do you say “bait and switch”! Were these disclosure properly made?
Can’t wait to see the outcome of these sub-prime mortgages when most of the 950K were counting on this!
Les Christie, staff writer, On Thursday September 9, 2010, 2:40 pm EDT
Nearly half of all Americans who claimed the first-time homebuyer tax credit on their 2009 tax returns will have to repay the government.
According to a report from the Inspector General for Tax Administration, released to the public Thursday, about 950,000 of the nearly 1.8 million Americans who claimed the tax credit on their 2009 tax returns will have to return the money.
The confusion comes because homebuyers were eligible for two different credits, depending on when their homes were purchased.
Those who bought properties during 2008 were to deduct, dollar for dollar, up to 10% of the home’s purchase price or $7,500, whichever was less. The catch: The money was a no-interest loan that had to be repaid within 15 years.
Had they waited to buy until 2009, they could have gotten a much sweeter deal. Congress extended the credit and made it a refund rather than a loan.
LAW OFFICES OF MOSES S. HALL, APC
2651 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 110
Fullerton, California 92831
Telephone (714) 738-4830
Facsimile (714)992-7916
September 9, 2010
Attorney General’s Office
California Department of Justice
Attn: Edmund G. Brown Jr.
1300 “I” Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Benjamin G. Diehl
Office of the California Attorney General
300 S. Spring Street,. Ste 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Kathrin Sears
Office of the California Attorney General
455 Golden Gate Ave., Ste 1702
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Civil Code §§ 2923.52 and 2923.53
The People of The State of California vs. Countrywide et. al. LC093076
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Dear Colleagues and Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr:
As you are aware, my office represents homeowners caught up in the foreclosure crisis currently occurring in the California housing market.
You may recall that my office sought your assistance in the matter of Mabry vs. Aurora Loan Services. Wherein the 4thAppellate District Division Three acknowledged a private right of action to prevent foreclosures on a citizen’s primary residence, when the bank and/or mortgage holder has not complied with Civil Code § 2923.5. However, your office opted not to participated in what I believe was a landmark decision for homeowners in the battle against foreclosure prevention here in California.
Notwithstanding the Stipulated Judgment and Injunction that your office had obtained against Countrywide/Bank of America in the above referenced case, Bank of America filed an Amicus Curia Brief in the Mabry action espousing no private right of action and no obligation to modify distressed loans.
I am fully aware, grateful and commend your office for its attempts to crackdown on loan modification schemes that have swindled millions of dollars out of frightened and frustrated homeowners.Some homeowners who were and still are willing to believe against all logic or reason that the companies, whom practiced such schemes, could actually get the mortgage holder to give them some sort of State or Federal assistance that could prevent the losing of their homes and becoming homeless.
I further commend your office for its 2008 lawsuit against then Countrywide Financial, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and Spectrum Lending, Inc., who are now commonly referred to as Bank of America N.A. and BAC Home Loans (BAC). An action which ultimately resulted in the successful acquiring of a Stipulated Judgment and Injunction against (BAC) on October 14, 2008.
The BAC lawsuit’s primary focus was on the predatory lending practices of the Defendants. The Stipulated Judgment and Injunction provides a remedy that creates yet another avenue for BAC borrowers to find relief and even the possibility of preventing the loss of their homes.The loss of a home is a threat that is ever too common, albeit avoidable with help from BAC, for numerous California BAC borrowers in this foreclosure crisis.
I wish this letter could end here or at least continue to praise your efforts and accomplishments as the present Attorney General of California. However, unfortunately, it must now turn to the present state of affairs and your lack of aggressiveness in the pursuit against the foe you identified and successfully prosecuted in the People vs. Countrywide, et.al. action.
I believe judgment obtained against BAC was merely the tip of the iceberg. You may or may not be aware that IndyMac Bank, now OneWest Bank, has been sued by their investors for providing false and misleading appraisals along with committing many underwriting violations, which gave thousands of Californians their present unconscionable loans [a copy of the court’s opinion is attached for your edification].
There are presently hearings scheduled on September 21, 2010 and September 22, 2010, that involve issues that would substantially curtail the foreclosures in California:
September 22, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 68 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, Mabry vs. Preston Dufauchard, Commissioner For the California Dept of Corporations, Real Party in Interest Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Case No: BS 127903. Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
The issue: Whether possessing a HAMP program equates as compliance with California Civil Code § 2923.53.
September 21, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. at the California 4th Appellate Court Division Three Vuki vs. Superior Court of California, Orange County Case No: GO43533, Real Party in Interest HSBC. Oral Argument.
The issue: Whether a bad faith compliance with Civil Code § 2923.53 makes the foreclosing beneficiary (HSBC) a bona fide purchaser pursuant to Civil Code §2923.54.
September 21, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. at the California 4th Appellate Court Division Three Sanchez vs. Superior Court of California, Orange County Case No: G043300, Real Party in Interest Litton Loan Servicing LLC..Oral Argument.
The issue: Whether a fully executed and performed loan modification is terminated by the lender’s inadvertent sale of the subject real property in lieu of Civil Code § 2923.54.
These decisions are being sought by my office to help clarify citizens’ rights under the present Foreclosure Prevention Statutes.
My office has been very instrumental in not only the prosecution of these issues, on behalf of my clients, but all citizens of the State of California.
Unfortunately, the BAC Stipulated Judgment and Injunction does not provide a component for a private right of enforcement. Thus, with respect to possible violations by BAC, such Stipulated Judgment and Injunction can only be enforced by your office.
My office would love to step into your shoes and be granted permission and the rights to enforcement under the Stipulated Judgment and Injunctions. That way we may stop all the Countrywide loan foreclosures presently scheduled and being conducted in California until each
prior Countrywide and/or BAC California borrower is offered the benefits under the Stipulated Judgment and Injunction your office obtained.
I do not believe that you could or are able to assign such a right, but I make it as a gesture of sincerity as to my conviction and belief of the wrongdoings of BAC.
I ask that you immediately seek Court intervention enjoining all Countrywide and/or BAC foreclosures proceedings that fall within the auspices of the Stipulated Judgment/Injunction.
Alternatively, you leave my office no choice but to seek a Writ of Mandamus asking the Court to instruct you and your office on your obligations as Attorney General of our great State. I realize your business and acknowledge that this may not be your primary priority, but if I do not receive a response indicating your intent by September 17, 2010, I will deem you have no intent to respond, investigate this matter, or take other appropriate action and at that time will seek the Writ of Mandamus.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned paragraph, I wish you well on your campaign to return to the position of Governor of our great State.
Michael Burry, the former head of Scion Capital LLC who predicted the housing market’s plunge, talks with Bloomberg’s Jon Erlichman about his investments in agricultural land, real estate and gold.
Michael Lewis made him famous in his book “The Big Short”.
(This is an excerpt. Source: Bloomberg)
“I believe that agricultural land, productive agricultural land with water on site, will be very valuable in the future. And I’ve put a good amount of money into that. So I’m investing in alternative investments as well as stocks.”
“I think there is some value in real estate. You have to buy it right. It’s not in general, that’s the problem. I think that there are an awful lot of people out there looking to buy these distressed properties out there and so you need to find special situations. That is how I’ve invested from the beginning. I’m looking for these special situations, these unique ideas and that’s true in real estate too.”
“In my situation I’d rather go long on housing itself, real estate itself. Depending on how you structure it, in the real market, in the physical market, you can get some pretty good deals and I’ve done some of that too.”
“Paulson is big in gold and that is something is interesting to me and given how I see the world playing out. Other than that, I’m just saying, other than gold I haven’t really bought into the other…
In 2006 MERS released a mortgage belonging to the Velez’s. MERS Vice President name is Merhl Gibson and the notary is Jane Eyler. Both from Maryland. It appears that the same individual signed the entire document. See exhibit below.
Now these same individuals are signing this document below as Vice President and Notary for CitiMortgage. But take a close look and compare the signatures to the release above.Both of these are about a few weeks apart. Merhl’s stamp is from New York.
“On 8/30, I had a Summary Judgment Foreclosure hearing on Palm Beach County’s “Rocket Docket”. The judge spoke for 14 minutes to the crowd, of mostly pro se defendants, about how they should just agree to the summary judgment and the plaintiffs, (whose attorneys (Shapiro & Fishman had a dedicated courtroom and to whom he referred to as “my attorneys”) would be gracious (Ha!) enough to allow them to stay in their homes for 120 days if needed (even though the statute says he only has to give them 30). When it came to hearing arguments which were fully briefed and provided to the court (pursuant to the instructions of the Divisions head judge) he only allowed 30-60 seconds for argument, failed to read any of the papers, failed to review the plaintiff’s foreclosure package,flatly ignored the Affidavit filed in Opposition, ignored my plea for a trial, signed the judgment and dismissed me. I never was permitted to even read the proposed judgment or to examine the “newly discovered” allonge which Shapiro’s counsel said I had no right to see. Thank God I had a court reporter!”
Well it just happens to be that Lori is an Attorney and got a transcript of what went down…
From Academy Award® nominated filmmaker, Charles Ferguson (“No End In Sight”), comes INSIDE JOB, the first film to expose the shocking truth behind the economic crisis of 2008. The global financial meltdown, at a cost of over $20 trillion, resulted in millions of people losing their homes and jobs. Through extensive research and interviews with major financial insiders, politicians and journalists, INSIDE JOB traces the rise of a rogue industry and unveils the corrosive relationships which have corrupted politics, regulation and academia.
Narrated by Academy Award® winner Matt Damon, INSIDE JOB was made on location in the United States, Iceland, England, France, Singapore, and China.
A mobile home is foreclosed if a mortgage is taken against it and the owner/borrower isn’t able to repay the mobile home loan. But if the home is treated as a personal property, then it is repossessed if not paid for.
My mother has taken a mobile home loan for a property in Florida. She has another home in South Carolina. Her husband has passed away last summer and for the past 3 months she hasn’t been able to afford the payments. What will happen if she’s unable to pay off the mobile home loan and allows the home to be repossessed? What’s the difference between a repossession and foreclosure? Can the mortgage company put a lien on the other house? What if she sells the other house first? Can they go after the proceeds? Can the company go after her social security money and retirement savings?
Solution:
If the mobile home is a personal property bought from a dealer, and the owner is unable to pay off the mobile home loan (personal property loan), then the dealer (or creditor) will simply repossess property. Repossession means that the creditor will take over the ownership and sell off the home at a public auction.
If the sale price isn’t enough to cover the unpaid debt, then the mobile home owner has to pay it off as he owes the debt. Now, in the situation stated above, your mother has taken out a mobile home mortgage loan and not a personal property loan. So, the home will not be repossessed, rather it will be foreclosed if she is unable to pay off the mobile home loan and doesn’t qualify for a workout plan.
Since your mother couldn’t pay for the past 3 months, therefore she should have a straight talk with the mortgage company. I suppose the company hasn’t contacted her yet with a Notice of Default, so there’s still some time left for her to send a hardship letter and request for an alternative payment plan.
However, if your mother gets a Notice of Default and fails to repay the dues within the specified time period, then company may declare a foreclosure. If your mother fails to negotiate with the company for a workout plan, then the latter will sell off the mobile home through foreclosure sale. And, if the company is not able to recover enough proceeds from the sale, then it may ask for payment of the deficiency amount.
If your mother fails to pay the deficiency amount, the company may file a deficiency judgment and get an order issued by the court. If she still doesn’t pay it or is unable to pay it, then a lien may be placed on the property in South Carolina (SC). But in order to place this lien, the mortgage company will have to seek a sister-judgment. This means that the company will try to get a judgment in SC based on the Florida judgment even though it may not have a license in SC.
If your mother sells the SC property first, there’s a chance that the mortgage company may come after the proceeds provided the latter receives the sister-judgment from that state. The mortgage company cannot place a lien on your mother’s Social Security (SS) check as SS is protected from such liens. As for the retirement savings, the mortgage company may ask your mother to liquidate the entire savings in order to repay the loan but this depends upon the laws in the state of Florida.
INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 09-01 and 09-578
RE: JUDGE N. JAMES TURNER SC09-1182
Illegal Practice of Law
As a sitting judge, Turner was prohibited from engaging in the practice of law. However, he knowingly acted as his mother’s lawyer in a foreclosure proceeding in Dade County.
THE FLORIDA JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS COMMISSION’S SECOND
INTERROGATORIES TO JUDGE N. JAMES TURNER states:
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please specifically itemize and describe the source of funds (in excess of $42,000) that you reported as loans from you to your campaign.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please specifically itemize and describe all funds, however characterized, you received from your mother (Mignon Gordon) which were used for the campaign for the office you now hold, including, the date(s) any such funds were received, the specific amounts of such funds, and the total of such funds.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 3:Please specifically describe the agreement, arrangement or understanding you had with your mother regarding the funds you received from her which were used in the campaign for the office you now hold.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please describe all communications (written or parole) you had with David J. Stern, Esquire regarding your mother or the foreclosure litigation brought against her by Citimortgage, Inc. in Dade County, Florida, including the nature, substance and approximate dates of all such communications.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 5:Please describe all communications (written or parole) you had with any person other than David J. Stern, Esquireregarding your mother or the foreclosure litigation brought against her by Citimortgage, Inc. in Dade County, Florida, including the nature, substance and approximate dates of all such communications.
ANSWER:
NOTICE OF THIRD AMENDED CONSOLIDATED
FORMAL CHARGES states:
7. During the campaign for the office you now hold, you knowingly accepted and received a very substantial campaign contribution made for the purpose of influencing the results of the election, whether characterized as a gift or loan, far in excess of the $500 limit established by Ch. 106, Florida Statutes, from your mother (Mignon Gordon) which you used to pay for your campaign, in violation of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, and Canons 1, 2A and 7C(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
8. As a sitting circuit court judge, on or about November 20, 2009, you knowingly filed a notice of appearance in pending litigation in Dade County, Florida (CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Gordon, Case No. 2009-74992-CA- 01) where you purported to appear to represent your mother in foreclosure proceedings brought against her therein, in violation of Canons 1, 2A and 5G of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
9. As a sitting circuit court judge, you knowingly represented and acted as litigation counsel for your mother in the foreclosure proceeding in Dade County, Florida described above by,inter alia, communicating with counsel for the mortgagee on her behalf, in Osceola County, Florida, in violation of Canons 1, 2A and 5G of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
See full article from DailyFinance: 
Continue Reading…. BLOOMBERG
Continue Reading…
Recent Comments