Short Sale

Archive | short sale

Moody’s Questions Feasibility of Fannie Mae’s Strategic Default Policy

Moody’s Questions Feasibility of Fannie Mae’s Strategic Default Policy

Edit: From a viewer who makes it clear.

The GSE rule is: A borrower is denied equal access to government supported financial markets for seven years unless the borrower “waives” rights to challenge servicer claims? This is a direct attempt to deprive an individual of access to the legal system in order to redress grievances. This is an unconstitutional exercise of power by these quaisi-govt authorities controlled by government. If the govt cannot do that in its own name–how can it be proper to do it under a nameplate of an entity owned and controlled by the government. Aside from implications in respect of civil liberties, it is not even good financial policy for servicers and lenders to be automatically released of liability for predatory lending and collection activities. This rule can have only one effect and that is to encourage more abuses. This is tantamount to abolishing judicial oversight of lending abuses.

By: Carrie Bay 07/26/2010 DSNEWS

Last month, Fannie Mae announced new policy changes intended to deter financially competent homeowners from walking away from their mortgage obligation by imposing stiffer penalties for strategic default – a phenomenon that has become increasingly more common as home prices have plummeted and more and more borrowers find that they owe more on their mortgage than the home is worth.

The GSE says borrowers who intentionally default when they had the capacity to pay or those who do not complete a workout alternative in good faith will be ineligible for a new Fannie Mae-backed mortgage for a period of seven years from the date of foreclosure.

Fannie Mae says the policy change is designed to encourage borrowers to work with their servicers and pursue alternatives to foreclosure. While a bold attempt at preventing unnecessary foreclosures, the analysts at Moody’s Investors Service argue that the GSE may encounter snags ahead since figuring out who to penalize for strategically walking away will be a significant challenge and implementing the policy could be difficult.

Previously, the GSE barred homeowners who’d been foreclosed on from obtaining a new mortgage for five years. However, Fannie Mae’s new policy extends the foreclosure-waiting period to seven years unless the borrower can prove that they faced extenuating circumstances when they defaulted on the loan.

For borrowers who can prove hardship or document that they attempted to contact their servicer to obtain a loan workout, the waiting period could be reduced to as little as three years. For borrowers who attempt to “gracefully exit” their mortgage obligation by means of a short sale or a deed in lieu may only have to wait two years to obtain a new Fannie Mae mortgage.

Continue reading… DSNEWS.com

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



Posted in concealment, conspiracy, deed in lieu, fannie mae, fico, foreclosure, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, servicers, short sale, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD, walk away1 Comment

Contact 13 investigates Bank of America customer’s frustrations with short sales

Contact 13 investigates Bank of America customer’s frustrations with short sales

Nothing has changed…

“And they’re trying to keep folks from walking away” Listen to this interview and his answers…Like he makes any sense…blame the fax system for lost documents and negotiators…and welcome EQUATOR.

THE TRUTH is while they were developing this “EQUATION” you were put on the burner. Simple as 123.

Who trusts loading up very personal information into a system to where it ends up?? eg: social security numbers?

Posted: Jul 01, 2010 4:32 PM EDT Updated: Jul 02, 2010 5:14 AM EDT

Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) – Weeks after our Contact 13 investigation into Bank of America we have uncovered a new wave of problems hitting Valley homeowners.

“It’s just frustrating and I don’t think they’re doing anything,” says homeowner Todd Lanquist.

“And when they would get rude with me I’d say, look, put yourself in my shoes. I said don’t think for one minute because you’re on the other end of the phone that it can’t happen to you,” adds homeowner Sherry Eggler. “I want it over with! And I want us to be left alone and get on with our lives.”

Todd and Sherry are both Bank of America homeowners who’ve tried to short sell their homes.

For Todd, “It’s probably the most stressful thing that I’ve dealt with in my lifetime.”

A short sale is when your home is worth less than the remaining value of your mortgage. It’s what you do to avoid foreclosure when even a loan modification won’t keep you in your home.

“Short sales are probably 70% of the listings out there right now,” explains realtor James Allen.

And with Bank of America holding one in three Nevada mortgages, the servicing giant is at the center of a firestorm of criticism over the short sale process.

We read some of your e-mails to Bank of America’s senior vice president in charge of short sales.

“And this person says “Bank of America acts with reckless abandon and extraordinary incompetence when it comes to short sales.” What do you say to that customer,” asked Contact 13 Chief Investigator Darcy Spears.

“I would refute that to the degree that we’re very proud of the work that our team does on behalf of Bank of America and our customers and ultimately the investors,” answered Bank of America’s Matt Vernon. “Certainly there have been some challenges in the past. But with that said, we’re very focused on an efficient process.”

Sherry Eggler says the process is anything but efficient. She and her husband, Freddie, moved here from Georgia to build the home they intended to retire in. But when the economy tanked and their retirement savings went with it, they knew they’d have to give up their dream.

“It hurt. It hurt,” says Sherry, trying hard to hold back tears.

When the loan modification Bank of America offered wouldn’t save them enough money, Sherry says the bank advised a short sale.

But all that did, she says, was put their lives on hold.

“The realtor would call and say, oh Sherry, they need copies of your W-2s again, they need bank copies again, they need this again. I must have done that 10 times and finally I said you know what? No more!”

So what is the root of the problem?

“There’s too many hands in the pot,” says Sherry. “Too many chefs in the kitchen.”

Bogging down the process for so long that she says they lost a buyer willing to pay the set price.

“They must have waited three-four months, five months, and they kept assigning new negotiators. And that is so stupid because they shot their own self in the foot.”

And through it all, there was the constant threat of foreclosure.

“They keep telling me, making threats that our house is gonna be sold on the court doorstep.”

We took her concerns to Bank of America.

“There is a mountain of frustration among our Las Vegas viewing population with what’s going on with B of A short sales,” Spears told Matt Vernon.

And when we asked why there are so many hands in the cookie jar, he said there were too many homes in the short sale process.

“And because of that growth in the business, it often required multiple hand-offs. We recognize that that’s not beneficial to the transaction and are committed to limiting those hand-offs so there is continuity throughout the process.”

All of it too late for Sherry Eggler.

“One time I think I did say that well, if this keeps up I think we just need to get an attorney.”

That’s what Todd Lanquist did after he says the bank’s foot-dragging cost him several potential buyers.

“It’s my fear. Losing my house.”

He says he’s having to sue for the right to sell.

“And that’s just absurd. Absolutely absurd. If it’s a fair sale at a fair price, the bank should be held to it,” says Matthew Callister, Todd’s lawyer.

Realtor James Allen calls B of A the worst of corporate America coming to the surface.

“It’s a red flag. Some agents will not write an offer on a B of A short sale, which is basically hurting us all across the board.”

“And if they don’t learn from this,” Sherry says, “then I don’t know what it would take. They just have some serious, serious inside issues.”

“In no way shape or form are we in that optimal state, but we have vastly improved and we expect to continue to improve,” Vernon says.

We’ll be watching to see if Bank of America does improve. Remember, if you have a problem with a short sale, loan modification or any housing-related matter, Bank of America has opened two resource centers: one in Las Vegas and one in Henderson.

Bank of America resource centers
Henderson resource center
2285 Corporate Circle Suite 100
Call 1 – 877 – 345 – 6416

Las Vegas resource center
6900 Westcliff
Second floor
Appointments:
10 am – 7pm M – F
10am – 2pm Sat
Here is what you need to bring to the appointment:
-Copy of most recently filed tax return for each borrower.
– Copy of two most recent pay stubs covering 30 days or documentation of other income (e.g., Social Security, Disability, Unemployment, public assistance).
– Copy of most recent profit/loss statement (if self-employed).
– Alimony, child support or separation maintenance supporting documentation.
– For rental income, most recent two years’ filed federal tax returns, including schedule E.
– Copy of homeowner’s insurance bill and most recent property tax bill (if not paid through Bank of America).

We should also note that Bank of America says they completed 10,000 short sales nationwide in the month of June the most in their history.

They remind homeowners that the short sale process is primarily investor driven and Bank of America approves a short sale subject to investor approval.

Source: C13 News Las Vegas

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



Posted in bank of america, foreclosure, foreclosures, short sale, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD2 Comments

ARE FORECLOSURE MILLS Coercing Buyers for BANK OWNED homes? ARE ALL THE MILLS?

ARE FORECLOSURE MILLS Coercing Buyers for BANK OWNED homes? ARE ALL THE MILLS?

MASTER_OFFER_PACKET_03-10-2010[1][1]

In the Master Packet above go to Page 7

Below is from an ad in Trulia

fannie mae owned.bank property. property is vacant.all offers requiring financing must have preapproval letter.all cash offer require proof of fund(see attachement).this property is eligible for home path renovation mortgage-as little as 3% down.buyer must close with seller closing agent(david j. stern law offices,p.a).investors not eligible for first 15days.*for showing instr please read broker remarks* note:offers must be submitted using attachment.close by 30 june and receive extra 3.5% in closing cost

Looking further into this I noticed the following:

  • Still in the name of the owner
  • NOT named under any REO
  • Home last sold for 245K
  • Now listed at 120K

Here is the BIGGEST:

I found a Bank-owned packet for this “SPECIALLY SELECTED” Agent/BROKER in many other REO’s and in this package it states the following: (SEE ABOVE LINK PACKET)

9) Which title companies are the sellers and who do I make out the earnest money deposit to once offer is verbally accepted?

a. PLEASE LOOK ON MLX REMARKS FOR TITLE COMPANY. MLX WILL HAVE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
i. David Stern, P.A.
ii. Marshall C. Watson, P.A.
iii. Smith, Hiatt, & Diaz, P.A.
iv. Butler & Hosch, P.A.
v. Shapiro & Fishman, P.A.
vi. Spear & Hoffman, P.A.
vii. Adorno & Yoss, P.A.
viii. Watson Title

ix. New House Title (This is registered with FDLG address 9119 CORPORATE LAKE DRIVE, SUITE 300 TAMPA FL 33634)

10) Can the buyer use their own title company or must they use the title company selected by seller?

a. The buyer MUST HOLD ESCROW with Fannie Mae Title Company as stated on MLX.

NOW are we unleashing another dimension to this never ending SAGA?

We recently found out about WTF!!! DJSP Enterprises, Inc. Announces Agreement to Acquire Timios, Inc., Expand Presence Into 38 States , so is this a way for the Mills to Monopolize on the sales of these properties??

HERE IS same Agent/Broker for a FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP property:

THIS IS FANNIE MAE HOMEPATH PROPERTY.BANK OWNED.ALL OFFERS REQUIRING FINANCING MUST HAVE PREAPPROVAL LETTER. ALL CASH OFFERS REQUIRE PROOF OF FUNDS. THIS PROPERTY IS APPROVED FOR HOMEPATH AND HOMEPATH RENOVATION MORTGAGE FINANCING-AS LITTLE AS 3% DOWN,NO APPRAISAL OR MORTGAGE INSURANCE REQUIRED! ** FOR SHOWING INST PLEASE READ BROKER REMARKS** YOU MUST SUBMIT OFFER USING ATTACHMENT! INVESTORS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FIRST 15DAYS.CLOSE BY JUNE 30 TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXTRA 3.5% SC. EMD: FL DEFAULT LAW GROUP.

Here is another same Agent/Broker for MARSHALL C. WATSON property:

FANNIE MAE OWNED.BANK PROPERTY. PROPERTY IS VACANT.ALL OFFERS REQUIRING FINANCING MUST HAVE PREAPPROVAL LETTER.ALL CASH OFFERS REQUIRE PROOF OF FUNDS(SEE ATTACHEMENT).THIS PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE FOR HOME PATH RENOVATION MORTGAGE-AS LITTLE AS 3% DOWN.BUYER MUST CLOSE WITH SELLER CLOSING AGENT (LAW OFFICES OF MARSHALL C. WATSON).INVESTOR NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FIRST 15DAYS.*FOR SHOWING INSTR PLEASE READ BROKER REMARK* NOTE:OFFERS MUST BE SUBMITTED USING ATTACHMENT.CLOSE BY JUNE 30 TO GET 3.5% EXTRA IN CLOSING COST

Does the JUNE 30th Closing Day have any significance??

MAYBE it’s because of this? MERS May NOT Foreclose for Fannie Mae effective 5/1/2010I am just trying to make sense of this…Is there a grace period that followed?

  • What “if” the BUYER selects their own Title company? Does this eliminate their chances of ever even being considered as a buyer?
  • Why even bother to state this?
  • Is this a way for the selected Agent/ Broker to find the buyer and discourage other agents or buyers from viewing?
  • Was this at all even necessary to state?
  • Is this verbiage to coerce agents to get a higher commission rather than pass down the incentive of 3.5% towards closing cost “if” under contract by 6/30?
  • Why do investors have to refrain from buying for the first 15 days?

Coercion (pronounced /ko???r??n/) is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in the desired way. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced. Torture is one of the most extreme examples of coercion i.e. severe pain is inflicted until the victim provides the desired information.

RELATED STORY:

LENDER PROCESSING SERVICES (LPS) BUYING UP HOMES AT AUCTIONS? Take a look to see if this address is on your documents!

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



Posted in butler & hosch pa, conspiracy, djsp enterprises, fannie mae, FDLG, florida default law group, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, hiatt & diaz PA, insider, investigation, Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A., law offices of Marshall C. Watson pa, marshall watson, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud, new house title llc, Real Estate, REO, securitization, shapiro & fishman pa, short sale, spear & hoffman4 Comments

BETH COTTRELL step right up …your the next ROBO-SIGNER on STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD!

BETH COTTRELL step right up …your the next ROBO-SIGNER on STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD!

Folks there is just way too many. Eventually this will all be released.

Every Foreclosure/REO/Short Sale out there is virtually like this!

via ForeclosureHamlet.org & 4closurefraud.org

The attached documents are almost always the sole “evidence” showing the right of a foreclosing entity/servicer (or their shell National Bank Cover ie: US Bank) to foreclose on an American family’s home, evicting them from the only shelter that may be available to them.

Millions of examples of this and other “robo-signers” available upon request.

Of note, please see the last attachment; her deposition where she denies any “personal knowledge” or even a cursory glance at the facts of the case.

America………..what a heartache……….

ANOTHER POINT IS THEY seem to be different signatures. Some have loops and some do not.


DEPOSITION_OF_BETH-COTTRELL-CHASE-HOME-FINANCE

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



Posted in ben-ezra, concealment, conspiracy, corruption, FDLG, florida default law group, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, hamleteers, MERS, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., REO, robo signer, robo signers, short sale, stop foreclosure fraud, stopforeclosurefraud.com0 Comments

LADOUCER v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Dist. Court, SD Texas, Corpus Christi Div. 2010 "DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD THEY SAY"

LADOUCER v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Dist. Court, SD Texas, Corpus Christi Div. 2010 "DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD THEY SAY"

Always follow your “INSTINCTS”

WILLIAM C LADOUCER, et al, Plaintiffs,
v.
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, et al, Defendants.

Civil Action No. C-10-78.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division.

 April 23, 2010.

 

ORDER

 

JANIS GRAHAM JACK, District Judge.

On this day came on to be considered the Court’s sua sponte review of its subject matter jurisdiction in the above-styled action. For the reasons discussed below, the Court REMANDS this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the 79th Judicial District of Jim Wells, Texas, where it was originally filed and assigned Cause No. 10-02-48732-CV.

 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In their Original Petition, Plaintiffs William C. Ladoucer and Julie A. Ladoucer allege as follows:

Plaintiffs were the owners of a home located at 271 House Avenue in Sandia, Jim Wells County, Texas and that the Defendants BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP (“BAC”) and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”) were the respective servicer and holder of the mortgage on that property. (D.E. 1, Exh. 1 p. 2.) On December 29, 2008, Plaintiffs signed a resale contract to sell their property with a closing date set for February 27, 2009. (Id. at pp. 2-3.) Plaintiffs faxed the contract of sale to Defendant Countrywide. (Id. at p. 2.) Plaintiff Julie A. LaDoucer spoke to a representative at Countrywide’s Homeowner Retention Department to confirm receipt of the contract and was led to believe “that a foreclosure sale that the defendants had scheduled for January of 2009 was cancelled.” (Id. at pp. 2-3.) However, instead of cancelling the foreclosure, “Defendants foreclosed on the property on January 6, 2009.” (Id.) After the foreclosure, Plaintiffs claim that the potential buyers backed out of the sale and Plaintiffs “thereby lost almost $27,680.00 in equity which they would have realized from the sale of the property.” (Id. at p. 3.)

In February 2009, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants took possession of the property and changed the locks. (Id. at p. 3.) In March 2009, Plaintiffs allege that personal property had been taken from the home including a $4,500 shed that had been purchased by the Plaintiffs. (Id. at pp. 3-4.) Plaintiffs’ credit rating was also adversely affected by the foreclosure notation on their credit. (Id. at p. 4.)

Plaintiffs filed this action in state court on February 1, 2010. (D.E. 1, Exh. 1.) Defendants were served with process of February 16, 2010 and timely removed this case to federal court on March 12, 2010 on the grounds that this Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. (D.E. 1.) Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on April 23, 2010.[1] (D.E. 11.)

II. Discussion

 A. General Removal Principles

 A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court if the federal court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Manguno v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002). A court, however, “must presume that a suit lies outside its limited jurisdiction.” Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). The removing party, as the party seeking the federal forum, bears the burden of showing that federal jurisdiction is proper. See Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723. “Any ambiguities are construed against removal because the removal statute should be strictly construed in favor of remand.” Id. When subject matter jurisdiction is improper, a court may raise the issue sua sponte. See Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 565 (5th Cir. 2008) (“We are duty-bound to examine the basis of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.” (citations omitted)); H&D Tire and Auto. Hardware v. Pitney Bowes Inc., 227 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2000) (“We have a duty to raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte.”).

 B. Removal Based on Diversity Jurisdiction

When the alleged basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the removing defendant has the burden of demonstrating that there is: (1) complete diversity of citizenship; and (2) an amount-in-controversy greater than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

 1. Diversity of Parties

 Section 1332(a) requires “complete diversity” of citizenship, and the district court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction if one of the plaintiffs shares the same state citizenship as any one of the defendants. See Corfield v. Dallas Glen Hills LP, 355 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 2003). In removal cases, diversity of citizenship must exist both at the time of filing in state court and at the time of removal to federal court. See Coury v. Prot, 85 F.3d 244, 249 (5th Cir. 1996).

 In this case, complete diversity exists because Plaintiffs are residents of Texas and Defendant BAC is a resident of North Carolina while Defendant Countrywide is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in California. (D.E. 1.)

 2. Amount in Controversy

Generally, the amount in controversy for the purposes of establishing federal jurisdiction should be determined by the plaintiff’s complaint. See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938); De Aguilar v. Boeing Co., 47 F.3d 1404, 1411-12 (5th Cir. 1995). Where the plaintiff has not made a specific monetary demand, the defendant has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional amount. See Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723 (“where . . . the petition does not include a specific monetary demand, [the defendant] must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000”); St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v. Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998); Allen v. R&H Oil & Gas Co., 63 F.3d 1326, 1335 (5th Cir. 1995).

1. This Court Lacks Diversity Jurisdiction Over This Case

 Plaintiffs do not demand over $75,000, the minimum amount of damages necessary for federal diversity jurisdiction. (D.E. 1, Exh. 1.) Rather, Plaintiffs’ Original Petition states that the foreclosure of the home itself caused only $27,680 of damages in lost equity. (Id. at 3.) Further, Plaintiffs claim that the total damages for the wrongful foreclosure, fraud, and breach of contract claims, including the above-stated $27,680 damages in lost equity, are “at least $35,000.” (D.E. 1, Exh. 1, pp. 4-5.) Plaintiffs also claim “at least $20,000” for the exemplary damages claim, and “at least $5000” for reasonable attorneys’ fees. (D.E. 1, Exh. 1, pp. 4-5.) In total, Plaintiffs claim only $70,000 in damages. This is less than the $75,000 required for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

 Defendants, in a conclusory manner, nonetheless assert that “[t]he face of the petition . . . reveals that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” (D.E. 1, p. 3.) Defendants state that under Texas law, exemplary damages “could alone result in the recovery of more than $75,000.” (Id. (emphasis added).) However, Defendants ignore that Plaintiffs’ Petition specifies only $20,000 in exemplary damages, drastically less than Defendants’ assertions. (D.E. 1, Exh. 1, p. 4.) Based on Defendants’ claims alone, this Court cannot assume that exemplary damages will be so high that they would give this Court jurisdiction. This is especially true given that “[a]ny ambiguities are construed against removal because the removal statute should be strictly construed in favor of remand.” Manguno v. Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co., 276 F.3d 720, 723 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Acuna v. Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2000)).

 Defendants have thus failed to establish that this action involves an amount in controversy of more than $75,000, exclusive of costs and interests, as required for this Court to have diversity jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Therefore, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that federal jurisdiction exists and that removal was proper. Frank v. Bear Stearns & Co., 128 F.3d 919, 921 (5th Cir. 1997) (“The party invoking the removal jurisdiction of federal courts bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction over the state court suit.”). Accordingly, this Court must remand this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). See Lott v. Dutchmen Mfg., Inc., 422 F.Supp.2d 750, 752 (E.D. Tex. 2006) (citing Manguno, 276 F.3d at 723).

 III. Conclusion

 For the reasons stated above, this Court determines sua sponte that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the above-styled action. This case is hereby REMANDED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the 79th Judicial District of Jim Wells, Texas, where it was originally filed and assigned Cause No. 10-02-48732-CV.

 SIGNED and ORDERED.

[1] Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on April 23, 2010, however, for purpose of removal, this Court looks only to the pleadings and allegations at the time of removal. See Adair v. Lease Partners, Inc., 587 F.3d 238, 243 (5th Cir. 2009) (“[T]he power to remove is evaluated at the time of removal.”); Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256, 265 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding removal jurisdiction is based on complaint at the time of removal and a plaintiff cannot defeat removal by amending the complaint).

Posted in bac home loans, case, conspiracy, countrywide, foreclosure fraud, short sale0 Comments

Lenders Unload Mortgages to Collection Agencies

Lenders Unload Mortgages to Collection Agencies

What we were discussing this morning…

dcbreidenbach, on April 26, 2010 at 9:51 am Said:in a prior posting it was stated that defense attys press people to be concerned about deficiency judgements unnecessarily. This advice may be practical for some homeowners but is extremely dangerous for borrowers generally. The current practice of most collectors is to press foreclosure on the mortgage–ignoring the note. This is an inverted approach that enables the collection agency to acquire the property and proceeds of its disposition without ever demonstrating who holds the note, or possession of the note. The collector obtains the home today, settling the mortgage, but is fully capable of selling the note deficiency balance collection rights to an even worse collection agency. The collectors are legally able to lay in the weeds for as much as 5-10 years depending on state laws and the facts of the case. When the homeowner is “back on his feet” with a good job, restored credit and other assets accumulated, the collector shows up with the old note and deficiency judgment and makes the claim plus interest accrued in the meantime. Just when the homeowner thought it was over-he/she is drawn back into the horror. another opportunity for them exists; they know you owe a deficiency amount-they record it and wait for you to die ——-then they come after your estate for proceeds of your life insurance and pension payouts that you thought were to help your family! Be wary of advice that says “dont worry-be happy” ; these people feed on deception, its a way of life to them. Beware disinformation—find attornies if you have deficiencies–force the collectors to warrant that the deficiency is waived. And get a warranty from an employee of one of the big name banks at the minimum that you will not be pursued. Trust them not.
Given any opportunity to screw you they will!

Lenders Unload Mortgages to Collection Agencies

19 April 2010 @ 05:11 pm EDT

Lenders are selling second mortgages and home-equity lines in default to collection agencies that have the right to collect this money potentially for decades.

“It’s a big business, and investors are coming out of the woodwork,” says Sylvia Alayon, a vice president for Consumer Mortgage Audit Center, which analyzes mortgage documents for lenders, advocacy groups, and attorneys.

Real estate professionals will be doing their short-sale clients a big favor if they urge them to get professional advice before they sign agreements, Alayon says.

A new government short-sale program, which takes effect Monday, aims to prevent banks from reselling this debt. Sellers covered under the program will receive notice that secondary lien holders have received part of the proceeds of the sale “in exchange for release and full satisfaction of their liens.”

 Reprinted from REALTOR® Magazine Online with permission of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®. Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.

Related Story:

FORENSIC AUDIT (FMI) & Securitization

FORENSIC MORTGAGE AUDITS AS TOOLS TO SAVE FORECLOSURE HOMES

Why Your Lawyer May Threaten You With a Deficiency Judgment After Foreclosure

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, foreclosure fraud, forensic mortgage investigation audit, nina, note, respa, short sale, siva, tila1 Comment

Short Sales…A Breeding Ground for Fraud?

Short Sales…A Breeding Ground for Fraud?

  I’ll Say it again Caveat Emptor… I do hope NAR’s President Vicki Cox Golder got my email!

By: Carrie Bay 04/23/2010 DSNEWS.COM

With defaults continuing to mount and declining property values still widespread, the industry is seeing an increase in short sales. Such transactions are expected to burgeon even further now that the federal government has implemented its Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) program.

Under HAFA, servicers participating in the administration’s foreclosure prevention effort are required to consider a short sale for all homeowners that don’t qualify for a modification, and incentives are paid out to borrowers, servicers, and lien holders for successful short sales.

With the new policies and still-precarious market conditions, short sales are gaining in popularity among lenders and distressed homeowners alike, but as with any modus operandi that rapidly picks up steam, this proliferation can open the gate for fraudulent activity.

Experts say one area of the short sale process particularly vulnerable to fraud is property valuation. Bank-owned fraud attributed directly to schemes involving short sales and REO inventories has increased by 40 percent over the past year and has more than doubled from two years ago, according to market data from the California-based risk mitigation firm Interthinx.

The administration’s HAFA program allows broker price opinions (BPOs) to be used to determine the value of properties to establish a minimum offer for a short sale. Some industry groups claim the allowance of BPOs is likely to exacerbate the potential for fraud. They say that the real estate agents and brokers who perform BPOs have an inherent bias toward producing a fee for themselves, irrespective of ensuring a fair return for the lien holder or homeowner.

In response to these allegations, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) stressed that BPOs are completed by licensed real estate agents who have a detailed knowledge and understanding of real estate pricing and local market trends. The organization argues that BPOs are widely accepted in the industry because of their established reliability and accuracy, and practitioners providing BPOs must adhere to a rigorous code of ethics and recognize their fiduciary responsibility to their clients.

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has described short-sale fraud schemes as “difficult to detect since the lender agrees to the transaction,” they are moving higher on the agency’s list of types of mortgage fraud to watch, with the number of cases mounting rapidly.

The FBI defines such fraud as: “Any material misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission relied upon by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase, or insure a loan.”

Freddie Mac recently issued a notice to its servicers and real estate practitioners on what the GSE called an emerging fraud trend – short payoff, or short sale, fraud.

Short sale volume at Freddie Mac has grew more than 1,000 percent from 2007 to 2009, and the GSE says this upward trend in volume leaves the market ripe for incidences of short payoff fraud.

According to a member of Freddie Mac’s Fraud Investigation Unit, any misrepresentation related to the buyer, a subsequent transaction at a higher prices, or the seller’s hardship reason to qualify for a short sale constitutes fraud.

The GSE outlined several red flags that might suggest short sale fraud:

  • Sudden borrower default, with no prior delinquency history, and the borrower cannot adequately explain the sudden default.
  • The borrower is current on all other obligations.
  • The borrower’s financial information indicates conflicting spending, saving, and credit patterns that do not fit a delinquency profile.
  • The buyer of the property is an entity.
  • The purchase contract has an option clause to resell the property.

Treasury officials say they have already incorporated safeguards against fraud into HAFA. To participate in the program, borrowers and the licensed real estate agent who lists the property are required to sign a Short Sale Agreement (SSA) and sales contract attesting that the transaction is being conducted at arm’s length, meaning the property is not being sold to a relative.

In addition, buyers must agree not to resell, or “flip,” the home within 90 days of the closing date, and the lender/servicer must have an independent property valuation in hand that meets their pre-set net return requirement before agreeing to the short sale. Treasury officials say servicers should terminate the short sale agreement if any evidence of falsification or misrepresentation is discovered.

Related Stories:

AGENTS BEWARE! HERE COME THE HAFA VENDORS aka LPS AFTER YOUR COMMISSION

National foreclosure auctions go online via LPS: “CAVEAT EMPTOR”

Short Sale Supervisor Talks to a Real Estate Agent – Recorded Conversation

Posted in concealment, conspiracy, corruption, dinsfla, foreclosure fraud, short sale0 Comments


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

Archives