STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Archive | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) released today the “Truth in Lending Act” (TILA) handbook

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) released today the “Truth in Lending Act” (TILA) handbook

Consumer Compliance (CC)
Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency
Washington, DC 20219

Comptroller’s Handbook CC-TILA

Truth in Lending Act

December 2014

Introduction
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) Comptroller’s Handbook booklet,
“Truth in Lending Act,” is prepared for use by OCC examiners in connection with their
examination and supervision of national banks and federal savings associations (collectively,
banks).1 Each bank is different and may present specific issues. Accordingly, examiners
should apply the guidance in this booklet consistent with each bank’s individual
circumstances.

The booklet provides background information and optional expanded examination
procedures for the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z, which implements TILA.
Examiners decide which of these procedures are necessary, if any, after completing a
compliance core assessment as outlined in the “Community Bank Supervision,” “Large Bank
Supervision,” and “Federal Branches and Agencies Supervision” booklets of the
Comptroller’s Handbook. Complaint information received by the Office of the Ombudsman
and the Customer Assistance Group may also be useful in completing the assessment.
Background and Summary
TILA (15 USC 1601 et seq.) was enacted on May 29, 1968, as title I of the Consumer Credit
Protection Act (Pub. L. No. 90-321). TILA, implemented by Regulation Z (12 CFR 1026),
became effective on July 1, 1969.

TILA was first amended in 1970 to prohibit unsolicited credit cards. Additional major
amendments to TILA and Regulation Z were made by the Fair Credit Billing Act of 1974,
the Consumer Leasing Act of 1976, the Truth in Lending Simplification and Reform Act of
1980, the Fair Credit and Charge Card Disclosure Act of 1988, and the Home Equity Loan
Consumer Protection Act of 1988.

Regulation Z also was amended to implement section 1204 of the Competitive Equality
Banking Act of 1987 and, in 1988, to include adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) loan
disclosure requirements. All consumer leasing provisions were deleted from Regulation Z in
1981 and transferred to Regulation M (12 CFR 1013).

The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA) also amended TILA. The
law imposed new disclosure requirements and substantive limitations on certain closed-end
mortgage loans bearing rates or fees above a certain percentage or amount. The law also
included new disclosure requirements to assist consumers in comparing the costs and other
material considerations involved in a reverse mortgage transaction and authorized the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) to prohibit specific acts and practices in
connection with mortgage transactions.

The TILA amendments of 1995 dealt primarily with tolerances for real estate secured credit.
Regulation Z was amended on September 14, 1996, to incorporate changes to TILA.
Specifically, the revisions limit lenders’ liability for disclosure errors in real estate secured
loans consummated after September 30, 1995. The Economic Growth and Regulatory
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 further amended TILA. The amendments were made to
simplify and improve disclosures related to credit transactions.

The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act), 15 USC 7001
et seq., was enacted in 2000 and did not require implementing regulations. On
November 9, 2007, amendments to Regulation Z and the official commentary were issued to
simplify the regulation and provide guidance on the electronic delivery of disclosures
consistent with the E-Sign Act.

In July 2008, Regulation Z was amended to protect consumers in the mortgage market from
unfair, abusive, or deceptive lending and servicing practices. Specifically, the change applied
protections to a newly defined category of “higher-priced mortgage loans” that includes
virtually all closed-end subprime loans secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling. The
revisions also applied new protections to mortgage loans secured by a dwelling regardless of
loan price and required the delivery of early disclosures for more types of transactions. The
revisions also banned several advertising practices deemed deceptive or misleading.
The Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2008 (MDIA) broadened and added to the
requirements of the FRB’s July 2008 final rule by requiring early truth-in-lending disclosures
for more types of transactions and by adding a waiting period between the time when
disclosures are given and consummation of the transaction. In 2009, Regulation Z was
amended to address those provisions. The MDIA also requires disclosure of payment
examples if the loan’s interest rate or payments can change, as well as disclosure of a
statement that there is no guarantee the consumer will be able to refinance in the future. In
2010, Regulation Z was amended to address these provisions, which became effective on
January 30, 2011.

In December 2008, the FRB adopted two final rules pertaining to open-end (not homesecured)
credit. The first rule involved Regulation Z revisions and made comprehensive
changes applicable to several disclosures required for applications and solicitations, new
accounts, periodic statements, change in terms notifications, and advertisements. The second
was a rule published under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act and issued jointly with
the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS)2 and the National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA). It sought to protect consumers from unfair acts or practices with respect to
consumer credit card accounts. Before these rules became effective, however, the Credit
Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (Credit CARD Act) amended
TILA and established a number of new requirements for open-end consumer credit plans.

Several provisions of the Credit CARD Act are similar to provisions in the FRB’s December
2008 TILA revisions and the joint FTC Act rule, but other portions of the Credit CARD Act
address practices or mandate disclosures that were not addressed in these rules. In light of the
Credit CARD Act, the FRB, the NCUA, and the OTS withdrew the substantive requirements
of the joint FTC Act rule. On July 1, 2010, creditors were required to comply with the
provisions of the FRB’s rule that were not affected by the Credit CARD Act.

The Credit CARD Act provisions became effective in three stages. The provisions effective
first, on August 20, 2009, required creditors to increase the amount of notice consumers
receive before the rate on a credit card account is increased or a significant change is made to
the account’s terms. These amendments also allowed consumers to reject such increases and
changes by informing the creditor before the increase or change goes into effect. The
provisions effective next, on February 22, 2010, involved rules regarding interest rate
increases, over-the-limit transactions, and student cards. Finally, the provisions effective last,
on August 22, 2010, addressed the reasonableness and proportionality of penalty fees and
charges and reevaluation of rate increases.

In 2009, Regulation Z was amended following the passage of the Higher Education
Opportunity Act by adding disclosure and timing requirements that apply to lenders making
private education loans.

In 2009, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act amended TILA to establish a new
requirement for notifying consumers of the sale or transfer of their mortgage loans. The
purchaser or assignee that acquires the loan must provide the required disclosures no later
than 30 days after the date on which it acquired the loan.

In 2010, the FRB further amended Regulation Z to prohibit payment to a loan originator that
is based on the terms or conditions of the loan, other than the amount of credit extended. The
amendment applies to mortgage brokers and the companies that employ them, as well as to
mortgage loan officers employed by depository institutions and other lenders. In addition, the
amendment prohibits a loan originator from directing or “steering” a consumer to a loan that
is not in the consumer’s interest, to increase the loan originator’s compensation.

Dodd–Frank amended TILA to include several provisions that protect the integrity of the
appraisal process when a consumer’s home is securing the loan. The statute also requires that
appraisers receive customary and reasonable payments for their services. The appraiser and
loan originator compensation requirements had a mandatory compliance date of April 6,
2011.

Dodd–Frank granted rulemaking authority under TILA to the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB). Title XIV of Dodd–Frank included a number of amendments to TILA, and
in 2013, the CFPB issued rules to implement them. Prohibitions on mandatory arbitration and
waivers of consumer rights, as well as requirements that lengthen the time creditors must
maintain an escrow account for higher-priced mortgage loans, were generally effective
June 1, 2013. The remaining amendments to Regulation Z were effective in January 2014.3
These amendments include ability-to-repay requirements for mortgage loans, appraisal
requirements for higher-priced mortgage loans, and a revised and expanded test for high-cost
mortgages, as well as additional restrictions on those loans, expanded requirements for
servicers of mortgage loans, refined loan originator compensation rules and loan origination
qualification standards, and a prohibition on financing credit insurance for mortgage loans.

The amendments also established new record retention requirements for certain provisions of
TILA.

In 2013, the CFPB issued a final rule revising the general limitation on the total amount of
account fees that a credit card issuer may require a consumer to pay. Effective March 28,
2013, the limit is 25 percent of the credit limit in effect when the account is opened. The
limitation applies only during the first year after account opening.

In 2013, the CFPB also issued a final rule to remove the requirement that card issuers
consider the consumer’s independent ability to pay for applicants who are 21 or older and to
permit issuers to consider income and assets to which such consumers have a reasonable
expectation of access. This change was effective May 3, 2013, with a mandatory compliance
date of November 4, 2013.

[...]

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION BOARD vs U.S. BANK N A, and BANK OF AMERICA, N A |  NCUA Sues Trustees of 99 Mortgage-Backed Securities

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION BOARD vs U.S. BANK N A, and BANK OF AMERICA, N A | NCUA Sues Trustees of 99 Mortgage-Backed Securities

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION BOARD,
as Liquidating Agent of U.S. Central Federal
Credit Union, Western Corporate Federal Credit
Union, Members United Corporate Federal
Credit Union, Southwest Corporate Federal
Credit Union, and Constitution Corporate
Federal Credit Union,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, and
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT

The National Credit Union Administration Board (“NCUA Board”), acting in its capacity as liquidating agent for each of U.S. Central Federal Credit Union (“U.S. Central”), Western Corporate Federal Credit Union (“WesCorp”), Members United Corporate Federal Credit Union (“Members United”), Southwest Corporate Federal Credit Union (“Southwest”), and Constitution Corporate Federal Credit Union (“Constitution”), (collectively, the “CCUs” and the NCUA Board as liquidating agent for each, the “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, for this action against U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) and Bank of America, National Association (“Bank of America,” and collectively with U.S. Bank, “Defendants”), alleges as follows:

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants for violating the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the “TIA”), 15 U.S.C. § 77aaa et seq., and, regarding the New York trusts, for violating New York Real Property Law § 124 et seq. (the “Streit Act”) to recover the damages they have suffered because of Defendants’ violations of their statutory and contractual obligations.
2. This action arises out of Defendants’ roles as trustees for 99 trusts identified on Exhibit A that issued residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”).1 Each trust consists of hundreds of individual residential mortgage loans that were pooled together and securitized for sale to investors. Investors purchased certificates issued by the RMBS trust that entitled the investors (or “certificateholders”) to fixed principal and interest payments from the income stream generated as borrowers made monthly payments on the mortgage loans in the trusts.
3. The CCUs purchased the certificates in the trusts identified on Exhibit A at an original face value of approximately $5.8 billion.
4. The certificates’ value was dependent on the quality and performance of the mortgage loans in the trusts and swift correction of any problems with the loans. But, because of the structure of the securitization, certificateholders do not have access to the mortgage loan files or the power to remedy or replace any defective loans. Instead, certificateholders must rely on the trustees to protect their interests.
5. Defendants, as the trustees for the trusts, had contractual and statutory duties to address and correct problems with the mortgage loans and to protect the trusts’ and the certificateholders’ interests. The trustee for each trust has three primary duties. First, the trustee must take possession and acknowledge receipt of the mortgage files, review the documents in the mortgage files, identify any mortgage files that lack a complete chain of title or that have missing documents, and then certify that the mortgage files are complete and accurate. If the trustee identifies defects in the mortgage files, it must notify the appropriate parties and take steps to enforce the responsible party’s obligation to cure, substitute, or repurchase any mortgage loans with defective mortgage files.
6. Second, if the trustee discovers a breach of the representations and warranties concerning the mortgage loans, including but not limited to representations concerning the characteristics of the mortgage borrowers, the collateral for the mortgage loans, and assurances that the mortgage loans were originated in accordance with applicable underwriting criteria, the trustee must notify the appropriate parties and take steps to enforce the responsible party’s obligation to cure, substitute, or repurchase the defective mortgage loans. If the trustee fails to exercise this duty, then the trusts and the certificateholders will suffer losses properly borne by the party responsible for the defective loans.
7. Third, the trustee must act to protect the interests of the trust and the certificateholders when it becomes aware of defaults concerning the trust. Thus, when the trustee discovers a default, or is notified by other parties, such as servicers, of defaults like breaches of representations and warranties with respect to the underlying mortgage loans, the trustee must act prudently to investigate those defaults, notify certificateholders of the defaults, and take appropriate action to address the defaults.
8. Here, Defendants even failed to perform the threshold duties of taking full possession of the original notes and mortgages and properly reviewing the mortgage loan files for irregularities. If they had fulfilled their obligations, a significant percentage of the mortgage loans in the trusts would have been repurchased or substituted.
9. Moreover, an overwhelming number of events alerted Defendants to the fact that the trusts suffered from numerous problems, yet they did nothing. First, the trusts suffered identifies defects in the mortgage files, it must notify the appropriate parties and take steps to enforce the responsible party’s obligation to cure, substitute, or repurchase any mortgage loans with defective mortgage files.
6. Second, if the trustee discovers a breach of the representations and warranties concerning the mortgage loans, including but not limited to representations concerning the characteristics of the mortgage borrowers, the collateral for the mortgage loans, and assurances that the mortgage loans were originated in accordance with applicable underwriting criteria, the trustee must notify the appropriate parties and take steps to enforce the responsible party’s obligation to cure, substitute, or repurchase the defective mortgage loans. If the trustee fails to exercise this duty, then the trusts and the certificateholders will suffer losses properly borne by the party responsible for the defective loans.
7. Third, the trustee must act to protect the interests of the trust and the certificateholders when it becomes aware of defaults concerning the trust. Thus, when the trustee discovers a default, or is notified by other parties, such as servicers, of defaults like breaches of representations and warranties with respect to the underlying mortgage loans, the trustee must act prudently to investigate those defaults, notify certificateholders of the defaults, and take appropriate action to address the defaults.
8. Here, Defendants even failed to perform the threshold duties of taking full possession of the original notes and mortgages and properly reviewing the mortgage loan files for irregularities. If they had fulfilled their obligations, a significant percentage of the mortgage loans in the trusts would have been repurchased or substituted.
9. Moreover, an overwhelming number of events alerted Defendants to the fact that the trusts suffered from numerous problems, yet they did nothing. First, the trusts suffered enormous losses due to the high number of mortgage defaults, delinquencies, and foreclosures caused by defective loan origination and underwriting. Second, highly publicized government investigations and enforcement actions, public and private litigation, and media reports highlighted the mortgage originators’ systematic abandonment and disregard of underwriting guidelines and the deal sponsors’ poor securitization standards in the years leading up to the financial crisis. As summarized below, these actions and reports detail the incredible volume of defective loans and notorious activities of the originators, sponsors, and other players in the RMBS industry. Yet Defendants failed to take steps to preserve their rights or hold the responsible parties accountable for the repurchase or substitution of defective mortgage loans in direct contravention of their obligations as trustees.
10. Finally, Defendants failed to address servicer and/or master servicer defaults and events of default. Defendants knew that the master servicers and servicers were ignoring their duty to notify other parties, including Defendants as trustees, upon the master servicers’ and servicers’ discovery of breaches of the mortgage loan representations and warranties. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of these ongoing defaults and events of default, Defendants failed to act prudently to protect the interests of the trusts and the certificateholders.
11. Defendants’ failures resulted in the trusts and certificateholders suffering losses rightfully borne by other parties. Had Defendants adequately performed their contractual and statutory obligations, breaching loans would have been removed from the loan pools underlying the certificates and returned to the responsible party. Defendants’ improper conduct directly caused losses to certificateholders like the Plaintiffs.
12. Even after ample evidence came to light that the trusts were riddled with defective loans, Defendants shut their eyes to such problems and failed to take the steps necessary to protect the trusts and certificateholders. Defendants failed to act in part because protecting the best interests of the trusts and the certificateholders would have conflicted with Defendants’ interests. As participants in many roles in the securitization process, Defendants were economically intertwined with the parties they were supposed to police.
13. Because of the widespread misconduct in the securitization process, Defendants had incentives to ignore other parties’ misconduct in order to avoid drawing attention to their own misconduct. Thus, Defendants failed and unreasonably refused to take action to protect the trusts and certificateholders against responsible party breaches.
14. Indeed, it is precisely this type of trustee complicity and inaction that led Congress to enact the TIA to “meet the problems and eliminate the practices” that plagued Depression-era trustee arrangements and provide investors with a remedy for trustees that utterly neglect their obligations. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 77bbb(b) (explaining purposes of the TIA in light of problems identified in 15 U.S.C. § 77bbb(a)).
15. To that end, several sections of the TIA impose duties on trustees. First, TIA Section 315(a) provides that, prior to default (as that term is defined in the governing documents), the trustee is liable for any duties specifically set out in the governing documents. 15 U.S.C. § 77ooo(a)(1). Second, TIA Section 315(b) provides that the trustee must give holders of covered securities “notice of all defaults known to the trustee, within ninety days after the occurrence thereof.” 15 U.S.C. § 77ooo(b). Third, Section 315(c) requires a trustee to act prudently in the event of a default (as that term is defined in the governing documents). 15 U.S.C. § 77ooo(c). Finally, the TIA states that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of the indenture to be qualified, the right of any holder of any indenture security to receive payment of the principal of and interest on such indenture security, on or after the respective due dates expressed in such indenture security . . . shall not be impaired or affected without the consent of such holder.” 15 U.S.C. § 77ppp(b).
16. In addition, Section 124 of the Streit Act imposes a duty upon the trustee to discharge its duties under the applicable indenture with due care to ensure the orderly administration of the trust and to protect the trust beneficiaries’ rights. N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 124. Like the TIA, following an event of default, the Streit Act provides that the trustee must exercise the same degree of skill and care in the performance of its duties as would a prudent person under the same circumstances. N.Y. Real Prop. Law § 126(1).
17. Finally, upon awareness of the various failures discussed in this complaint, the governing agreements require Defendants to exercise their rights and powers using the same degree of care and skill as a prudent person would exercise or use under the circumstances in the conduct of such person’s own affairs.
18. Defendants’ failure to perform their duties under the TIA, the Streit Act, and the governing agreements has caused Plaintiffs to suffer enormous damages.

[...]

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

U.S. Bank, Bank of America sued over mortgage securities

U.S. Bank, Bank of America sued over mortgage securities

Of course!


REUTERS-

The U.S. credit union regulator said on Wednesday it filed a lawsuit against U.S. Bank and Bank of America over mortgage securities sold in the years leading up to the financial crisis.

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) said the banks broke state and federal laws by failing their duties as trustees for 99 residential mortgage-backed securities trusts.

The banks sold $5.8 billion in securities to five corporate credit unions that later failed after the products lost value. The regulator accused U.S. Bank and Bank of America of knowing about defects in the mortgage loans but not providing required notices to the investors.

[REUTERS]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Deutsche Bank vs Beauvais | FL 3rdDCA – Because the Current Action was based upon the very same accelerated debt as the Initial Action, and because that Current Action was filed after the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations, it was barred

Deutsche Bank vs Beauvais | FL 3rdDCA – Because the Current Action was based upon the very same accelerated debt as the Initial Action, and because that Current Action was filed after the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations, it was barred

H/T Dave Krieger

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida

Opinion filed December 17, 2014.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D14-575
Lower Tribunal No. 12-49315
________________

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, etc.,
Appellant,

vs.

Harry Beauvais, et al.,
Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez,
Judge.

K & L Gates LLP, William P. McCaughan, Steven R. Weinstein and
Stephanie N. Moot, for appellant.

Sigfried, Rivera, Hyman, De La Torre, Mass & Sobel, Steven M. Siegfried
and Nicholas Sigfried; The Wallen Law Firm and Todd L. Wallen, for appellees.
Before SHEPHERD, C.J., and EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
EMAS, J.

I. INTRODUCTION
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Indenture Trustee for
American Home Mortgage Investment Trust 2006-2 (“Deutsche Bank”), appeals
from the trial court’s order of final summary judgment in favor of Aqua Master
Association, Inc. (“the Association”). Deutsche Bank asserts the trial court erred
in concluding that the expiration of the statute of limitations barred the cause of
action and rendered the lien of mortgage on the property null and void. The
following issue is squarely raised in this case:

Where a lender files a foreclosure action upon a borrower’s default,
and expressly exercises its contractual right to accelerate all payments,
does an involuntary dismissal of that action without prejudice in and
of itself negate, invalidate or otherwise “decelerate” the lender’s
acceleration of the payments, thereby permitting a new cause of action
to be filed based upon a new and subsequent default?

We answer that question in the negative, and hold that the involuntary
dismissal without prejudice of the foreclosure action did not by itself negate,
invalidate or otherwise decelerate the lender’s acceleration of the debt in the initial
action. The lender’s acceleration of the debt triggered the commencement of the
statute of limitations, and because the installment nature of the loan payments was
never reinstated following the acceleration, there were no “new” payments due and
thus there could be no “new” default following the dismissal without prejudice of
the initial action. The filing of the subsequent action, after expiration of the statute
of limitations, was therefore barred. We reverse, however, that portion of the order
which canceled the note and mortgage and quieted title in favor of the Association.

[...]

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

View all servicers’ National Mortgage Settlement scorecards and corrective action plans

View all servicers’ National Mortgage Settlement scorecards and corrective action plans

Executive Summary

The following summary is an overview of the fourth set of compliance reports that I have filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the Court) as Monitor of the National Mortgage Settlement. The summary includes:

  • An overview of the process through which my colleagues and I have reviewed the servicers’ performance on the Settlement’s servicing reforms
  • An update on the servicers’ plans to correct issues outlined in this and prior reports
  • Summaries of each servicer’s compliance for the first and second calendar quarters of 2014, including compliance with the four new additional metrics I issued in October 2013
  • An analysis of complaints received from distressed borrowers and the professionals who represent them

I reported a total of three potential violations in the first two quarters of this year, the relevant test periods for this report. In the first quarter of 2014, Bank of America failed Metrics 7 and 19 and Citi failed Metric 20. There were no reported fails in the second quarter of 2014.

In May of 2014, I reported that Green Tree failed eight metrics in the fourth quarter of 2013 and had much work to do. I have since reviewed the corrective action plans Green Tree proposed to address the root causes of these fails and summarized them in this report. Green Tree reported, and I confirmed, that the servicer passed Metrics 10 and 12 in the second quarter of 2014, two of the metrics it previously failed. The six other previously failed metrics will be tested in subsequent test periods.

I filed with the Court an interim report on Ocwen’s progress for the relevant test periods. In May 2014, an Ocwen employee contacted a member of the Monitoring Committee and alleged serious deficiencies in the internal review group (IRG) process, which called into question the IRG’s independence and the integrity of the IRG’s operations. Based on these allegations, I launched an investigation into the claims. After my team and I reviewed numerous documents and interviewed several Ocwen personnel, I concluded that I could not rely on the work of Ocwen’s IRG for the first half of 2014. Therefore, I exercised my authority under the Settlement and tasked McGladrey, an independent accounting firm, to retest Ocwen’s performance on a number of metrics.

Additionally, after reviewing a letter issued by the New York Superintendent of Financial Services, which indicated that the date on certain correspondence from Ocwen to its consumers was incorrect, I directed Ocwen to scope, correct and remediate this letter dating problem. Again, I engaged McGladrey to perform additional work to confirm that Ocwen is complying with the Settlement. McGladrey’s work on both issues is ongoing, and I will report to the Court when it has been completed.

[jasmithmonitoring]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Monitor: Banks Fail Three Tests, Issues Discovered at Ocwen Joseph Smith reports on NMS compliance, Ocwen consumer relief, and Chase RMBS Settlement

Monitor: Banks Fail Three Tests, Issues Discovered at Ocwen Joseph Smith reports on NMS compliance, Ocwen consumer relief, and Chase RMBS Settlement

For immediate release:
December 16, 2014

Contact:
Hannah Harrill
919-508-7821

Monitor: Banks Fail Three Tests, Issues Discovered at Ocwen Joseph Smith reports on NMS compliance, Ocwen consumer relief, and Chase RMBS Settlement

RALEIGH, N.C. – Joseph A. Smith, Jr., Monitor of the National Mortgage Settlement (NMS), the Ocwen National Servicing Settlement, and JP Morgan Chase Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Settlement (Chase RMBS Settlement), today released updates on six mortgage servicers’ compliance with the NMS servicing standards, Ocwen’s self-reported progress toward fulfilling its consumer relief requirement under the Ocwen National Servicing Settlement, and JP Morgan Chase’s progress toward fulfilling the consumer relief requirements of the Chase RMBS Settlement.

NMS Compliance
Smith’s Continued Oversight report is a summary of six compliance reports he filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as part of his duties monitoring the NMS. This summary details the results of his tests to determine compliance by Bank of America, Chase, Citi, Green Tree, Ocwen and Wells Fargo with the NMS servicing rules from Jan. 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

This is the first report with results for Smith’s four additional metrics created to supplement the original 29 NMS metrics. “The new metrics addressed concerns related to issues involving the loan modification process, single points of contact and billing statement accuracy,” said Smith. “I found that all the servicers tested on these new metrics passed them.”

There were three fails of other metrics.

Ocwen Compliance
“In May, an Ocwen employee contacted me through the Monitoring Committee and identified serious deficiencies in Ocwen’s internal review group process,” said Smith. “The Monitoring Committee and I took the claims seriously, and I launched an investigation, during which my team and I reviewed thousands of documents and interviewed nine Ocwen executives and employees. As a result, I retained an independent auditing firm to review and retest the Ocwen internal review group (IRG)’s work. This work is ongoing, and I will report on Ocwen’s performance for the period covered in these reports when it is complete. I appreciate this whistle-blower’s integrity.

“I have since further strengthened my review process of all servicers’ IRGs. Among other enhancements, I added interviews with multiple employees at various levels, additional reviews at various steps in the testing process, and the establishment of an Ethics Hotline so that any concerned IRG employee can reach my team quickly and anonymously if he or she has any concerns.

“The Monitoring Committee has been active and constructive in the monitoring process since the beginning of the NMS and I consulted with it during the course of my investigation into Ocwen’s practices.” The Monitoring Committee is composed of representatives from 15 states, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Smith also engaged Ocwen about the New York State Superintendent of Financial Services’ concerns about incorrect dates on some of Ocwen’s correspondence with customers, as this letter dating issue impacts the NMS.

“Many NMS standards and metrics have timeline requirements, so it was important to me to investigate Ocwen’s work in this area,” said Smith. “Ocwen has agreed to five remedial actions to date, which I include in this report. I also charged the same independent firm with determining the scope of the issue, assessing the reliability of Ocwen’s systems, and retesting relevant metrics.

“Ocwen has cooperated throughout the IRG and letter dating investigations and the ongoing work.”

Ocwen Consumer Relief under the Ocwen National Servicing Settlement
Smith also released an update on Ocwen’s $2 billion in first lien principal reduction obligation. Ocwen self-reported that it has completed $1.5 billion to borrowers through September 30, 2014. This is the first update on Ocwen’s consumer relief progress, and the Monitor has not yet credited these numbers. The Ocwen consumer relief data can be found here.

Chase RMBS Consumer Relief
In addition, Smith released a report on Chase’s progress toward providing $4 billion in consumer relief as part of the Chase RMBS Settlement. Chase’s review group asserted to the Monitor that it provided almost $1.4 billion in credited relief in the third quarter of 2014 and more than $2.2 billion in credited relief to date. Chase reports that it has provided $13.8 billion dollars in gross modifications and lending to 111,924 borrowers as of September 30, 2014. The Monitor has credited more than $868 million and is reviewing the additional work Chase and its internal review group (HRG) asserted. He will report the results of his testing in his report to the public next quarter.

About the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight More information about the National Mortgage Settlement and the Ocwen National Servicing Settlement is available at www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com. Further information about Joseph Smith and the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight is available at www.mortgageoversight.com.

About the Chase RMBS Settlement
More information about the Chase RMBS Settlement is available at https://www.jasmithmonitoring.com/chase. Further information about Joseph A. Smith, Jr. is available a https://www.jasmithmonitoring.com.

REPORT:

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

OT: UCF Student Planning Conference Fund

OT: UCF Student Planning Conference Fund

Please help support these UCF students reach their goal.

Via GoFundMe

We are the University of Central Florida’s Emerging Urban Knights Planning Association.  We are an organization created to help bridge the gap between planning professionals and students.  Our organization helps to create networks and relationships between professionals and students and to educate them on professionalism and technical skills required in the planning field. Our organization also has members from economic development, social and environmental planning, health, public administration and emergency management. .

We started this account to help fund our way to the 2015 National Planning Conference held by the American Planning Association in Seattle Washington.  We are located in Orlando, FL, so for us to travel to a conference so far away is difficult. We are asking for donations in order for us to help fund students who would not have the chance to attend and learn about all the great and exciting things planners are doing around the world. Please consider donating to our fund, so that we may be able to represent our Central Florida community at a national conference.

Thank you for your support,

Emerging Urban Knights Planning Association

www.urbanknightsucf.wordpress. com
F:  https://www.facebook.com/ucf. urbanknights
T: Twitter.com/urbanucf

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Mortgage Monitor Launches Investigation of Ocwen

Mortgage Monitor Launches Investigation of Ocwen

They will never get their shit in order no matter how much fraud they find and no matter how many settlements are agreed to.


National Mortgage News-

Ocwen Financial came under fire Tuesday from Joseph A. Smith, the monitor of the national mortgage settlement, after concerns of conflicts of interest were raised by an unnamed whistleblower.

Smith said in a report that he could not rely on Ocwen’s internal review process and had hired independent accounting firm McGladrey to test Ocwen’s work to ensure compliance with the national mortgage settlement.

The whistleblower alleged that an internal review group created to test Ocwen’s compliance with mortgage servicing standards was not independent. The whistleblower said the group was not properly selecting random samplings of loan files to be tested, Smith said.

[NATIONAL MORTGAGE NEWS]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Foley says Fidelity was ‘really dumb’ to let LPS get away

Foley says Fidelity was ‘really dumb’ to let LPS get away

Something tells me he obviously knew what was about to go on with robo-signing! So let the storm calm down and reacquire it…simple.


Jacksonville-

Nearly a year after reacquiring Lender Processing Services Inc., Fidelity National Financial Inc. Chairman Bill Foley wonders why the company ever got rid of LPS in the first place.

“Why we did that and how we let LPS get away from FNF, because that’s why we moved here to start with, we still are kind of mystified by that,” Foley said at an “Investor Day” presentation at the company’s Jacksonville headquarters Dec. 4.

Fidelity, which is mainly a title insurance company, bought the company that became LPS from Alltel Corp. in 2003 and then moved its headquarters from California to LPS’ offices in Jacksonville.

[JACKSONVILLE]

image: Jacksonville

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Elizabeth Warren was right: The links between Citigroup and government run deep

Elizabeth Warren was right: The links between Citigroup and government run deep

WaPO-

Washington’s version of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon is much less exciting than everybody else’s. It’s called One Degree of Citigroup, and it’s not much of a game since so many economic policymakers has worked at the banking behemoth. It’s exactly the point Elizabeth Warren made in a big speech last week, expressing anger with Citigroup and other big banks were able to weaken a key Wall Street regulation in the new government spending bill.

[WASHINGTON POST]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

J.P. Morgan Says It’s More Than Half Done With Mortgage-Settlement Consumer Relief

J.P. Morgan Says It’s More Than Half Done With Mortgage-Settlement Consumer Relief

WSJ-

J.P. Morgan Chase JPM & Co. has told an independent monitor it has provided more than half of the $4 billon in consumer aid mandated under its 2013 mortgage-securities settlement with the Justice Department.

The bank calculates it should receive about $2.25 billion of credit for such actions as cutting mortgage debts for struggling homeowners and lending to low-income home buyers, according to a report released Tuesday by the independent monitor of the bank’s $13 billion settlement.

Joseph Smith, the former North Carolina bank regulator hired to make sure J.P. Morgan follows the consumer-relief terms of the settlement, still needs to validate J.P. Morgan’s calculations before the bank can get credit.

[WALL STREET JOURNAL]

image: Diane Bondare AP

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Billionaire investors at OneWest Bank rec’d $1 billion from FDIC. Expected to receive $1.4 billion more

Billionaire investors at OneWest Bank rec’d $1 billion from FDIC. Expected to receive $1.4 billion more

via: CalReInvest

Fact Sheet: OneWest Bank Expected to Receive Over $2.4 billion from the FDIC

CALIFORNIA
REINVESTMENT
COALITION

Background: When the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) sold IndyMac in 2009 and La Jolla Bank in 2010, it agreed to share losses from bad loans with the billionaire investors who bought the two banks. Under the shared loss agreements, once a certain threshold of loans goes bad, the FDIC agrees to share in the costs of future losses. In July of 2014, OneWest Bank, which has the IndyMac and La Jolla shared loss agreements, announced plans to merge with CIT Group, creating a Systemically Important Financial Institution (SIFI). While executives from the two banks told community leaders they would answer any questions about the proposed merger, they later refused to answer questions about the shared loss agreements. The California Reinvestment Coalition (CRC), a non-profit coalition of over 300 member organizations, was forced to submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FDIC to obtain the information.

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Battisti vs Beaver County Tax Claim Bureau | Pa. court overturns house’s tax sale over $6.30 bill

Battisti vs Beaver County Tax Claim Bureau | Pa. court overturns house’s tax sale over $6.30 bill

H/T CL&P Blog-

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Consolidated Return of The Tax
Claim Bureau of the County of Beaver
From The August 16, 2011 Upset Sale
For Delinquent Taxes

Eileen Battisti

v.

Beaver County Tax Claim Bureau and
S.P. Lewis

Appeal of: Eileen Battisti
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge
HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge
OPINION
BY JUDGE LEAVITT FILED

December 11, 2014

EXCERPT:

Eileen Battisti (Taxpayer) appeals an order of the Beaver County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) that refused to set aside the sale of her home, which had a market value of approximately $250,000, in order to satisfy a 2009 tax delinquency of $234.72. It is not disputed that in September of 2010 Taxpayer paid $3,990.03, which was the total amount set forth in the Beaver County Tax Claim Bureau’s notice of what she needed to pay to satisfy her 2009 real estate taxes. Likewise, it is not disputed that the Tax Claim Bureau did not advise her that it had applied some of the $3,990.03 payment to an outstanding 2008 shortfall, thereby creating a shortfall on the 2009 tax in the amount of $234.72. In this circumstance, Taxpayer contends that it was the Tax Claim Bureau’s duty under the Real Estate Tax Sale Law1 to offer Taxpayer an installment payment plan on the outstanding 2009 tax amount. We agree and reverse.

[...]

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Judge lets couple back in home while foreclosure case continues

Judge lets couple back in home while foreclosure case continues

Home not secured; refrigerator, stove stolen

 

Jacksonville-

A little more than a month after a lender forced an elderly couple out of their home, a judge ruled the two are allowed back in while a foreclosure case is ongoing.

Jimmie Thompson and Carrie Bell Smith bought their home on West 35th Street in 1995. They paid off the mortgage and wanted to do work on the home.

They got a reverse mortgage — a loan that the couple wouldn’t have to pay back until they died, moved away from the home or violated the contract. After they died, the lender could access the home’s value.

[JACKSONVILLE]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Remarks by Senator Warren on Citigroup and its bailout provision

Remarks by Senator Warren on Citigroup and its bailout provision

http://warren.senate.gov

Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke on the floor of the Senate on Dec. 12, 2014 about the provision that Citigroup added to the omnibus budget package.

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Elizabeth Warren: Bank giveaway a budget deal breaker

Elizabeth Warren: Bank giveaway a budget deal breaker

Senator Elizabeth Warren talks with Rachel Maddow about her objections to the surprise addition of a measure in the must-pass spending bill that puts taxpayers back on the hook for risky trading by the same financial giants behind the 2008 crash.

 

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Nikooie v. JP Morgan |FL 3rd DCA | “…. when the trial court discovers that the doc taxes have not been paid, the trial court must either dismiss the action without prejudice, or, upon motion, may abate the action to enable the party to purchase and affix the doc stamps.”

Nikooie v. JP Morgan |FL 3rd DCA | “…. when the trial court discovers that the doc taxes have not been paid, the trial court must either dismiss the action without prejudice, or, upon motion, may abate the action to enable the party to purchase and affix the doc stamps.”

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida

Opinion filed December 10, 2014.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________

No. 3D10 – 3090
Lower Tribunal Nos. 07- 1168, 08-12927
________________

Akbar Nikooie,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

vs.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., General Mortgage Associates, Inc.,
and Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund, Inc.,
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

 EXCERPT:

12
Additionally, there is no evidence in the existing record to demonstrate that

Nikooie paid documentary stamp and intangible taxes on the last $189,300 of the

claimed indebtedness. Section 201.08(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2007), specifies that

a mortgage or other instrument “shall not be enforceable in any court of this state

as to any such advance unless and until the tax due thereon upon each advance that

may have been made thereunder has been paid.” This is a statutory limitation on

enforceability applicable to a mortgage lender in a Florida court whether or not the

parties raise it (here, they did not). No payment of tax, no enforcement; thus, on

the present record, Nikooie is only entitled to enforce mortgage liens totaling

$1,160,000 plus interest.10

. . .

11 Solis v. Lacayo,86 So. 3d 1147 , 1148 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“In an action to
enforce a promissory note, when the trial court discovers that the documentary
taxes have not been paid, the trial court must either dismiss the action without
prejudice, or, upon motion, may abate the action to enable the party to purchase
and affix the documentary stamps.”).

. . .

13
1991). The First District reached the same conclusion in Silber v. Cn’R Industries

of Jacksonville, Inc.,

526 So. 2d 974

(Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

The Fifth District has addressed the particular question presented in the

instant case, holding that “any court,” including an appellate court, should refuse

enforcement of a promissory note under section 201.08(1) if there is no evidence

that the required documentary stamp taxes have been paid:

To this end, section 201.08(1) constitutes an injunction prohibiting
courts from enforcing rights created by instruments upon which
required taxes have not been paid. . . .
….
Unlike an affirmative defense, section 201.08 was not enacted
for the protection of any particular class of defendants, nor was it
enacted to preserve the integrity of the judicial proceedings.
Therefore, a defendant’s failure to plead a plaintiff’s noncompliance
with section 201.08 does not waive the state’s right to receive
payment of the requisite taxes nor does such noncompliance excuse
the court from complying with the prohibition contained in the statute.

[...]

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Amador v. U.S. Bank | FL 4DCA | Because Bank failed to establish when it became the owner of the note, the trial court erred in finding Bank had standing to initiate the foreclosure action

Amador v. U.S. Bank | FL 4DCA | Because Bank failed to establish when it became the owner of the note, the trial court erred in finding Bank had standing to initiate the foreclosure action

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

SOSA and ALEX AMADOR,
Appellants,

v.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Appellee.
No. 4D13-1657
[December 10, 2014]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Howard H. Harrison, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502008CA035877.

Andrea H. Duenas of the Law Office of A. Duenas, P.A., Lantana, for appellants.
Marc James Ayers of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Birmingham, Alabama, for appellee.
STEVENSON, J.

Alva Sosa and Alex Amador (“Homeowners”) appeal from a final judgment of foreclosure. U.S. Bank National Association (“Bank”) is the appellee. Finding the trial court erred in determining Bank had standing to initiate the foreclosure action, we reverse.

Facts
Bank filed its foreclosure complaint in November 2008. It attached to this complaint a copy of the mortgage but not a copy of the note, as Bank was originally seeking to enforce a lost note. Homeowners answered and raised lack of standing as an affirmative defense. The case proceeded to trial where, through the testimony of Bank’s one witness, the original promissory note was submitted into evidence, and final judgment was entered in favor of Bank.

Analysis
“We review the sufficiency of the evidence to prove standing to bring a foreclosure action de novo.” Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 39 Fla. L. Weekly D2156, D2157 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 14, 2014) (citing Dixon v. Express Equity Lending Grp., LLLP, 125 So. 3d 965 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)). “[T]he plaintiff must prove that it had standing to foreclose when the complaint was filed.” McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Relevant here, “[w]here the plaintiff contends that its standing to foreclose derives from an endorsement of the note, the plaintiff must show that the endorsement occurred prior to the inception of the lawsuit.” Id. at 174. A plaintiff can establish standing through an affidavit of ownership, wherein standing is established “if the body of the affidavit indicates that the plaintiff was the owner of the note and mortgage before suit was filed.” Id. A witness who testifies at trial as to the date a bank became the owner of the note can serve the same purpose as an affidavit of ownership.

At trial, Bank introduced the original note and the allonge to note through a senior litigation analyst with Bank’s servicer. The original note contained an undated special endorsement in favor of Exam Financial Group, LLC, while the allonge to note contained an undated special endorsement in favor of Bank. Because the original note and the allonge to note were filed after Bank filed its foreclosure complaint, and each contained undated special endorsements, Bank had to establish standing through the testimony of the litigation analyst. It failed to do so.

Here, the analyst never stated when Bank became the owner of the note. He gave the date of the first endorsement found on the allonge to note, but he did not discuss the date of the second endorsement found on the allonge. The second endorsement found on the allonge to note was the pertinent one as it was the one which specially endorsed the note to Bank. See McLean, 79 So. 3d at 174 (reversing summary judgment because the bank filed the original note with a special endorsement after it filed its complaint, the special endorsement was not dated and there was no evidence as to when the special endorsement was made). Although the analyst testified that Ocwen (Bank’s servicer) came into possession of the note prior to filing the foreclosure action, such testimony is not dispositive as it is still unclear when Bank, through the placement of the special endorsement, became the owner of the note.

Because Bank failed to establish when it became the owner of the note, the trial court erred in finding Bank had standing to initiate the foreclosure action. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment of foreclosure and remand for entry of an order of involuntary dismissal of the action. See Lacombe, 39 Fla. L. Weekly at D2158 (“We decline to remand the case for presentation of additional evidence because ‘appellate courts do not generally provide parties with an opportunity to retry their case upon a failure of proof.’” (quoting Morton’s of Chicago, Inc. v. Lira, 48 So. 3d 76, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010))).
Reversed and Remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Citigroup Wrote the Wall Street Giveaway Congress Just Snuck Into a Must-Pass Spending Bill

Citigroup Wrote the Wall Street Giveaway Congress Just Snuck Into a Must-Pass Spending Bill

The bill, drafted almost entirely by Citigroup, would allow banks to do more high-risk trading with taxpayer-backed money.


Mother Jones-

A year ago, Mother Jones reported that a House bill that would allow banks like Citigroup to do more high-risk trading with taxpayer-backed money was written almost entirely by Citigroup lobbyists. The bill passed the House in October 2013, but the Senate never voted on it. For months, it was all but dead. Yet on Tuesday night, the Citi-written bill resurfaced. Lawmakers snuck the measure into a massive 11th-hour government funding bill that congressional leaders negotiated in the hopes of averting a government shutdown. President Barack Obama is expected to sign the legislation.

“This is outrageous,” says Marcus Stanley, the financial policy director at the advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform. “This is to benefit big banks, bottom line.”

As I reported last year, the bill eviscerates a section of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform act called the “push-out rule”:

Banks hate the push-out rule… because this provision will forbid them from trading certain derivatives (which are complicated financial instruments with values derived from underlying variables, such as crop prices or interest rates). Under this rule, banks will have to move these risky trades into separate non-bank affiliates that aren’t insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and are less likely to receive government bailouts. The bill would smother the push-out rule in its crib by permitting banks to use government-insured deposits to bet on a wider range of these risky derivatives.

[MOTHER JONES]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Freddie Mac Announces Holiday Eviction Moratorium Between December 17, 2014 and January 2, 2015

Freddie Mac Announces Holiday Eviction Moratorium Between December 17, 2014 and January 2, 2015

Freddie Mac (OTCQB: FMCC) today announced a nationwide suspension of eviction lockouts between December 17, 2014 and January 2, 2015. The moratorium applies to all foreclosed occupied single family homes and 2-4 unit properties that had Freddie Mac owned-or guaranteed mortgages.

Freddie Mac Quote:

Attribute to Chris Bowden, Senior Vice President of REO at Freddie Mac.

“Today’s announcement will bring some holiday relief to borrowers who went through foreclosure and were preparing to move. We strongly urge homeowners with financial challenges to start the New Year by calling their mortgage servicer to explore one of the Freddie Mac workout options that have prevented over one million foreclosures since 2009.”

News Facts:

  • The holiday suspension will apply to eviction lockouts on Freddie Mac-owned REO homes but will not affect other pre- or post-foreclosure activities.
  • Companies managing local evictions for Freddie Mac may continue to file documentation as needed during the suspension period.
  • Freddie Mac has enabled more than one million financially troubled borrowers avoid foreclosure. For more information on Freddie Mac mortgage relief, visit the Mortgage Help Resource Center at freddiemac.com.

Freddie Mac was established by Congress in 1970 to provide liquidity, stability and affordability to the nation’s residential mortgage markets. Freddie Mac supports communities across the nation by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Today Freddie Mac is making home possible for one in four home borrowers and is one of the largest sources of financing for multifamily housing. Additional information is available at FreddieMac.com, Twitter @FreddieMac and Freddie Mac’s blog FreddieMac.com/blog.

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Fannie Mae Announces Eviction Moratorium for the Holidays Between December 17, 2014 and January 2, 2015

Fannie Mae Announces Eviction Moratorium for the Holidays Between December 17, 2014 and January 2, 2015

Keosha Burns
202-752-4058

WASHINGTON, DC – Fannie Mae (FNMA/OTC) announced today that it will suspend evictions of foreclosed single family properties during the holiday season. From December 17, 2014 through January 2, 2015 families living in foreclosed properties will be allowed to remain in the home, although legal and administrative proceedings for evictions may continue during this period.

“As in previous years, we believe it is important to extend the timeline of help for struggling borrowers during the holidays,” said Joy Cianci, Senior Vice President of Credit Portfolio Management for Fannie Mae. “If you are in trouble or facing foreclosure, reach out to Fannie Mae or your servicer today to get help. There are more options than ever before to avoid foreclosure. We want to help struggling borrowers whenever possible.”

Since 2009, Fannie Mae has completed more than 1.6 million loan workout solutions to help distressed families avoid foreclosure. Anyone with a Fannie Mae-owned loan who is having trouble paying their mortgage can contact Fannie Mae at 1-800-7FANNIE for more information. Homeowners can also visit www.knowyouroptions.com for additional resources on how to prevent foreclosure.

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Lawmakers consider barring foreclosures on Sandy homes

Lawmakers consider barring foreclosures on Sandy homes

A state Senate committee endorses the idea of creating a 3-year moratorium protecting Sandy-damaged residences from being foreclosed on.


My Central Jersey-

Homes damaged by Superstorm Sandy couldn’t be foreclosed on for three years if a plan endorsed Monday by a Senate committee becomes law.

The financial breathing room faces more hurdles in Trenton before it could take effect, but the impact would stretch into 2018 if it’s ultimately enacted.

The bill, S2577, was advanced unanimously by the Senate Community and Urban Affairs Committee, though Sen. Jennifer Beck, R-Monmouth, raised questions about including second homes and possibly delaying local redevelopment.

[MY CENTRAL JERSEY]

© 2010-14 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Chip Parker, www.jaxlawcenter.com
Damian Figueroa, South Florida Realtor, Real Estate Agent
Susan Chana Lask, www.appellate-brief.com
Jamie Ranney, www.NantucketLaw.pro

Advertise with Us!

LATEST TOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD CASES OPINIONS
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives