STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Archive | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Prepared Remarks of Melvin L. Watt, Director, FHFA, At the Mortgage Bankers Association Annual Convention

Prepared Remarks of Melvin L. Watt, Director, FHFA, At the Mortgage Bankers Association Annual Convention

10/20/2014

 

Prepared Remarks of Melvin L. Watt

Director, Federal Housing Finance Agency

At the Mortgage Bankers Association Annual Convention

Las Vegas, Nevada?

?October 20, 2014

 

Thank you for having me here this morning.  It’s a pleasure to have my first op?portunity to share the stage with Secretary Castro.  And, of course, I’m always happy to have the opportunity to talk about the important progress we are making at the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to meet our obligations to ensure safety and soundness and liquidity in the housing finance market.  I am very pleased to be speaking to mortgage bankers who play an important role in our housing market.  

As regulator of the Federal Home Loan Banks and as regulator and conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises), we are working on a number of issues at FHFA that relate to our statutory obligations.  We recently requested input and comment on several issues involving the Enterprises, including guarantee fees, eligibility requirements for their private mortgage insurer counterparties, proposed housing goal levels for 2015 through 2017, and a proposed Single Security structure.  We have also requested comment on a Proposed Rule concerning the membership standards for the Federal Home Loan Banks.  

In addition to these issues and proposals, FHFA continues to work on other priorities as well.  We know that access to credit remains tight for many borrowers, and we are also working to address this issue in a responsible and thoughtful manner. Additionally, FHFA continues to evaluate ways to refine and improve the loss mitigation and foreclosure prevention policies at the Enterprises, because we understand that many individuals and families are still facing the possibility of foreclosure and are looking for alternatives to stay in their homes.  I want to assure you that we are hard at work and making good progress on all these issues, several of which I will highlight in my remarks today.  

Let me start by talking about one of FHFA’s key initiatives, revising and clarifying the Representation and Warranty Framework (Framework) under which lenders and the Enterprises operate.  As you know, these representations and warranties provide the necessary assurances that allow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase loans in an efficient and responsible manner without checking each loan individually or being at each closing.  They also provide the Enterprises remedies to address situations where a lender’s obligations to meet the Enterprises’ purchase guidelines have not been fully met.   

Over the last several years, we have worked to refine the Representation and Warranty Framework and to have the Enterprises place increased attention and resources on upfront quality control reviews.  As part of this process, we have listened closely to your concerns about the impact that loan repurchases have had on your businesses, and we understand that addressing these concerns in ways that are mutually satisfactory to you and the Enterprises is critical to ensuring that there is liquidity in the housing finance market and to providing access to credit for borrowers.  

We know that the Representation and Warranty Framework did not provide enough clarity to enable lenders to understand when Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would exercise their remedy to require repurchase of a loan.  And, we know that this issue has contributed to lenders imposing credit overlays that drive up the cost of lending and also restrict lending to borrowers with less than perfect credit scores or with less conventional financial situations. 

To address this problem, FHFA and the Enterprises have worked to revise the Framework to ensure that it provides clear rules of the road that allow lenders to manage their risk and lend throughout the Enterprises’ credit box.  These revisions are consistent with our broader efforts to place more emphasis on upfront quality control reviews and other risk management practices that provide feedback on the quality of loans delivered to the Enterprises earlier in the process.  

The first improvements to the Framework went into effect in January of 2013.  These improvements relieved lenders of representation and warranties obligations related to the underwriting of the borrower, the property or the project for loans that had clean payment histories for 36 months.  In May of this year, FHFA and the Enterprises announced additional refinements to provide greater clarity around this 36-month benchmark.  These changes included: 

• Revising the payment history requirement to allow up to two 30-day delinquencies in the first 36 months after acquisition;  

• Providing loan level confirmations when mortgages meet the 36-month performance benchmark or pass a quality control review; and 

• Eliminating automatic repurchases when a loan’s primary mortgage insurance is rescinded. 

As I committed FHFA to do when I announced these refinements in May, we have continued to engage in an ongoing process to address the issue of life-of-loan exclusions.  Life-of-loan exclusions are designed to protect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from instances of fraud or other significant noncompliance, and, as a result, they allow the Enterprises to require lenders to repurchase loans at any point during the term of the loan.  The current life-of-loan exclusions are open-ended and make it difficult for a lender to predict when, or if, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac will apply one of them.  

So, we have continued to address this issue, and I can report that we have reached an agreement in principle on how to clarify and define the life-of-loan exclusions.  These changes are a significant step forward that will result in a better Representation and Warranty Framework and facilitate market liquidity without compromising the safety and soundness of the Enterprises. 

First, we are more clearly defining the life-of-loan exclusions, so lenders will know what they are and when they apply to loans that have otherwise obtained repurchase relief.  These exclusions fall into six categories: 1) misrepresentations, misstatements and omissions; 2) data inaccuracies; 3) charter compliance issues; 4) first-lien priority and title matters; 5) legal compliance violations; and 6) unacceptable mortgage products.  

Second, for loans that have already earned repurchase relief, we are clarifying that only life-of-loan exclusions can trigger a repurchase under the Framework.  This is a straightforward clarification, but one that we believe will reduce confusion and risks to lenders.   

The Enterprises will provide details about the updated definitions for each life-of-loan exclusion in the coming weeks, but let me spend a minute highlighting some aspects of the refined definitions for the first two categories – misrepresentations and data inaccuracies.    

In defining both of these categories, we are setting a minimum number of loans that must be identified with misrepresentations or data inaccuracies to trigger the life-of-loan exclusion.  This approach allows the Enterprises to act when there is a pattern of misrepresentations or data inaccuracies that warrant an exclusion, but not to revoke repurchase relief they have already granted if they subsequently discover that a lender incorrectly calculated the debt-to-income ratio or loan-to-value ratio on a single loan.  

We are also adding a “significance” requirement to the misrepresentation and data inaccuracy definitions.  In order to require repurchase of a loan under the misrepresentation or data inaccuracy categories, the “significance” test requires the Enterprises to determine – based on their automated underwriting systems – that the loan would have been ineligible for purchase initially if the loan information had been accurately reported.  

Under the revised and modified Framework, the Enterprises will retain their ability to conduct quality control reviews at any time, of course, because this is essential to their risk management practices and is essential to their ongoing safety and soundness.  In addition, the Enterprises will continue to engage in transactions that sell a portion of the credit risk from new mortgage purchases to the private market.  I announced in May that we tripled the credit risk transfer goal for this year, and both Enterprises are currently on track to exceed it.

After FHFA and the Enterprises release the details shortly on these life-of-loan exclusions, there still remains more work to be done on our Representation and Warranty Framework.  On the origination side, FHFA is already focused on developing an independent dispute resolution process.  We are also identifying cure mechanisms and alternative remedies for lower-severity loan defects.  FHFA also continues to make progress on issues concerning servicing representations and warranties, and we have reached an agreement in principle on modifying compensatory fees and foreclosure timelines.  The Enterprises will announce details on these changes in the near future.   

During my tenure as Director of FHFA, we have made substantial progress by working together and I believe we can sustain this progress.  We have started to move mortgage finance back to a responsible state of normalcy – one that encourages responsible lending to creditworthy borrowers while maintaining safety and soundness of the Enterprises.  While there is still more to do, FHFA and the Enterprises have demonstrated the willingness and commitment to develop a better Representation and Warranty Framework for all parties.  

We recognize that you are essential stakeholders in this process.  As lenders, you play a central role in the overall housing market, and the work you do touches borrowers in communities across the country.  You help individuals and families become homeowners.  For many of them, this is the single largest investment they will ever make.  To fulfill both sides of our shared responsibility, I hope our actions provide sufficient certainty to enable your companies to reassess existing credit overlays and more aggressively make responsible loans available to creditworthy borrowers.  This will result in a housing market that is not only better for borrowers, but also better for the Enterprises and lenders and beneficial to our country.  

To increase access for creditworthy but lower-wealth borrowers, FHFA is also working with the Enterprises to develop sensible and responsible guidelines for mortgages with loan-to-value ratios between 95 and 97 percent.  Through these revised guidelines, we believe that the Enterprises will be able to responsibly serve a targeted segment of creditworthy borrowers with lower-down payment mortgages by taking into account “compensating factors.”  While this is a much more narrow effort than our work on the Representation and Warranty Framework, it is yet another much needed piece to the broader access to credit puzzle.  Further details about these new guidelines will be available in the coming weeks as we continue to advance FHFA’s mission of ensuring safety, soundness and liquidity in the housing finance markets.

Now, let me turn my attention to the continuing progress we are making in the multiyear process of developing the Common Securitization Platform (CSP), which will create a shared securitization infrastructure for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  As I announced in May, we are focusing on ensuring that the CSP fills the needs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out most of their current securitization functions.  To achieve these objectives, FHFA and the Enterprises have revised the governance structure and operating agreement for Common Securitization Solutions (CSS).  CSS is a joint venture owned by both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is the corporate entity that we expect ultimately to house and operate the Common Securitization Platform.  

Under the updated structure, CSS will be governed by a four-person Board of Managers, with each Enterprise naming two members to the Board.  All Board members will have equal votes, and the Board Chair will rotate between these members. This Board structure will enable CSS to develop and operate the Common Securitization Platform in a way that best supports the Enterprises’ current securitization needs and functions.  At the same time, our teams continue to ensure that we leverage industry standards and technology where possible to make sure that the CSP will be usable by other secondary market participants in the future.  FHFA will continue to be an active participant with the Board and will provide our input as part of our ongoing oversight of the Enterprises to assure that our objectives are achieved.   

In addition to completing the structure of the Board of Managers, we are close to being able to announce the selection of a Chief Executive Officer for CSS who will report to the Board of Managers.  I anticipate that a formal announcement of the new management structure and the identity of the CEO will be made before the end of the year.  

In the meantime, FHFA and the Enterprises have also made considerable progress on the design-and-build phase of the CSP. Each Enterprise has designated staff to work on the project at the CSS location, and during 2014, this team has been developing the technology and infrastructure of the CSP platform.  FHFA announced earlier this year that we would leverage the creation of the CSP to establish a Single Security – which we believe should reduce trading disparities between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities – and this team has also incorporated work on the Single Security into the development of the CSP.  

The CSP is more than a simple technology project, and it will require significant changes to each of the Enterprises’ business practices.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have reorganized their staffs with business operations and information technology experts to develop the systems and processes needed to integrate with the CSP.  As this work continues, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac staff will engage in continuous testing and will develop operating policies and procedures to ensure a smooth transition to the CSP.  FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac are committed to achieving a seamless CSP launch, and the actions taken so far are moving us in the right direction toward this multi-year goal. 

Finally, while I don’t have sufficient time to do justice to a full discussion of this today, I do want to note before I close that FHFA recently extended the comment period for a Proposed Rule dealing with the membership requirements of the Federal Home Loan Banks.  In light of the importance of the issues surrounding the membership rule, FHFA decided to extend the initial 60-day comment period for an additional 60 days until January 12, 2015.  I know that many MBA members are also members of a Federal Home Loan Bank, and I hope you will take the opportunity to provide FHFA with your feedback and ideas on this Proposed Rule.  As I have consistently done since becoming Director of FHFA, I want to emphasize that getting input and feedback from stakeholders is a crucial part of FHFA’s policymaking process.  So give us your input, not only on our FHLB Proposed Rule, but on other policy initiatives and decisions we are evaluating.     

Thank you very much for having me here this morning and for giving me the opportunity to share my views on topics that I know are of interest and importance to all of us.  I look forward to our ongoing dialogue and to continuing our efforts to achieve our shared goals of restoring safety and soundness and liquidity to the nation’s housing finance market. ?

Contacts:

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

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

JP Morgan Set to Pay $1 Billion to Cover Yet Another Fraud

JP Morgan Set to Pay $1 Billion to Cover Yet Another Fraud

The Blaze-

JP Morgan has set aside another $1 billion to cover penalties for manipulating the foreign exchange market. The bank has paid out billions over regulatory violations and lawsuits in the last two years from the “London Whale” trading scandal to fraudulent sales of mortgage backed securities.

Meanwhile, Jamie Dimon, Wall Street’s darling, remains firmly in command of the fraud infested bank. It doesn’t seem to bother investors how banks make money, as long as the returns keep rolling in. Fines and penalties are merely a cost of doing business.

Back in the days when people were stigmatized for committing fraud, Dimon would have been out the door years ago. Now he is rewarded with oversize bonuses, stock options, and tons of perks. And the fines that JP Morgan has paid out have not gone to the victims; they have gone to the regulators instead.

[THE BLAZE]

(Photo by Diane Bondareff/Invision for JPMorgan Chase/AP Images)

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Elizabeth Warren’s Assault on Wall Street | “The System is RiGGED”

Elizabeth Warren’s Assault on Wall Street | “The System is RiGGED”

If Warren ever  decides to run for President…She has my vote!

The Massachusetts senator claims bankers are making so much money because the system is rigged.

.

.

.

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Zombie Foreclosures Result in Millions of Delinquent Tax Revenue Dollars

Zombie Foreclosures Result in Millions of Delinquent Tax Revenue Dollars

Foaming the runway 2.0

 

DS NEWS-

So-called “zombie” foreclosures have been known to lower property values of surrounding homes. But they also present another problem: property tax revenue lost, RealtyTrac recently reported.

According to RealtyTrac’s most recent data on zombie foreclosures, about 21 percent of the 141,406 total foreclosures reported in Q2 were of the zombie variety. With the owner having deserted the distressed property, not only is there no one to maintain the property’s outward appearance, but there is no one paying taxes on the property.

RealtyTrac estimates near $400 million in delinquent property tax revenue as a result of zombie foreclosures in Q2. The top metropolitan statistical area (MSA) as far as delinquent property tax revenue in Q2, according to RealtyTrac, was New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, with $208.5 million. This MSA also reported the highest total number of zombie foreclosures of any MSA in the nation in Q2 with 13,574, according to RealtyTrac.

[DS NEWS]

image: dailyreckoning.com

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Delia v. GMAC | FL 5th DCA – “Because the bank failed to introduce any evidence on the element of adequate protection for its lost note, we reverse.”

Delia v. GMAC | FL 5th DCA – “Because the bank failed to introduce any evidence on the element of adequate protection for its lost note, we reverse.”

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

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

DENNIS DELIA,
Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D14-78

GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed October 17, 2014

Appeal from the Circuit
Court for Orange County,

Lawrence R. Kirkwood, Judge

George M. Gingo and James E. Orth, Jr.,
Titusville, for Appellant.

Allyson L. Smith, Albertelli Law, Tampa,
for Appellee.
PALMER, J.

Dennis Delia (homeowner) appeals the final judgment of foreclosure entered by
the trial court in favor of GMAC Mortgage Corporation (bank). Because the bank failed
to introduce any evidence on the element of adequate protection for its lost note, we
reverse.

The bank filed a complaint against the homeowner seeking foreclosure of a
mortgage on real property. At trial, the bank advised the court and the homeowner that
it was not in possession of the loan documents and that it intended to re-establish the
note and mortgage through testimony at trial. The bank then presented testimony related
to the issue of how the loan documents became lost and to the issue of the authenticity
of its copies of the loan documents.

The homeowner contends that the trial court reversibly erred in concluding that the
bank sustained its burden of proving that it possessed standing to proceed on its lost note
theory because the bank failed to submit any evidence on the issue of adequate
protection. We agree.1

Section 673.3091, Florida Statutes (2013), governs the enforcement of lost notes:
673.3091. Enforcement of lost, destroyed, or stolen
instrument

(1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to
enforce the instrument if:
(a) The person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled
to enforce the instrument when loss of possession occurred,
or has directly or indirectly acquired ownership of the
instrument from a person who was entitled to enforce the
instrument when loss of possession occurred;
(b) The loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by
the person or a lawful seizure; and
(c) The person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the
instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its
whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful
possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be
found or is not amenable to service of process.

(2) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under
subsection (1) must prove the terms of the instrument and the
person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made,
s. 673.3081 [proof of signatures and status as holder in due
course] applies to the case as if the person seeking
enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may
not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking
enforcement unless it finds that the person required to
pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss
that might occur by reason of a claim by another person
to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be
provided by any reasonable means.
(Emphasis added). Section 702.11(1), Florida Statutes (2013), explains the concept of
adequate protection:
702.11. Adequate protections for lost, destroyed, or
stolen notes in mortgage foreclosure
(1) In connection with a mortgage foreclosure, the following
constitute reasonable means of providing adequate protection
under s. 673.3091, if so found by the court:
(a) A written indemnification agreement by a person
reasonably believed sufficiently solvent to honor such an
obligation;
(b) A surety bond;
(c) A letter of credit issued by a financial institution;
(d) A deposit of cash collateral with the clerk of the court; or
(e) Such other security as the court may deem appropriate
under the circumstances.

Any security given shall be on terms and in amounts set by
the court, for a time period through the running of the statute
of limitations for enforcement of the underlying note, and
conditioned to indemnify and hold harmless the maker of the
note against any loss or damage, including principal, interest,
and attorney fees and costs, that might occur by reason of a
claim by another person to enforce the note.

In this case, the bank failed to present any evidence on the issue of adequate
protection. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the foreclosure judgment and to
remand this matter for establishment of the lost note and mortgage. See Guerrero v.
Chase Home Fin., LLC, 83 So. 3d 970, 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (remanding for
establishment of the lost note and mortgage when the bank failed to sustain its burden
presenting evidence proving that the homeowners would be adequately protected against
loss).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SAWAYA and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

Down Load PDF of This Case

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

CHESTER COUNTY, PA RECORDER FILES SUIT AGAINST MERS, MERSCORP AND THE MAJOR BANKS

CHESTER COUNTY, PA RECORDER FILES SUIT AGAINST MERS, MERSCORP AND THE MAJOR BANKS

Clouded Titles-

It seems as if we keep unraveling more of the big deception that is called MERS …

In Pennsylvania, it would seem that more and more Recorders of Deeds are starting to “get it” … and joining Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds Nancy Becker in filing suit against MERS, MERSCORP and the banking interests that enriched themselves utilizing this “beta model” at the apparent expense of the Recorders, based on the ruling by Judge Joyner that MERS and MERSCORP were acting as agents for the principals involved in recorded Mortgages in Pennsylvania … and as agents (nominees) they are as liable as the principals they represent for violation of the Pennsylvania Recording Statutes.

As to whether or not damages arise is anyone’s guess; however, that has yet to be proven. In this latest round of litigation, the major banking institutions are also being dragged into the mix and being made to fess up to their alleged misdeeds, as principles for this boondoggle we call “securitization”.

[CLOUDED TITLES]

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

BNY Mellon Nails JPMorgan With $475M Mortgage Loan Suit

BNY Mellon Nails JPMorgan With $475M Mortgage Loan Suit

Law 360-

The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., acting as a trustee for a pool of home loans, has hit JPMorgan Chase Bank NA and others with a New York suit seeking $475 million over alleged misrepresentations made in the sale of $959 million in residential mortgage loans.

Suing as the trustee of JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust Series 2006-WMC3, BNY Mellon seeks redress from WMC Mortgage LLC as successor-by-merger to WMC Mortgage Corp., JP Mortgage Acquisition Corp. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, for alleged breaches of contractual…

[LAW 360] subscription needed

image: Reuters

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Anastacia S. Lacombe and Max P. Lacombe vs Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc.| FL 1st DCA – Bank’s documents and witness did not prove the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action.

Anastacia S. Lacombe and Max P. Lacombe vs Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc.| FL 1st DCA – Bank’s documents and witness did not prove the bank’s standing to bring the foreclosure action.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

ANASTACIA S. LACOMBE and
MAX P. LACOMBE
Appellants

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee
for LONG BEACH MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST
Appellee

Opinion filed October 14, 2014.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

A. C. Soud, Jr. , Judge.

Austin T. Brown of Parker & DuFresne, P.A., Jacksonville,
for Appellant.

Jeffrey S. York and N. Mark New, II of McGlinchey Stafford, Jacksonville and
Latoya O. Fairclough, Choice Legal Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale,
for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
The Lacombes, defendants below,appeal the final judgment of foreclosure against them and in favor of Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2 (“Deutsche Bank”).

Appellants assert that the evidence presented at the bench trial was insufficient to support the trial court’s judgment because Deutsche Bank’s documents and witness did not prove the bank ’s standing to bring the foreclosure action.

We agree and the judgment is thus reversed.

Because the final judgment was based on a bench trial and Appellants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment, the general rule requiring specific contemporaneous objection to preserve the asserted error
for appeal does not apply. Rather, rule 1.530(e), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure allows review of the sufficiency of the evidence despite any deficiencies in the objections made at trial and absence of post – trial motions. Rule 1.530(e) applies to appeals challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in mortgage foreclosure actions after bench tr
ial. See Correa v. U.S. Bank N.A. , 118 So. 3d 952, 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Accordingly, Appellants’ challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is properly before this court.

Down Load PDF of This Case

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

AIG Bailout Trial and the Deadbeat Borrower Defense

AIG Bailout Trial and the Deadbeat Borrower Defense

Naked Capitalism-

It’s déjà vu all over again.

I’m only starting to dig into the AIG bailout trial by reading the transcripts and related exhibits. That means I am behind where the trial is now. However, that gives me the advantage of contrasting what is in the documents with the media reporting to date. And what is really striking is the near silence on the core argument in this case.

The Starr International v. the United States of America suit is, at its core, about whether an insolvent borrower still has the right to the protection of law. It’s thus a high-end, big-ticket replay of the same form of arguments that homeowners fighting foreclosure often tried in court to obtain a mortgage modification: we don’t dispute that we aren’t able to meet our obligations, but the party foreclosing on us needs to go through the proper steps to take possession of our house. In the mortgage borrower’s case, that meant establishing standing, as in proving that they really were the proper party to initiate the foreclosure. In the case of Starr, the AIG executive enrichment vehicle controlled by former CEO Hank Greenberg, the argument is that even though AIG was insolvent, the bailout, which included through a series of maneuvers getting control of 79.9% of AIG stock, was impermissible.

Let me stress I’m no fan of Greenberg. But you can’t ask for the rule of law to operate in one place and not another. We’ve seen the administration repeatedly bend over backwards to give banks all sorts of free or super cheap waivers for bad conduct and not enforce regulations against them, yet borrowers are held in court to strict terms of their agreements and face unreasonably high hurdles when they try to fight abusive conduct.

[NAKED CAPITALISM]

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

The FHFA’s Proposed Single Security Structure by David J. Reiss, Brooklyn Law School

The FHFA’s Proposed Single Security Structure by David J. Reiss, Brooklyn Law School

The FHFA’s Proposed Single Security Structure

David J. Reiss, Brooklyn Law School

Abstract

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has posted a Request for Input on “the proposed structure for a Single Security that would be issued and guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.” The FHFA states it is most concerned with achieving “maximum secondary market liquidity” ( Request for Input, at 8 )

I am skeptical about the reasons for this move to a Single Security and whether it will achieve maximum liquidity. Moreover, it is unclear to me that this move reflects an urgent need for the FHFA, the two companies, originating lenders or borrowers. While I have no doubt that it could slightly increase liquidity and slightly decrease the cost of credit, I do not see this move as having a meaningful effect on either.

This move is consistent, however, with a move toward a new model of government-supported housing finance, one that could contemplate an end to Fannie and Freddie as we know them and the beginning of a more utility-like securitizer. If, indeed, the FHFA is taking this step, it should be more explicit as to its reasons for doing so.

 

Down Load PDF of This Case

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Housing: Before, During, and After The Great Recession – Demetrio M. Scopelliti

Housing: Before, During, and After The Great Recession – Demetrio M. Scopelliti

Demetrio M. Scopelliti

Homeownership symbolizes the American dream. The home we live in often represents how we choose to live our lives. As Winston Churchill once said, “We shape our dwellings, and afterwards our dwellings shape us.”

As the 2000s unfolded, economic growth and public policies designed to increase homeownership led to a housing boom. By 2006, the “housing bubble” began to burst. In late 2007, the economy fell into recession. The housingmarket continued to soften, people began to lose their jobs, and the banking industry was in crisis.

This Spotlight on Statistics looks at consumer expenditures on household items, employment in residential construction and housing-related industries, prices for household items and commodities, and injuries in occupations involved in building and maintaining our homes.

Down Load PDF of This Case

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Why is Preet Bharara, the ‘scourge of Wall Street’, taking a friendly tone towards mortgage bankers?

Why is Preet Bharara, the ‘scourge of Wall Street’, taking a friendly tone towards mortgage bankers?

Preet Bharara, the prosecutor with a legendary record of convicting insider trading cases, says people should lay off Wall Street for the crisis


The Guardian-

Here’s something you don’t expect to hear from a man who made his reputation by jailing bankers and becoming the “scourge of Wall Street”: ask him if fraud existed during the mortgage crisis and his answer is “the evidence is not there.”

The words come from Preet Bharara, the US attorney for the southern district of New York, who prosecuted more Wall Streeters for insider trading than anyone who came before him. Worth magazine this week named Bharara at the top of its “100 Most Powerful People in Finance”. Bharara seems to like his high profile, and appears to be gunning for an even bigger one: he suggested that the new US attorney general of the United States should share all of the priorities of Bharara’s own office.

In boasting about his record of putting white-collar criminals in jail, Bharara repeated a common – but outdated – Obama Administration line, that the mortgage crisis was not fuelled by fraud.

“This is by reputation and track record the most aggressive office in white-collar crime in the country ever,” Bharara modestly told Worth, “and if we’re not bringing a certain kind of case, it’s because the evidence is not there. Pure and simple”.

[THE GUARDIAN]

Photograph: Seth Wenig/AP

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Americans face post-foreclosure hell as wages garnished, assets seized

Americans face post-foreclosure hell as wages garnished, assets seized

I hope Elizabeth Warren gets involved…


Yahoo-

Many thousands of Americans who lost their homes in the housing bust, but have since begun to rebuild their finances, are suddenly facing a new foreclosure nightmare: debt collectors are chasing them down for the money they still owe by freezing their bank accounts, garnishing their wages and seizing their assets.

By now, banks have usually sold the houses. But the proceeds of those sales were often not enough to cover the amount of the loan, plus penalties, legal bills and fees. The two big government-controlled housing finance companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as other mortgage players, are increasingly pressing borrowers to pay whatever they still owe on mortgages they defaulted on years ago.

Using a legal tool known as a “deficiency judgment,” lenders can ensure that borrowers are haunted by these zombie-like debts for years, and sometimes decades, to come. Before the housing bubble, banks often refrained from seeking deficiency judgments, which were seen as costly and an invitation for bad publicity. Some of the biggest banks still feel that way.

[YAHOO]

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

We, the Sheeple Vs. The Banksters

We, the Sheeple Vs. The Banksters

via- Lauren Tratar

Quotations from former Presidents, Senators, Economists, and highly respected people whose reputations and credibility have withstood the test of time provide the proof that illuminates THE TRUTH of what is happening in our country right now! Insiders at the Fed, the largest Banks and Wall Street are hijacking our country right before our eyes while we are engaged in petty bickering – exactly what they want us to do for it diverts our attention and thus dilutes our power. If you care about your country and this world, it is time to unite, learn what is REALLY happening and help to make a difference!

.

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Portland couple who won apology from Nationstar in foreclosure case say it’s trying to foreclose again

Portland couple who won apology from Nationstar in foreclosure case say it’s trying to foreclose again

Why are we not surprised?


Oregon Live-

A Portland couple who received a loan modification and an apology from Nationstar Mortgage last year to settle their wrongful-foreclosure claims now say the company is trying to foreclose again even though they made all their monthly payments.

Michael and Judy McEldery of Northeast Portland found themselves facing foreclosure last year when they say Nationstar Mortgage — as a pretext to initiate the process — delayed applying one of their payments until after its due date.

The couple sought to block the foreclosure, and Michael McEldery, 67, followed up with claims the company had engaged in elder abuse, unlawful trade practices and breached its contract with him. The company agreed to apologize and modify the loan and bring it current to settle the case, said Michael Fuller, the McElderys’ attorney.

[OREGON LIVE]

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






Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n as Trustee v. Adams |  Maine Supreme Judicial Court – 6 year statute of limitations under section 752 applied and not the 20 year statute typically applicable to promissory notes

U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n as Trustee v. Adams | Maine Supreme Judicial Court – 6 year statute of limitations under section 752 applied and not the 20 year statute typically applicable to promissory notes

Justia Opinion Summary

In 2004, Charles Adams conveyed a portion of his parcel of property to himself and his sister, Dorothy Adams, as joint tenants. Dorothy subsequently executed a promissory note to American Bankers Conduit and conveyed a mortgage on her interest in the property as security on the note. Dorothy defaulted on the loan in 2008. In 2012, U.S. Bank sought to place an equitable lien on Charles’s interest in the property. After a trial, the superior court entered a judgment on the merits in favor of Charles. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for entry of dismissal, holding that because the complaint was not timely filed the action should have been dismissed pursuant to 14 Me. Rev. Stat. 752. Remanded.

.

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR
BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 2006-AC2

v.

CHARLES ADAMS et al.

GORMAN, J.

[¶1]

U.S. BankNational Association as Trustee for Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities 2006-AC2 appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court (Hancock County, A. Murray, J.) denying it an equitable lien on Charles Adams’s portion of a property that he owns jointly with Dorothy Adams in Dedham.

Because we conclude that the statute of limitations bars U.S. Bank’s claim, we vacate the judgment and remand for entry of dismissal.

[...]

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 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
RR Compliance Consulting Inc was established to provide training and support services to the Loss Mitigation Consulting Community.  There is a huge void in the market for this training since those who are truly practicing in the field have neither the time nor interest in providing this training.
Jamie Ranney, www.NantucketLaw.pro
LATEST TOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD CASES OPINIONS
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives