STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD - Part 2

Archive | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Trump repeals consumer arbitration rule, wins banker praise

Trump repeals consumer arbitration rule, wins banker praise

THE HILL-

President Trump on Wednesday signed a repeal of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule on forced arbitration, winning praise from banking and business groups.

Trump approved the resolution to repeal the CFPB rule, meant to prevent banks and credit card companies from blocking customers from joining class-action lawsuits against them, in a private Oval Office signing.

The House passed a resolution to repeal the rule in July, which passed the Senate two weeks ago.

[THE HILL]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Keane v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., MERS | 1st Cir- motion to vacate the prior order dismissing his case is reversed, the order dismissing the case is vacated

Keane v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., MERS | 1st Cir- motion to vacate the prior order dismissing his case is reversed, the order dismissing the case is vacated

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 16-1045
JOHN A. KEANE,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
HSBC BANK USA, as trustee for ELLINGTON TRUST, SERIES 2007-2;
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Kayatta, Lipez, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
Jamie Ranney, Jamie Ranney, P.C., on brief for appellant.
Elizabeth T. Timkovich and Phoebe Norton Coddington, Winston
& Strawn, LLP, on brief for appellees.
October 31, 2017

Page 2
– 2 –
KAYATTACircuit Judge. John Keane appeals from the
denial of his motion to vacate an order dismissing his lawsuit
against HSBC, Nationstar Mortgage, and Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems. We reverse.
I.
In December 2014, Keane sued defendants in state court
in Massachusetts, alleging a variety of state law violations in
connection with a foreclosure action against a property he owned
on Nantucket. Defendants removed the action to federal court in
the District of Massachusetts and moved to dismiss the case on
April 23, 2015. The district court entered an order setting a
motion hearing for June 3. At Keane’s request, the district court
extended Keane’s response deadline to May 26, and moved the hearing
date to June 17. On May 26, Keane again requested an extension;
the district court further extended his response deadline to June
8, and reset the motion hearing to July 22, but noted in the order
that extended the deadline that “THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER
EXTENSIONS ALLOWED.” Keane timely filed his response in opposition
to the motion on June 8. His counsel, however, failed to appear
at the July 22 motion hearing. The district court, sua sponte,
dismissed Keane’s suit for failure to prosecute.
One day after the district court entered its order
dismissing the case, Keane’s counsel filed a motion for relief

Page 3
– 3 –
from that order, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and
claiming “mistake, inadvertence, carelessness or excusable
neglect.” Keane’s counsel explained that his failure to appear at
the scheduled hearing was not intentional, but was instead the
result of his neglect in failing to calendar the July 22 hearing
date. A solo practitioner with a heavy caseload, he attributed
his neglect to the fact that his only two office assistants had
both left on maternity leave in June. The district court denied
the motion without prejudice to its being refiled along with
further supporting materials. Keane refiled the motion with an
affidavit from his attorney confirming the statements in the
original motion, but the district court denied it without any
further explanation.1
Keane appealed this denial, and only this
denial; his notice of appeal does not mention the initial dismissal
of the case for failure to prosecute.
II.
We begin with a preliminary jurisdictional issue. In
theory (and as a matter of prudence) Keane might have appealed
from both the order dismissing the case for failure to prosecute
1 It appears that the renewed motion was actually filed one
day after the 30-day deadline set by the district court, because
the month in which that deadline was set was a month with 31 days.
Neither party has made anything of this, nor did the district court
cite this one day delay as a reason for denying the motion.

Page 4
– 4 –
and the order denying his Rule 60(b) motion for relief from that
order. Instead, in his notice of appeal he designated only the
latter, leaving us with jurisdiction only to review the latter.
See Nansamba v. N. Shore Med. Ctr., Inc., 727 F.3d 33, 37 (1st
Cir. 2013). In this context, though, the analyses of both the
underlying dismissal and the Rule 60(b) motion merge. When a
district court dismisses a case for failure to prosecute due to
non-attendance at a hearing, it often lacks a key piece of
information: the reason why the party or attorney failed to attend.
This information only becomes available when the dismissed party
requests relief from the dismissal under Rule 60(b). Thus, the
Rule 60(b) motion provides the first occasion upon which a party
may be heard and a fully informed district court can decide the
appropriate course of action. And while a dismissal without notice
and the opportunity to be heard would normally trigger due process
concerns, the ability of a party or attorney to present an excuse
for the absence on a Rule 60(b) motion solves this problem. See
Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962)(“[T]he
availability of a corrective remedy such as is provided by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) . . . renders the lack of prior
notice of less consequence.”). In evaluating the district court’s
denial of Keane’s Rule 60(b) motion, we are essentially asking
whether, given the information placed before it, the dismissal

Page 5
– 5 –
remained justified as an act of the district court’s discretion,
or whether the district court was required to grant Keane’s
requested relief and vacate the dismissal. Thus, Keane’s appeal
of the refusal to set aside, under Rule 60(b), the dismissal
entered without notice permits us to consider the appropriateness
of that dismissal, even if listing both rulings in the notice of
appeal would have been preferable.
The grant or denial of a motion under Rule 60(b) is
committed to the sound discretion of the district court and we
review its decision for abuse of discretion. Dávila-Álvarez v.
Escuela de Medicina Universidad Central del Caribe, 257 F.3d 58,
63 (1st Cir. 2001); see also Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842
F.3d 163, 169 (1st Cir. 2016) (“The trial judge has wide discretion
in this arena, and we will not meddle unless we are persuaded that
some exceptional justification exists.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). In general, our precedent dictates that Rule 60(b)
motions should be granted sparingly, and any grant or denial of
the same should be viewed with great deference on appeal. See,
e.g., Santos-Santos, 842 F.3d at 169 (“Demonstrating excusable
neglect is a demanding standard.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
That being said, the law also manifests a strong
preference that cases be resolved on their merits. See Ortiz-

Page 6
– 6 –
Anglada v. Ortiz-Perez, 183 F.3d 65, 66 (1st Cir. 1999)
(“[D]isposition on the merits is favored . . . .”). We have
repeatedly made clear that “dismissal with prejudice for want of
prosecution is a unique and awesome [sanction]” to which courts
should not resort lightly. Pomales v. Celulares Telefónica, Inc.,
342 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2003) (collecting cases). We have said
that dismissal is appropriate “in the face of extremely protracted
inaction (measured in years), disobedience of court orders,
ignorance of warnings, contumacious conduct, or some other
aggravating circumstance.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). Such language implies that dismissal for failure to
prosecute is usually not appropriate for garden-variety, isolated
instances of attorney negligence. Given the Supreme Court’s
explicit directive that Rule 60(b) may be used as a litigant’s
opportunity to be heard on the appropriateness of a dismissal for
failure to prosecute, see Link, 370 U.S. at 632, a district court
facing a Rule 60(b) motion offering an explanation for failure to
prosecute should give a party’s explanation serious consideration
and ensure that, on a full factual record, dismissal remains the
appropriate sanction. See Hernandez v. Herndandez-Colon, No. 94-
2169, 1995 WL 146236, at *2 (1st Cir. Apr. 5, 1995) (unpublished
opinion) (reversing the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for relief
from a dismissal for failure to prosecute where additional

Page 7
– 7 –
information provided by the plaintiffs in their Rule 60(b) motion
rendered dismissal inappropriate).
Applying the above principles to the matter at hand, we
conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying
Keane’s Rule 60(b) motion. There is no suggestion at all that
Keane’s counsel’s failure to appear was intentional. Nor does the
record point to any prior neglect by counsel or a lack of regard
for the importance of adhering to court-ordered deadlines.
Defendants cite the two instances when Keane’s counsel sought to
reschedule hearings. Those instances, though, reflect no lack of
regard for the court’s deadlines; to the contrary, counsel paid
attention to the hearing dates and followed the proper rules for
securing changes to those dates. It is possible that repeated
last-minute requests for extensions could, at a certain point,
become abusive, but wherever that point is, Keane’s two requests
did not reach it.
The district court also gave no notice that failure to
appear would result in dismissal with prejudice (rather than, for
example, a loss of the ability to present oral argument). And the
unexplained refusal to vacate the dismissal meant, as a practical
matter, that Keane’s claims were left without a single merits
adjudication. While particularly egregious instances of a party
neglecting to prosecute its case may lead to this result, the

Page 8
– 8 –
strong preference for adjudicating disputes on the merits counsels
against sua sponte dismissals where there has never been any
consideration of the merits.
Finally, defendants claim no serious prejudice beyond
the costs of having counsel travel to and from the hearing, a harm
that could have been remedied by a monetary sanction.
Alternatively, and perhaps preferably, the district court might
have proceeded with the hearing as scheduled. In that event,
defendants would have ended up suffering no harm at all, while the
harm to Keane (having to rely on his brief alone) would have fit
the fault without overshooting the mark.
It is true that we have said that an attorney’s failure
to meet court deadlines due to “routine carelessness” does not
generally constitute the excusable neglect that would merit relief
under Rule 60(b). See Negrón v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 316 F.3d
60, 62 (1st Cir. 2003); see also Santos-Santos, 842 F.3d at 169
(exceptional justification necessary for Rule 60(b) relief “must
be something more than an attorney’s failure to monitor the court’s
electronic docket”); Vargas v. Gonzalez, 975 F.2d 916, 918 (1st
Cir. 1992) (an attorney’s failure to attend a status conference
rescheduled at that attorney’s request was not excusable neglect
justifying a Rule 60(b) vacatur of the district court’s order
dismissing the case). But these cases dealt either with repeated

Page 9
– 9 –
offenses over the course of three months, see Vargas, 975 F.2d at
916, or failures to file objections to the reports of magistrate
judges within a time specified by court rules, see Negrón, 316
F.3d at 61; Santos-Santos, 842 F.3d at 166. Reports by magistrate
judges often include an express warning of what will happen if no
timely objection is filed. See Negrón, 316 F.3d at 61 (magistrate
judge’s order warned that failure to file specific objections
within ten days would waive appellate review); see also Santos-
Santos v. Puerto Rico Police Dep’t, 63 F. Supp. 3d 181, 184 (D.P.R.
2014) (“Absent objection, a district court has a right to assume
that the affected party agrees with the magistrate judge’s
recommendation.” (alterations and internal quotation marks
omitted)). In such cases, moreover, dismissal results only if the
magistrate judge first concludes that the dismissed claims fail on
the merits. In short, negligence in that context forfeits the
right to seek review of a merits adjudication. It does not, as
here, prevent any merits adjudication whatsoever.
It is also undoubtedly true that “[m]ost attorneys are
busy most of the time and they must organize their work so as to
be able to meet the time requirements of matters they are handling
or suffer the consequences.” Stonkus v. City of Brockton Sch.
Dept., 322 F.3d 97, 101 (1st Cir. 2003). But this assumes that
these consequences will be reasonably proportionate to the offense

Page 10
– 10 –
and thus foreseeable to counsel. As we have said, “the excusable
neglect inquiry involves a significant equitable component and
must give due regard to the totality of the relevant circumstances
surrounding the [party’s] lapse.” Dimmitt v. Ockenfels, 407 F.3d
21, 24 (1st Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). In
sum, Keane’s counsel’s behavior, though neglectful, was not
intentional, egregious, or repetitive, and a sanction short of
dismissal would have ensured that no harm was caused to Defendants
or to the court’s perfectly appropriate desire to move the
litigation forward. Faced with an innocent and undisputed reason
for counsel’s absence, the district court should have concluded
that while some sanction might have been appropriate, dismissal
with prejudice was too harsh given the circumstances.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s denial
of Keane’s motion to vacate the prior order dismissing his case is
reversed, the order dismissing the case is vacated, and the case
is remanded to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion. Each party shall bear its own costs.

Down Load PDF of This Case

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD1 Comment

Experts question hiring of lobbyists by Wells Fargo’s board

Experts question hiring of lobbyists by Wells Fargo’s board

Charlotte Observer-

Wells Fargo’s board has spent more than half a million dollars on lobbyists in the past year as it’s pushed to move past a major sales scandal over fake accounts, new disclosures show.

The board has paid $600,000 to Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck – among the largest lobbying firms in Washington – from Oct. 1, 2016, to Sept. 30, an Observer search of lobbying activity on Opensecrets.org found. Federal reports filed by Brownstein show the firm has received $150,000 every quarter since the scandal erupted in September 2016.

The lobbying comes at a time when the board is making some changes, including plans for Chairman Stephen Sanger and two other longtime directors to retire at the end of the year. Such moves haven’t been enough, though, for some members of Congress who want the removal of more directors.

[CHARLOTTE OBSERVER]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Wall Street bankers are getting bigger bonuses again

Wall Street bankers are getting bigger bonuses again

NY POST-

Time for that second home in the Hamptons.

The average banker bonus in 2017 is poised to get fatter for the second straight year, as hopes for deregulation have led to a flurry of trading and underwriting on Wall Street, according to New York state Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

The upbeat forecasts, which anticipate bonuses will rise 3.8 percent to $143,462, are based on a blazing first half, during which industry profits jumped 33 percent to $12.3 billion, according to government figures.

“After a very successful first six months, Wall Street profits are on track to exceed last year’s level, barring a major fourth-quarter setback,” DiNapoli said in a statement.

[NY POST]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Could Wilbur Ross Be The Next Trump Official Targeted In The Mueller Probe?

Could Wilbur Ross Be The Next Trump Official Targeted In The Mueller Probe?

National Memo-

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment against international lobbyist and Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort, and pleading by Trump campaign foreign policy aide George Papadopoulos, cast long shadows over other top Trump administration officials, starting with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose previous financial deals involved the European money-laundering hub of Cyprus.

The banking sector of that small island nation in the Mediterranean appears to be a crossroads where top Trump campaign associates, such as Manafort and Papadopoulos, and senior administration officials like Commerce Secretary Ross, crossed paths and had layered financial and political dealings with Kremlin-tied Russian oligarchs.

The Manafort indictment, apart from its detailing of how he spent millions of untaxed overseas earnings for luxury properties in the U.S. that the government wants to seize, listed more than half a dozen pages of overseas wire transfersadding up to $12 million. Almost all of them originated in Cyprus.

[NATIONAL MEMO]

image: CBS NEWS

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Wilbur Ross shifted $2 billion to family trusts before his confirmation

Wilbur Ross shifted $2 billion to family trusts before his confirmation

Market Watch-

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross stashed roughly $2 billion of assets in trust funds for his family members before he was confirmed — which allowed him to keep the cash off of his financial disclosure reports, according to a report Monday.

The hidden assets raise questions about whether the 79-year-old billionaire violated federal rules and whether his family owns billions in holdings that could create the appearance of conflicts of interest, Forbes magazine reported.

Ross only disclosed the trusts and the timing of the transfer after Forbes questioned why his financial disclosure form listed fewer assets than he had previously told the magazine he owned.

[MARKET WATCH]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Wells Fargo, BofA Seek Court Edge for Miami’s Loan Bias Claims

Wells Fargo, BofA Seek Court Edge for Miami’s Loan Bias Claims

BLOOMBERG-

Bank of America and Wells Fargo Oct. 26 asked a federal appeals court to send Miami’s lending bias claims back to a trial court that ruled in favor of both banks in 2014.

In separate but related lawsuits, Miami sued Bank of America and Wells Fargo under the Fair Housing Act, alleging lending discrimination that Miami says is to blame for a host of economic woes, including lower tax revenues and higher property-related city expenditures ( Miami v. Bank of Am. Corp. , 11th Cir., 14-cv-14543, motion for remand 10/26/17 ; Miami v. Wells Fargo Bank & Co. , 11th Cir., 14-cv-14544, motion for remand 10/26/17 ).

A federal district court rejected Miami’s suits at an early stage, saying the suit didn’t meet pleading requirements, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reinstated both actions in 2015. Wells Fargo and Bank of America appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in May said cities may file such suits but must allege a causal connection between the claims of bias and the injuries they assert.

[BLOOMBERG BNA]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

U.S. regulator wants to loosen leash on Wells Fargo: sources

U.S. regulator wants to loosen leash on Wells Fargo: sources

Reuters-

A leading U.S. regulator wants to make it easier for Wells Fargo to pay employees when they leave, loosening a restriction in place since a phony accounts scandal hit the bank last year, according to people familiar with the matter.

The initiative comes as President Donald Trump is trying to lighten rules on Wall Street and the bank regulator, Keith Noreika, acting Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), must weigh whether to vet new Wells Fargo executives.

If Noreika’s approach prevails, the OCC could go easier on Wells Fargo and any other large banks sanctioned in the future.

[REUTERS]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

TFH 10/18 | Disorganized Crime: Revealing How Government Insiders Have Secretly Used Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, MERS, the FDIC, and the Justice Department To Steal Trillions of Dollars from Homeowners and GSE Investors by Defrauding Our Courts

TFH 10/18 | Disorganized Crime: Revealing How Government Insiders Have Secretly Used Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, MERS, the FDIC, and the Justice Department To Steal Trillions of Dollars from Homeowners and GSE Investors by Defrauding Our Courts

COMING TO YOU LIVE DIRECTLY FROM THE DUBIN LAW OFFICES AT HARBOR COURT, DOWNTOWN HONOLULU, HAWAII

LISTEN TO KHVH-AM (830 ON THE AM RADIO DIAL)

ALSO AVAILABLE ON KHVH-AM ON THE iHEART APP ON THE INTERNET

.

.

Sunday – October 28

 ———————
Disorganized Crime: Revealing How Government Insiders Have Secretly Used Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, MERS, the FDIC, and the Justice Department To Steal Trillions of Dollars from Homeowners and GSE Investors by Defrauding Our Courts

 

 

It has often been said that the best way to rob a bank is to own one.

There have been bank robberies throughout American history conducted by easily identified outside organized criminal gangs, ranging from Jessie James and the Dalton Brothers to various geographic Mafia groups.

None, however, has been more successful yet as diverse and as little known as those who have stolen an unprecedented many trillions of dollars in recent decades from hundreds of millions of victims, such as Homeowners and GSE Investors, and others owning stock in, for instance, IndyMac and Washington Mutual, to name but a few supposedly “failed” institutions.

In every case, federal insiders have manipulated Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, MERS, the FDIC, and the Justice Department to enable them to loot trillions of dollars of the property and profits of Americans, while the evidence of such theft has been hidden from our Courts.

This disorganized theft has been so extraordinarily diverse, manifesting itself in so many different forms, and so well covered up by participating federal officials, that the full extent of such disorganized criminal activity has never been fully identified or even completely addressed, preventing exposure in our Courts.

On this Sunday’s show we will begin to unravel the complexity of this enormous theft by identifying who the offenders and their victims have been, how and why the full extent of the theft has been unknown, and propose ways still available for combatting it, including suggesting that the victims, principally Homeowners and GSE Investors, should combine together to wake up our Courts.

Listen to today’s show, posted on our website at www.foreclosurehour.com, and find out how you can change American history, beat the banks, by joining the Homeowners SuperPAC today.

.
Host: Gary Dubin Co-Host: John Waihee

.

CALL IN AT (808) 521-8383 OR TOLL FREE (888) 565-8383

Have your questions answered on the air.

Submit questions to info@foreclosurehour.com

The Foreclosure Hour is a public service of the Dubin Law Offices

Past Broadcasts

EVERY SUNDAY
3:00 PM HAWAII
6:00 PM PACIFIC
9:00 PM EASTERN
ON KHVH-AM
(830 ON THE DIAL)
AND ON
iHEART RADIO

The Foreclosure Hour 12

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

The Effects of Securitization, Foreclosure, and Hotel Characteristics on Distressed Hotel Prices, Resolution Time, and Recovery Rate

The Effects of Securitization, Foreclosure, and Hotel Characteristics on Distressed Hotel Prices, Resolution Time, and Recovery Rate

This study investigates the effects of securitization, foreclosure, and hotel characteristics on the sale prices of distressed hotels as well as their influence on resolution time and recovery rate. Using a sample of 4,763 financially distressed hotels between 2010 and 2014, this study provides evidence that hotel size, securitization, foreclosure, and disposal methods are important predictors of distressed property prices, resolution time, and recovery rate.

Bauer J.Fox A. (2015). U.S. CMBS servicers holding REO inventories longer. U.S. CMBS Market Trends (Newsletter). New York, NYFitch RatingsMarch 20Google Scholar
Brown D.Ciochetti B.Riddiough T. (2006). Theory and evidence on the resolution of financial distress. The Review of Financial Studies, 19, 13571397Google Scholar Crossref
Chen J.Deng Y. (2013). Commercial mortgage workout strategy and conditional default probability: Evidence from special serviced CMBS loans. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 46, 609632Google Scholar Crossref
Corgel J. (2008). New beats old nearly every day: The countervailing effects of renovations and obsolescence on hotel prices. Cornell Hospitality Reports, 8(13), 617Google Scholar
Corgel J.deRoos J. (1993). The ADR rule-of-thumb as predictor of lodging property values. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 12, 353365Google Scholar Crossref
Corgel J.Walls A. (2010). An analysis of future delinquency for hotel CMBS loans. Trends in the hotel industry USA – 2010. Atlanta, GAPKF Hospitality Research1218Google Scholar Link
Downs D.Xu P. (2015). Commercial real estate, distress and financial resolution: Portfolio lending versus securitization. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 51, 254287Google Scholar Crossref
Gordon S.Kizer L. (2004November 8). U.S. CMBS loan performance: Impact of seasoning, leverage and location on probability of default (Structured Finance Special report). Retrieved from https://www.moodys.com/research/US-CMBS-Loan-Performance-Impact-of-Seasoning-Leverage-and-Location–PBS_SF46382Google Scholar
Grovenstein R.Harding J.Sirmans C.Thebpanya S.Turnbull G. (2005). Commercial mortgage underwriting: How well do lenders manage the risks? Journal of Housing Economics, 14, 355383Google Scholar Crossref
Lancaster B.Cable D. (2004Spring). CMBS: An impressive performance. The Real Estate Finance Journal, pp. 521Google Scholar
Nagpal A.Sheel A. (2002). An examination of commercial mortgage-backed securities: Some useful insights for borrowers. Journal of Hospitality Financial Management, 10, 3548Google Scholar Crossref
O’Neill J. (2003). ADR rule of thumb: Validity and suggestions for its application. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 716Google Scholar Link
O’Neill J. (2004). An automated valuation model for hotels. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 45, 260268Google Scholar Link
O’Neill J.Xiao Q. (2006). The role of brand affiliation in hotel market value. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 114Google Scholar
Pennington-Cross A. (2006). The value of foreclosed property. Journal of Real Estate Research, 28, 193214Google Scholar
Quan D.Lebret D. (2006). Delinquency and default of securitized hotel mortgages. Working paper, School of Hotel AdministrationCornell UniversityApril 19Google Scholar
Smith Travel Research Analytics. (2015). HOST Almanac 2015: U.S. Hotel Operating Statistics for the year 2014. Broomfield, COAuthorGoogle Scholar
Trepp LLC. (2015). TreppLoan performance reports. Available from https://www.trepp.com/ Google Scholar
© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

American Nightmare – The Plight of GSE Investors and American Homeowners

American Nightmare – The Plight of GSE Investors and American Homeowners

cross posted via Deadly Clear

By Sydney Sullivan

This will be one of several posts on the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Your thoughts and your owns stories are welcome in the comments section.

Nearly a decade ago, in September 2008, US Treasury Chief Hank Paulson unveiled his historic government takeover of twin mortgage buyers, putting the government in charge of the mortgage giants and the $5 trillion in home loans they back. The plan eliminated the top executives which were out and replaced with Wall Street titans.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, their takeover by the federal government and their role in the financial crisis. The video below is a 4 hour review of a planned response to the crisis in the housing and mortgage markets at the time of the economic meltdown and crash of 2008.

The titans that replaced Freddie CEO Richard Syron and Fannie CEO Daniel Mudd  were two Wall Street finance veterans and were charged with restoring the mortgage magnates to health. Herb Allison formerly served as president of Merrill Lynch wasselected to head Fannie Mae. David Moffett, who served as vice chairman and chief financial officer of U.S. Bancorp until early 2007 took over Freddie Mac. In addition to the ousting of GSE management – the companies were placed in a Conservatorship, controlled by the HERA Act under governance of a new agency FHFA and the US Treasury.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are private, shareholder-owned corporations created by Congress to increase liquidity and stability in the secondary market for home mortgages. While the Companies are commonly referred to as “Government Sponsored Enterprises” or “GSEs,” they are for-profit corporations, and had traditional corporate governance structures—including shareholders, directors, and officers.

Under the Conservatorship, shareholders, directors, and officers and their investments were left in limbo. None of these folks, average Joes who purchased common stock, as well as Hedge Funds and their investors that were in preferred positions, have been able to access their money or pension funds since 2008.

For decades, the GSEs had been two of the world’s largest privately-owned financial institutions —with their portfolios having a combined value of $5 trillion and accounting for “nearly half of the United States mortgage market.” When they needed capital, they issued common stock, numerous classes of preferred stock, and debt securities, all of which were publicly traded on the U.S. capital markets.

Rolling forward 10 years later, we’ve recently learned that Fannie and Freddie were not in dire straits and that their funds have been looted by the Obama administration / Treasury in quarterly Net Worth Sweeps stripping BILLION$ away from what were private corporations.

These Net Worth Sweeps funds included wrongful foreclosure blood money. You see, Fannie and Freddie were the golden geese with access to over 84 MILLION residential homes and untold commercial projects. Wall Street needed these giants under theircontrol – not the public. Sound familiar?

On top of  the American goldmine – the Wall Street Globalists were branching out into England, Ireland Europe pulling the same securitization / rehypothecation scheme over there.

You’ve probably listened to a least some of the video above or recall the news stories all designed to defame the GSEs and provide a cover for Wall Street banks to takeover the entities, that before the repeal of Glass Steagall belonged solely to the public and for public benefit. Fake News dominated back then too, we just didn’t know what it was. We lost our housing industry because Wall Street devised an UNREGULATED securitization program to siphoned off middle class American wealth.

DID WE WAKE UP IN THE SOVIET UNION?

The GSE investors have had enough. They’ve pushed out the truths about the Fake Failing GSEgate – who would and could have survived without Conservatorship; and exposed the Net Worth Sweeps were used to prop up Obamacare. The Investors sued. Having differing opinions from different federal circuits, they filed a PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI in the Supreme Court of the United States, which outlines the overall saga. *Just a warning before you begin to read the document – you are going to be pissed. Make no doubt about it – you’ll be wondering if we have been living in the Soviet Union (maybe it moved to Wall Street). CLICK HERE

Just to give you an idea of a Judge’s dissenting opinion of this extreme hardship:  Judge Brown in Perry Capital, LLC v. Mnuchin, 848 F.3d 1072 (D.C. Cir. 2017) summarized the Net Worth Sweep in her dissent:

“It was, to say the least, a highly unusual
transaction. Treasury was no longer
another, admittedly very important,
investor entitled to a preferred share of the
Companies’ profits; it had received a
contractual right from FHFA to loot the
Companies to the guaranteed exclusion of
all other investors….”

To be fair, even before 2008 the GSEs were on a destructive path driven by UNREGULATED derivatives and a very greedy and corrupt Wall Street. We’d all agree on that. But as we have posted many times, after 2003 the banks ramped their scheme, sucked in homeowners and used computer intelligence rather than common sense and ethics and morals. At least with investors, directors and officers – homeowners had somewhere to go to assert issues.

After 2008, there was no one to investigate, tons of paper laundering, and fraudulent concealment kicked in – and thrives!

Now that the truth is surfacing fast and furious, the GSEs may have the opportunity to be free’d from financial bondage and operate as the founders intended them to. However, its been floated, like a rock in a punch bowl, that maybe one of the TBTF banks would buy them…Merrill Lynch, perhaps? Its doubtful a sale to Merrill Lynch, Wells Fargo, BoA, US Bank, or Chase would please the American public who have even less trust in the banks than they do Congress or Fake News.

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS AND SAVE OUR HOMES – HOW CAN WE HELP?

What can we do to protect American homeownership? There are some good plansfloating about to rebuild the companies and save everyone including the average Joes.

Here’s another idea. Fannie and Freddie were designed for OUR American homeowners who have been screwed by the banks. A scheme devised with inflated appraisals, LIBOR rigged short term ARM loans, relaxed underwriting guidelines and computer technology programmed to design loans to default in order to maintain securitization liquidity while allowing rehypothecation unknown to anyone other than the banks. We need Glass Steagall back.

Let’s keep the GSEs privately traded companies with investors, directors and officers, not TBTF banks running the operation or we’ll just have more of the same corruption. Its time to cut out the gravy train. AND let’s incorporate homeowners into the investor pool.

Here’s the plan: Fannie and Freddie issue common shares. Since the paper these old loans were written on is loaded with fraud and forgery – let’s call a Mortgage Amnesty between homeowners and the GSEs …and banks (if we have to).

All loans written between 2003 – 2008 may be refinanced through the GSEs with legitimate market value appraisals, low interest rates 2-3% (remember folks, we’re compensating for the fraud), full disclosure about securitization, electronic signature authorizations – no more faux Mortgage & Notes. Transparency!

  • There would be a Mortgage Amnesty offering open for 2 years.
  • Homeowners can opt to refinance which means they will pay closing costs (appraisals, title search, etc.) and dump their old paper for clean documents and know where their loans are. You’d be pre-approved as long as your taxes, insurance and HOA/AOAO dues are current.
  • In addition, homeowners will agree to buy 10 shares of GSE stock (a new savings program) at hypothetically $60 each share = $600 which is wrapped into the closing costs.
  • Now homeowners would become partners/shareholder with investors. Yes, you can buy more shares if you want. But like your credit union, you’ll have a voice because you’ll be a shareholder.

We’ll be helping investors become a strong voice if we’re all united. The wrongful seizure would never have happened if 84 million homeowners had a stake in the company. And if homeowners participate, when servicing laws are violated we’ll have the mortgage giants to help get it corrected – fast.

The math (not my specialty but simply) says even if only 50 million homeowners [out of over 125+ million American homeowners] participated in the Mortgage Amnesty:

50 Million Homeowners X $600 is according to Siri, “about $30 BILLION.” That a pretty good IPO (not versed in Hedge Fund speak either). But this seems like something that should morally and ethically be considered, given the past decade of pain and sorrow and corruption inflicted upon all of us.

It would lessen the burden on the courts, eliminate the forgeries in the recording offices, clean up titles, and Make American Families more productive again. No more worrying about losing their home.

This was simply the first in a series of posts – because our nation’s economy depends upon housing, whether we currently own, rent or buy. We need to unite and make it better and safer than it has been in the past. The time is now.

If you like this idea – post it, Tweet it, Facebook it – and call you Congressional Representatives (House & Senate) or email them a link. Get the idea circulating and add your thoughts and ideas. United We Stand – and have a much stronger voice!

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

WISMAN v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC | FL 5DCA- Because Nationstar failed to present competent, substantial evidence that it had standing to foreclose at the inception of the case, we reverse.

WISMAN v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC | FL 5DCA- Because Nationstar failed to present competent, substantial evidence that it had standing to foreclose at the inception of the case, we reverse.

 

MARY T. WISMAN, Appellant,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC AND SPRUCE CREEK GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellees.

Case No. 5D16-3236.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Opinion filed October 20, 2017.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County, Steven G. Rogers, Judge.

C. Michael Duncan, of Duncan Law Offices, P.A., Tavares, for Appellant.

Nancy M. Wallace and Ryan D. O’Connor, of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, and William P. Heller, Fort Lauderdale, of Akerman LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for Appellee, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC.

No Appearance for Spruce Creek Golf & Country Club Homeowners Association, Inc.

ORFINGER, J.

Mary T. Wisman appeals the trial court’s final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. Because Nationstar failed to present competent, substantial evidence that it had standing to foreclose at the inception of the case, we reverse.

In December 2014, Nationstar filed a complaint against Ms. Wisman for mortgage foreclosure and to reestablish a lost note. Nationstar alleged that it had standing as “an entity not in possession of the Note which is entitled to enforce the Note pursuant to F.S. 673.3091.” Nationstar attached to the complaint copies of the note, mortgage, and a lost note affidavit from a Nationstar employee (“Nationstar LNA”). The note, which identified Del Webb Mortgage Company as the lender, was certified as a “true and correct copy of the original” by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“CHL Inc.”) and contained an undated blank indorsement executed not by Del Webb but by CHL Inc. The mortgage similarly identified Del Webb as the lender and named MERS as Del Webb’s nominee. The Nationstar LNA asserted that Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”) had owned the note since December 27, 2001, having acquired it from the original lender, Del Webb. In making this assertion, the Nationstar LNA relied solely on an inter-office email exchange between the Nationstar LNA affiant, who provided a FHLMC loan number and stated that she was “unable to locate the ownership date on this file,” and another Nationstar employee who responded with a “funding date” of “12/27/2001” along with an “S/S Loan” number. The Nationstar LNA further attested that BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC”) f/k/a Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP (“CHL Servicing, LP”), Bank of America, and Nationstar have serviced the loan on behalf of FHLMC.

To show when the loss of possession occurred, the Nationstar LNA attached a lost note affidavit from “the prior holder of the promissory note . . . in possession of the note when the loss of possession occurred.” That lost note affidavit, dated February 25, 2002, was executed on behalf of CHL Inc. (“CHL Inc. LNA”), and attested that as of that date, the note was lost and that CHL Inc. had not previously hypothecated, transferred, sold, pledged or assigned the note. The CHL Inc. LNA did not provide any details regarding the date or circumstances of the asserted loss of the note but indicated that CHL Inc. purchased or was assigned the note from Del Webb on or about December 5, 2001. In her answer, Ms. Wisman asserted Nationstar’s lack of standing as an affirmative defense.

The case proceeded to a nonjury trial. At trial, Nationstar introduced, among other things, a copy of the note, a copy of the mortgage, and a group of documents that showed that in 2001, CHL Servicing, LP was established as a “domestic entity other” and an affiliate of CHL Inc.; effective November 7, 2008, CHL Inc. transferred the servicing of certain unspecified mortgage loans to CHL Servicing, LP pursuant to an asset purchase agreement with Bank of America;[1] on April 27, 2009, CHL Servicing, LP was renamed BAC; and effective July 1, 2011, BAC merged into Bank of America. Nationstar also entered into evidence two assignments of mortgage, showing that on March 24, 2011, MERS assigned the mortgage and the note to BAC, and then on November 13, 2012, CHL Inc. assigned the mortgage and the note to Nationstar.

According to the Nationstar witnesses’ testimony, FHLMC is the owner of the loan and the note was lost in CHL Servicing, LP’s possession, which, at the time it was lost, was the entity entitled to enforce it. At the close of the evidence, Ms. Wisman moved for an involuntary dismissal based on Nationstar’s failure to prove standing. The trial court denied the motion and entered a final judgment of foreclosure in favor of Nationstar.

A party seeking foreclosure must prove by competent, substantial evidence that it has standing to foreclose at the time of filing the lawsuit. Wilmington Sav. Fund Soc’y, FSB, v. Louissaint, 212 So. 3d 473, 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)Schmidt v. Deutsche Bank, 170 So. 3d 938, 940-41 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). A person entitled to enforce the note and foreclose on a mortgage includes a person not in possession of the note who is entitled to enforce under section 673.3091, Florida Statutes. Gorel v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 165 So. 3d 44, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (citing § 673.3011, Fla. Stat. (2013)).

Under Florida law, a lost instrument can be enforced if the person seeking to enforce the instrument was entitled to enforce it when the loss occurred or acquired ownership of it from someone entitled to enforce it when the loss occurred, the loss was not the result of a transfer or seizure, and the instrument cannot reasonably be obtained. § 673.3091(1), Fla. Stat. (2016). The person seeking to enforce the instrument must prove the terms of the instrument and the right to enforce it, and then it is as if the person has produced the instrument. Id. § 673.3091(2). The person may do so either through a lost note affidavit or by testimony from a person with knowledge. Home Outlet, LLC v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 194 So. 3d 1075, 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).

“A trial court’s decision as to whether a party has satisfied the standing requirement is reviewed de novo.” Sosa v. Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So. 3d 91, 116 (Fla. 2011); see Figueroa v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 180 So. 3d 1110, 1115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). Here, the trial court erred in finding that Nationstar had standing to foreclose as a person not in possession of the note who is entitled to enforce under section 673.3091. Nationstar attempted to prove through the Nationstar LNA and its witnesses’ testimony and evidence that FHLMC was the owner of the loan and had the right to enforce the instrument at the time that the note was lost because the note was sold by Del Webb to FHLMC and physical possession of the note was transferred to FHLMC’s loan servicer, Bank of America (or its predecessor BAC f/k/a CHL Servicing, LP) and then to Nationstar before the foreclosure action was filed. However, its evidence does not support this claim.

To prove standing, Nationstar submitted a copy of the note with a blank indorsement from CHL Inc., not Del Webb, FHLMC, or CHL Servicing, LP. The mortgage further shows that on December 5, 2001, the original mortgagee, Del Webb, designated MERS as its nominee, and on March 9, 2011, MERS assigned the mortgage and note to BAC, which was formally known as CHL Servicing, LP, an affiliate of CHL Inc.[2] On July 1, 2011, BAC merged with Bank of America. However, neither BAC nor by merger, Bank of America, assigned the mortgage and the note to FHLMC or Nationstar. Instead, on November 13, 2012, a different entity, CHL Inc., assigned the mortgage and the note to Nationstar. While Nationstar claims that CHL Inc., CHL Servicing, LP and BAC are the same entity, its own evidence demonstrates otherwise. Nationstar introduced several documents that showed that CHL Servicing, LP was an affiliate or “domestic entity other” of CHL Inc.; CHL Servicing, LP was later renamed BAC; and that only BAC, and not any other CHL-related entity, merged with Bank of America in 2011. By the 2012 assignment, the evidence fails to show that CHL Inc. was affiliated with either CHL Servicing, LP or BAC.

Further, Nationstar has not proven that FHLMC was the owner of the note entitled to enforce the note at the time of loss of possession. Nationstar relies on the November 6, 2014, inter-office email that shows a “12/27/01 funding date,” a FHLMC loan number, and an “S/S loan number” as its only proof that FHLMC owns the note. However, this document does not prove standing, as it does not directly reference the specific note.[3] Cf. Johnson v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 222 So. 3d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (holding that evidence was insufficient to show that mortgagee was holder of note, and thus, lacked standing to foreclose because copy of note contained no endorsements and screen printouts from mortgagee’s servicer made no reference to specific note at issue). There is simply no showing that FHLMC is the owner of the note, and was entitled to enforce the note when it was lost.

We conclude that Nationstar failed to present sufficient evidence of standing. See Lacombe v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 149 So. 3d 152, 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)(“Absent evidence of the plaintiff’s standing, the final judgment must be reversed.”). Therefore, we reverse the final judgment and direct the trial court to grant Ms. Wisman’s motion for involuntary dismissal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED for further proceedings.

TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.

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

[1] The agreement was not admitted into evidence.

[2] It is unclear what an affiliate is or what legal right such a status would confer.

[3] For instance, the inter-office email references an FHLMC loan number but that number is not found on the note. In fact, the loan or account number found on the note is the same loan number found on the CHL Inc. LNA, which states that CHL Inc. purchased the note from the original lender, Del Webb. The S/S loan number is the Nationstar loan number that is found on all of its documents.

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Pence Breaks Tie as Senate Votes to Kill Rule Allowing Class-Action Suits Against Banks

Pence Breaks Tie as Senate Votes to Kill Rule Allowing Class-Action Suits Against Banks

NBC News-

The Republican-led Senate narrowly voted Tuesday to repeal a banking rule that would let consumers band together to sue their banks or credit card companies to resolve financial disputes.

Vice President Mike Pence cast the final vote to break a 50-50 tie.

The banking industry lobbied hard to roll back the regulation, which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unveiled in July. The rule would ban most types of mandatory arbitration clauses found in the fine print of agreements that consumers enter into when opening checking accounts or getting credit cards.

[NBC NEWS]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Kamin v. Federal National Mortgage Association | FL 2DCA – FNMA’s evidence––the Seterus affidavit and the notice of default letter––fails to conclusively establish that the Kamins could not raise any genuine issue of material fact concerning CitiMortgage’s compliance with paragraph 22

Kamin v. Federal National Mortgage Association | FL 2DCA – FNMA’s evidence––the Seterus affidavit and the notice of default letter––fails to conclusively establish that the Kamins could not raise any genuine issue of material fact concerning CitiMortgage’s compliance with paragraph 22

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT

GARY W. KAMIN and AUDREY T. )
KAMIN, )

Appellant,
v.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE )
ASSOCIATION, substituted for )
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; UNKNOWN )
TENANT #1, n/k/a ANNALEE KAMIN; )
CITIBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, )
successor by merger to CFSB, )
National Association, successor )
by merger to Citibank Federal )
Savings Bank; JOHN K. MacDONALD; )
BRIDLEWOOD HOMEOWNER’S )
ASSOCIATION, INC.; AMERICAN )
EXPRESS CENTURION BANK; ANY AND )
ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES CLAIMING BY, )
THROUGH, UNDER AND AGAINST THE )
NAMED INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT(S) )
WHO ARE NOT KNOWN TO BE DEAD )
OR ALIVE, WHETHER UNKNOWN )
PARTIES MAY CLAIM AN INTEREST )
AS SPOUSES, HEIRS, DEVISEES, )
GRANTEES, OR OTHER CLAIMANTS, )

Appellees. )
____________________________

2D16-2457 by DinSFLA on Scribd

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Effective October 19, New Rights for Homeowners Seeking Loan Modifications

Effective October 19, New Rights for Homeowners Seeking Loan Modifications

NCLC Digital Library

 

CONTENTS (links below)

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Regulator Blasts Wells Fargo for Deceptive Auto Insurance Program

Regulator Blasts Wells Fargo for Deceptive Auto Insurance Program

NY TIMES-

A federal regulator criticized Wells Fargo for engaging in unfair and deceptive practices and failing to manage risks, and said it had not set aside enough money to pay back the customers it harmed.

The confidential report, prepared by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and reviewed by The New York Times, criticizes Wells Fargo for forcing hundreds of thousands of borrowers to buy unneeded auto insurance when they took out a car loan, as well as its handling of the problems once they were detected.

The regulators’ report, sent to the bank this week, is preliminary. Still, it represents the latest blow to the reputation of Wells Fargo, America’s third-largest bank and one that was once regarded as being among the best run in the country. The bank is still trying to recover from a scandal in which its employees created millions of credit card and bank accounts that customers had not requested, eventually leading to the ouster of the bank’s chief executive and millions of dollars in regulatory fines.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

Treasury Report Sides With Equifax and Wells Fargo Against Ripped-Off Customers

Treasury Report Sides With Equifax and Wells Fargo Against Ripped-Off Customers

Statements From Experts at Public Citizen and Americans for Financial Reform

“It’s no surprise to see the Steven Mnuchin-led U.S. Treasury Department aim to parachute into the forced arbitration dispute to sabotage the rule on behalf of big banks. Treasury’s main complaint is that the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule will enable consumers to seek effective remedy against corporate wrongdoers. This is true – but it’s precisely the purpose of the rule.

What Treasury’s so-called analysis fails utterly to grapple with is that consumers have no effective redress in individualized arbitration, especially for small-dollar rip-offs affecting a broad range of people. Class-action lawsuits advance justice by transferring ripped-off money back to consumers (and attorneys are paid only if they recover for their clients). The Treasury Department’s report treats this feature as a bug. Effective remedies deter financial industry wrongdoing, while fake remedies encourage more rip-offs and abuses.

Treasury might better have titled its report ‘Enabling Wells Fargo, Equifax and Other Wrongdoers.’”

– Robert Weissman, president, Public Citizen

“The Treasury report willfully ignores the fact that class actions returned $2.2 billion to consumers between 2008-2012 – after deducting attorneys’ fees and court costs. That hardly seems like ‘no relief.’ What’s more, the Economic Policy Institute found that the average consumer who goes to arbitration ends up having to pay their bank or lender $7,725 in fees. It is clear that consumers derive benefits from class-action lawsuits and lose when forced into secret arbitration.”

Real world experience makes it clear that if Wall Street banks save money by avoiding litigation – whether that’s court costs or attorneys’ fees – that money stays in their own pockets. The rest of us continue to pay the costs of consumer rip-offs, which forced arbitration protects as a workable business model.”

– Lisa Donner, executive director, Americans for Financial Reform

###

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

FHA EXTENDS FORECLOSURE RELIEF FOR HOMEOWNERS IMPACTED BY RECENT HURRICANES

FHA EXTENDS FORECLOSURE RELIEF FOR HOMEOWNERS IMPACTED BY RECENT HURRICANES

Foreclosure moratorium extended another 90 days to help struggling families

WASHINGTON – The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is extending its initial 90-day foreclosure moratorium for FHA-insured homeowners impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria for an additional 90 days due to the extensive damage and continuing needs in hard-hit areas. Read FHA’s letter to lenders, servicers and counseling agencies.

FHA is extending this foreclosure relief in Presidentially declared counties and municipalities where the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is operating its Individual Assistance Program. Under the expanded moratorium, FHA is instructing lenders and servicers to suspend all foreclosure actions against borrowers until the following dates:

Hurricane Harvey – February 21, 2018
Hurricane Irma – March 9, 2018
Hurricane Maria – March 19, 2018

FHA-insured homeowners may qualify for this relief under the following conditions:

  • The household lives within the geographic boundaries of a Presidentially declared disaster area;
  • A household member of someone who is deceased, missing or injured directly due to the disaster; or
  • The borrower’s ability to make mortgage payments is directly or substantially affected by a disaster.

In addition to the extension of FHA’s initial foreclosure moratorium, the agency is:

    • Offering forbearance and loan modification options – HUD offers different forbearance and loan modification options for FHA borrowers affected by disasters. Borrowers having trouble making regular payments should contact their loan servicer as soon as possible for more information.
    • Making mortgage insurance available – HUD’s Section 203(h) program provides FHA insurance to disaster victims who have lost their homes and are facing the daunting task of rebuilding or buying another home. Borrowers from participating FHA-approved lenders are eligible for 100 percent financing, including closing costs.
    • Making insurance available for both mortgages and home rehabilitation – HUD’s Section 203(k) loan program enables those who have lost their homes to finance the purchase or refinance of a house along with its repair through a single mortgage. It also allows homeowners who have damaged houses to finance the rehabilitation of their existing single-family home;
  • Sharing information with FEMA and the State on housing providers that may have available units in the impacted counties – this includes Public Housing Agencies and Multi-Family owners. The Department will also connect FEMA and the State to subject matter experts to provide information on HUD programs and providers.

Read about these and other HUD programs designed to assist disaster victims.

###

HUD’s mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all.
More information about HUD and its programs is available on the Internet
at www.hud.gov and https://espanol.hud.gov.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

BofA Judge Still Resists Erasing ‘Heartless’ Foreclosure Ruling

BofA Judge Still Resists Erasing ‘Heartless’ Foreclosure Ruling

Bloomberg-

A judge who imposed a $45 million penalty on Bank of America Corp. over a foreclosure on a California couple still isn’t ready to forget the case he described as a “Kafkaesque nightmare.”

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein voiced exasperation Wednesday as the bank sought for the third time to win his approval of a confidential settlement that would nix the monetary penalty and also erase the 107-page ruling he issued in March detailing the bank’s “callous” and “cruel” treatment of the Sundquist family after they sought a mortgage modification.

Klein asked the bank’s attorney at a hearing in Sacramento: “Are you representing, ‘Oh, judge, we just get to erase the record whenever we want?” The judge said it looked to him like the bank was “holding the Sundquists hostage” by making the settlement contingent on the ruling being dismissed.

[BLOOMBERG]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

TFH 10/22 | Special Seventh Year Anniversary Show Foreclosure Workshops #49 and #50:  Wells Fargo Bank v. Erum — When Is a “Notice of Default” a Notice of Default and When Is It Not?  Nationstar Mortgage v. Akepa Properties — When Is a Foreclosing Plaintiff’s “Lack of Standing” a Jurisdictional Defect and When Is It Not?

TFH 10/22 | Special Seventh Year Anniversary Show Foreclosure Workshops #49 and #50: Wells Fargo Bank v. Erum — When Is a “Notice of Default” a Notice of Default and When Is It Not? Nationstar Mortgage v. Akepa Properties — When Is a Foreclosing Plaintiff’s “Lack of Standing” a Jurisdictional Defect and When Is It Not?

COMING TO YOU LIVE DIRECTLY FROM THE DUBIN LAW OFFICES AT HARBOR COURT, DOWNTOWN HONOLULU, HAWAII

LISTEN TO KHVH-AM (830 ON THE AM RADIO DIAL)

ALSO AVAILABLE ON KHVH-AM ON THE iHEART APP ON THE INTERNET

.

.

Sunday – October 22

 ———————
Special Seventh Year Anniversary Show
Foreclosure Workshops #49 and #50:

Wells Fargo Bank v. Erum — When Is a “Notice of Default” a Notice of Default and When Is It Not?

Nationstar Mortgage v. Akepa Properties — When Is a Foreclosing Plaintiff’s “Lack of Standing” a Jurisdictional Defect and When Is It Not?

 

 

For too long most of our courts have cavalierly discriminated against homeowners by consciously or otherwise going out of their way to protect foreclosing plaintiffs, applying legal doctrines against mortgagors differently than in other areas of the law.

On today’s Seventh Anniversary Show, we will examine two such major areas of discrimination, the first involving the treatment of default notices, and the second the treatment of standing defects.

While progress is being made in our courts opposing such discrimination against homeowners, it will never end until more “Rosa Parks” among homeowners stand up and refuse to go to the back of the bus, as it were, and join together to protect their legal, often constitutional rights, still continuing to be too often thoughtlessly abused.

On today’s show, join John and me and learn how such discrimination is playing out in two important foreclosure defense areas on our Seventh Anniversary Show, as we begin our eighth year on KHVH AM Radio, beginning as weekly guests with our clients on the Rick Hamada Show in 2010, eventually hosting our own Foreclosure Hour on KHVH AM Radio and nationally on iHeart Radio for the past four years.

Listen to today’s show, posted on our website at www.foreclosurehour.com, and find out how you can change American history, beat the banks, by joining the Homeowners SuperPAC today.

.
Host: Gary Dubin Co-Host: John Waihee

.

CALL IN AT (808) 521-8383 OR TOLL FREE (888) 565-8383

Have your questions answered on the air.

Submit questions to info@foreclosurehour.com

The Foreclosure Hour is a public service of the Dubin Law Offices

Past Broadcasts

EVERY SUNDAY
3:00 PM HAWAII
6:00 PM PACIFIC
9:00 PM EASTERN
ON KHVH-AM
(830 ON THE DIAL)
AND ON
iHEART RADIO

The Foreclosure Hour 12

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

California, Ohio Extend Sanctions Against Wells Fargo Bank

California, Ohio Extend Sanctions Against Wells Fargo Bank

Corporate Counsel-

California State Treasurer John Chiang said he has decided to extend his state’s financial sanctions against Wells Fargo & Co. into a second year, while Ohio extended its sanctions another six months.

At least four other states and three cities also suspended their governments’ business with Wells Fargo. So far only California and Ohio have extended their suspensions, according to bank spokesman Gabriel Boehmer.

Chiang imposed the ban against doing state Treasury business with Wells Fargo last October after it was revealed the bank had set up millions of fake accounts without customers’ knowledge.

[CORPORATE COUNSEL]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

How Banks Undermined Federal Foreclosure Assistance

How Banks Undermined Federal Foreclosure Assistance

Obama’s 2009 mortgage-modification program would have helped 70% more homeowners if lenders had been better organized.

Stanford Graduate School of Business-

In early 2009, in the depths of the mortgage meltdown, President Barack Obama launched a multi-billion-dollar effort to stem the flood of home foreclosures.

It was called the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), and it aimed to help families keep their homes by offering incentives to banks and loan-servicing companies that modified mortgages of troubled borrowers.

The idea was to correct what economists call a “market failure,” because foreclosures can be a losing proposition for everybody involved. Not only do borrowers end up losing their homes, but a bank’s loss from a foreclosed mortgage can actually be higher than the cost of negotiating more favorable terms with the homeowner. Foreclosures also drag down the value of surrounding properties, creating wider losses by depressing the overall housing market.

[Stanford Graduate School of Business]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD0 Comments

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives