A Year Ago, A Storm of Allegations And Reports Highlighting Robo-Signing And Foreclosure Fraud Swept Across America Causing Major Banks To Halt Foreclosures Nationwide While Congressional, State, And Federal Investigations Were Launched. A Year Later, While Investigations Are Still Ongoing, Regulators Have Failed To Correct The Underlying Issues Behind Foreclosure Fraud And Robo-Signing. The Overwhelming Evidence Presented In This Paper Is That Not Only Were American Homeowners And Borrowers Defrauded In The World’s Greatest Financial Scam, But American’s Wealth And Security Were Placed At Risk. To Date, There Has Been Only One Criminal Conviction Of An Executive Of A Major Mortgage Company And Other Criminal Convictions Have Been Halted. Still, As Shown In This Paper, Foreclosure Fraud And Robo-Signing Continue While Some Courts Address The Issue And Others Ignore The Ramifications Of This Massive Fraud. What Is Now Known Is That These Scams Were Not Unique, But Industry-Wide. The Mortgage-Backed Securities Turned Out To Be Non-Mortgage & Note Backed Empty Trusts. To Conceal This Massive Ponzi Scheme Perpetuated Against Americans, The Nation’s Mortgage Industry Continues To Manufacture, Fabricate, & Destroy Evidence, Despite The Inherent Risks And Ramifications Since Over 90% of Borrowers Don’t Challenge Their Foreclosures.
In a staggering 92 percent of the claims brought by creditors asserting the right to foreclose against bankrupt families in New York City and the close-in suburbs, banks and mortgage servicers couldn’t prove they had the right to kick the families out on the street, a three-month probe by The Post has shown.
But that didn’t stop the banks from trying.
By robosigning documents and pressing foreclosures without the proper paperwork, banks have attempted to steamroll their way over sometimes-outgunned homeowners, The Post has uncovered.
But homeowners and the courts are starting to fight back.
By now I imagine that everyone recognizes a pandemic of legally flawed foreclosures has infected America’s land records. But not everyone realizes how deep the greed and “corner cutting” goes. For example, a significant percentage of the flawed proceedings tainting our hundreds-year-healthy system of tracking land ownership may reflect nothing more than mortgage servicers’ unwillingness to get the original promissory note, mortgage and assignments from the vault. That is, using the real, accurate documents (and complying with the rules and law) is too expensive.
(Sorry officer, I recognize I was going 80 in a 35 mile an hour zone. It was costing me too much money to drive the speed limit. Time is money.)
Although disappointing not to see the final outcome behind the documents, this does not settle well with the FRAUD obviously involved.
“We conclude that this is a question of great public importance, as many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents,” the appeals court wrote in certification to the Supreme Court.
HOW should banks atone for those foreclosure abuses — all the robo-signing and shoddy recordkeeping that jettisoned so many people from their homes?
It has been four months since a deal to remedy this mess was floated. Not much has happened since — at least not publicly.
Last week, banking executives and state attorneys general met in Washington to try to settle their differences. At issue was how much banks should pay, and how and to whom, to make this all go away. The initial terms, which emerged in March, were said to carry a $20 billion price tag.
A push by U.S. banks to win broad liability releases has become one of the main obstacles in talks to resolve a nationwide probe of mortgage-servicing and foreclosure practices, two people briefed on the matter said.
The mortgage servicers want protection from additional state and federal claims over their mortgage practices as part of reaching a settlement that may exceed $20 billion, according to the people, who declined to be named because the talks are private. The banks are seeking releases that go beyond servicing of mortgages to include lending and securitization of loans, one of the people said.
With nearly 30,000 Washington state properties in foreclosure, Cantwell calls on federal agencies to improve transparency in effort to root out ‘robo-signing’
Wednesday, July 20,2011
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) joined Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and eight other senators in urging for increased transparency among mortgage servicers’ practices to prevent illegal foreclosures. In a letter sent today to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the senators urged the agencies to release information regarding each mortgage servicer’s performance to the public to prevent illegal foreclosure practices. The letter arrives in the wake of recent reports that illegal foreclosure “robo-signing” by banks is still rampant.
Rooting out illegal foreclosure practices would help ensure that Washington state homeowners are not being unfairly forced to leave their homes. Through the first six months of 2011, Washington state had the 15th highest foreclosure rate in the country. RealtyTrac reports that the state had 4,450 new foreclosure filings in June and that overall, there were 29,398 foreclosure properties.
“We believe it is essential that the items listed above be made available to the general public or the public will lack confidence in both the foreclosure review process and results,” said Cantwell and other Senators in the letter sent today. “This is particularly the case because the foreclosure reviews are being performed by consultants who are chosen by the mortgage servicers themselves, and those consultants often have conflicts of interest in that they are not prohibited from getting future business from those same mortgage servicers.”
Enforcement actions were initiated by federal regulators because of the “robo-signing” scandal from last year that revealed many servicers were wrongfully foreclosing on homeowners and not following existing foreclosure procedures and laws. Robo-signing is when banks falsely swear that they have reviewed property documents that are necessary to foreclose on a homeowner’s house. Recently both the Associated Press and Reuters reported that despite regulators’ assurances to the contrary, illegal robo-signing allegedly remains rampant in both foreclosure and non-foreclosure cases.
The request for disclosures is also based upon concern over the fact the consultants performing foreclosure reviews have conflicts of interest since they are chosen by the mortgage servicers they are hired to investigate and have done past or future business with those same mortgage servicers. The Senators are requesting public release of Engagement Letters, Action Plans, Foreclosure Reviews, and other plans, policies, or processes submitted by mortgage servicers or third-party servicers to ensure that abuses in foreclosure practices are not being ignored by the review process.
The letter sent today was also signed by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Al Franken (D-MN), Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), Mark Begich (D-AK), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jon Tester (D-MT), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH). All three regulators to whom the letter is addressed will appear before the Senate Banking Committee for a hearing at 10 a.m. tomorrow on the one-year anniversary of the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Mr. John Walsh
Acting Comptroller of the Currency
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
System Independence Square
250 E Street SW
Washington, DC 20219-0001
The Honorable Ben S. Bernanke
Chairman
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
20th Street and Constitution NW
Washington, D.C. 20551
Mr. Martin Gruenberg
Acting Chairman
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Washington, D.C. 20429
Dear Acting Comptroller Walsh, Chairman Bernanke, and Acting Chairman Gruenberg:
We write today to urge you to make public critical information related to enforcement actions taken against mortgage servicers regarding their improper foreclosure practices. This is especially important given this week’s allegations that mortgage servicers continue to engage in widespread “robo-signing” despite your assurances that these illegal actions would not continue. Specifically, we request that you make public the following items related to the April 12, 2011 Consent Orders issued by your offices:
• All “Engagement Letters” governing the mortgage servicers’ contracts with the consultants hired by the servicer to review that servicer’s foreclosure actions;
• All “Action Plans” that mortgage servicers and third-party service providers are required to provide to regulators and that will outline the financial resources, organizational changes, measurement systems, governance controls, and timelines that will be adopted to correct improper foreclosure practices;
• All “Foreclosure Reviews” completed by consultants for each bank, which will outline the results of their investigations into whether ownership of promissory notes or mortgages were properly documented, whether foreclosures were undertaken in accordance with state and federal law, whether calculations under the Home Affordable Modification Program and proprietary loan modification programs were done correctly, whether borrowers were charged excessive or improper fees and penalties related to delinquency, and whether any errors identified caused financial injury to borrowers, among other items;
• Any other plans, policies, or processes submitted to your offices by mortgage servicers or third-party service providers pursuant to the April 12, 2011 Consent Orders whose disclosure is important to instill public confidence in the process and results of the foreclosure reviews.
We believe it is essential that the items listed above be made available to the general public or the public will lack confidence in both the foreclosure review process and results. This is particularly the case because the foreclosure reviews are being performed by consultants who are chosen by the mortgage servicers themselves, and those consultants often have conflicts of interest in that they are not prohibited from getting future business from those same mortgage servicers. The information we are requesting is therefore necessary for the public to determine the independence of the consultants being engaged to perform the foreclosure reviews, the accuracy of the foreclosure reviews, the adequacy of the “Action Plans” in responding to your findings, whether servicer performance meets the goals they have established, and whether those homeowners who experienced harm (such as being improperly foreclosed upon or denied mortgage modifications when they should have been granted under existing criteria) are given appropriate remedies. Based on a legal analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, we also believe that it is well within your regulatory discretion under existing laws to disclose this information in the public interest. This is consistent with your previous determination in April that release of the Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices, which was essentially an examination report of foreclosure practices, was also in the public interest. We understand concerns about not revealing mortgage servicers’ proprietary information, but also believe that some disclosure can be done on a bank by bank basis without compromising proprietary information.
Furthermore, we believe that the full disclosure of these documents to the public is necessary given the recent reports by both the Associated Press and Reuters of the continued widespread practice of “robo-signing” among mortgage servicers. Both have alleged that servicers continue to file thousands of property documents that appear to be fabricated. Reuters also quoted a top representative from the mortgage servicing industry saying that the Consent Orders have “not put a stop to questionable practices.” David Stevens, president of the Mortgage Bankers Association, tellingly said that some loan servicers “continue to cut corners” and “the real question is whether the servicer complied with all legal requirements.”
We respectfully request that all documents be made public and sent to Congress within one week of your office receiving them from mortgage servicers or third-party service providers. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Amanda Fischer at (202) 225-2201 or Michael Passante at (202) 224-4744. We appreciate your swift attention to this important matter.
* Negotiations continue despite evidence of continuing irregularities
* Reuters report helps prompt senators to demand information
REUTERS-
NEW YORK, July 20 (Reuters) – State attorneys general are negotiating to give major banks wide immunity over irregularities in handling foreclosures, even as evidence has emerged that banks are continuing to file questionable documents.
A coalition of all 50 states’ attorneys general has been negotiating settlements with five of the biggest U.S. banks that would include payment of up to $25 billion in penalties and commitments to follow new rules. In exchange, the banks would get immunity from civil lawsuits by the states, as well as similar guarantees by the Justice Department and Department of Housing and Urban Development, which have participated in the talks.
TO: John O’Brien
Register of Deeds Southern Essex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
FROM: Jamie Ranney, Esq.
Jamie Ranney, PC
4 Thirty Acres Lane
Nantucket, MA 02554
508.228.9224 (tel)
508.228-4752 (fax)
DATE: June 18, 2011
RE: Legal authority of Registers of Deeds in Massachusetts to reject document(s) and/or instrument(s) for recording in their registries
QUESTION PRESENTED
What legal authority does a Register of Deeds in Massachusetts have to reject for recording (unregistered land) or registration (Land Court registered land) document(s) and/or instrument(s) in his Registry and where is such legal authority derived from?
SUMMARY
It is without question that a Register of Deeds has an important and fiduciary relationship and responsibility – especially in the Commonwealth where his position is elected – to all of his constituents, as well as to the public at large, all of whom rely and who should be able to rely on the Register’s efforts, supervision, and oversight in assuring, maintaining and promoting the integrity, transparency, accuracy, and consistency of a County’s land records.
The Register’s work and supervision of his registry most often revolves around tasks and responsibilities that are generally ministerial in nature. The Register is typically concerned with the daily task of recording of legal document(s) and/or instrument(s) affecting real property where such document(s) and/or instrument(s) are properly presented to the registry for recording on the public land records.
However, the Register’s fiduciary duty goes well beyond these usual ministerial acts in circumstances where the Register has actual knowledge or a subjective good-faith belief/basis for believing that document(s) and/or instrument(s) being presented for recording or registration in the registry for which he has responsibility are fraudulent or otherwise not executed or acknowledged under applicable law. In such cases the Register may lawfully refuse to record such document(s) and/or instrument(s).
Signatures on documents used in foreclosure cases under review
The Sun News-
Anthony Wise has been selling real estate in the Myrtle Beach area for nearly three decades, but he had never heard of Linda Green until after his home went into foreclosure.
Now, just like hundreds of thousands of people nationwide, Wise is finding that the biggest investment he will ever make – his home – is closely tied to Green … or someone pretending to be her.
Green was a shipping clerk for an automobile parts company before taking a job in the signature room at a mortgage document company called DocX in Alpharetta, Ga., according to news reports.
[…]
Richard Lovelace, a Conway lawyer who specializes in real estate and banking law, said the banks who used DocX – or similar document mills – have put themselves at risk if homeowners can prove the paperwork is fraudulent.
That is true even if a home has already been lost to foreclosure.
Which brings us to BONY v. Faulk. In this case, the foreclosure filing included a 3 page note. The note lacked endorsements connecting the originator to BONY as trustee for the foreclosing securitziation trust. This set up a motion to dismiss on the grounds that BONY didn’t have any right to do anything–it had no connection with the note.
But wait! Suddenly BONY’s attorney tells the court that she is in possession of the fourth page of the note, which includes a blank endorsement. Puhlease… What a ridiculous deus ex machina ending. Are we do believe that this attorney filed 3 pages of the note, but not the 4th? If so, I sure hope she’s not billing for that screw up.
But here’s what perplexes me. Suppose that an allonge is produced. How are we going to know when that allonge was created or that it even relates to the note in question? (Just so everyone’s clear–if the endorsement were created later, then BONY as trustee for CWABS 2006-13 trust had no standing at the time the action was filed because the trust didn’t own the note at that time.) How do we know that this attorney isn’t engaged in fraud on the court (and a host of other violations of state and federal law)?
And this isn’t even getting into the question of whether the PSA at issue requires specific endorsements, not endorsements in blank. As it turns out that’s a problem in this particular case. Here’s the PSA for CWABS 2006-13 trust. Section 2.01(g)(1) provides that the Depositor deliver to the trustee:
the original Mortgage Note, endorsed by manual of facsimile signature in blank in the following form: “Pay to the order of _______ without recourse”, with all intervening endorsements that show a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the Person endorsing the Mortgage Note…
“Now allonges. An allonge isn’t a delicious throat-soothing lozenge from Switzerland. It’s a piece of paper that goes a-long with the note. The allonge is basically an overflow sheet for extra endorsements”
Prof. Adam Levitin:
I have generally been willing to give mortgage servicers, servicer support shops (like LPS), and foreclosure attorneys the benefit of the doubt when it comes to documentation irregularities (to put it mildly) in foreclosures. My working assumption up to this point has been that the documentation problems have been a function of corner cutting with securitization based on the assumptions that (1) the loans would perform better than they did and (2) those that defaulted would result in default judgments in foreclosure, so no one would ever notice the problems. I’ve also assumed that lack of capacity has played a critical role in problems in the default management chain–the system is held together by Scotch tape at this point. In other words, the problems in the system weren’t caused by malice.
The bank had added Szymoniak’s son, Mark Cullen, to the foreclosure suit this May, a move that many experts saw as an act of retaliation against Szymoniak, who has publicized banks’ widespread use of forged signatures in the foreclosure process to improperly give borrowers the boot. On June 8, lawyers filed a “Notice of Dropping Party” with the Florida court dismissing its previous claims against Cullen.
Professor Mary K. Ramirez*, Washburn University School of Law
*Professor Ramirez is a thirteen-year veteran of the Department of Justice, having worked as a Senior Trial Attorney with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas, and as a Trial Attorney for the DOJ Antitrust Division.
Abstract
Criminal Affirmance: Going Beyond the Deterrence Paradigm to Examine the Social Meaning Expressed by Exercising Discretion to Decline Prosecution of Elite Crime
Professor Mary Kreiner Ramirez
Article Abstract Recent financial scandals and the relative paucity of criminal prosecutions in response suggest a new reality in the criminal law system: some wrongful actors appear above the law and immune from criminal prosecution. As such, the criminal prosecutorial system affirms much of the wrongdoing giving rise to the crisis. This leaves the same elites undisturbed at the apex of the financial sector, and creates perverse incentives for any successors. Further, this undermines the legitimacy of the rule of law and encourages even more lawlessness among the entire population. These considerations transcend deterrence as well as retribution as a traditional basis for criminal punishment. Affirmance is far more costly and dangerous with respect to the crimes of powerful elites that control large organizations than can be accounted for under traditional nations of deterrence. Few limits are placed on a prosecutor’s discretionary decision about whom to prosecute, and many factors against prosecution are available, especially in resource-intensive white collar crime prosecutions. This article asserts that prosecutors should not exercise that discretion without considering its potential affirmance of crime.
Nick Timiraos has a great piece in the WSJ about the state of play on foreclosure defense litigation. It quotes Larry Platt, a bank-industry lawyer at K&L Gates (which lost Ibanez). It’s worth pausing for a second to consider what Platt said. Although Platt
concedes that banks may have been sloppy… [he claims that]… “the real assault on the legal system” are efforts by judges and local officials to strip lenders of their rightful ownership and make foreclosures impossible.
Platt’s view, it seems, is that everyone understood the mortgage deal and that the paperwork doesn’t really matter. That’s a very problematic view for any attorney to take, much less one with a background in real estate, secured lending, and securitization. (A less charitable interpretation of Platt’s comments is that the proper outcomes has nothing to do with law. Instead, it’s paperwork and intent be damned, we’re the banks so we should win by right.)
Federal regulators have ordered Midvale-based Ally Bank to fix significant deficiencies in its foreclosure practices covering a two-year period in which among other things it submitted bogus legal documents for bankruptcies and other court actions.
The order from the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. alleges employees of Ally, two sister companies and their parent company, Allied Financial, signed foreclosure documents without reading them — a possibly illegal practice known as “robo-signing.”
Indeed, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman recently said that his office is probing mortgage processing firm Lender Processing Services and National Title Clearing.
Schneiderman also launched a probe into the mortgage securitization practices of major investment banks Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and UBS.
If you’ve ever bought or sold a home…you need to hear this. Hank found a signature buried deep in your mortgage documents could be a ticking time bomb for thousands of Massachusetts homeowners. For those in foreclosure: it could be a lifesaver. It’s a shocking, amazing, unbelievable story. Hank Investigates.
Chicago — Attorney General Lisa Madigan today expanded her investigation into “robosigning” practices, issuing subpoenas against two national mortgage servicing support providers. The subpoenas are the latest effort in Madigan’s ongoing probe into the fraudulent practices used by banks and other mortgage institutions that contributed to the collapse of the U.S. housing market and the subsequent global financial crisis.
Madigan issued subpoenas against Lender Processing Services Inc. and Nationwide Title Clearing Inc., two Florida-based corporations that provide “document preparation services” and other loan management services to mortgage lenders for use against borrowers who are in default, foreclosure or bankruptcy.
“Foreclosure became a rubber-stamping operation that robbed many homeowners of the American Dream without a fair and accurate process,” Attorney General Madigan said. “I will not relent in my investigation into the fraudulent practices by lenders and others that caused and exacerbated the mortgage crisis and the resulting massive foreclosure crisis.”
Lender Processing Services (LPS) provides loan servicing support for more than 50 percent of all U.S. mortgages. More than 80 financial institutions use LPS to service more than 30 million loans. These loans have an outstanding principal balance exceeding $4.5 trillion.
Nationwide Title Clearing (NTC) provides a range of mortgage loan services to eight of the top 10 lenders and mortgage servicers in the country. NTC specializes in creating, processing and recording mortgage assignments, which are often needed for a lender to foreclose on a borrower.
Madigan will investigate reported allegations that LPS and NTC engaged in the practice of “robosigning” legal documents filed with the court to foreclose on borrowers. Robosigning occurs when an individual has no knowledge of the information contained in the document and often doesn’t even read or understand the document that he or she is signing. The use of robosigned documents was pervasive as lenders foreclosed on borrowers’ homes. The probe will also include a complete review of the accuracy of the systems and services that LPS and NTC provide to the large lenders including servicing platforms, foreclosure attorney interaction with these platforms and the assignment of mortgage process.
Attorney General Madigan said former employees of LPS, NTC, or former employees of any residential mortgage servicer or bank who have knowledge of any unlawful practices relating to mortgage servicing or the execution of documents should call her Homeowner Helpline at 1-866-544-7151 to aid in the investigation.
LOS ANGELES – Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced she has subpoenaed Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS), as part of her continuing probe into “robosigning” of mortgage documents and other illegal activities in the mortgage servicing industry, especially misconduct affecting borrowers facing, or in the midst of, foreclosure.
Robosigning is the practice of signing documents used by banks or mortgage servicing companies to foreclose on borrowers without verifying their accuracy – often thousands of different documents signed by a single individual per day. In many cases, the robosigners don’t even read or understand the document they are signing.
“California homeowners have been exposed to fraud and crime at every step of the mortgage process,” said Attorney General Harris. “Justice demands we come to their aid and a key step in that is to investigate robosigning and the potential for inaccurate or unjust foreclosures.”
Former LPS employees have testified that LPS designees “robosigned” foreclosure documents. LPS prepared and recorded these foreclosure documents on behalf of many of the largest mortgage lenders and servicers in the country.
The Attorney General’s investigative subpoena requires LPS to produce documents and provide written answers to questions from the Attorney General’s office. The time period covered by the subpoena runs from Jan. 1, 2007, until just before the compliance date, which is no later than June 24 of this year.
LPS, based in Jacksonville, Fla., with several offices in California, provides loan management services to mortgage lenders, including document preparation services and a software platform used by much of the mortgage industry. According to its website, LPS systems are used for servicing over 50% of all mortgages in the United States and more than 80 financial institutions contract with LPS to service more than 30 million loans with an outstanding principal balance exceeding $4.5 trillion.
Attorney General Harris warned that the risks posed by robosigning are particularly dangerous in non-judicial foreclosure states such as California, where the courts typically are not involved in overseeing the foreclosure process.
On Monday, Attorney General Harris announced the creation of a Mortgage Fraud Strike Force, staffed by two dozen Department of Justice attorneys and investigators to monitor and prosecute violations at every step of the mortgage process, from the origination of mortgage loans to the marketing of mortgage-backed securities to the investing public.
This is not a glamorous approach to law enforcement, It is a slow laborious grind. As I presented to the National Association of Attorneys General, there are 10 major areas of bank and mortgage fraud:
1. MERS
2. Mortgage Pools (Warranties & Reps)
3. Bad Securitization (Quality)
4. “Misplaced” Mortgage Notes
5. Force-Placed Insurance
6. Illegal “Pyramid” Servicing Fees
7. Document Fraud for Sale
8. False Affidavits, Perjury (Robo-Signing)
9. Foreclosure Mills, Process servers exasperate problem
10. Active Servicemen losing homes while on tour of duty
Of this list, five issues are prosecution-ready, where individual states have jurisdiction. These include: 1) Force-Placed Insurance; 2) Illegal “Pyramid” Servicing Fees; 3) Fraud Documents for Sale; 4) False Affidavits, Perjury (Robo-Signing) and 5) Foreclosure Mills, Process servers.
Mistakes happen, of course. And loan servicers like to contend that if errors occur, they are rare and honestly made. But after sifting through the data produced by this investigation, Mr. White disagreed that problems are rare. “In Senate testimony, an executive from Countrywide said its error rate was 1 percent,” Mr. White recalled. “The mortgage servicer industry error rate might be 10 times higher, based on the number of cases we are looking at.”
“There are continued flaws in the process, and they are not merely technical,” Mr. White continued. “Those flaws undermine the integrity of the bankruptcy system. Many homeowners have been harmed, including where the lender has come in and said ‘we want to lift the stay and go back into foreclosure proceedings,’ even though they lacked a sufficient basis to do it.”
![[VIDEO] Essex County, MA Locates 6,000+ DOCx “Linda Green” Documents](https://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2011/05/linda-green2.jpg&w=100&h=57&zc=1&q=90)
Recent Comments