IMO the reason they are trying to rush into a settlement today, rather than later, is because there is a new Ticking Time Bomb that is about to explode that will most likely cost these banksters in the 100’s of billions. So taking baby steps this settlement won’t harm them as much as the next robo-signing scandal will and they want this out of the way long before the next scheme plays in a court room near you.

AB-

Pity Shaun Donovan. The much beset upon Housing and Urban Development secretary has the thankless task of facilitating that long sought after agreement between the state attorneys general and the banks, the one that would finally put that nasty robo-signing scandal behind us.  Long anticipated, it was supposed to be signed by Christmas (not).

[AMERICAN BANKER]

See this is how things get twisted because just today, Shaun Donovan announced that the Principal Forgiveness isn’t going to happen.

Fox News-

The Obama administration came under fire Monday from U.S. Democratic lawmakers and liberal groups, who argued that a forthcoming settlement over alleged foreclosure abuses won’t do enough to penalize the banking industry.

Administration officials and state attorneys general are have been putting the finishing touches on a settlement with major banks of foreclosure-processing problems that erupted into public view in fall 2010.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Associate U.S. Attorney General Thomas Perrelli were meeting in Chicago on Monday with Democratic attorneys general to review potential settlement terms, according to a spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who has been leading the talks.

The officials were scheduled to hold a separate conference call with Republican attorneys general later in the day, but no announcement of a settlement was expected this week.

[FOX NEWS]

Read The BK Order: In Re: JOHNSON – Bank. EDArk – Chase/JP Morgan Chase – No access to Arkansas non-judicial f/c process if not authorized to do business in state

Arkasas Online-

LITTLE ROCK Many title insurance companies in Arkansas are refusing to issue policies in the sale of certain foreclosed-on properties, after a local U.S. Bankruptcy Court ruling in September called into question the validity of the homes’ titles. Sales …

[ARKANSAS ONLINE] subscription

ONE of the richest and most secretive sources of profit in the mortgage business is coming under scrutiny.

It’s about time.

 Gretchen Morgenson-

Investigators are training their sights on a type of hazard insurance policy known as force-placed insurance, a type of policy that has driven up costs for homeowners and pushed some into foreclosure. People who buy certain mortgage securities may be getting hurt, too.

Benjamin M. Lawsky, the superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, is investigating institutions that underwrite and sell force-placed insurance. Last fall, his office began sending subpoenas to insurance agents and brokers. Requests for information also went out to insurance companies that write such policies.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

NYTimes-

FORCE-PLACED insurance. Most homeowners never hear about it until their mortgage lender sends them a letter saying that they must have flood or some other kind of insurance and that if they don’t act quickly, the lender will buy it for them — at a price, it turns out, that is almost always much higher than the market rate.

I was one of those homeowners, and I wrote a column last year about how difficult it was to get this type of insurance removed. I was reminded of that column when I read a colleague’s article about New York State investigating banks for making homeowners buy this overpriced insurance.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

DEXIA SA/NV; DEXIA HOLDINGS, INC.;
FSA ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC; DEXIA
CRÉDIT LOCAL SA,
Plaintiffs,

v.

BEAR STEARNS & CO. INC., THE BEAR
STEARNS COMPANIES, INC., BEAR
STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I
LLC, EMC MORTGAGE LLC (f/k/a EMC
MORTGAGE CORPORATION),
STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE
INVESTMENTS II INC., J.P. MORGAN
ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION I, J.P.
MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION
CORPORATION., J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES LLC (f/k/a J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES INC.), WAMU ASSET
ACCEPTANCE CORP., WAMU CAPITAL
CORP., WASHINGTON MUTUAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., LONG
BEACH SECURITIES CORP., JPMORGAN
CHASE & CO., and JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A.,
Defendants.

[ipaper docId=78942075 access_key=key-27bucn70rigsrqv9dex5 height=600 width=600 /]

Many original notes and mtges have never been filed as I previously warned about BONY and/or the endorsement page(s) are missing. Especially from Countrywide/ Bank of America/ America’s Wholesale Lender!

__________________________________

Q. Okay, as far as the copy of the note is concerned, to your knowledge do you know anybody who held the note whether or not any of the people named in this action ever held a note to your knowledge?

[Objection sustained. Counsel nonetheless continuing . . . .]

Q. Whether Fairbanks Capital Corporation, Residential Funding
Corporation[,] J.P. Morgan, New York Bank of New York [sic] ever
held the original note?

A. I do not have personal knowledge of the original note.
. . . .

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012
Opinion filed January 18, 2012.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A., as successor to
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as trustee,
Appellant,
vs.
George H. Rodgers and Caroline J. Rodgers,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Margarita

EXCERPT:

SHEPHERD, J., dissenting.

This case is illustrative of the consequences of a breakdown of a property
transfer system. Because of the breakdown in this case, I would affirm the
involuntary dismissal of the Bank of New York’s (the Bank) attempted foreclosure
action in this case.

The Bank’s action is based upon a standard FNMA/FHLMC promissory
note and mortgage executed on June 25, 1999, by George H. Rodgers and Caroline
J. Rodgers to Metropolitan Mortgage Co., in its capacity as the originating lender
on the Rodgers’ residential property. The action was initiated on January 5, 2005,
by JP Morgan Chase Bank, formerly known as Chase Manhattan, as Trustee,
Residential Funding Corporation, as Attorney in Fact (JP Morgan Chase). The
sole witness offered by the Bank to prove the Bank’s ownership of the promissory
note and mortgage, and the default on the loan, was Annassa Blackman, Business
Relationship Manager for Litton Loan Services, the servicing agent for the loan
since January 30, 2002.1 Ms. Blackman testified from a file she brought with her
to trial, but it is clear she was not the custodian of those records, and Bank counsel
did not attempt to prove otherwise. Despite vigorous objection by counsel for the
Rodgers, the trial court nevertheless permitted Ms. Blackman to testify as to the
contents of the file.

The file contained neither the original note nor the original mortgage. Ms.
Blackman admitted in her testimony she “[had] no knowledge of the last [entity]
who had it or anything else about the original note.” She thought the note was lost
by counsel during the course of a prior foreclosure action filed by JP Morgan
Chase in January 2003, but upon being shown a copy of the complaint filed in the
2003 foreclosure action, acknowledged that action, like the present one, also
contained a claim for re-establishment of lost note. 2, 3 Thus, it cannot be said, as
the majority asserts, that the note “disappeared in the bowls of the clerk’s office
after being filed in a prior proceeding.”

Nor do the copies of the transfer documentation in the file brought by Ms.
Blackman to the trial conclusively resolve the central issue in this case. The
Rodgers executed the promissory note and mortgage on June 25, 1999. There can
be no question but that Metropolitan Mortgage Co. had the original documents at
that time. The copy of the original note, admitted into evidence by the trial court
over the Rodgers’ objection, reflects it was endorsed on a date unknown by
Metropolitan Mortgage Co. to Fairbanks Capital Corporation, and then on May 14,
2001, Fairbanks Capital executed an Assignment of Deed of Trust, purporting to
assign both the note and mortgage to JP Morgan Chase. A copy of an allonge,
purportedly attached to the promissory note, indicates that on some unknown date
the promissory note was endorsed by Fairbanks Capital Corporation to Residential
Funding Corporation, and on some later date from Residential Funding to JP
Morgan Chase, as Trustee. Absent testimony from a witness with knowledge, it
cannot be determined exactly when, between June 25, 1999, and the date of the
filing of the foreclosure complaint in this case, the promissory note was lost or by
what entity.

Section 673.3091 of the Florida Statutes (2004), titled “Enforcement of lost,
destroyed, or stolen instrument,” provides as follows:

(1) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce
the instrument if:

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

As has been the case in many recent foreclosure actions—see, e.g., Mazine v. M &
I Bank, 67 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (reversing final judgment of
foreclosure where the bank failed to prove it holds the note and mortgage in
question); Gee v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 72 So. 3d 211, 214 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
(reversing final summary judgment of foreclosure where U.S. Bank neither
tendered original note nor offered any evidence of its whereabouts at summary
judgment hearing); Servedio v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 46 So. 3d 1105, 1107 (Fla.
4th DCA 2010) (reversing final summary judgment of foreclosure where record on
appeal contained neither original note nor any other evidence that U.S. Bank
owned or held the note); U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Kimball, 27 A. 3d 1087, 1092
(Vt. 2011) (dismissing foreclosure complaint on basis trial court properly
concluded U.S. Bank lacked standing to show it was holder of note at time
complaint filed); Kondaur Capital Corp. v. Hankins, 25 A. 3d 960, 962 (Me. 2011)
(reversing summary judgment where party did not hold note or mortgage at time
complaint was filed)—the Bank failed to prove, and may be unable to prove, who
owns the promissory note and mortgage in this case. Nor is this the first time in
recent memory the Bank of New York has found itself in this predicament in our
appellate courts. See Verizzo v. Bank of N.Y., 28 So. 3d 976, 978 (Fla. 2d DCA
2010) (reversing summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of the Bank of New
York just last year where, as is equally true in the case before us, “[n]othing in the
record reflects assignment or endorsement of the note by JP Morgan Chase Bank to
the Bank of New York . . .”). The Bank should receive the same result in this
district court of appeal this year as it did on nearly identical facts in our sister
Second District Court of Appeal last year.

It is apodictic there can be no cause of action to foreclose a mortgage unless
we know where the paper is and that it actually represents something. There is
much “sand in the gears” of our property transfer system in these times. However,
we cannot bend the rules. A person seeking to enforce an instrument conveying an
interest in real property must demonstrate he has directly or indirectly acquired
ownership of the instrument. The majority errs by not insisting upon this
fundamental precept in this case.

I would affirm the decision of the trial court.

[ipaper docId=78753040 access_key=key-5zuvfpljgj16fsnqbwe height=600 width=600 /]

An 11th-hour settlement is expected to stave off potential class action status in a lawsuit that claims foreclosed borrowers were overcharged for attorneys’ fees that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. did not actually incur.

National Mortgage News-

The plaintiffs, Jose and Lorry Trevino, filed a motion seeking class action status and an amended complaint on Jan. 12. The defendants had until Jan. 17 to respond, but received a two-week extension, “so that the parties can memorialize their settlement,” according to court documents filed Jan. 13.

The parties have agreed to terms, but the settlement is pending final paperwork. The case hasn’t been dismissed and likely won’t until the settlement is finalized.

The suit, originally filed in 2007, names Merscorp and a number of its shareholders, including Citigroup, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GMAC Residential Funding, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Washington Mutual and Wells Fargo.

[NATIONAL MORTGAGE NEWS]

[ipaper docId=78671760 access_key=key-8o4lqwsa5jcvg5vbx86 height=600 width=600 /]

NOTE: This is the 2nd Class Action this month alleging “Photo-Shopped” docs.

See the 1st: AURORA Class Action: Photoshopped Assignments and systemic 131g TILA violations

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNEST MICHAEL BAKENIE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarily situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

JPMORGAN CHASE, N.A.; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants

Bakenie v JPMC w[1] by DinSFLA

S T A T E  O F  M I C H I G A N
C O U R T  O F  A P P E A L S

EUIHYUNG KIM and IN SOOK KIM,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,
Defendant-Appellee.

EXCERPT:

Therefore, pursuant to the plain language of MCL 600.3204(3), defendant was required
to record its mortgage interest before the sheriff’s sale. Because defendant failed to do so, it was
not statutorily authorized to proceed with the sale. See MCL 600.3204(3) (“If the party
foreclosing a mortgage by advertisement is not the original mortgagee, a record chain of title
shall exist prior to the date of sale . . . .” [Emphasis added]); see also Davenport v HSBC Bank
USA, 275 Mich App 344, 347-348; 739 NW2d 383 (2007) (“Because defendant lacked the
statutory authority to foreclose, the foreclosure proceedings were void ab initio.”) Accordingly,
the trial court erred by granting summary disposition for defendant and denying plaintiffs’
motion for summary disposition when they were entitled to set aside the sheriff’s deed. Given
our resolution of this issue, it is unnecessary to address plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court
erred by prematurely disposing of their cause of action without permitting discovery.
[ipaper docId=78488254 access_key=key-230vn08yym7yezdbawli height=600 width=600 /]

Note: This post went missing shortly after it was on the site back in June 2011 and IMO may be a clue as to why the recent massive halts nationwide, but in reality, this began last June 🙂

This is far worse than the foreclosure fraud robo-signing scandal and they do not want this to get out of control…it’ll spell doom.

I’d also like to point you to another case that they are aware of that deserves credit: “Robo-Affidavit” Class Action Settles for $5.2 Million | MIDLAND FUNDING v. BRENT

 Decided on June 15, 2011

Civil Court of The City of New York, Kings County

Chase Bank USA, N.A.

against

Shady A. Gergis

EXCERPTS:

UNDERLYING FACTS:

For its first witness, plaintiff called Martin Lavergne, who worked for CHASE BANK USA, N.A.(“Chase”) in various roles over a period of approximately 17 years. Presently, he holds the title of “custodian of records.” While Mr. Lavergne maintained that he had personal knowledge of the practices and procedures that Chase utilized in creating and maintaining consumer credit card account records, he never described these practices and procedures and never testified as to how he acquired personal knowledge of them.

[…]

Notably, some of the records that were shown to Mr. Lavergne were apparently created by Washington Mutual Bank. Mr. Lavergne explained this by stating that at some point in time, Chase had acquired Washington Mutual Bank. No testimony was elicited from Mr. Lavergne that he had worked for Washington Mutual Bank or that he had personal knowledge of the practices and procedures that Washington Mutual Bank employed in creating and maintaining consumer credit card account records.

[…]

Here, Mr. Lavergne’s foundational testimony was essentially a verbatim recitation of the statutory elements set forth in CPLR 4518[a]. He gave absolutely no testimony as to how the electronic records concerning defendant’s account statements came into existence nor did he indicate that he even knew how such information was collected. It would appear that credit card statements contain information that is conveyed from multiple entities, from the reporting merchant through various intermediaries, until the information is ultimately incorporated into plaintiff’s business records (see Discover Bank v Williamson, 2007 NY Slip Op 50231[U] [App Term, 9th and 10th Jud Dists]). Certainly, Mr. Lavergne did not demonstrate that the person or persons who inputted the electronic data had actual knowledge of the events inputted or that such person or persons obtained knowledge of those events from someone with actual knowledge of them and who had a business duty to relay information regarding the events (see Corsi v Town of [*4]Bedford, 58 AD3d 225, 229 [2d Dept 2008]; Capasso v Kleen All of America, Inc., 43 AD3d at 1347).

[…]

Further, Mr. Lavergne’s testimony was highly suspect. As stated above, some of the records that plaintiff sought to introduce into evidence through the testimony of Mr. Lavergne were apparently prepared by Washington Mutual Bank. The foundational testimony given by Mr. Lavergne concerning these records was identical to the foundational testimony he gave concerning the Chase records. It is well settled law that in order for a witness to lay the foundation for the admission of a document as a business record pursuant to CPLR 4518[a], the witness must demonstrate personal knowledge of the business practices and procedures pursuant to which the document was made (see Reiss v Roadhouse Rest., 70 AD3d 1021, 1025 [2d Dept 2010]; Lodato v Greyhawk N. Am., LLC, 39 AD3d 494, 495 [2d Dept 2007]; Vento v City of New York, 25 AD3d 329, 330 [1st Dept 2006]; Dayanim v Unis, 171 AD2d 579 [1st Dept 1991]; Midborough Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2006 NY Slip Op 51879[U] [App. Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Because Mr. Lavergne never worked for Washington Mutual Bank, it defies logic that he would have personal knowledge of Washington Mutual Bank’s business practices and procedures. For these reasons, the Court gives Mr. Lavergne’s “robo-testimony” and plaintiffs’ no weight or credit (People v Barrett, 14 AD3d 369 [1st Dept 2005]; see also Washington Mut. Bank v Phillip, 2010 NY Slip Op 52034[U] [Sup Ct, Kings County]).

[…]

In sum, the offered “robo-testimony” was insufficient to establish its case by a preponderance of the credible evidence. [*5]

Based on the above, it is hereby

ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of defendant SHADY A. GERGIS and against plaintiff CHASE BANK USA, N.A. and that plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice on the merits.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

[ipaper docId=58601475 access_key=key-13b7jr4qpkf19xlbsusy height=600 width=600 /]

American Banker-

JPMorgan Chase & Co. has quietly ceased filing lawsuits to collect consumer debts around the nation, dismissing in-house attorneys and virtually shutting down a collections machine that as recently as nine months ago was racking up hundreds of millions of dollars in monthly judgments.

[AMERICAN BANKER]

Another day, another colossal scandal with these fraudsters…This will make the foreclosure fraud settlement look like an ant next to an elephant.

This may be interested in this as well…Did “Robo-Signing” Cause JPMorgan Chase to Abandon over 1,000 Credit-Card Debt Lawsuits?& This recent NY case CHASE BANK v. GERGIS | NY Civ. Court “ROBO-TESTIMONY, WAMU, CREDIT-CARD DEBT” Dismissed w/ PREJUDICE

Yahoo-

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — Private antitrust litigation pitting some five million retailers against Visa , MasterCard , and 13 large banks, including Bank of America , Citigroup Capital One Financial , JPMorgan Chase , U.S. Bancorp , Wells Fargo , PNC Financial , Fifth Third Bancorp , SunTrust Banks , HSBC and Barclays Plc has slipped under the radar of many analysts and investors who follow those companies, but the case may deliver a multi-billion dollar shock to bank bulls in the coming months.

Estimates of the potential cost of a settlement of the antitrust case vary dramatically–from a few billion dollars into the hundreds of billions. At least as worrisome to the financial companies

[…]

[YAHOO]

Keep digging down the rat hole and you’ll eventually get to the bottom of the Pyramid aka Ponzi!

American Banker-

New York’s Department of Financial Services has been probing banks and insurance companies for allegedly obtaining excessive profits on homeowners’ policies that they force borrowers to pay for when their insurance lapses, said people familiar with the matter.

Superintendent Benjamin M. Lawsky in the fall of 2011 dispatched formal letters to insurers and subpoenas to insurance agents and insurance brokerages run by several large banks to gather information on their practices, the people said.

[AMERICAN BANKER]

If investors were to open an investigation into each and every single one of the “trusts”, all hell would break!

Bloomberg-

JPMorgan Chase & Co has been sued for $95 million by the trustee for securities marketed in 2005 by the former Bear Stearns Cos over alleged misrepresentations regarding the underlying mortgage loans.

US Bank NA wants to force JPMorgan to buy back the mortgage loans because of alleged breaches of representations and warranties regarding the Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2005-4, for which it serves as trustee.

[BLOOMBERG]

The Mortgage Salesman Who Wouldn’t Sell

iWATCH-

In the case of the salesman who wouldn’t sell, the two sides have starkly different tales to tell.

Greg Saffer says conscience and common sense prevented him from pushing the product his bosses wanted him to sell – “Option ARM” home loans that, he says, put homeowners at risk.

“I’m not going to steer people into a loan program that might not be good for them just because it’s more profitable for the company,” he says.

[iWATCH]

National Mortgage News-

JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, told investors at the beginning of 2011 that potential repurchases of private-label mortgage securities are “not that material” for his bank — an assertion that increasingly appears to be in doubt.

Dimon might not be quite so confident these days. Gibbs & Bruns LLP, the law firm that negotiated an $8.5 billion mortgage repurchase settlement with Bank of America Corp. on behalf of a group of large investors, has announced that it is seeking put-backs on $95 billion in private-label mortgage-backed securities issued by JPMorgan Chase, Washington Mutual Inc. and Bear Stearns. Private-label securities are mortgage-backed securities or other bonds that are created and sold by companies other than government-sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[NATIONAL MORTGAGE NEWS]

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT

July Term 2011

ROBERT McLEAN,
Appellant,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, not individually but solely as Trustee for the holders of STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II, INC., MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-ARS,
Appellee.

No. 4D10-3429

[ December 14, 2011 ]

 [ipaper docId=75725680 access_key=key-2mvyag3q7camwerbx1bc height=600 width=600 /]

Just one day after Attorney General Martha Coakley urged Congress to investigate Ally, GMAC, this comes.

REUTERS-

Congressman Barney Frank on Wednesday asked his colleagues to hold a hearing on alleged mortgage abuses at Ally Financial, a day after the attorney general from his home state of Massachusetts requested that lawmakers investigate.

“Given Ally’s significant role in the mortgage business and the federal government’s considerable financial investment,” Frank wrote to Spencer Bachus, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, “a prompt investigation of this matter by the Committee is warranted.”

The U.S. Treasury owns some 74 percent of Ally after a 2008 investment in the firm.

Last week Massachusetts sued Ally’s mortgage unit, GMAC Mortgage, and four other top banks for allegedly pursuing illegal foreclosures and deceiving homeowners whose loans they service.

[REUTERS]

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ONE ASHBURTON PLACE
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108
MARTHA COAKLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
(617) 727-2200
www.mass.gov/ago

December 6, 2011
The Honorable Tim Johnson
Chairman

U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
534 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Spencer Bachus
Chairman
U.S. House Committee on Financial Services
2129 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Ally Financial; GMAC Foreclosure Behavior

I am writing regarding what we believe is serious misconduct committed by Ally
Financial, through its subsidiary GMAC Mortgage, against homeowners in
Massachusetts.

Last week, our office filed a lawsuit against Ally and four national banks for
pursuing illegal foreclosures and deceptive loan servicing. Ally and other banks charted
a destructive path by cutting corners and rushing to foreclose on homeowners without
following the rule of law, which has exacerbated the nation’s foreclosure crisis.
In light of Ally’s alleged deceptive and illegal actions against homeowners in
Massachusetts and across the country, I respectfully request that your committees
investigate Ally’s serious misconduct and consider what actions the federal government
can take to ensure that Ally adheres to the law.

[…]

[ipaper docId=74953296 access_key=key-26rwiob9swfb2t53q7p9 height=600 width=600 /]

HuffPO-

The housing collapse and subsequent foreclosure crisis has claimed the homes of millions of Americans. But that tragedy may only be matched by the absurdity of some of its tales.

As of February, lenders had foreclosed on 2.7 million homes out of the 42.2 million mortgages borrowers took out between 2004 and 2008, according to a recent report by the Center for Responsible Lending. Though many of the foreclosures have been routine, the sheer volume has resulted in some glaring errors and bizarre evictions.

One Florida couple was threatened with foreclosure for making a payment too early. In Texas, a man faced foreclosure on a home that was destroyed by Hurricane Ike years ago, while in Massachusetts, Bank of America threatened to seize a home if it didn’t receive an outstanding mortgage payment worth $0.00.

But there is some indication that these ridiculous stories are indicative of a systematic pattern of wrongdoing on the part of the lenders. Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley announced a lawsuit, earlier this week, against five of the biggest mortgage lenders, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citbank and Ally Financial Inc., alleging the lenders used fraudulent paper work to foreclose on “hundreds if not thousands” of Massachusetts homes, BusinessWeek reports.

[HUFFINGTONPOST]

I’ve always said if walls could talk in these secretive rooms, look no further than Gretchen to shut it down with a story.

NYT-

A FRESH account emerged last week about the magnitude of financial aid that the Federal Reserve bestowed on big banks during the 2008-09 credit crisis. The report came from Bloomberg News, which had to mount a lengthy legal fight to wrest documents from the Fed that detailed its rescue efforts.

It is dispiriting, of course, that we are still learning about the billions provided to various financial firms during the crisis. Another sad element to this mess is that getting the truth requires the legal firepower of an organization as rich as Bloomberg.

[NEW YORK TIMES]