For some background information on Sheila Bair please read Joe Nocera’s great article: Sheila Bair’s Bank Shot
Bloomberg-
Sheila Bair, the former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairman, is a leading candidate among state officials to ensure banks comply with any settlement of a nationwide foreclosure probe, a person familiar with the matter said.
Bair, who led the agency from 2006 until stepping down this year, is supported by some state officials as a third-party monitor of any settlement with mortgage servicers, including Bank of America Corp. (BAC), the person said. At least one bank in the talks, Citigroup Inc. (C), opposes her selection, said the person, who didn’t want to be named because the talks are private.
Action Date: December 10, 2011 Location: West Palm Beach, FL
In a very unusual move, the FL Supreme Court rejected the settlement in the PINO case last week and will issue a decision about fraudulent mortgage documents.
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals had certified a procedural foreclosure question to the Supreme Court, stating: “This is a question of great public importance” since “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents.”
At the trial court level, PINO’s attorneys had asked the court to sanction BNY Mellon by denying it the equitable right to foreclose the mortgage at all. The district court observed that if this sanction were available after a voluntary dismissal, “it may dramatically affect the mortgage crisis in this state.”
The Fourth District Court of Appeals decision seemed to recognize that very frequently, bank lawyers used dismissals when homeowners raised a question regarding the legitimacy of the documents filed by the banks.
Advocates for homeowners were encouraged by the Supreme Court’s action denying the settlement as the final resolution.
So who exactly is NOT happy?
Perhaps the preparers and signers of the two mortgage assignments in the PINO case.
One of the Assignments was prepared by the Law Offices of David J. Stern, Esq. This is signed by Stern’s office manager, Cheryl Samons who signs as an Asst. Sect. of MERS.
This is dated September 19, 2008 – though not filed until February 18, 2009.
The Lis Pendens (beginning of the foreclosure in judicial states) was dated October 8, 2008.
This is an assignment of the Mortgage and the Note to:
The Bank of New York Mellon F/K/A The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders CWALT, Inc. Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OC8.
For anyone unfamiliar with Cheryl Samons many acts in the Law Offices of David Stern (a law firm that spent a lot of $$ entertaining officials from FANNIE), the sworn statements from paralegals and notaries from the investigation of then Asst. A.G.s June Clarkson & Theresa Edwards (those overly aggressive FORMER prosecutors) are available for review at StopForeclosureFraud.com.
According to these sworn statements, Samons signed thousands of documents each week, allowed other people to sign her name, did not read what she signed, signed other names, etc. She did these things because her boss, David Stern, was very generous (see the articles by Andy Kroll in Mother Jones for more details on this).
The second assignment was notarized July 14, 2009 and filed July 29, 2009.
It seems they forgot all about the first assignment because once again it is an assignment from MERS to the same trust. This Assignment was also prepared by the Law Offices of David Stern. (If the first assignment was effective, of course, MERS had nothing to convey).
The signer this time was Melissa Viveros in Tarrant County, TX.
While she signs as a MERS officer, Viveros in many other reported cases appears as an officer of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, N/K/A BAC Home Loans Servicing.
So, once again, Bank of America (then the parent of BAC Home Loans Servicing) and Bank of New York Mellon have the most to lose in the short run – and in the long run, investors in CWALT and CWABS trusts.
As reflected above, the Fourth District certified this issue to be one of great public importance, and in doing so, noted that “many, many mortgage foreclosures appear tainted with suspect documents” and that Pino’s requested remedy, if imposed, “may dramatically affect the mortgage foreclosure crisis in this State.” Pino, 57 So. 3d at 954-55.
Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC11-697
ROMAN PINO,
Petitioner,
vs.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK, etc., et al.,
Respondents.
[December 8, 2011]
PER CURIAM.
The issue we address is whether Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.350 requires this Court to dismiss a case after we have accepted jurisdiction based on a question certified to be one of great public importance and after the petitioner has filed his initial brief on the merits.1 This narrow question arose after the parties to this action filed a joint Stipulated Dismissal, which advised that they had settled this matter and stipulated to the dismissal of the review proceeding pending before this Court. It cannot be questioned that our well-established precedent authorizes this Court to exercise its discretion to deny the requested dismissal of a review proceeding, even where both parties to the action agree to the dismissal in light of an agreed-upon settlement. The question certified to us by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in this case transcends the individual parties to this action because it has the potential to impact the mortgage foreclosure crisis throughout this state and is one on which Florida’s trial courts and litigants need guidance. The legal issue also has implications beyond mortgage foreclosure actions. Because we agree with the Fourth District that this issue is indeed one of great public importance and in need of resolution by this Court, we deny the parties’ request to dismiss this proceeding.
Doing something — anything — quickly but poorly is no substitute for taking the time to do what needs to be done well.
American Banker-
Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) is fearful that the quick-and-poor may prevail with mortgage servicer reviews, based on what she sees planned in response to last April’s consent orders from federal regulators.
“The only thing worse than no accountability for the banks,” according to Waters, “is for regulators to create the illusion of accountability, while putting no enforcement power behind their efforts.”
Washington, DC (Nov. 22, 2011)—Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings released the following statement today regarding the public release of highly redacted “engagement letters” between mortgage servicing companies and independent consultants they hired to review past foreclosure abuses:
“Although I am encouraged that some information is being made public today, our Committee should issue subpoenas to obtain full, unredacted copies of these documents so we can ensure that homeowners are being fully and appropriately compensated. Six months is too long to wait to conduct oversight of mortgage servicing companies that illegally foreclosed against homeowners.”
Today, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released copies of the engagement letters with significant redactions, including the removal of sections regarding past work, actual and potential conflicts of interest, and the procedures available to homeowners to file claims and complaints due to errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in a foreclosure process.
Cummings first asked for full copies of these engagement letters on May 31, 2011, following a report issued by federal regulators finding “critical weaknesses” and “widespread risk” with 14 of the nation’s largest mortgage servicing companies’ foreclosure practices.
The regulators ordered the mortgage servicing companies to hire private consultants to conduct more comprehensive reviews of their foreclosure actions, but the regulators allowed them to propose the terms of the reviews, including the methodology of the reviews, the criteria guiding the selection of cases to be reviewed, and any proposed sampling techniques. Some have criticized this approach for providing insufficient oversight of the banks’ actions.
In their responses to Cummings, the regulators explained that, by law, they cannot produce the full engagement letters until they are legally compelled to do so.
As a result, on October 27, Cummings wrote to Committee Chairman Darrell Issa requesting that he either issue subpoenas for the engagement letters or schedule a subpoena vote for the Committee’s business meeting on November 17, 2011. Issa declined to take either step, stating at the business meeting that he preferred to wait until Thanksgiving to determine whether the engagement letters would be released voluntarily.
OCC Releases Status Report on Fixing Deficient Foreclosure Practices
WASHINGTON — The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a report today on the actions by 12 national bank and federal savings association mortgage servicers to comply with consent orders issued in April 2011 to correct deficient and unsafe or unsound foreclosure practices.
The report, “Interim Status Report: Foreclosure-Related Consent Orders,” summarizes progress on activities related to the independent foreclosure review announced November 1, 2011, as well as other activities to enhance mortgage servicing operations, strengthen oversight of third-party service providers and activities related to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), improve management information systems, assess and manage risk, and ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
While much of the work to correct identified weaknesses in policies, operating procedures, control functions, and audit processes will be substantially complete in the first part of 2012, other longer term initiatives will continue through the balance of 2012.
In addition to the interim report, the OCC also released engagement letters that describe how the independent consultants, retained by the servicers, will conduct their file reviews and claims processes to identify borrowers who suffered financial injury as a result of deficiencies identified in the OCC’s consent orders. The letters identify the names of the independent consultants conducting the reviews and include language stipulating that consultants would take direction from the OCC throughout the reviews. This language specifically prohibits servicers from overseeing, directing, or supervising any of the reviews. Limited proprietary and personal information has been redacted. The review process being implemented at some companies may differ from that described in the engagement letters because of subsequent coordination with the OCC to ensure a consistent process among the servicers.
Foreclosure Review Services (FRS) has not been contracted by any of the independent consultants conducting independent foreclosure reviews required by the consent orders issued by the OCC in April. The OCC and Federal Reserve reviewed independent consultant and subcontractors for conflicts of interest prior to approval. FRS was neither proposed nor reviewed.
Bryan Hubbard
Director, Public Affairs Operations
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
And remember what Prof. Levitin was saying, watch out for Robo-Signing 2.0!
Lets not forget about a famous deposition from a former Stern paralegal where she mentions Miriam knew about the documents and was a controlling attorney for the firm!
Foreclosure industry veterans offer foreclosure review services in response to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s “Independent Foreclosure Review” program.
Foreclosure Review Services (FRS) provides contract attorneys who diligently review cases to determine whether a homeowner may have suffered financial injury as a result of errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in the foreclosure process.
FRS’s Director of Operations and Training, Miriam Mendieta, Esq.,is a nationally recognized industry expert with over 15 years of hands-on experience. Miriam served as the managing attorney for one of the largest creditor’s rights firms in the country where she was responsible for the oversight of all the aspects of foreclosure and bankruptcy related services.
FRS’s team of contract attorneys are extensively trained to properly review and analyze each case. FRS will review each foreclosure case to determine if the homeowner suffered financial injury as a result of errors made during the foreclosure process.
The reviews are part of a series of compliance actions initiated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
FRS has facilities in Dallas and South Florida and also provides consultants onsite.
Action Date: October 24, 2011 Location: West Palm Beach, FL
HURRICANE CHERYL DESTROYS LAND RECORDS IN PALM BEACH COUNTY
In the six month period from September 1, 2008 through February 28, 2009, 502 mortgage assignments, signed by Cheryl Samons, were filed in the official records of Palm Beach County, FL.
Samons was the office manager for the Law Offices of David J. Stern, but she signed as a MERS officer.
Mortgage-backed trusts were the primary beneficiary of these Samons Assignments.
Mortgage Assignments Signed by Cheryl Samons Filed in Palm Beach County from September, 2008, through February, 2009:
Multiplied by three, in the 18-month period from July 4, 2008 though January 4, 2009, Samons is likely to have signed 1,506 Assignments.
This is the same 18-month period that 1,742 Docx Assignments were being filed in Palm Beach County. These had a stated mortgage value of $560,239,797 or an average mortgage value of $321,607 per assignment.
Samons Palm Beach County assignments filed from July 4, 2008 through January 4, 2009 have an estimated value of $484,340,182, nearly half a billion dollars.
This does not include the assignments signed by other Stern employees, associate Beth Cerni or paralegal Carol Wasserman.
The combined value of mortgages, primarily transferred to mortgage-backed trusts, for one county for one 18-month period: $1,044,579,939.
While Docx Assignments were only filed for 18 months in Palm Beach County, Samons assignments appeared regularly from 2007 through 2010.
CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ – William Black
This pretty much sums this up… But go ahead and read.
Excerpt:
705. DEFENDAN T et al., al. stand-by and know, Plaintiff’s foreclosure, and others similarly situated are fraudulent in their nature, supra, but stand silent in condolence, over a system in their care custody and control under the corporate veil of MERSCORP, which either created, support financially or employ thus making DEFENDANT co-conspirator, liable as a facilitator of said Fraudulent behavior facilitator of Larceny on a grand scale.
The Bar alleged in a complaint that Stern willfully ignored a request in February by the 5th DCA to produce documents in a lawsuit between SunTrust Bank and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. Stern had been listed as counsel for SunTrust.
Funny thing because FHFA and other have found this firm to be the highlight of their investigations.
8 Q. And what was said about Cheryl’s bills being paid for
9 the Law Offices of David Stern?
10 A. That he’s always done it. David Stern has always
11 paid for Cheryl’s expenses.
12 Q. Personal expenses?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you know if he — Well was there rumor — Was
15 there talk, rather, that he paid — that he bought her car?
16 A. No, that’s confirmed. He did buy her a car. I
17 acknowledge that.
18 Q. He did buy her a car?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What kind of car did he buy her?
21 A. It was a BMW SUV.
<SNIP>
Q. Anything that –
4 A. Is it like personal or business or –
5 Q. Personal? Business? Anything at all?
6 A. Personal? The only thing that I was aware of that
7 took place there were the perks that certain employees received
8 from David Stern. If they were either dating him or they were
9 good friends with him, that they would basically do certain
10 things for him for certain files, in the sense of like David
11 Vargas. He would have certain perks from David Stern, like a
12 house, a car, cell phone paid all by David Stern.
13 And that’s all I know.
14 Q. Okay. So do you know of any other perks besides what
15 you said that Cheryl Salmons got? A car you said, for sure.
16 And her personal bills paid.
17 A. Yes. And cell phone.
18 Q. And probably her mortgage?
19 A. Yes. And vacations and gifts, jewelry.
20 Q. Who else would received gifts and jewelry or cars or
21 homes?
22 A. His girlfriend and David Vargas.
23 Q. Who’s his girlfriend?
24 A. At the time it was Christina Dell’Aguila
Palm Beach Post-
A new deposition of Cheryl Samons, the once second-in-command of the Law Offices of David J. Stern, reveals the chaos that occurred last fall as the Florida attorney general’s investigation was announced, the robo-signing scandal broke and the largest foreclosure law firm in Florida began to implode.
The deposition, linked to on a foreclosure blog by defense attorney Michael Alex Wasylik, was taken in a class-action lawsuit filed by former Stern attorneys who allege they were terminated without the 60 days notice required by federal law and under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
Samons was singled out last fall for her role in signing thousands of foreclosure documents that she had no personal knowledge of and for allegedly having her signature forged by employees who were pushed to speed the processing of foreclosure cases.
A federal magistrate in Miami has recommended that former employees of DJSP Enterprises, the legal processing arm of Plantation attorney David J.Stern’s once-powerful foreclosure law firm, be given class action status to sue Stern and his affiliates for violating federal labor laws.
The suit, filed on behalf of four employees but which could affect at least 700, claims workers were fired last fall without the 60 days notice required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN, Act. The action seeks back pay and benefits.
Oh it’s getting hard to escape this word connected to Mr. Stern. Just last monthGMAC dropped a bombshellof it’s own in case you missed it.
Kim Miller-
An insurer for former foreclosure giant David J. Stern wants out of its policy, saying in a lawsuit that the company doesn’t cover “claims based upon, arising out of, directly or indirectly resulting from or in consequence of, or in any way involving a dishonest, fraudulent, criminal, or malicious act or omission.”
Admiral Insurance Company filed a lawsuit Thursday in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, saying it shouldn’t be responsible for defense expenses in two class-action claims filed against Stern in Palm Beach County. Stern had a $3 million policy with Admiral that expired last year.
Action Date: August 12, 2011
Location: FT. Lauderdale, FL
GMAC Mortgage, LLC filed counterclaims in a federal court lawsuit brought against GMAC by its former lawyers, The Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. (“Stern”). The case, No. 11-CV-61526, was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida, where Stern’s offices were located.
GMAC accuses Stern of gross legal malpractice, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act and Misrepresentation/Suppression. GMAC seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
GMAC alleges that Stern:
1. caused or permitted Stern employees to execute, witness and/or notarize assignments of mortgage that were back-dated;
2. caused or permitted Stern’s employees to witness and/or notarize assignments of mortgages, affidavits of indebtedness and/or other affidavits on a daily basis prior to and without actually witnessing execution of the document by the person whose signature was to be witnessed and/or notarized;
3. caused or permitted Stern’s employees to prepare and execute affidavits of indebtedness for submission to the foreclosure court that failed to follow appropriate professional practices and procedures;
4. caused or permitted Stern’s employees to sign the name of another person on various foreclosure-related documents without any indication of that fact on the documents;
5. charged GMAC substantial fees and costs for legal services that Stern knew or should have known fell below the minimum standard of professional care owed by Stern to GMAC; and
6. committed acts or omissions that have subjected GMAC to claims, losses and liabilities of third-parties.
Essentially, GMAC claims that Stern’s malpractice carrier should be held responsible for all of the allegedly fraudulent acts of Stern’s office manager, Cheryl Samons, and other Stern employees who signed mortgage assignments and affidavits to push through foreclosures at record-breaking speed.
On July 27, 2011, Stern filed its Answer to these GMAC claims including the following:
“ 9. GMACM’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands because of GMACM’s: breach of contract; failure to retain replacement counsel in a timely manner; signing inaccurate affidavits; affidavits that were not properly notarized; not confirming whether loan and mortgage documents were properly endorsed; assigned or in possession of the appropriate party; and other misconduct identified in the Consent Order entered on April 13, 2011 by Order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the FDIC, and because, to the extent DJSPA committed legal malpractice, which is expressly denied, any such malpractice was the result of GMACM’s own actions and/or instructions.”
Homeowners and investors are lost in this battle of the giants. Tens of thousands of Florida homeowners lost their foreclosure cases because of the fraudulent documents produced by GMAC.
These documents most certainly came from Stern, but they also came from GMAC’s own employees, including master-signer Jeffrey Stephan, and employees in many other major foreclosure mills used by GMAC. The Stern defense that “Everybody was doing it” is unfortunately true.
An important question for homeowners and investors is whether GMAC has instructed its new lawyers to advise the Courts and homeowners of these findings.
Malpractice insurance carriers throughout the country could not imagine a more ominous case. Copies of the Counterclaim and Answer are available in the Pleadings section of Fraud Digest.
He operates the largest foreclosure law firm in the state, and these hard times have made Mark P. Harmon a very busy man. Some critics assail his tactics, but Harmon is unapologetic: Lenders, after all, need zealous lawyers, too.
BOSTON–
Devenia Mack doesn’t know Mark P. Harmon personally, but the Newton lawyer is intimately involved in her housing crisis. His company, Harmon Law Offices, was hired by Wells Fargo Bank last year to seize Mack’s Westminster ranch house by foreclosure.
His son, Andrew, signed the paperwork that transferred the mortgage to Wells Fargo.
His title company stamped the document notifying Mack that the bank was taking her home.
State Attorney General Martha Coakley can continue her investigation into the practices of a Newton law firm that specializes in home foreclosures, a Suffolk Superior Court justice has ruled.
Justice Bonnie H. MacLeod denied a motion by Harmon Law Offices to set aside or alter a request for documents in the state’s investigation into allegations of “unfair and deceptive acts’’ related to the firm’s foreclosure and eviction work.
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.
GMAC, one of the nation’s largest mortgage servicers, faced a quandary last summer. It wanted to foreclose on a New York City homeowner but lacked the crucial paperwork needed to seize the property.
GMAC has a standard solution to such problems, which arise frequently in the post-bubble economy. Its employees secure permission to create and sign documents in the name of companies that made the original loans. But this case was trickier because the lender, a notorious subprime company named Ameriquest, had gone out of business in 2007.
Three months later, GMAC had an answer. It filed a document with New York City authorities [3] that said the delinquent Ameriquest loan had been assigned to it “effective of” August 2005. The document [3] was dated July 7, 2010, three years after Ameriquest had ceased to exist and was signed by Stephan, who was identified as a “Limited Signing Officer” for Ameriquest Mortgage Company. Soon after, GMAC filed for foreclosure.
An examination by ProPublica suggests this transaction was not unique. A review of court records in New York identified hundreds of similar assignment documents filed in the name of Ameriquest after 2008 by GMAC and other mortgage servicers.
The issue has attracted growing scrutiny in recent months as bloggers [5], consumer attorneys and media outlets [6]have identified what appears to be part of a pattern of questionable assignments filed across the country.
GMAC, which is still majority owned by the government, was at the center of what became known as the robo-signing scandal [7]. The uproar began last fall after revelations that mortgage servicing employees had produced flawed documents to speed foreclosures [8]. GMAC and other banks have acknowledged filing false affidavits in which bank officials claimed “personal knowledge” of the facts underlying thousands of mortgages. But GMAC and other servicers say they’ve since tightened their procedures. They insist that their records were largely accurate and the affidavits amounted to errors of form, not substance.
The issues surrounding the Ameriquest loan and others like it appear to be more serious.
“This assignment of mortgage has all of the markings of GMAC finding that it lacked a needed mortgage assignment in order to foreclose and just making it up,” said Thomas Cox, a Maine foreclosure defense attorney.
In New York, it’s a felony to file a public record with “intent to deceive.”
“It’s fraud,” said Linda Tirelli, a consumer bankruptcy attorney. “I want to know who’s going to do a perp walk for recording this.”
No criminal charges have been filed in the robo-signing cases.
Asked by ProPublica about the document, GMAC acknowledged Stephan did not have authority to sign on behalf of Ameriquest. The bank said it is still planning to push ahead with foreclosure on the homeowner, who remains in the property.
Company spokeswoman Gina Proia said an internal review last fall into “suspected documentation execution issues” had flagged the loan as problematic and that GMAC is “determining what needs to be done in order to receive the necessary authorization.”
“We will determine and complete the necessary steps to remediate and proceed with foreclosure,” Proia said.
GMAC also declined a request from ProPublica to interview Stephan.
Another GMAC document obtained by ProPublica shows that in at least one recent incident, GMAC employees were still discussing the possibility of fabricating evidence needed to facilitate a foreclosure.
The company once again lacked a document that would show it had been assigned the mortgage. Since the lender was defunct and no assignment had ever been made, GMAC again seemed to be stuck. But the employee proposed in June of this year that GMAC file a sworn statement that the assignment had once existed but had been lost. It’s unclear if such an affidavit was ultimately provided to a court.
Records also show that GMAC has continued to rely on documents signed by the very employee at the center of the robo-signing scandal—Jeffrey Stephan, the same employee who also signed the Ameriquest document in 2010. Stephan acknowledged in sworn testimony last year that he had been signing 400 documents each day [9], a revelation that helped kick off the scandal. According to a former employee and a consumer attorney, Stephan still works at GMAC, though he has been transferred to a different unit.
GMAC said it is still pursuing foreclosures based on assignments signed by Stephan. As part of a bid to rebrand itself, GMAC renamed its holding company Ally Financial last year.
“There is no reason or requirement to ‘withdraw’ valid assignments of mortgage that happened to have been signed by Mr. Stephan,” said GMAC spokeswoman Proia, because there’s “no requirement that [the assignment] be signed by a person with knowledge of any particular facts.” All that mattered, she said, was that the signer had received the proper authority.
Banks have little reason to worry about their documents being challenged, since homeowners rarely contest foreclosure actions. In a filing with the New Jersey Supreme Court, GMAC said that of the more than 4,000 foreclosures it has handled in the state only about 4 percent of homeowners had contested the action.
When homeowners do challenge banks’ documentation for foreclosures, they can have success. Late last week, the Vermont Supreme Court threw out a foreclosure case handled by GMAC due, in part, to a flawed assignment document signed by Stephan.
“It is neither irrational nor wasteful to expect the foreclosing party be actually in possession of its claimed interest,” the court said [10], “and have the proper supporting documentation in hand when filing suit.”
Since last fall, GMAC has added staff, increased training and added new procedures, said Proia. But some of those new hires have come from firms themselves accused of filing false foreclosure documents.
One manager at GMAC, Kevin Crecco, moved there from a position at the Law Offices of David Stern in Florida after the firm drew scrutiny from the state’s attorney general for allegedly filing forged documents. Stern’s office, once among Florida’s biggest foreclosure law firms and labeled a “foreclosure mill” by critics, ceased operations earlier this year.
An internal organization chart [11] from this spring for GMAC’s foreclosure department lists Crecco as a manager overseeing roughly two dozen employees. GMAC declined to make Crecco available for an interview. He hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing.
Mortgage servicers like GMAC continue to be set up like assembly lines, with members of its “Document Execution” team responsible for signing documents. The organizational chart shows two “Document Execution” teams of 13 employees each.
The employees are tasked with, among other things, signing affidavits attesting to the accuracy of the basic facts of the loan, such as the mortgage amount, outstanding fees, etc. Affidavits are a necessary step to foreclosure in many states where banks have to go to court to seize a home.
During the robo-signing scandal, GMAC admitted that employees signing affidavits didn’t verify the underlying facts. The bank says it has fixed the problems.
But consumer attorneys said that while GMAC’s processes have improved, they haven’t corrected basic flaws with their process.
Cox, the attorney who questioned Stephan last year as part of a foreclosure case, said employees on the “Document Execution” team still aren’t truly checking the accuracy of the underlying information. Rather than digging for the original documents, employees on the team look at the numbers given by a GMAC database and double-check the math.
If the employee “just looks at a computer screen, that’s not sufficient in my view,” said Cox. He said he would soon be challenging affidavits GMAC recently filed in court.
Consumer attorneys also said the systems that servicers rely on are consistently plagued with inaccuracies, making a more thorough verification of the information necessary. “These days, homeowners are being forced to save every receipt, every letter, every statement, so that one day they can prove that their payment history is accurate and the bank is wrong,” said Jim Kowalski, a consumer attorney in Florida.
GMAC’s Proia said the company’s procedures—which amount to a review of information in the company’s computerized databases—were sufficient to file affidavits.
Recent Comments