SJ-

Plymouth County has filed a class-action lawsuit against a national electronic mortgage registry company it says has enabled banks to avoid paying Iowa mortgage recording fees.

Plymouth County Attorney Darin Raymond filed the suit on behalf of all 99 Iowa counties against MERSCORP Holdings Inc. and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., known as MERS, which tracks mortgages sold and traded among banks that subscribe to the company’s service. The suit also names several of the nation’s largest banks and mortgage companies.

In the lawsuit, Raymond said MERS has allowed banks to skirt Iowa’s public information and recording laws by trading mortgages through an electronic registry that lists MERS as the mortgage holder, even though the banks are buying and selling the mortgages.

Read more: [SIOUX CITY JOURNAL]

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH COUNTY

Scribd

Abigail C. Field-

Let’s be clear why there’s a mortgage deal: the banks broke the law. Several laws in fact, in ways that appear criminal as well as civil. Limiting their liability is the only reason the banks did a deal.

In this post I’m going to look at what the banks could be held liable for; how much liability “their” money persuaded law enforcers to ignore will be the next post. But one important kind of peace has not been bought: criminal. So as I detail the wrong doing exposed by the deal, I highlight the crimes our law enforcers seem to allege the bankers committed. After all, a liability release isn’t simply what it says, it’s what law enforcers do with their remaining freedom to act. If crimes were committed, and indictments don’t follow, the release is much broader than its text.

A close read of the complaint and the related language that precedes the releases (see Exhibits F and G) reveals:

continue reading [REALITY CHECK]

HuffPO-

The consent agreements the bailed-out bankers (B.O.B.s), the feds and the states are largely as had been promised. One big surprise, however, is that the B.O.B.s would now be allowed to systematically overcharge borrowers and steal their homes. Seriously. Who cares about $1 million or $5 million penalties if horrible damage can be inflicted without punishment?

To see what I’m talking about, you need to look at Exhibit E-1. (It’s in all the consent agreements; here’s Chase‘s.) Exhibit E-1 is a 14 page table titled “Servicing Standards Quarterly Compliance Metrics.” That is, it’s a table that details what, precisely, law enforcers will check to make sure that the B.O.B.s are meeting the very pretty servicing standards in the deal. (See Exhibit A)

(Note: You may want to print out table E-1 while reading this, or at least keep it open in another browser window; what I have to say may be hard to believe and you’ll want to be able to double check that I’m telling you the truth.)

Now, the table doesn’t come right out and say, ‘we, the federal and state governments of the United States of America do hereby bless the institutionalization of servicer abuse,’ but it should. To understand why, you need to keep your eye on how the table’s columns are defined. For most issues, the critical columns are C “Loan Level Tolerance for Error” and D “Threshold Error Rate.” Later I’ll talk about the problems in Column F, the “Test Questions.”

When Error Isn’t Error…

[HUFFINGTON POST]

The never ending settlement… because those in DC are doing their best to make sure their bankers are A-OK.

Reuters-

Mortgage-backed securities investors who are convinced that banks intend to shift the cost of the $25 billion national mortgage settlement onto their shoulders are “evaluating their legal options,” according to Chris Katopis, executive director of the Association of Mortgage Investors (and a former clerk on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals). The private investors, as I’ve reported, are outraged at the terms of the settlement, which sets no limit on the percentage of securitized mortgages the settling banks — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Ally Financial — are permitted to modify to reach their $17 billion target for reducing the principal balance owed by struggling borrowers. Mortgage-backed noteholders believe the deal terms encourage banks to write down investor-owned first liens, rather than second lien mortgages in bank-owned portfolios. That incentive, they say, shifts the cost of the deal from the banks to mortgage-backed bondholders.

Their argument is gaining traction. The New York Times editorialized Sunday on the bank-friendly details of …

[REUTERS LEGAL]

Economic Musings-

 The wounds on past and present homeowners are still fresh from the housing crisis.  As Jonathan Laing points out in this weekend’s Barron’s cover story, “five million of the country’s 76million mortgage holders have lost their homes to foreclosure or lender ordered short sales since 2006, and an estimated 14million more own more on their homes than their properties are currently worth.  In all, some $7.4 trillion in homeowners’ equity has been destroyed according to Mark Zandi…”  

 Cries for Accountability

 Details of the $25bil Settlement (in the words of HUD) & Public Lauding

“On February 9, the Department of Justice …

[ECONOMIC MUSINGS]

by USRepMarcyKaptur

www.kaptur.house.gov

h/t NYE LAVALLE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

GARY STUBBS,
Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, BAC HOME
LOANS SERVICING, LP, and
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.

EXCERPT:

Plaintiff has alleged facts making it plausible that Fannie Mae was in fact
the secured creditor at the time of the foreclosure and has alleged that no
assignment to Fannie Mae was filed prior to the time of sale as required by
O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162(b). Therefore, based on the allegations in the amended
complaint, BAC evaded the most substantive requirements of Georgia’s
foreclosure statute in that (1) it was not the secured creditor entitled to foreclose
despite providing a notice letter affirmatively representing it was the creditor;
and (2) it failed to file the assignment of the security deed to the secured creditor
in the county deed records prior to the foreclosure. See O.C.G.A. § 162(b);
Weems v. Coker, 70 Ga. 746, 749 (Ga. 1883); Cummings v. Anderson, 173 B.R.
959, 963 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994).3 The Court accordingly DENIES the motion to
dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful foreclosure based on failure to comply with
Georgia foreclosure law.

For whatever reason scribd download is not permitting this to be downloaded.

Please use this link to download Stubbs_v._Bank_of_America

Scribd

Excellent view from this NYT’s editorial piece.

NYT-

Last week was a big one for the banks. On Monday, the foreclosure settlement between the big banks and federal and state officials was filed in federal court, and it is now awaiting a judge’s all-but-certain approval. On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve announced the much-anticipated results of the latest round of bank stress tests.

How did the banks do on both? Pretty well, thank you — and better than homeowners and American taxpayers.

That is not only unfair, given banks’ huge culpability in the mortgage bubble and financial meltdown. It also means that homeowners and the economy still need more relief, and that the banks, without more meaningful punishment, will not be deterred from the next round of misbehavior.

[NEW YORK TIMES]

Abigail Field-

Q: When is a deal not a deal?

A: When the deal documents punt on contentious issues, merely agreeing to agree later. 

Sadly, that’s what this “deal” does. This “deal” is a hybrid contract and term sheet, with all the crucial, operational aspects of compliance unresolved. A smallish to-be-dealt-with-later item is the timing for implementing the servicing standards. The biggie is the Work Plans; those have not been negotiated at all.

Yes, part of compliance has been finalized; the metrics, and the basic enforcement structure. But it’s not enough to have metrics; you also need processes for gathering the metric data and computing the results. Similarly you need more than a structure for enforcement; you need how-to details. The not-yet-existing Work Plan will cover all that. Worse, the negotiations will happen while the clock is ticking on the deal.

Servicing Standards Take Effect On a Date TBD

When the deal is approved…

[REALITY FIELD]

HuffPo-

No Hollywood scriptwriter could plot a more implausible story. Here is the plotline sequencing:

1. Bankers make NINJA loans, securitize them, and sell on to government GSEs
2. Bankers destroy all the loan documents and begin random and fraudulent foreclosures, throwing millions of innocent victims out on the street
3. GSEs sue bankers and force them to take back bad mortgages
4. Bankers sell servicing rights for the same bad mortgages back to GSEs, who overpay
5. GSEs resell servicing rights to companies run by former GSE officials
6. Bankers slapped on wrist with puny foreclosure settlement in return for government promise it will never sue them for past foreclosure fraud
7. Government stress test claims banks are healthy
8. Bankers get sweet deal, counting mortgage mods for best borrowers toward the settlement
9. HUD report released demonstrating massive foreclosure fraud that reached to highest levels of banks
10. Vampire Squid Executive Director fires off resignation letter decrying bankster culture
11. Banksters walk away scott-free as statute of limitations runs out for criminal behavior

This would have to be a fantasy because no one would ever believe it could have been true...

[HUFFINGTON POST]

by bloomberglaw on Mar 15, 2012

Naked Capitalism-

I’ve been going over the mortgage settlement documents over the past few days – a lot has been released, with many implications.  There is plenty to criticize.  Subprime Shakeout has a great summary, and David Dayen has done a wonderful job going through the nitty gritty.  Abigail Field has a spectacular review of the problems with the servicing standards.  I’ll make a few criticisms of my own below.  But I think the most interesting parts of the document release were the HUD Inspector General reports on the five banks and the DOJ complaint.  What these prove is what we’ve always known – the law enforcement community knew exactly what these banks were doing.  DOJ simply chose not to prosecute.  There was intent to defraud, fraud, and frankly, according to HUD.

In fact, it’s not clear that the past tense is the correct tense to use.  The Wells Fargo report is particularly interesting on that last point.  Take it away, HUD OIG (italics are mine).

At the time of our review, affidavits continued to be processed by these same signers, who may not have been qualified, and these signers may not have adequately verified certain figures because they accessed a computer screen of data showing a compilation of figures instead of verifying the data against the information through review of the books and records kept in the regular course of business by the institution.

I’m sorry, but WHAT THE $&*@!?!?

[NAKED CAPITALISM]

HW-

The nation’s five biggest banks will pay $25 million to the New York attorney general’s office to settle certain claims related to the use of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems.

The agreement with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman releases Bank of America ($8.84 0.35), Citigroup ($35.21 -1.24), JPMorgan Chase ($43.58 0.19), Wells Fargo ($33.37 0.04) and Ally Financial from certain claims of robo-signing foreclosure documents.

Schneiderman sued Bank of America, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo, as well as MERS, in early February. The AG’s office said in the complaint the banks “created the MERS system as an end-run around the property-recording system.”

MERS is not involved in the agreement, and a company spokeswoman declined to comment.

Continue to read up on DE & MA … [HOUSING WIRE]