OCC | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "OCC"

Naked Capitalism | OCC Servicer Review Firm Also “Scrubs” Loan Files, Fabricates Documents

Naked Capitalism | OCC Servicer Review Firm Also “Scrubs” Loan Files, Fabricates Documents


Yves Smith-

Reader Lisa N. pointed me to a troubling October 2010 press release by SolomonEdwardsGroup, a company that describes itself as a “national financial services consulting and staffing firm” about its remediation services for “significant loan documentation problems.” Alert readers will recognize that this is shortly after the robosiging scandal broke.

Here are the key parts of the press release:

SEG’s teams can also be rapidly deployed across the U.S., to help banks and servicers “scrub” files and determine which foreclosures may have been tainted by incorrect loan documentation and processing issues such as robo-signing….

For instance on a recent engagement, SEG quickly deployed a 25-person team to review a single-family loan portfolio containing 5,000 loans and within six weeks brought the portfolio into compliance with investor guidelines. During another recent engagement, SEG successfully completed the same type of project involving 20,000 single-family loans tainted by fraud allegations.

Needless to say, this sounds consistent to the charges we’ve heard from borrower attorneys and have even seen at trial: that of “tah dah” documents appearing suddenly in court that solved all the problems with the evidence presented. A not that unusual case occurred last week, in Kings County, New York, where in HSBC v. Sene, when the lawyers for the bank tried submitting two notes (borrower IOUs), the second attempting to remedy problems raised by the first one, each presented as the original. The judge not only ruled against the foreclosure but referred the case to the district attorney and the state attorney general.

Why the Failure to Convey Notes and Make Assignments Properly is Such a Big Deal in Mortgage Securitizations…

[NAKED CAPITALISM]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

FRAUD DIGEST: PUTTING AN END TO MERS

FRAUD DIGEST: PUTTING AN END TO MERS


What has changed in the world of mortgage assignments since the FDIC/OCC/Treasury Consent Orders?

When is a mortgage assignment actually an Affidavit posing as a mortgage assignment?

When will all Recorders of Deeds file Declaratory Judgment actions seeking to enjoin the filing of mortgage assignments by document preparers:

1. that falsely state the employer and/or address of the preparer or signer (or that only use the MERS title when the signer is not directly employed by MERS);

2. that fail to plainly set forth the date the mortgage was assigned to the assignee; or

3. that contain language about the holder of the note, such language being extraneous to an Assignment of Mortgage.

 

Why are such Declaratory Judgment actions needed?

This is the new language appearing on many mortgage assignments where Deutsche Bank National Trust Company is the Trustee the Trust is the Assignee and MERS is the Assignor:

This loan was held by the Assignee prior to the Assignee filing a foreclosure action on May 21, 2008. The date of the execution of this Assignment of Mortgage by the Assignor is not reflective of the date the loan was transferred to the Assignee. The execution of this document is a ministerial act to comply with the state law as to how the transfer is to be documented and is not reflective of the transfer date itself.

(Instrument #2011383648, Official Records, Hillsborough County, Florida.)

This is signed by Srbui Muradyan who is identified as Assistant Secretary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for WMC Mortgage Corp. This document was notarized in Ventura County, CA, on October 25, 2011.

According to a statement in the upper left-hand corner of the document, the preparer was Tanya D. Simpson, Esq., of the law firm Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, P.A., a foreclosure mill in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

The receiving trust is Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-WMC1.

When was the mortgage assigned to the trust? That essential question is not addressed by the Mortgage Assignment.

The signer and preparer purport to know that the loan (note: not the mortgage – the loan – that is, the promissory note) was held by Deutsche Bank as Trustee prior to May 21, 2008.

How is a Bank of America employee competent to state when Deutsche Bank National Trust Company acquired a loan?

In reality, Srbui Muradyan works for Bank of America in California. On many other mortgage assignments, Muradyan’s name appears as the preparer and the address for Muradyan is 450 E. Boundry Street, Chapin, SC – the address of Corelogic, one of the newest and largest document preparers in the country. (See Assignment of Mortgage, Book 2011, Page 13758, Pottawattamie County, Iowa – available through a Google search.)

Muradyan’s signature is always notarized in Ventura County, CA.

These new Assignments fail to plainly set forth the date that the mortgage was assigned; the individuals signing use a MERS title, never revealing their actual employers; the address of the signers is either not provided or wrongly stated, making it that much more difficult for a homeowner in foreclosure to take a simple deposition.

The OCC Review Process is not working; banks and trusts continue to use the MERS guise to seize properties without proof of ownership. The language has become even more convoluted. Tens of thousands of MERS Mortgage Assignments continue to be filed each month throughout the country.

Attorneys General Beau Biden of Delaware, Martha Coakley of Massachusetts and Eric Schneiderman of New York have all sued MERS and a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief may be part of their overall strategy. Their actions, however, will only help the citizens of Delaware, Massachusetts and New York.

While the many Linda Greens may have retired their pens in Alpharetta, there are hundreds more taking their places, still using MERS titles, still pretending to be bank officers when they are untrained clerks working for document mills.

Another solution is legislative: the Truth in Mortgage Documents Act previously discussed in Fraud Digest.

The simplest solution is for judges everywhere to reject these misleading documents and sanction the filers.

The end of MERS is long overdue.

FRAUD DIGEST by Lynn E. Szymoniak, ESQ.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

MI CLASS ACTION | DICKOW vs JPMorgan Chase, Federal Reserve System, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY

MI CLASS ACTION | DICKOW vs JPMorgan Chase, Federal Reserve System, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

THERESE DICKOW,
on behalf of herself and a class of persons
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A,
Successor in interest from the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, as receiver for
Washington Mutual Bank; BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM; and
OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY
(federal bank regulators),
Defendants.

__________________________________________________________/]

[ipaper docId=81508752 access_key=key-ldfpchyk7rc2kwqi285 height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

LEAKED | Settlement Breakdown by State Plus Other Official Propaganda

LEAKED | Settlement Breakdown by State Plus Other Official Propaganda


PAM BONDI used this connect the dot / cut n’ paste settlement draft as seen on her site.

 

via: NakedCapitalism

A little birdie sent me some settlement details. You can see how much little your state got, as well as whether your state bothered rewriting the official PR:

[ipaper docId=81061032 access_key=key-1qxqrni0x6z3mqr2986r height=600 width=600 /]

Please go to Naked Capitalism to see the full scribd links!

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT | OCC Settles Civil Money Penalties Against Large National Bank Mortgage Servicers for $394 Million

FORECLOSURE SETTLEMENT | OCC Settles Civil Money Penalties Against Large National Bank Mortgage Servicers for $394 Million


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 9, 2012

Contact: Bryan Hubbard
(202) 874-5770

OCC Settles Civil Money Penalties Against Large National Bank Mortgage Servicers for $394 Million; Penalty Assessment Coordinated with Servicers’ Actions and Payments Under Federal-State Settlement

WASHINGTON — The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) today announced agreements in principle with four large national bank mortgage servicers to settle civil money penalties in connection with the unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices that were the subject of comprehensive cease and desist orders issued by the OCC in April 2011.

Today’s announcement involves Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo.  The OCC’s actions were announced in coordination with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the announcement of the federal-state settlement involving the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, other federal agencies, and state attorneys general.

In the agreements in principle struck by the OCC with these mortgage servicers, the servicers do not contest the OCC’s ability to impose penalties aggregating $394 million, and the OCC agrees to hold in abeyance imposition of such penalties provided the servicers make payments and take other actions under the federal-state settlement with a value equal to at least the penalty amounts that each servicer acknowledges that the OCC could impose.  The amounts for each servicer are $164 million for Bank of America, $34 million for Citibank, $113 million for JPMorgan Chase, and $83 million for Wells Fargo.  If after three years, a servicer has not paid an amount equal to its respective penalty, the OCC will assess a penalty against the servicer for the difference between the aggregate value of the actions and payments under the agreement and that servicer’s OCC penalty amount.

“The actions announced today mark important progress in addressing the problems associated with foreclosure processing and are a critical step toward restoring a functioning industry that protects the rights of the customers it serves,” said acting Comptroller of the Currency John Walsh.  “The OCC has worked closely with the Department of Justice and other federal agencies throughout the federal-state foreclosure settlement negotiations.  We have worked to coordinate the comprehensive fixes to mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices that we required in our April 2011 cease and desist orders to ensure that work complements actions required by the federal-state settlement.”

These actions follow the issuance of consent orders in April 2011 against Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo to correct deficient, unsafe and unsound mortgage servicing and foreclosure practices.

Those enforcement actions required extensive fixes to mortgage servicing and foreclosure processes.  Much of that work will continue throughout the balance of 2012.  The orders also required servicers to retain independent consultants to conduct a comprehensive review of foreclosure activity by these servicers in 2009 and 2010.  As part of that effort, an independent foreclosure review process began in November 2011 which gives more than four million people the opportunity to request a review of their case if they believe they suffered injuries as a result of errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies in a foreclosure action on their primary residence in 2009 or 2010 by one of these servicers.  More information about that process is available at www.independentforeclosurereview.com.

# # #

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Former OCC, OTS & Fannie Executive Joined MERSCORP in 2011

Former OCC, OTS & Fannie Executive Joined MERSCORP in 2011


Once more, why would anyone go to work for a company that is being investigated for fraud and at the core of robo-signing?

LinkedIn-

Janis Smith joined MERSCORP in 2011, where she is responsible for corporate communications strategy and initiatives, media relations, media risk management and internal communications.

Smith has provided strategic communications, media relations, and writing services to Fannie Mae and other organizations as a contractor/consultant since 2009, and from 2000 to early 2009, she managed a team of professionals who reported publicly on Fannie Mae’s financial performance, business and economic data and fixed-income securities. She was also a media spokesperson for the company.

Smith’s previous employers include the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency – Administrator of National Banks (OCC) from 1993 to 2000; and, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) from 1989 to 1993. The OCC and OTS are financial institution regulatory agencies and bureaus of the U.S. Department of Treasury. Smith was also employed by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) from 1986 through October 1989, and at the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston from 1982 to 1985. From 1981-1982, she worked in the trust department of The Massachusetts Companies, Inc., in Boston.

[LINKEDIN]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

Helping Homeowners Harmed by Foreclosures: Ensuring Accountability and Transparency in Foreclosure Reviews Written Testimony of Alys Cohen

Helping Homeowners Harmed by Foreclosures: Ensuring Accountability and Transparency in Foreclosure Reviews Written Testimony of Alys Cohen


Helping Homeowners Harmed by Foreclosures:
Ensuring Accountability and Transparency in Foreclosure Reviews

Written Testimony
of
Alys Cohen

National Consumer Law Center
also on behalf of
Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, Connecticut Fair Housing Center, Consumer Action,
Consumers Union, Empire State Justice Center, Financial Protection Law Center, Housing and
Economic Rights Advocates, Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc., Michigan Foreclosure
Task Force, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Council of La Raza, National
Community Reinvestment Coalition, National Fair Housing Alliance, National People’s Action,
Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, North Carolina Justice Center

Before the United States Senate Subcommittee on
Housing, Transportation, and Community Development of the
United States Senate Committee on
Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs

Dec. 13, 2011

[ipaper docId=76011855 access_key=key-1k6w4svmfeeqc1zxi5a7 height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Matt Stoller: Treat foreclosure as a crime scene

Matt Stoller: Treat foreclosure as a crime scene


“Obama may talk of the “99 percent” but his administration is engaged in an aggressive coverup of bank crimes.”

 

Politico-

Bubbling under the surface of politics is the foreclosure crisis — where the power of big finance is brushing up against the rule of law. The party leaders seem to have decided it is essentially a giant — but unavoidable — tragedy. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney said foreclosures have to clear for the housing market to reset. The Obama administration, meanwhile, has spent only about $2 billion of the $75 billion authorized for the Home Affordable Modification Program.

But the foreclosure crisis is not only a few million personal tragedies. It is a few million crime scenes.

[POLITICO]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Senator Maria Cantwell: MERS “should be shut down and dissolved”

Senator Maria Cantwell: MERS “should be shut down and dissolved”


H/T Matt Stoller

December 15, 2011

The Honorable Eric Holder, Jr.

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

I write regarding the ongoing settlement talks between state attorneys general, federal fraud regulators, the White House, and large financial institutions over alleged illegal foreclosure and mortgage servicing practices and abuses.

I am concerned that recently reported settlement proposals will effectively absolve these financial institutions of substantial civil and criminal liability in one of the largest alleged fraud schemes during the financial crisis. Specifically, I am concerned that the proposed settlement includes a release from liability that may be far too sweeping, does not adequately compensate victims, does not require enough of banks to reform the system that led to the crisis in the first place, and is being made before all the facts are known and without the backing of a full inquiry into the size and scope of the alleged fraud.

Large financial institutions helped inflate the housing bubble through tranching and securitizing mortgages at a frenetic pace while disregarding mortgage and foreclosure laws. Collecting fees from issuing mortgages then selling to investors securities backed by these mortgages allowed the largest financial institutions to pump up profits and home prices, while dumping any potential losses on homeowners, taxpayers, and investors. When the housing bubble burst taxpayers were forced to bail out the largest financial institutions. It is estimated that the federal government disbursed over $4.7 trillion to financial institutions, and guaranteed an additional $13.87 trillion, during the financial crisis.

Without a thorough investigation, it is impossible to truly estimate just how pervasive the defects in the foreclosure and securitization process are. Continued reports of wrongful foreclosures, forged documents, and an inability of servicers and banks to prove chain of title and the legal right to foreclosure, raises the very alarming possibility that these defects were endemic to the mortgage servicing industry across the country. The sheer magnitude of the potential fallout from these defects demands that we undertake a full investigation to uncover the true scope of wrongdoing before providing blanket immunity to the perpetrators.

I am also concerned that reports of a settlement in the range of $20 billion, as recently reported, may not adequately compensate the victims of the foreclosure crisis. As a result of the pump-and-dump scheme perpetrated by the nation’s largest banks that inflated – and burst – the housing bubble, an estimated 14 million Americans are underwater, owing $700 billion more on their homes than those homes are worth. A $20 billion settlement is woefully inadequate to compensate the wrongfully evicted or homeowners struggling to stay in their homes. Much more should be required of banks to provide meaningful help underwater homeowners and compensate foreclosure fraud victims.

A settlement with mortgage servicers must also require reforms to ensure such abuses do not happen again. The goal of servicing mortgages must be accuracy and adherence to the law, not expediency and corner-cutting. Confidence must be restored that proper transference of notes and mortgages was followed and clear chains of titles are available for all mortgages. Until then, the burden of proof must be on financial institutions to prove that they have the legal authority to foreclose. The Mortgage Electronic Registration System should be dissolved and shut down, and the shortcut that allowed banks to avoid hundreds of millions, if not billions, in local fees to local registrars of deeds be closed off. It is critical that large banks not be allowed to shirk their tax obligations to local governments. A settlement in this case must compensate state and local governments for taxes and fees which were owed but not collected.

The crisis in our housing and financial markets has shaken the confidence of the American people in our financial system and in government. Holding banks accountable for abusive and fraudulent practices, while compensating damaged homeowners, wrongfully evicted, local governments, and defrauded investors is vital to restoring that confidence. I urge you to ensure that any settlement with mortgage servicers over alleged foreclosure abuses does not absolve liability for crimes and wrongdoing that has yet to be fully investigated, and ensures just compensation for victims.

I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell

###

[ipaper docId=75811029 access_key=key-3akr4fq4pq5lfwoyir3 height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Banks Press for CFPB Waivers in Foreclosure Talks

Banks Press for CFPB Waivers in Foreclosure Talks


Little by little they are working their way up to freedom.

All their eggs are almost in the basket…

WSJ-

Banks are demanding that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau relinquish the right to sue over certain flawed mortgage originations, in exchange for their participation in a proposed multibillion-dollar settlement of alleged foreclosure abuses.

The banks say their inability to secure a sufficiently broad release from the new bureau, which was sidelined in earlier discussions as it launched, would be a deal breaker. The five biggest U.S. mortgage banks, state attorneys general and Obama administration officials are pushing to finalize a deal before the end of the year that would be worth $19 billion or more.

[WALL STREET JOURNAL]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Borrowers may give up future claims in foreclosure reviews

Borrowers may give up future claims in foreclosure reviews


We already knew this and if you expect any real restitution, you’re in for a surprise!

HW-

A mortgage servicer will be granted a waiver from future claims depending on what sort of remediation a borrower gets from the foreclosure reviews conducted under federal consent orders.

Independent consultants, approved by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve, will review nearly 4.5 million foreclosure files over the next several months. They will be looking for any harm caused by improper practices uncovered last year.

[HOUSING WIRE]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

TESTIMONY OF JULIE L. WILLIAMS FIRST SENIOR DEPUTY COMPTROLLER AND CHIEF COUNSEL OF OCC

TESTIMONY OF JULIE L. WILLIAMS FIRST SENIOR DEPUTY COMPTROLLER AND CHIEF COUNSEL OF OCC


 TESTIMONY OF JULIE L. WILLIAMS

FIRST SENIOR DEPUTY COMPTROLLER AND CHIEF COUNSEL OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY

Before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Of the COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE

DECEMBER 13, 2011

[ipaper docId=75622211 access_key=key-2oqmyssfboik9vzch16v height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Banks, Officials Near Pact on Foreclosures

Banks, Officials Near Pact on Foreclosures


Planned…just in time for the Holidays around the corner!

Here’s hoping you forget when you get back from celebrating!

 

WSJ-

Five large lenders could be forced to make concessions worth roughly $19 billion as bank representatives and government officials push to put the finishing touches on a settlement of most state and federal investigations of alleged foreclosure improprieties.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and state officials hope to reach a deal as soon as this week, though any agreement could be delayed by unresolved issues including the naming of a monitor to oversee the agreement.

The settlement would end months-long negotiations among federal officials, state attorneys general and the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers: Ally Financial Inc., Bank …

[WALL STREET JOURNAL]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

Ex-FDIC Chief Sheila Bair Top Pick for Bank Monitor

Ex-FDIC Chief Sheila Bair Top Pick for Bank Monitor


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.

[BLOOMBERG]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

OCC Foreclosure Review Disclosures Still Disappoint

OCC Foreclosure Review Disclosures Still Disappoint


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.”

[AMERICAN BANKER]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Cummings Calls for Unredacted Copies of “Engagement Letters” Between Mortgage Servicing Companies and Private Consultants

Cummings Calls for Unredacted Copies of “Engagement Letters” Between Mortgage Servicing Companies and Private Consultants


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.

 

source: http://democrats.oversight.house.gov

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

OCC Releases Status Report on Fixing Deficient Foreclosure Practices, Names Of Consultants Conducting Reviews

OCC Releases Status Report on Fixing Deficient Foreclosure Practices, Names Of Consultants Conducting Reviews


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 22, 2011
Contact: Bryan Hubbard
(202) 874-5770
.

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. 

Related Links

# # #

Pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 4.12(c), the disclosure of the engagement letters at the OCC’s election has no precedential significance.

source: occ

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Foreclosure Review Services (FRS) was neither proposed nor reviewed by either OCC or Federal Reserve

Foreclosure Review Services (FRS) was neither proposed nor reviewed by either OCC or Federal Reserve


UPDATE: Mr. Bryan Hubbard Director of Public Affairs Operations at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has informed this site of the following after several blogs learned that a former David J. Stern’s Attorney, Miriam Mendieta was to assist in reviewing of 4.5 Million foreclosure fraud cases:

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

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Former David J. Stern’s “Controlling Attorney”, Miriam Mendieta to Assist in Review of 4.5 Million Foreclosure Fraud Cases

Former David J. Stern’s “Controlling Attorney”, Miriam Mendieta to Assist in Review of 4.5 Million Foreclosure Fraud Cases


UPDATE:  Foreclosure Review Services (FRS) was neither proposed nor reviewed by either OCC or Federal Reserve

Rumor was Miriam may be working for Florida Default Law Group aka NetDirtector, ReoClosings.com?

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!

I wonder who owns FRS?


Foreclosure industry veterans offer foreclosure review services in response to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s “Independent Foreclosure Review” program.

Miami, FL (PRWEB) November 21, 2011

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.

FRS: Foreclosure Review Services
1395 Brickell Ave., Ste. 800
Miami, FL 33131
888-603-5559
info(at)frserv(dot)com
EXPERTS IN DEFAULT SERVICES * EXPERTS IN DOCUMENT REVIEW

###

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (4)

Adam Levitin | The Multistate Foreclosure Settlement

Adam Levitin | The Multistate Foreclosure Settlement


Credit Slips-

The New York Times came out with a strong editorial urging state AGs and the Administration not to rush into the proposed multi-state settlement deal. I think it’s worthwhile reviewing what we know about the deal and the arguments for and against it.  Let’s start with the facts that we know.  There aren’t many that are publicly confirmed; the Administration, the AGs leading the multi-state settlement, and the banks very much want to avoid public comment on the deal–they want to present it as a fait accompli.  As a result, there hasn’t been definitive reporting on the contents of the term sheet currently circulating among AGs.  It appears, however, the the deal has the following features.

[CREDIT SLIPS]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Flaws Jeopardize New Attempt to Help Homeowners – ProPublica

Flaws Jeopardize New Attempt to Help Homeowners – ProPublica


by Paul Kiel
ProPublica, Nov. 4, 2011, 10:41 a.m.
.

Banking regulators this week launched the government’s latest attempt to help troubled homeowners — the Independent Foreclosure Review — heralding it as a thorough and fair way to compensate homeowners victimized by big banks. But early indications are that this program, like earlier efforts, has fundamental flaws.

The most central question — how compensation will be calculated — has not been determined, regulators said, and it’s even unclear what type of compensation borrowers would get: cash or a non-monetary remedy. Many key elements of the program have been kept secret, including the specific bank errors or abuses that would merit compensation. Democratic lawmakers have questioned whether the personnel deciding who deserves compensation are qualified to do so. And the process, which allows no appeals, can require homeowners to put forth their cases in writing, a formidable task that consumer advocates say many borrowers lack the expertise to do.

The government’s previous main effort to aid troubled homeowners, the Obama administration’s widely criticized [1] Home Affordable Modification Program, attempts to keep troubled borrowers in their homes by facilitating loan modifications. The new review has a different goal, and it was developed by federal bank regulators, who are independent from the administration. The review is one response by regulators to the widespread revelations [2] last fall that mortgage servicers — companies that collect home-loan payments — were regularly filing false affidavits signed by so-called robo-signers [3]. The new program will evaluate up to 4.5 million home loans to determine whether those borrowers were victimized by bank errors or abuses and, if so, what compensation the banks must pay.

The task of evaluating so many loans — those in foreclosure at any point during 2009 or 2010 — is beyond regulators’ capacity. So the two agencies heading the effort, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve, have overseen the selection of eight “independent consultants” that will do the work. The government has refused to identify these consulting firms, though it now says it will.

Many details unclear

Regulators said Tuesday they have not yet determined how the consultants and regulators will calculate the financial harm a homeowner suffered, and therefore what compensation the banks would have to pay. Even the form of compensation — cash or something else — remains unclear. An example of non-cash compensation, said OCC spokesman Bryan Hubbard, could be repairing a borrower’s credit report.

Regulators have declined to provide a comprehensive list of the problems the consultants will be looking for — in essence, what constitutes an abuse or error by a mortgage servicer. Regulators have issued guidance on this topic to the independent consultants, but during a conference call Tuesday with reporters, they declined to make those documents available.

Regulators have given some public indications of what they’ll be looking for, which we note on our FAQ about the foreclosure reviews [4]. In April, regulators issued “consent orders” [5] that laid out some of the faults committed by the biggest servicers, which collectively handle almost 70 percent of the country’s mortgages. The orders also mandated this new foreclosure review to address past problems and general standards that servicers should follow going forward.

So far, regulators have withheld the identity of the eight consulting firms that will conduct the reviews — a stance that angered some members of Congress. In July, a group of about two-dozen senators [6] and representatives [7] — all Democrats except for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. — objected to the lack of transparency and questioned whether the consultants had conflicts of interest [8] such as ongoing business relationships with the banks.

The consultants will be paid by the banks, but regulators must approve each consulting firm and its scope of work. Last week, some House Democrats pushed to subpoena [9] the documents, called engagement letters, that identify the consulting firms and spell out what they would do. On Tuesday, the OCC said it will release those documents later this month.

OCC officials say they’ve worked diligently to ensure that the consultants are truly independent of the banks. The banks sought to hire some consulting firms and law firms that had “inappropriate conflicts,” said Joe Evers, the OCC’s deputy comptroller for large banks, so regulators disqualified those companies. Evers declined to identify the firms or how many had been disqualified.

Lawmakers have also expressed concern about the experience of the personnel who will conduct the reviews. At least three temporary staffing agencies have posted positions for a “Foreclosure [10] File [11] Reviewer [12].” (One agency said it doesn’t discuss its clients, and the other two didn’t return phone calls requesting comment.) The ads reviewed by ProPublica typically call for some foreclosure or mortgage-servicing experience but little else. Critics have questioned [13] whether the people filling these positions will be qualified to determine whether servicers followed the law.

“Distressingly, the job solicitations for these positions seem to suggest that servicers intend to hire individuals with no more expertise than the so-called ‘robo-signers’ that created many of these problems in the first place,” wrote Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., in a letter to regulators last week [14].

See the foreclosure review job ads:

The OCC’s Hubbard responded that the consultants “have spent significant time training staff, who will be supported by subject matter experts and whose work will be governed by a rigorous quality assurance process.”

It’s not known how long the reviews will take: On Tuesday, the OCC’s Evers said only that he didn’t think it would last “years.” He said he couldn’t guarantee, however, that the process wouldn’t stretch into 2013. Even before Tuesday’s launch, many consumer advocates and homeowners had viewed the process skeptically [5] because regulators had overlooked servicing abuses for years [15] and because regulators developed much of the new review process behind closed doors. Housing counseling and consumer groups could have given valuable input on the types of problems homeowners have faced in the past few years, said Alys Cohen of the National Consumer Law Center, but they were shut out of the process.

The OCC’s Hubbard said regulators did meet last week with consumer groups to discuss the process, and that Hope Now, a servicer-dominated alliance [16] with counseling organizations and community groups, had been involved earlier. Cohen said consumer groups hadn’t received any “meaningful information” during last week’s meeting.

Burden on borrowers

Not all eligible loans are guaranteed a review. First, the consultants will screen each servicer’s portfolio using a statistical sampling method to select loans with “the highest potential for financial injury,” as OCC head John Walsh put it in a speech [17] in September. Regulators have not released details on that sampling method. The loans flagged by this statistical method will be automatically reviewed.

But if homeowners want to ensure that their loan is reviewed, they must submit a “Request for Review Form [18].” (Homeowners can see our FAQ on how to submit their complaints [4].)

The OCC and the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group representing the biggest banks, refused to provide ProPublica with a sample of this form, even though a version of it will likely be mailed to millions of people. They cited concerns about “copycats, fraud and the negative effects on truly eligible borrowers who would suffer if the system becomes unnecessarily burdened with requests which are out of scope,” as the FSR’s Paul Leonard put it. Nevertheless, we obtained a sample of the five-page form, which you can see here [19]. (Homeowners need to obtain a form specific to their case in order to submit a request. See our FAQ for more information [4].)

The form includes a list of yes-or-no questions such as “Do you believe that you were denied a modification when you qualified under the applicable program rules?” and an open-ended request to “Describe any other way in which you believe you may have been financially injured as a result of the mortgage foreclosure process.”

But homeowners often lack the legal or technical expertise to know why their foreclosure was wrong or abusive, Cohen said. “They just know how they were treated.” She drew an analogy to going to court without a lawyer: “This essentially looks like a class-action case where the homeowners have no representation,” she said.

The review process

After a borrower mails the Request for Review Form, the consultant will obtain the borrower’s file from the servicer. The consultants will not interview borrowers but may ask them for additional documentation.

After the consultants have reviewed the loan files, they will write up their findings in a report, which will be turned over to regulators and the servicer of the loan but not to the borrower. Based on that report, the servicer will put together a report of its own on how it will compensate the borrower. Once regulators approve that plan, the servicer will send the borrower the findings of the review, including details on what compensation, if any, the borrower will receive.

OCC officials would not say whether homeowners will be asked to waive their right to sue their servicer in exchange for accepting the compensation. Borrowers will not have an opportunity to appeal the findings or the offer. But, Hubbard said, if homeowners decline their compensation, they retain “the right to pursue satisfaction through the courts or other means that may exist.”

The consultants will attempt to mail every eligible borrower a copy of the Request for Review Form [18] — no small task given that, by definition, many foreclosed homeowners no longer live at the addresses the loan servicers have on file. For such people, the consultants will attempt to find new addresses. Regulators will also oversee an advertising campaign in newspapers, magazines and online, but the campaign may change depending on the response rate, Hubbard said.

The process has already proved confusing for at least one homeowner. Dan Sanders of Marysville, Calif., contacted ProPublica in early October after receiving a letter from the OCC’s Customer Assistance Group that said his case would not be covered by the foreclosure review. The reason, the letter said, was that Sanders had not actually lost his home to foreclosure, and the review was limited to completed foreclosures. That’s not true.

Hubbard said the error was unfortunate but said a review by the OCC’s ombudsman concluded that Sanders was the only homeowner who’d received this misinformation, which was the result of one OCC employee’s error. Sanders can submit a request for review, which would ensure his case gets evaluated.

ProPublica will continue to monitor the foreclosure review process as it progresses. Homeowners going through the process should read our FAQ [4], fill out our questionnaire [20] if they haven’t already, and let us know what’s happening [21].

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

ROBO-SIGNED? Don’t expect to find it in the not so Independent Foreclosure Review FAQ’s

ROBO-SIGNED? Don’t expect to find it in the not so Independent Foreclosure Review FAQ’s


Looking over the so called Foreclosure Review FAQ’s, I found it extremely surprising that the word “ROBO” was not in there, heck not even close to any interpretation that your review may consist of any robo-signed documents.

The most disturbing part is that the servicers are going to start sending out letters today, the question is to whom? THE PEOPLE WERE ALREADY EVICTED, IDIOTS!!

This leads to the next information as Prof. Adam Levitin explained:

Financial harm? Yes. How much? Impossible to determine. Will it be considered? Not a chance. Welcome to Robosigning 2.0.

As if we were going to turn the right or left cheek to this and think all this bullshit would actually be “independent when the regulators let the banks hire the Foreclosure Fraud reviewers.

Once again more proof you’re being thrown under the bus!

p.s. anyone prior to 2009, you’re out of luck as well. AND we know there is thousands of you.

 

Below are the FAQ’s

[ipaper docId=71154619 access_key=key-mdtam8drwzevothfgsg height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives