Servicer | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "servicer"

Future of foreclosures in N.J. hinges on state Supreme Court decision | US Bank N.A. v. Guillaume

Future of foreclosures in N.J. hinges on state Supreme Court decision | US Bank N.A. v. Guillaume


I disagree with the judge’s motion words below and see video below as to why even attorney’s have a difficult time.

“I have a lot of problems with saying that all that’s going, with all this evidence of [c]ourt process for over a year, to just rely on trying to negotiate something with the bank was like sticking your head in the sand.

This wasn’t going to go away and they
didn’t get any assurance from the bank that
they were succeeding in their negotiation
efforts or that an answer to the complaint
was not required. I mean they just focused
on one path. And they ignored the
negotiation path and they ignored the
litigation side of things. You can’t do
that.

And I have to say that . . . Mrs.
Guillaume was being so aggressive and so
persistent in trying to negotiate and going
to all these different places to get help,
but the one place she wasn’t going was a
member of the bar, a lawyer which is usually
what you do when you get [c]ourt papers.

Or if you absolutely can’t afford a
lawyer and that’s the case of many
foreclosures, a very heavy self-represented
area of the law to at least contact the
[c]ourt yourself and you send in some
rudimentary answer. And it doesn’t have to
be fancy. I mean you write a letter to the
foreclosure unit, they’ll stamp contested on
it.

Because I’ve seen so many of them long
hand. But nothing was done. And I don’t
regard that as excusable neglect. So that
prong is lacking.”  

(emphasis added).

Simply wrong, one does NOT understand how frustrating it is to even try to get anyone from the “bank” on the phone, attempting a modification as we have read time and time again were nothing but DISASTROUS and GOING ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE!

[Please watch Michigan Atty Vanessa Fluker and you’ll understand why].

Lets not forget, this reversal that goes to the heart of this from out of New Jersey: BANK OF NEW YORK vs. LAKS | NJ Appeals Court Reversal “A notice of intention is deficient…if it does not provide the name and address of the lender”

NJ.COM-

In the nearly five months since the state Supreme Court effectively allowed six of the country’s biggest banks to begin filing foreclosures again, attorneys and court officials have been expecting a flood of new filings to hit the courts.

Except it hasn’t happened. Foreclosure filings are down 83 percent as of October this year, compared with the same time period last year, according to court figures, and there are at least 100,000 cases either pending in the system or waiting to be submitted.

Attorneys involved in the work in New Jersey point to at least one reason for the significant delay: a court case that has reached the state Supreme Court, with oral arguments on Wednesday.

The case, US Bank National Association v. Guillaume, is important because the court …

[NJ.COM]

[ipaper docId=74692087 access_key=key-1xrvd0kemha1r7mycu2h height=600 width=600 /]

 

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

Legal issues slow foreclosures in New Jersey

Legal issues slow foreclosures in New Jersey


I think this is the case in every state and all will agree


North Jersey-

In a small Bergen County courtroom one recent Friday, a sheriff’s officer auctioned off two foreclosed properties in a matter of minutes, as a handful of investors kept their eyes open for bargains.

It was a far cry from the typical sheriff’s auction of mid-2010, when 15 or more properties were auctioned weekly and up to 100 investors crowded the courthouse’s large jury room.

[…]

The reason: an August appellate court decision, Bank of New York v. Laks, according to Kevin Wolfe, head of the state’s Office of Foreclosure. In that case, the court dismissed a foreclosure, finding the lender violated the state Fair Foreclosure Act because it didn’t properly identify itself in a notice sent to the troubled homeowners.

[NORTH JERSEY]

[ipaper docId=61908065 access_key=key-1zd2neascm8dxsn37rbr height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Cummings Commends FHFA Decision to Terminate Faulty Foreclosure Attorney Networks

Cummings Commends FHFA Decision to Terminate Faulty Foreclosure Attorney Networks


Washington, DC (Oct. 18, 2011) – Today, Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, responded to an announcement by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) that it has instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to begin “transitioning away” from their use of designated foreclosure attorney networks to a system under which “mortgage servicers select qualified law firms that meet certain minimum, uniform criteria.”

“Several of these law firms were able to engage in abusive and illegal behavior that violated the rights of borrowers, in part because of deficient oversight by FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac,” said Cummings.  “In light of the extensive problems recently documented by the FHFA Inspector General, I urged FHFA to seriously consider terminating these attorney networks, and it appears they are implementing my request.”

“I remain concerned, however, that FHFA has not provided specific details about how mortgage servicers will select and oversee law firms to ensure that abusive behavior is prevented,” added Cummings.  “I will continue my oversight efforts to ensure that specific measures are in place to require mortgage servicers to properly oversee the actions of law firms conducting foreclosure proceedings, including those involving mortgages owned or backed by the government sponsored enterprises.”

On February 25, 2011, Ranking Member Cummings launched a major investigation into abuses and illegal activities by mortgage servicing companies, including wrongful foreclosures, inflated fees, and the filing of improperly executed legal documents during the foreclosure process.  As part of that investigation, Cummings sent a letter asking the FHFA Inspector General to examine “widespread allegations of abuse by private attorneys and law firms hired to process foreclosures as part of the ‘Retained Attorney Network’ established by Fannie Mae.”

On September 23, 2011, the FHFA Inspector General issued a report concluding that Fannie Mae and its regulators, including FHFA, were alerted repeatedly to serious problems with the legal firms in Fannie Mae’s retained attorney network (RAN) beginning as early as 2003, but failed to take corrective action.  The Inspector General reported that “FHFA did not begin to act on foreclosure abuse issues involving Fannie Mae’s RAN until mid-2010,” despite “multiple indicators of foreclosure abuse risk prior to 2010 that could have led FHFA to identify and act earlier on the issue.”

On October 3, 2011, Cummings sent a letter to FHFA Acting Director Edward DeMarco requesting additional documents and information regarding these oversight failures.  Cummings requested that the agency “give serious consideration to terminating the existing Fannie Mae Retained Attorney Network program.”  He also requested that “FHFA take immediate and decisive action to remedy these failures and ensure that no additional borrowers suffer similar abuses.”

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

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Fannie, Freddie Said to End Lawyer “Foreclosure Mill” Networks Amid Mortgage Woes

Fannie, Freddie Said to End Lawyer “Foreclosure Mill” Networks Amid Mortgage Woes


Nothing last forever… But now the servicers get to make the call on who they want to use… Already see the drama unfolding.

Bloomberg-

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will phase out their foreclosure attorney networks in the wake of the so-called robo-signing scandal, according to two people briefed on the plan.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates the mortgage companies, may make the announcement as soon as this week, said the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the matter isn’t public.

Fannie Mae has required the mortgage servicers handling its loans to use its Retained Attorney Network for foreclosures and bankruptcy cases. Some lawyers were accused by lawmakers, regulators and consumer groups of mishandling paperwork for evictions and foreclosures, including falsifying signatures on court affidavits. The dispute led many mortgage servicers to suspend foreclosure activity last year.

[BLOOMBERG]

.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

Fannie Mae Is At ALL TIMES The Owner And Holder of The Mortgage Note….

Fannie Mae Is At ALL TIMES The Owner And Holder of The Mortgage Note….


Via MATT WEIDNER, ESQ.

Just what would happen if Americans finally woke up and realized that the federal government was effectively the biggest plaintiff in foreclosure cases all across America?  The banksters don’t really own anything, it’s all Fannie/Freddie…and Fannie/Freddie are in big trouble.  The entire American financial system, and especially real estate finance, is a shell game played atop a rickety old card table.

From the Bulletin:


Fannie Mae is at all times the owner of the mortgage note, whether the note is in Fannie Mae’s portfolio or whether owned as trustee, for example, as trustee for an MBS trust. In addition, Fannie Mae at all times has possession of and is the holder of the mortgage note, except in the limited circumstances expressly described below. Fannie Mae may have direct possession of the note or a custodian may have custody of the note. If Fannie Mae possesses the note through a document custodian, the document custodian has custody of the note for Fannie Mae’s exclusive use and benefit.

[ipaper docId=63239436 access_key=key-agk3ur7x5paluteh1qd height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

U.S. Senators Push for Gross-Backed Bill to Ease Refinancing

U.S. Senators Push for Gross-Backed Bill to Ease Refinancing


H/T to a subscriber

This is about S 170 and HR 363.  Refi at LV, not FMV, and  appraisals are prohibited… Mortagee would presumably stay w/current servicer and lose existing rights, if any, re origination.  New securities are rebundled for sale (PIMCO, Penny Mac, et al).

If this happens, it will happen under the radar via Super Committee, not transparent law-making.

No one is looking at this.

(Bloomberg) —

U.S. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said she found a Republican colleague to help push a bill requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to let homeowners refinance properties worth less than their existing mortgage.

Senator Johnny Isakson, of Georgia, agreed to back the proposal that is also supported by Bill Gross, who runs the world’s biggest bond fund at Pacific Investment Management Co., Boxer told reporters today on a conference call.

[BLOOMBERG]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, filed a Notice of Cancellation with the Florida Department of State stating it was no longer transacting business in Florida

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, filed a Notice of Cancellation with the Florida Department of State stating it was no longer transacting business in Florida


Mortgage Fraud

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP

Bank of America

Action Date: August 11, 2011
Location: Tallahassee, FL

On July 11, 2011, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, filed a Notice of Cancellation with the Florida Department of State stating it was no longer transacting business in Florida.

From July 11, 2011 to August 11, 2011, this company initiated hundreds of foreclosure actions throughout Florida, filing 76 Lis Pendens in Palm Beach County; 61 Lis Pendens in Hillsborough County; 35 Lis Pendens in Lee County; and 107 in Broward County.

It will come as a real surprise, no doubt, to the hundreds of people in Florida who have been sued for foreclosure by BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, in the past 30 days that they are “no longer conducting business in Florida.”

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

BANK OF NEW YORK vs. LAKS | NJ Appeals Court Reversal “A notice of intention is deficient…if it does not provide the name and address of the lender”

BANK OF NEW YORK vs. LAKS | NJ Appeals Court Reversal “A notice of intention is deficient…if it does not provide the name and address of the lender”


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4221-09T3

BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWALT
2004 26T1,
Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SARAH G. LAKS and EDWARD
EINHORN, her husband,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.
___________________________________
Submitted May 23, 2011 – Decided August 8, 2011

EXCERPTS:

The defendants in an action to foreclose a residential mortgage appeal from the denial of their motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and dismiss the complaint without prejudice. We reverse and remand for entry of an order granting that relief.

[…]

Laks missed her May 2008 payment on the note and every monthly payment thereafter. On August 13, Countrywide Home Loans,3 plaintiff’s loan servicer, sent a notice of intention to foreclose to Laks by certified mail, return receipt requested. The notice of intention recited that Countrywide was acting on behalf of the owner of Laks’s promissory note, without identifying the owner. The notice of intention also warned that if Laks did not pay $21,279.64 to Countrywide within 30 days, then Laks’s noteholder, again not identified, would institute foreclosure proceedings against her. The notice concluded by advising Laks that if she did not agree that default had occurred or if she disputed the amount required to cure her default, she could contact Countrywide at an address and telephone number stated in the notice. Nowhere on the notice was Laks informed that plaintiff was the owner of her promissory note nor was she given plaintiff’s address. Three days before the foreclosure complaint was filed, MERS assigned Laks and Einhorn’s mortgage to plaintiff.

[…]

Thus, compliance with this notice provision is, in effect, a condition the lender must satisfy in order to either “accelerate the maturity of any residential mortgage obligation” or “commence any foreclosure or other legal action to take possession of the residential property which is the subject of the mortgage.” N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(a). In fact, with narrow exceptions inapplicable here, “[c]ompliance with [N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56] shall be set forth in the pleadings of any legal action” to foreclose a residential mortgage. N.J.S.A. 2A:50- 56(f). The notice of intention must include specific information “state[d] in a manner calculated to make the debtor aware of the situation[.]” N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c).5 The information the Legislature has deemed essential to the Act’s purpose includes:

“the particular obligation or real estate security interest”; “the nature of the default claimed”; the debtor’s right to cure the default; what the debtor must do to cure; and the date by which it must be done to avoid the filing of a foreclosure complaint. N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c)(1)-(5). The notice also must advise the debtor of the consequences of a failure to cure —specifically, that the lender may take steps to terminate the debtor’s ownership of the property by filing a foreclosure action and that the debtor will be required to pay the lender’s court costs and counsel fees if the debtor does not cure.
N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c)(6)-(7). In addition to the foregoing information about rights, responsibilities and consequences, the Legislature has determined that the notice of intention must include three items of information that are best characterized as helpful to a debtor interested in curing default. The first two are advice to seek counsel from an attorney — including references to the New Jersey Bar Association, Lawyer Referral Service and Legal Services — and a list of programs providing assistance for those seeking to cure default. N.J.S.A. 2A:50-56(c)(9)-(10). The third, and the one critical in this case, is “the name and address of the lender and the telephone number of a representative of the lender whom the debtor may contact if the 9 A-4221-09T3 debtor disagrees with the lender’s assertion that a default has occurred or the correctness of the mortgage lender’s calculation of the amount required to cure default.” N.J.S.A. 2A:50- 56(c)(11).

There is no question that the notice of intention mailed to Laks did not provide the name or address of the lender as required by subsection (c)(11). The notice of intention named no entity other than the mortgage servicer, Countrywide.

[…]

[ipaper docId=61908065 access_key=key-1zd2neascm8dxsn37rbr height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

READ | Letter from Representative Elijah E. Cummings to Darrell E. Issa re: Foreclosure Fraud, Subpoenas

READ | Letter from Representative Elijah E. Cummings to Darrell E. Issa re: Foreclosure Fraud, Subpoenas


June 21, 2011

The Honorable Darrell E. Issa
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Today marks the six-month anniversary of my first letter to you requesting that the Committee investigate widespread and systemic abuses by mortgage servicing companies, including illegal foreclosures, inflated fees, and fraud against American homeowners. This is now my fourth letter to you on this subject.1

[…]

[ipaper docId=58481965 access_key=key-1l9y3r577fvic8q11q7t height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

IN RE FONTES | Arizona Bankr. Court Appellate Panel Slams Standing “MERS Assignment, HSBC Affidavit”

IN RE FONTES | Arizona Bankr. Court Appellate Panel Slams Standing “MERS Assignment, HSBC Affidavit”


In re: CARLOS RAMON FONTES and EVA MARIE FONTES, Debtors.
CARLOS RAMON FONTES; EVA MARIE FONTES, Appellants,
v.
HSBC BANK, USA, NA; DIANNE CRANDELL KERNS, Chapter 13 Trustee, Appellees.

BAP No. AZ-10-1345-JUMKPa, Bk. No. 08-13133.

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Ninth Circuit.

.

Argued and Submitted on February 17, 2011 at Phoenix, Arizona. April 22, 2011.

Ronald Ryan, Esq. argued for Appellants Carlos and Eva Fontes Steven D. Jerome, Esq. of Snell & Wilmer LLP argued for Appellee HSBC Bank USA, NA Craig Morris, Esq. argued for Appellee Dianne Crandell Kerns.

Before: JURY, MARKELL, and PAPPAS, Bankruptcy Judges.

EXCERPT:

A. HSBC’s Theories

HSBC argues that we should affirm the court’s decision on the ground that debtors’ statements in their schedules and confirmed plan regarding ASC were judicial admissions[9] that HSBC had standing to bring the motion for relief from stay because ASC was HSBC’s loan servicer. HSBC further argues that the doctrine of judicial estoppel[10] should bar debtors from challenging HSBC’s standing because debtors acknowledged their debt to ASC, HSBC’s loan servicer, in their schedules and plan. Thus, HSBC maintains that debtors should not be able to take an inconsistent position in the context of the relief from stay proceeding. Finally, HSBC contends that despite these grounds for affirming the bankruptcy court’s ruling, it independently met its burden of proof that it had a colorable claim to debtors’ property.[11]

Although we may affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision on any ground fairly supported by the record, Wirum v. Warren (In re Warren), 568 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2009), we disagree with HSBC that it should prevail under any of these theories.

We first address HSBC’s argument that it proved it had a colorable claim to debtors’ property. The record shows that the bankruptcy court did not directly address this question because it relied on debtors’ confirmed plan for its decision. Regardless, we review standing issues de novo and there is no evidence in the record that supports HSBC’s contention.

The assignment of the deed of trust from MERS, as nominee for Infinity, to HSBC also purported to assign the note. However, HSBC, as MER’S assignee, would take subject to the rights and remedies of its assignor. HSBC overlooks the fact that there is no evidence in the record that shows MERS had any interest in the note to assign. Although the deed of trust gave MERS, as nominee, the power to assign the deed of trust, it did not mention the note, nor did the note itself name MERS as nominee, so MERS could not take this right from the documents themselves. Further, there is no independent evidence that Infinity conveyed the note to MERS. Finally, debtors were not obligated under the note to make payments to MERS. In short, the language in the deed of trust which names MERS as a beneficiary, solely as nominee of Infinity, was insufficient to confer any economic benefit on MERS. In re Weisband, 427 B.R. 13, 20 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010).

In Weisband, the bankruptcy court considered whether a MERS assignment of a deed of trust provided the loan servicer with standing for purposes of obtaining relief from stay. The court concluded that MERS had no interest in the note and would suffer no injury if the note was not paid and the deed of trust not foreclosed. As a result, the court concluded that MERS did not have constitutional standing and, if MERS did not have constitutional standing, its assignee could not satisfy the requirements for constitutional standing either. Id.; see also Wilhelm, 407 B.R. at 404[12] (discussing validity of MERS’s assignments related to the note). We do not perceive a different result is warranted under these circumstances.

Moreover, HSBC gives the Williams’ declaration more credence than the rules of evidence allow. Williams’ declaration was conclusory, simply stating that she was familiar with the business records of HSBC and that HSBC was the “holder or servicer” of the note. Williams also stated that HSBC had a contractual right to collect payments and maintain legal actions for the beneficial note holder, either as the current note holder or pursuant to either a Master Servicing Agreement or Power of Attorney. However, neither of those documents were attached to her declaration and there is no other foundation for her to have made these equivocal statements. Finally, the declaration creates an ambiguity because Williams stated that HSBC was “the holder or servicer” of the Note. Which is it? If HSBC was a servicer of the note, it does not necessarily follow that HSBC was the holder of the note under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-1201(B)(21)(a).[13]Weisband, 427 B.R. at 21 (noting that “[E]ven if a servicer has constitutional standing, it may still not be the `real party in interest’ under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 and may not, therefore be able to satisfy the requirements for prudential standing.”). In short, Williams’ declaration did not establish that HSBC had constitutional or prudential standing or that HSBC had authority to act for any entity that did have standing. See

HSBC’s judicial admission and estoppel theories as grounds for affirmance are also unpersuasive. HSBC seeks to have these doctrines applied to itself vis-a-vis ASC. The only manner in which HSBC links itself to ASC in the record is through its repeated assertion without reference to any evidence that ASC was its “servicer.”[14] No further details are given. Does HSBC mean that ASC was its agent at the time of debtors’ filing? Or, does HSBC mean it somehow became the successor in interest to ASC? The record does not support either theory.

Generally, a loan servicer acts only as the agent of the owner of the instrument. We do not find any evidence in the record that establishes an agency relationship between HSBC and ASC that existed when debtors filed their petition and proposed their plan. The record contains no servicing agreement between ASC and HSBC indicating that ASC was HSBC’s agent, and ASC’s proof of claim did not state that it was acting as the authorized agent for HSBC. Further, MERS’s assignment to HSBC of the trust deed and note is dated September 11, 2009 — a date well past the petition and plan confirmation dates. Thus, the only inference to be drawn from the record is that ASC was acting as servicer for some party other than HSBC when debtors filed their petition.

We also cannot conclude on this record that HSBC established that it was ASC’s successor in interest. A successor in interest is “one who follows another in ownership or control of property. A successor in interest retains the same rights as the original owner, with no change in substance.” Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th ed. 2009). Nothing in the record shows ASC was in the line of assignments of the note or trust deed. In reality, ASC and HSBC appear to be separate unrelated entities at the time of debtors’ filing. Without a direct link to ASC, HSBC cannot take advantage of the judicial admission or estoppel doctrines to bar debtors’ challenge to its standing.

In sum, the record is devoid of evidence that would support any of HSBC’s theories.

[…]

[ipaper docId=57257408 access_key=key-14ee6g2flupct4kcyjeg height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

US mortgage company urges plan for principal cuts

US mortgage company urges plan for principal cuts


REUTERS-

American Home Mortgage Servicing, one of the largest subprime mortgage servicers, is urging the U.S. Treasury to organize a plan to boost principal reductions for up to 1 million homeowners by unlocking loans from securities.

The servicer is asking for amendments to contracts that govern treatment of delinquent loans in mortgage securities. Currently, most contracts don’t allow sales of loans prior to foreclosure, and in many cases don’t permit a servicer to lower principal when a loan is modified.

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

In foreclosure? Can’t be found? More Twisted, Conflicts of Interest.

In foreclosure? Can’t be found? More Twisted, Conflicts of Interest.


As if it hasn’t been a conflict when MERS is the nominee for the plaintiff but is also named or is the mortgagee for the defendant…what a total state of confusion.

Oh wait there’s more, and who signs and notarizes these documents entered as evidence in most cases?

TBO.com

TAMPA – When a lender fails to find a homeowner to notify them of a foreclosure lawsuit, a judge often appoints a guardian ad item. That attorney is supposed to represent the property owner’s interests.

But guess who typically picks the guardian? The lender’s attorney.


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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

NJ Superior Court ‘Servicer Only Not Sufficent, By Law Must Also ID Lender’ BONY v. ELGHOSSAIN

NJ Superior Court ‘Servicer Only Not Sufficent, By Law Must Also ID Lender’ BONY v. ELGHOSSAIN


THE BANK OF NEW YORK
MELLON-fka THE BANK OF
NEW YORK TRUSTEE UNDER
THE POOLING AND SERVICING
AGREEMENT SERIES 2004-24 CB,

v

GEORGE S. ELGHOSSAIN and
MONA C. ELGHOSSAIN
,

Excerpt:

In today’s widespread foreclosure litigation, the specific fact pattern this court addresses appears not to have been squarely decided before: does a mortgage lender’s “servicer’s” Notice of Intent to Foreclose satisfy the statutory mandates that notice be provided by the lender and that the lender as well as the lender’s representative be identified in that notice. The lender and the lender’s representation must be identified in the notice. Having not done so here, the motion is deficient. The foreclosure complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Continue below…

[ipaper docId=52568581 access_key=key-l2p6uc3asz7q113ql3z height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (0)

Minnesota Dist. Court DENIES BAC, MERS MTD “TILA VIOLATION” LABELLE v. AMERCIAN BROKERS CONDUIT

Minnesota Dist. Court DENIES BAC, MERS MTD “TILA VIOLATION” LABELLE v. AMERCIAN BROKERS CONDUIT


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Ann LaBelle and Daniel LaBelle,
Plaintiffs,
v.
American Brokers Conduit; BAC
Home Loans Servicing, LP, a Texas
Limited Partnership as Successor in
Interest to Countrywide Home Loans
Servicing, LP; Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation
; John and Jane Does 1-10,
Defendants.

Excerpts:

Thus, the authenticity of BAC’s and MERS’ submitted documents is questioned by Plaintiffs. Consequently, at this motion to dismiss stage, the Court will not consider the signed documents which BAC and MERS have submitted. Therefore, holding the Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of TILA which would extend Plaintiffs’ right to rescind to three years. Plaintiffs’ notice of rescission was sent June 13, 2009, within three years of the transaction.

<SNIP>

BAC contends that it is simply a servicer of the loan and has never owned a pecuniary interest, and that the true owner of the obligation is Freddie Mac. Once again however, Defendants rely on documents outside of the pleadings to prove their point. Defendants have submitted an affidavit stating that Freddie Mac is the true owner of the mortgage. This Court will not consider this affidavit for the purposes of this motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint alleges that BAC maintains a pecuniary interest in the loan. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint references a letter from BAC’s counsel which states that BAC is the true owner of mortgage obligation. Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, Plaintiffs have pled facts sufficient to establish that BAC is an assignee, against whom Plaintiffs may seek rescission.

Continue reading below…

[ipaper docId=47911920 access_key=key-33rgs0knmegm2wxozcu height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

WA STATE CLASS ACTION: “HAMP MODIFICATIONS” SOPER v. BANK OF AMERICA

WA STATE CLASS ACTION: “HAMP MODIFICATIONS” SOPER v. BANK OF AMERICA


COUNT I:

BREACH OF CONTRACT / BREACH OF DUTY OF GOOD FAITH
AND FAIR DEALING

COUNT II:

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL, IN THE ALTERNATIVE

COUNT III:

VIOLATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
RCW 19.86.010 ET SEQ

[ipaper docId=44324706 access_key=key-2hmeqvhev4ksjp3amyva height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (1)

DOCX / LPS Price List…any documents you want!

DOCX / LPS Price List…any documents you want!


Looks like this is becoming more and more like a fabricating factory mill full of ?????????

DOCX’s GetNet™ Document Recovery solution is a national network of runners that is engaged to provide document recovery, expedited recordation services, title searches, and insurance submissions.

The service is unique in that our clients can request that DOCX obtain any missing recordable documents through this web site through our online GetNet™ Work Order Form. Status of existing projects can also be obtained through our Online Services.

We also accept work orders the “old fashioned” way via fax or mail. Upon receipt of the work order, DOCX will access the national network of runners, place the order and follow up to ensure prompt delivery.

GetNet™ was designed to assist mortgage servicers in meeting agency certifications and to avoid costly penalties for filing late satisfaction pieces.

GetNet™ Features

  • A National Network of title runners retains presence in every county jurisdiction nationwide.
  • Obtains missing mortgage documents, assignments, title policies and LGC/MICs.
  • Expedites recordation by physically walking documents in to county recorder offices.
  • Provides title searches to identify mortgage holders.
  • Provides online reporting capabilities.

GETNET™ RATE SHEET

[ipaper docId=38616465 access_key=key-1gta9io0omavgx417a90 height=600 width=600 /]

.

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



Posted in assignment of mortgage, bogus, concealment, conflict of interest, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, DOCX, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, forgery, Lender Processing Services Inc., LPS, STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (3)

EXCLUSIVE | ‘MERS’ DEPOSITION of SECRETARY and TREASURER of MERSCORP 4/2010

EXCLUSIVE | ‘MERS’ DEPOSITION of SECRETARY and TREASURER of MERSCORP 4/2010


Could this deposition hold the key to take all of MERS V3 &  MERSCORP down!

There is not 1, 2 but 3 MERS, Inc. in the past.

Just like MERS et al signing documents dated years later from existence the Corporate employees do the same to their own corporate resolutions! Exists in 1998 and certifies it in 2002.

If this is not proof of a Ponzi Scheme then I don’t know what is… They hide the truth in many layers but as we keep pulling and peeling each layer back eventually we will come to the truth!

“A Subtle Stranger” Orchestrates a Paradigm Shift

MERS et al has absolutely no supervision of what is being done by it’s non-members certifying authority PERIOD!

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CHANCERY DIVISION – ATLANTIC COUNTY
DOCKET NO. F-10209-08
BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWABS,
INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2005-AB3
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
VICTOR and ENOABASI UKPE
Defendant(s).

___________________________________________
VICTOR and ENOABASI UKPE
Counter claimants and
Third Party Plaintiffs,
vs.
BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEE FOR
THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS CWABS,
INC. ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES,
SERIES 2005-AB3
Defendants on the Counterclaim,
and
AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER;
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.;
MORGAN FUNDING CORPORATION,
ROBERT CHILDERS; COUNTRYWIDE
HOME LOANS SERVICING LP,
PHELAN, HALLINAN & SCHMIEG,
P.C.,
Third Party Defendants
——————–

Deposition of William C. Hultman, Secretary and Treasurer of MERSCORP

[ipaper docId=36513502 access_key=key-1ltln0ondmrqe0v9156u height=600 width=600 /]

Does MERS have any salaried employees?
A No.
Q Does MERS have any employees?
A Did they ever have any? I couldn’t hear you.
Q Does MERS have any employees currently?
A No.
Q In the last five years has MERS had any
employees
?
A No.
Q To whom do the officers of MERS report?
A The Board of Directors.
Q To your knowledge has Mr. Hallinan ever
reported to the Board?
A He would have reported through me if there was
something to report.
Q So if I understand your answer, at least the
MERS officers reflected on Hultman Exhibit 4, if they
had something to report would report to you even though
you’re not an employee of MERS, is that correct?
MR. BROCHIN: Object to the form of the
question.
A That’s correct.
Q And in what capacity would they report to you?
A As a corporate officer. I’m the secretary.
Q As a corporate officer of what?
Of MERS.
Q So you are the secretary of MERS, but are not
an employee of MERS?
A That’s correct.

etc…
How many assistant secretaries have you
appointed pursuant to the April 9, 1998 resolution; how
many assistant secretaries of MERS have you appointed?
A I don’t know that number.
Q Approximately?
A I wouldn’t even begin to be able to tell you
right now.
Q Is it in the thousands?
A Yes.
Q Have you been doing this all around the
country in every state in the country?
A Yes.
Q And all these officers I understand are unpaid
officers of MERS
?
A Yes.
Q And there’s no live person who is an employee
of MERS that they report to, is that correct, who is an
employee?
MR. BROCHIN: Object to the form of the
question.
A There are no employees of MERS.

RELATED ARTICLE:

_____________________________

MERS 101

_____________________________

FULL DEPOSITION of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) PRESIDENT & CEO R.K. ARNOLD “MERSCORP”

_____________________________

DEPOSITION of A “REAL” VICE PRESIDENT of MERS WILLIAM “BILL” HULTMAN

_____________________________

HOMEOWNERS’ REBELLION: COULD 62 MILLION HOMES BE FORECLOSURE-PROOF?

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



Posted in bac home loans, bank of america, bank of new york, chain in title, concealment, conflict of interest, conspiracy, CONTROL FRAUD, corruption, countrywide, foreclosure, foreclosure fraud, foreclosure mills, foreclosures, insider, investigation, lawsuit, MERS, MERSCORP, mortgage, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., note, originator, R.K. Arnold, racketeering, Real Estate, sanctioned, scam, securitization, servicers, stopforeclosurefraud.com, sub-prime, TAXES, trustee, trustee sale, Trusts, truth in lending act, unemployed, Violations, Wall StreetComments (4)

FORECLOSURE ATTORNEYS | TRUSTEE NETWORK

FORECLOSURE ATTORNEYS | TRUSTEE NETWORK


Attorney / Trustee Network/ FORECLOSURE MILLS

NetDirector provides a centralized data exchange for a growing network of attorneys and trustees as they realize the value of this unique solution. The current network represents participants in 49 states with both judicial and non-judicial law practices. As critical mass builds, attorneys and trustees have more leverage over banks, service providers, and other trading partners to move toward standards and provide product/service enhancements. The following attorneys/trustees currently subscribe to the NetDirector Data Exchange:

Albertelli Law, P.L. (AL, GA & FL)
Baer, Timberlake, Coulson & Cates, P.C. (OK)
Barrett, Daffin, & Frappier, L.L.P. (GA)
Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & Weiss, L.L.P. (CA)
Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Turner & Engel, L.L.P. (TX)
Bendett & McHugh, P.C. (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI & VT)
Ben-Ezra & Katz, P.A. (FL)
Buonassissi, Henning & Lash P.C. (DC, MD & VA)
Cal-Western Reconveyance (AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, TX, UT & WA)
Camner, Lipsitz & Poller (FL)
Castle, Meinhold & Stawiarski, L.L.C. (CO, NM, NV, UT & WY)
Clay Chapman Iwamura Pulice & Nervell (HI)
Codilis & Associates, P.C. (IL)
Codilis & Stawiarski, P.C. (TX)
Codilis, Stawiarski & Moody, P.C. (MO)
Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch, L.L.C. (DC & MD)
Dale & Decker, L.L.C. (CO)
Davidson Fink, L.L.P. (NY)
Dean Morris, L.L.P. (LA)
Doyle Legal Corporation, P.C. (IN)
Dunakey & Klatt, P.C. (IA)
Fein, Such, & Crane, P.C. (NY)
Fein, Such, Kahn & Shepard, P.C. (NJ)
Feiwell & Hannoy, P.C. (IN)
Finkel Law Offices, L.L.C. (SC)
Fisher & Shapiro, L.L.P. (IL)
Florida Default Law Group, P.L. (FL)
Freedman, Anselmo, Lindberg & Rappe, L.L.C. (IL)
Friedman & MacFadyen, P.A. (DC, MD, & VA)
Gilbert McGrotty Group, P.A. (FL)
Goldbeck, McCafferty & McKeever (NJ & PA)
Gray & Associates, L.L.P. (WI)
Greenspoon Marder, P.A. (FL)
Harmon Law Offices, P.C. (MA, RI, & NH)
Hellerstein & Shore, L.L.C. (CO)
Hudnall, Cohn, Fyvolent & Shaver, P.C. (GA)
Johnson & Freedman, L.L.C. (GA)
Kass, Shuler, Solomon, Spector, Foyle & Singer, P.A. (FL)
Kivell, Rayment & Francis, P.C. (OK)
Korn Law Firm, P.A. (SC)
Law Office of Patrick D. Hendershott, L.L.C. (OH)
Law Office of Ira T. Nevel, L.L.C. (IL)
Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra (FL)
Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.C. (FL)
LOGS Network (AR, DC, FL, GA, IN, IL, KY, MD, MN, NY, OH, OR, PA, TN & VA)
Lundberg & Associates (UT)
Mackoff Kellogg Law Firm (MT, ND & SD)
Martin & Brunavs (GA)
McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, P.C. (CT, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA & VA)
McCalla, Raymer, L.L.C. (AL, GA, TN & TX)
Morris & Associates (MS)
National Default Exchange, L.P. (CA, GA, IN, MI, MN & TX)
Nectar Projects, Inc. (VA)
Northwest Trustee Services, Inc. (CA, OR, WA, HI, ID, & MT)
O’Kelley & Sorohan, L.L.C. (GA)
Partridge Snow & Hahn, L.L.P. (MA, RI)
Pendergast & Jones, P.C. (GA)
Pierce & Associates, P.C. (IL)
Pite Duncan, L.L.P. (AZ, CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, TX, UT & WA)
Potestivo & Associates, P.C. (MI)
Powers Kirn, L.L.C. (NJ)
Powers, Kirn & Javardian, L.L.C. (PA)
Prommis Solutions, L.L.C. (All)
Regional Trustee Service Corporation (AK, AZ, CA, ID, MT, NV, OR & WA)
Reimer, Arnovitz, Chernek & Jeffrey, Co. L.P.A. (OH)
Richard M. Squire & Associates, L.L.C. (PA)
Robert J. Hopp & Associates, L.L.C. (CO)
Rogers Townsend & Thomas, P.C. (NC)
Routh Crabtree Olsen, P.S. (CA, OR, WA, HI, ID, & MT)
Routh Cooper Castle Olsen, L.L.C. (AZ)
Routh Crabtree, A.P.C. (AK)
Rutherford Mulhall, P.A. (FL)
Samuel I. White, P.C. (DC, MD, VA & WV)
Scott Law Firm, P.A. (SC)
Shapiro & Burson, L.P.P. (DC, MD & VA))
Shapiro & DeNardo, L.L.C. (PA)
Shapiro, DiCaro & Barak, L.P.P. (NY)
Shapiro & Fishman, L.P.P. (FL)
Shapiro & Kirsch, L.P.P. (AR & TN)
Shapiro & Sutherland, L.L.C. (OR)
Shapiro & Swertfeger, L.P.P. (GA)
Shapiro, Van Ess, Phillips & Barragate, L.P.P. (IN, KY & OH)
Shapiro & Zielke, L.P.P. (MN)
Shechtman Halperin Savage, L.L.P. (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI & VT)
Sirote & Permutt, P.C. (AL)
Smith, Hiatt & Diaz, P.A. (FL)
South & Associates, P.C. (MO, KS & NE)
Spear & Hoffman, P.A. (FL)
Stein, Weiner & Roth, L.L.P. (NY)
The Cooper Castle Firm, L.L.P. (NV)
The Law Offices of Hutchens, Senter & Britton, P.A. (NC)
Tiffany & Bosco, P.A. (AZ)
Trott & Trott, P.C. (MI)
Weiss Spicer Cash, P.L.L.C. (TN)
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis CO. L.P.A. (IL, IN, KY, MI, NJ, OH & PA)
Wilford & Geske, P.A. (MN)
Wilson & Associates P.L.L.C. (AR & TN)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work 
in this message is distributed under fair use without profit
or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. 
GRG [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

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



Posted in foreclosure, foreclosure mills, foreclosuresComments (3)

Open Letter Jennifer Van Dyne DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY Trustee Administrator RAST 2007-A5

Open Letter Jennifer Van Dyne DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY Trustee Administrator RAST 2007-A5


Where are the NOTES?

THE TRUSTEE OF A TRUST HOLDS THE ACTUAL RECORDS. THE HIDDEN TRANSFERS IS WHAT ALLOWS THESE PEOPLE TO DO ILLEGAL ACTS AND TRANSFERS.

[scribd id=31053678 key=key-2ecqhcxcs40ajpqq9xw9 mode=list]

Posted in case, foreclosure fraud, forensic mortgage investigation audit, MERS, mortgage electronic registration system, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC., Mortgage Foreclosure FraudComments (0)

GMAC v Visicaro Case No 07013084CI: florida judge reverses himself: applies basic rules of evidence and overturns his own order granting motion for summary judgment

GMAC v Visicaro Case No 07013084CI: florida judge reverses himself: applies basic rules of evidence and overturns his own order granting motion for summary judgment


THIS IS WORTH REPEATING OVER AND OVER!!!!

From: Neil Garfield Livinglies

RIGHT ON POINT ABOUT WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT IN HEARING YESTERDAY!!

I appeared as expert witness in a case yesterday where the Judge had trouble getting off the idea that it was an accepted fact that the note was in default and that ANY of the participants in the securitization chain should be considered collectively “creditors” or a creditor. Despite the fact that the only witness was a person who admitted she had no knowledge except what was on the documents given to her, the Judge let them in as evidence.

The witness was and is incompetent because she lacked personal knowledge and could not provide any foundation for any records or document. This is the predominant error of Judges today in most cases. Thus the prima facie case is considered “assumed” and the burden to prove a negative falls unfairly on the homeowner.

The Judge, in a familiar refrain, had trouble with the idea of giving the homeowner a free house when the only issue before him was whether the motion to lift stay should be granted. Besides the fact that the effect of granting the motion to lift stay was the gift of a free house to ASC who admits in their promotional website that they have in interest nor involvement in the origination of the loans, and despite the obviously fabricated assignment a few days before the hearing which violated the terms of the securitization document cutoff date, the Judge seems to completely missed the point of the issue before him: whether there was a reason to believe that the movant lacked standing or that the foreclosure would prejudice the debtor or other creditors (since the house would become an important asset of the bankruptcy estate if it was unencumbered).

If you carry over the arguments here, the motion for lift stay is the equivalent motion for summary judgment.

This transcript, citing cases, shows that the prima facie burden of the Movant is even higher than beyond a reasonable doubt. It also shows that the way the movants are using business records violates all standards of hearsay evidence and due process. Read the transcript carefully. You might want to use it for a motion for rehearing or motion for reconsideration to get your arguments on record, clear up the issue of whether you objected on the basis of competence of the witness, and then take it up on appeal with a cleaned up record.

[ipaper docId=29901870 access_key=key-2igblc29w7y5gelivtak height=600 width=600 /]

RELATED ARTICLE:

Judge reversed his own ruling that had granted summary judgment to GMAC Mortgage (DAVID J. STERN)


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



Posted in Law Offices Of David J. Stern P.A.Comments (1)

AGENTS BEWARE! HERE COME THE HAFA VENDORS aka LPS AFTER YOUR COMMISSION

AGENTS BEWARE! HERE COME THE HAFA VENDORS aka LPS AFTER YOUR COMMISSION


I believe Mr. Churchill miss this one LPS Auction Solutions is uniquely positioned to sell and close foreclosed properties. View bank foreclosed home auctions, buy foreclosed properties online.
lpsauction.com

 
Posted by:
Lance Churchill on 03/25/2010.

A few weeks ago I posted an article on this blog in which I expressed concern about deductions that could occur from real estate agent commissions because of the language in the new HAFA short sale guidelines that are about to go into effect.  That language states that agent commissions are protected up to six percent of the transaction unless the servicer chooses to retain “a vendor to assist the listing broker with the sale” and if a vendor is retained, “this vendor must be paid ___% (or $___) from the commission.” 

In essence, I predicted that a new industry of short sale vendors would spring up, not really to assist the broker, but to do the servicer’s job at the real estate agent’s expense, resulting in smaller commissions than were being paid even a few years ago when servicers were routinely reducing commissions as a condition of short sale approval.  I noted at the time that some agents were already running into some of these vendors in their short sale transactions. 

With the effective date of HAFA only ten days away, these short sale vendor companies are starting to appear like weeds.   Here are excerpts from three press releases I have seen in just the last few days:

March 16, 2010 — Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS), a leading provider of integrated technology and services to the mortgage and real estate industries, is pleased to announce the launch of its professional short-sale service.  Offered through LPS Asset Managements Solutions, LPS short-sale solution helps servicers respond more quickly to short sale offers and close more transactions. http://www.lpsvcs.com/NewsRoom/Pages/20100316.aspx 

March 18, 2010 — Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Loan Resolution Corp., a provider of short sale services, plans to add 100 positions this month to meet demand for the government’s new Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternaltives program.  http://www.mortgageorb.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.5487 

March 25, 2010 — Lenders Asset Management Corporation (LAMCO), a full service, nationwide default asset management company offering comprehensive REO services, announced its company’s approach to help mortgage servicers fully comply with the federal government’s Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternatives (HAFA) program. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/lamco-ramps-up-short-sale-services-in-conjunction-with-hafa-program,1217095.shtml

Notice how the press releases proclaim these companies are creating these divisions to help the servicers comply with HAFA.  I guess they didn’t read that it was supposed be the agents they were assisting.   I hope that they do make the short sale process easier, but the drafters of the HAFA program (with recommendations from the servicers) shouldn’t have tried to be cute with their wording in HAFA by guaranteeing a 6% commission unless a vendor is hired to assist the broker

The implication is that the vendors will make an agent’s job so much easier, that the agent doesn’t really deserve a full commission on the transaction.  After all, now all the agent will have to do is work with the seller, list the property, qualify the seller for HAFA, market the property, deal with buyers with low ball offers, negotiate with unrepresented buyers, negotiate with selling agents, get a contract signed, send it to the servicer or vendor for approval, guide it through closing, appear at closing and deal with all the other usual issues in a transaction.  

In other words, HAFA listing agents will not only be doing everything they would do in any other transaction, but will also now have to deal with the HAFA process.   HAFA’s drafters should have just honestly stated in the guidelies that:  Real estate agents are going to give up one quarter of their commission so that the servicers can hire somebody to do the servicer’s job.

All the complaining aside, the HAFA program is what it is unless NAR can lobby the Treasury Department and get this provision changed.  Hopefully, when Freddie and Fannie come out with their own HAFA compliant guidelines in the near future, they will strike this provision.  After all, both Fannie and Freddie within the past year changed their loss mitigation policies to protect 6% commissions for agents. 

I think a real effect of this provision is that it will result in many selling agents avoiding HAFA short sales which will ultimately affect the success of the HAFA program.  One of the primary reasons that the investors/owners of loans listed as short sales started paying 6% commissions, was they realized that in today’s difficult real estate market, some selling agents with solid buyers were avoiding short sale properties that only paid a two or two and one half percent commission to the selling agent.  With all the short sales on the market, there were plenty of properties to show their buyers that paid a full commission.  If this happens, the lenders and servicers greed will have caused them to once again shoot themselves in the foot.

In the next installment on the new HAFA program taking effect on April 5, 2010, I will discuss some of the pros and cons of participating in the HAFA program along with some of HAFA’s flaws that may cause it a lot of problems as it is implemented.  In the meantime, for more education on the HAFA program, check out our free video series at www.hafaprogram.com or our in depth course at www.2010shortsaleplaybook.com.

Posted in foreclosure fraudComments (2)


GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives