Lets get one thing perfectly clear. We know Congress is corrupt. AND Obama as President, CEO has the power to pretty much do anything he knows is right to protect the people after piling their life savings into their worthless properties and now drowning in debt because of the banks fraud. Obama cannot blame anyone but himself for this failure.
Watching banks destroy ones wealth in Real Estate is not part of his job description as he failed to do so.
WaPO-
One year and one month before President Obama won reelection, he invited seven of the world’s top economists to a private meeting in the Oval Office to hear their advice on what do to fix the ailing economy. “I’m not asking you to consider the political feasibility of things,” he told them in the previously unreported meeting.
There was a former Federal Reserve vice chairman, a Nobel laureate, one of the world’s foremost experts on financial crises and the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund , among others. Nearly all said Obama should introduce a much bigger plan to forgive part of the mortgage debt owed by millions of homeowners who are underwater on their properties.
Obama was reserved in response, but Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner interjected that he didn’t think anything of such ambition was possible. “How do we get this done through Congress?” he asked. “What could we actually do that we haven’t done?”
CHARLES M. SMITH III MARIA CASIMIRO, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; AND FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION.
C.A. No. PC2011-2549.
Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, SC.
Filed: November 20, 2012.
DECISION RUBINE, J.
Before the Court is Defendants’, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“Countrywide”), and Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) (collectively, “Defendants”), Motion to Dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiffs’ Charles M. Smith III and Maria Casimiro (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. Through the Complaint, Plaintiffs challenge the validity of FNMA’s foreclosure on certain real property located at 249-251 Rochambeau Avenue, Providence, Rhode Island (the “Property”) alleging that the assignment of the mortgage interest vesting FNMA with the statutory power of sale is allegedly void rendering the foreclosure sale a nullity. Thus, Plaintiffs claim that title of the Property remains vested in them. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that the mortgage note is current or has been satisfied.
I FACTS & TRAVEL
The facts derived from the Complaint and the exhibits attached to and incorporated therein are as follows: On November 30, 2005, Plaintiffs executed a note (“Note”) in favor of lender Countrywide. To secure the Note, Plaintiffs contemporaneously executed a mortgage (“Mortgage”) on the Property. (Compl. ¶ 9.) The Mortgage designated Countrywide as the “Lender” and further designated MERS as “nominee for [Countrywide] and [Countrywide’s] successors and assigns” as well as “mortgagee.” (Compl. Ex. 2 at 1.) The Mortgage further provided that “Borrower does hereby mortgage, grant and convey to MERS, (solely as nominee for [Countrywide] and [Countrywide’s] successors and assigns) and to the successors and assigns of MERS, with Mortgage Covenants upon the Statutory Condition and with the Statutory Power of Sale.” Id. at 2. In addition, the Mortgage provides that:
“Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for [Countrywide] and [Countrywide’s] successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of [Countrywide].” (Defs.’ Ex. A at 3.)1
The Mortgage was recorded in the land evidence records of the City of Providence.
On August 14, 2009, MERS, as nominee for Countrywide and mortgagee, assigned the Mortgage interest to FNMA. The assignment was recorded in the land evidence records of the City of Providence on August 20, 2009. Thus, from the date of the recording of the assignment, FNMA controlled the statutory power of sale as explicitly granted by Plaintiffs through their execution of the Mortgage.
Thereafter, FNMA foreclosed on the Property; however, Plaintiffs allege that the note was not in default and therefore the foreclosure was not justified. On March 15, 2011, prior to initiating this instant action, Plaintiffs recorded a lis pendens on the Property in the land evidence records of the City of Providence, notifying all third parties of the dispute over title to the Property.2 On May 3, 2011, Plaintiffs filed the instant Complaint seeking nullification of the foreclosure sale and return of title to them. Plaintiffs also allege in their Complaint that the Note is current or has been satisfied. (Compl. ¶ 54.) Defendants then filed this Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs objected to Defendants’ Motion averring that they clearly established a claim for relief. At the motion hearing, all parties waived oral argument, and thus, this Court took the matter under advisement.
II STANDARD OF REVIEW
“The solitary purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss `is to test the sufficiency of the complaint.'” Tarzia v. State, 44 A.3d 1245, 1251 (R.I. 2012) (quoting Narragansett Elec. Co. v. Minardi, 21 A.3d 274, 277 (R.I. 2011)). For purposes of the motion, the Court assumes “the allegations contained in the complaint are true and examin[es] the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. The complaint must “provide the opposing party with `fair and adequate notice of the type of claim being asserted.'” Barrette v. Yakavonis, 966 A.2d 1231, 1234 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Gardner v. Baird, 871 A.2d 949, 953 (R.I. 2005) (quotation omitted)). Thereafter, “[t]he grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is appropriate `when it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief from the defendant under any set of facts that could be proven in support of the plaintiff’s claim.'” Palazzo v. Alves, 944 A.2d 144, 149-50 (R.I. 2008) (quoting Ellis v. Rhode Island Pub. Transit Auth., 586 A.2d 1055, 1057 (R.I. 1991)).
III ANALYSIS
Since the allegations set forth in the instant Complaint—specifically concerning the assignment of the Mortgage interest, the disconnect between the Note and Mortgage, and the authority of certain individuals to execute assignments on behalf of MERS—are nearly identical to the allegations of the complaint in Payette v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., and the Mortgage executed by Plaintiffs contains the same operative language as the mortgage considered in Payette, this Court will incorporate and adopt the reasoning set forth in Payette. No. PC 2009-5875, 2011 WL 394701 (R.I. Super. Aug. 22, 2011) (Rubine, J.); see also Kriegel v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., No. PC 2010-7099, 2011 WL 4947398 (R.I. Super. Oct. 13, 2011). Notwithstanding this similarity, there is an allegation in the instant Complaint that the Note is current or has been satisfied. If this allegation is accepted as true for purposes of the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs’ Complaint cannot be dismissed, and Plaintiffs must be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to the allegation concerning whether default under the Note was sufficient to trigger the right to foreclose.
Plaintiffs, in their memorandum, fail to distinguish this matter from the Court’s earlier determination and dismissal of similar cases, except to the extent that Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that the Note was current or satisfied. Rather, Plaintiffs have chosen primarily to criticize the precedent of the Rhode Island Superior Court as “legally and factually impossible” and “missing the point,” attaching thereto and incorporating therein an exhibit to their memorandum entitled “Deconstruction of Payette.”3 Such criticism of prior precedent is not persuasive. See Rutter v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., Nos. PC 2010-4756, PD 2010-4418, 2012 WL 894012 at *10 (R.I. Super. March 12, 2012) (Silverstein, J.); see also Commonwealth Prop. Advocates v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 11-4168, 459 Fed. App. 770 (10th Cir. March 6, 2012) (affirming district court where appellant’s counsel criticized, rather than distinguished, prior MERS cases).
Likewise, Plaintiffs’ reliance on case law of other jurisdictions, which is not binding precedent upon this Court, to further criticize this Court’s past decisions is unconvincing. This is especially true in light of the fact that this Court’s prior precedent with respect to mortgagors’ lack of standing to challenge the assignments of the mortgage and debt appears to represent the holding of the majority of courts which have considered the issue. See Oum v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 842 F.Supp.2d 407, 413 & n.12 (D. Mass. 2012) (citing cases from several jurisdictions and noting the “near uniformity of opinion” with respect to the issue of a mortgagor’s standing to challenge the validity of an assignment); Bridge v. Aames Capital Corp., No. 1:09CV2947, 2010 WL 3834059, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 29, 2010) (“Courts have routinely found that a debtor may not challenge an assignment between an assignor and assignee.”). The Court believes criticism of its earlier decisions should be saved for appellate review. In the absence of controlling authority from the Rhode Island Supreme Court, the reasoning and result of the Superior Court decisions on this subject matter represents the prevailing view of the law in Rhode Island. Breggia v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., No. PC 2009-4144, 2012 WL 1154738 (R.I. Super. April 3, 2012) (Rubine, J.); see also Rutter, 2012 WL 894012.
The crux of Plaintiffs’ Complaint challenges the validity of the assignment of the Mortgage interest by MERS to FNMA, and thus, FNMA’s standing to foreclose on the Property following mortgagors’ default. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege in their Complaint that Francis J. Nolan (“Nolan”) had no authority to assign the Mortgage interest on behalf of MERS as no power of attorney was recorded authorizing Nolan to execute the assignment on behalf of MERS. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 19.) It is well established that “homeowners lack standing to challenge the propriety of mortgage assignments and the effect those assignments, if any, could have on the underlying obligation.” Payette, 2011 WL 3794701; see also Rutter, 2012 WL 894012 at *17 (quoting Fryzel v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., C.A. No. 10-325 M, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95114, at *41-42 (D.R.I. June 10, 2011) (dismissed on other grounds)) (the principle that a non-party to the contract does not have standing to challenge the contract’s subsequent assignment is well established); Brough v. Foley, 525 A.2d 919, 922 (R.I. 1987) (holding that the plaintiff, whose property purchase was thwarted by an assignee’s exercise of the assigned right of first refusal, had no standing to challenge the validity of the assignment); Peterson v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, No. 11-11115-RWZ, 2011 WL 5075613 at *4 (D. Mass. Oct. 25, 2011) (Zobel, J.) (court refused to read U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Ibanez, 941 N.E.2d 40 (Mass. 2011) as an independent basis for mortgagors to collaterally contest previously executed mortgage assignments to which they were not a party and that did not grant them any interests or rights; finding mortgagors had no legally protected interests in the assignment of the mortgage, and therefore lacked standing to challenge it); In re Correia, 452 B.R. 319 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2011) (the bankruptcy appellate panel affirming the bankruptcy judge’s finding that mortgagors lacked standing to challenge the validity of the mortgage assignment). As this Court has proclaimed time and again, Plaintiffs’ allegation with respect to the invalidity of the assignments of the Mortgage interest constitutes a legal conclusion not supported by the prevailing case law and is insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
Moreover, there is no requirement under Rhode Island law that MERS must record a power of attorney in order for Nolan to act on behalf of MERS. See Section 34-13-1.
Thus, even assuming the veracity of Plaintiffs’ allegation, this allegation does not entitle Plaintiffs to the relief they seek.
Plaintiffs further aver that MERS holds a mere legal title, and thus an assignment which is limited to its beneficial interest transfers nothing as a matter of law. To support this allegation, Plaintiffs rely upon Eisenberg v. Gallagher, 32 R.I. 389, 79 A. 941 (1911). Plaintiffs erroneously assert that Eisenberg stands for the proposition that the foreclosing party must own the note and mortgage at the time it commences foreclosure proceedings. Rather, Eisenberg stands for the proposition that the foreclosure sale was invalid where the foreclosing party sent notice prior to actually holding an interest in the mortgage. Id. Since the foreclosing party gave notice of the foreclosure sale prior to that party actually possessing the mortgage, it followed that the plaintiff in Eisenberg was entitled to the relief she sought, quieting title to her property. Id. The Mortgage instrument is the instrument granting FNMA the statutory power of sale. Accordingly, FNMA must be, and properly was, the mortgagee prior to its commencement of the foreclosure proceedings.
Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that, although the Mortgage was assigned to FNMA, the Note was never transferred to or negotiated by Countrywide, and therefore FNMA does not have standing to enforce the Mortgage without the Note. (Compl. ¶¶ 50-56.) Likewise, this allegation fails to state a fact entitling Plaintiffs to relief. The identity of the note holder is irrelevant as it is well established under current Rhode Island law that MERS and the assignees of MERS may act as nominee of the current note holder. See The Bank of New York Mellon v. Cuevas, Nos. PD 2010-0988, PC 2010-0553, 2012 WL 1388716 (R.I. Super. April 19, 2012) (Rubine, J.); see also Payette, 2011 WL 3794701; Bucci v. Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, No. PC 2009-3888, 2009 WL 3328373 (R.I. Super. Aug. 25, 2009) (Silverstein, J.).
Plaintiffs attempt to invalidate the foreclosure sale by averring that the note holder and mortgagee must be one in the same. Specifically, Plaintiffs aver that under §§ 34-11-21, 22, and 24, the note holder and mortgagee must be the same party.
The assertion by Plaintiffs that §§ 34-11-21, 22, and 24 require the note holder and mortgagee to be the same party is erroneous as a matter of law. Justice Silverstein has interpreted § 34-11-21 as to “not require the Note and Mortgage be held by the same entity, at the time of foreclosure or at the time MERS assigns the mortgage to another entity.” Rutter, 2012 WL 894012 at *15. “Interpreting § 34-11-21 to require the mortgagee and lender always be the same entity would reach `an absurd result because named mortgagees and lenders would be precluded from employing servicers to service and collect obligations secured by real estate mortgages,’ and `clearly, the General Assembly envisioned a role for mortgage servicers in the mortgage lending industry.'” Id. at *14 (quoting Bucci, 2009 WL 3328373 at *18-19). Moreover, “the designation of MERS as mortgagee and lender’s nominee, does not as a matter of law, cause a fatal defect in the foreclosure.” Kriegel, 2011 WL 4947398 at *9.
Furthermore, § 34-11-24 provides that an assignment of the mortgage shall also be deemed an assignment of the debt secured thereby. Rutter, 2012 WL 894012; see also Kriegel, 2011 WL 4947398. Once the lender designates MERS as its nominee, MERS, and thus any assignee of MERS, also acts as holder of the debt secured by the mortgage and has the authority to assign the mortgage interest. Kriegel, 2011 WL 4947398 at *15. By the clear and unambiguous language of § 34-11-24, an assignment of the mortgage deed assigns the mortgage with “the note and debt thereby secured.” Section 34-11-24. Therefore, the assignment of the Mortgage interest by MERS to FNMA transferred the Mortgage as well as “the [N]ote and debt thereby secured.” Section 34-11-24. FNMA then became an assignee of MERS, thereby possessing all the rights as mortgagee, including the statutory power of sale. See Kriegel, 2011 WL 4947398 at *13-14 (quoting Weybosset Hill Inv., LLC v. Rossi, 857 A.2d 231, 240 (R.I. 2004)) (an assignee steps into the shoes of the assignor and can avail itself of the assignor’s rights). Thus, FNMA was the foreclosing party and properly commenced foreclosure proceedings, if a default occurred.
Plaintiffs further rely on a United States Supreme Court case, Carpenter v. Longan, wherein the Court found the note and mortgage to be inseparable, holding that under Colorado law, the assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity. 83 U.S. 271, 274 (1872). This holding is in direct conflict with § 34-11-24 of the Rhode Island General Laws. Unlike the law of Colorado, § 34-11-24, as discussed supra, provides that an assignment of the mortgage carries with it “the note and debt thereby secured.” Section 34-11-24. Accordingly, when drafting § 34-11-24, the legislature did not intend to render a nullity an assignment of a mortgage interest without the simultaneous assignment of the Note. “It is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, this Court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings.” Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc., 674 A.2d 1223, 1226 (R.I. 1996); see also Bucci, 2009 WL 3328373 at *10. To accept Plaintiffs’ interpretation of § 34-11-24, thereby rendering the assignment of the Mortgage interest a nullity, would lead to an absurd result. “Statutes should not be construed to reach an absurd result.” Bucci, 2009 WL 3328373 at *12; see also Brennan v. Kirby, 529 A.2d 633, 637 (R.I. 1987). Accordingly, an assignment of the mortgage interest alone carries with it the note and debt thereby secured and will not be rendered a nullity. Since these allegations of legal invalidity are merely conclusory statements of law, they fail to state a claim.
In addition, Plaintiffs erroneously rely on Eaton v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, No. SUCV201101382, 29 Mass. L. Rptr. 115 (Mass. Super. June 17, 2011) (Eaton I). However, since the submission of Plaintiffs’ memorandum, Eaton was overruled by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. See Eaton v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 969 N.E.2d 1118 (Mass. 2012) (Eaton II). While Eaton I stands for the proposition that under Massachusetts law one must hold the note and mortgage in order to properly foreclose, in Eaton II the court held that the mortgagee must either hold the note or act on behalf of the note holder. See id. at 1121. Regardless, neither decision is binding precedent upon the Rhode Island Superior Court.
There is a wide array of case law throughout this country evidencing a split of authority. This Court follows the precedent of the Rhode Island Superior Court, that the assignment of the mortgage of the nature and with the language of the mortgage considered herein does not create a fatal disconnect between the note and the mortgage. Furthermore, no Rhode Island case law or statutory law requires that the foreclosing party hold both the note and mortgage in order to foreclose. In effect, Rhode Island case law states that the mortgagee may also act as nominee for the note holder. See Porter v. First NLC Fin. Serv., No. PC 2010-2526, 2011 WL 1251246 (R.I. Super. March 31, 2011) (Rubine, J.); see also Bucci, 2009 WL 3328373; Kriegel, 2011 WL 4947398. As Justice Silverstein stated in Rutter, the Eaton case “has already been questioned and distinguished by” other cases [in Massachusetts], and directly “contradict[s] this Court’s prior holding in Bucci” as well as other Superior Court cases. 2012 WL 894012 at *15. Accordingly, this Court “will not overturn its own prior ruling[s] in favor of another state’s lower court opinion that has already been called into doubt by subsequent decisions.” Id.
Lastly, Plaintiffs aver that under Rhode Island law mortgage servicers cannot act as mortgagees. According to Plaintiffs, mortgage servicers are not authorized to foreclose following a mortgagor’s default.4
In Kriegel, this Court dismissed plaintiff’s claim that the foreclosure sale conducted by the mortgage servicer on behalf of MERS’ assignee was contractually invalid, thereby finding that the mortgage servicer had the ability to, and properly did, foreclose on behalf of the mortgagee following plaintiff’s default. 2011 WL 4947398 at *16. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim was dismissed as “factually and legally unfounded.” Kriegel, 2011 WL 4947398 at *16 (citing 27A Federal Procedure L. Ed. § 62:509 (1996)); see also Bucci 2009 WL 3328373 at *7 (noting that the General Assembly envisioned a role for mortgage servicers in the mortgage lending industry); G.L. 1956 § 34-26-8(a)(4), as amended by P.L. 1995, ch. 131, § 1 (including mortgage servicers within the definition of “mortgagee” for purposes of § 34-26-8). The same outcome obtains here.
Finally, Plaintiffs allege that the Note is current or has been satisfied. Considering this allegation as true and in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss must be denied because the absence of default, if established as true by the finder of fact, would be a defense to a foreclosure allegedly triggered by borrower’s default under the Note. For that reason alone, Plaintiffs’ Complaint cannot be dismissed, and Plaintiffs must be given an opportunity to have the issue of default considered at trial. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss must be denied. Accepting the allegations set forth in the Complaint as true, and viewing them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have set forth an allegation in the Complaint which, if true, establishes a claim for relief. However, the legal issues presented in this matter—specifically concerning the assignment of the Mortgage interest, the disconnect between the Note and Mortgage, and the authority of certain individuals to execute assignments on behalf of MERS—have been previously decided by this Court in a manner contrary to the alleged interest of the mortgagor/homeowner. See Kriegel, 2011 WL 4947398; see also Rutter, 2012 WL 894012; Payette, 2011 WL 3794701; Porter, 2011 WL 1251246; Bucci, 2009 WL 3328373.
IV
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ have alleged facts in their Complaint concerning the absence of default which, if true, would entitle them to the relief sought. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is denied. Counsel for the prevailing party shall submit an Order in accordance with this Decision.
Footnotes
1. Defendants’ Exhibit A is a full copy of the Mortgage instrument. Plaintiffs submitted only various pages of the Mortgage as an attachment to the Complaint. Since the Complaint expressly references and incorporates the Mortgage instrument, this Court may properly consider the entire document as submitted by Defendants without converting this Motion to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. See Super. R. Civ. P. 10(c); see also Robert B. Kent et al., Rhode Island Civil Procedure § 10:3 (West 2011); see also 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, 3d § 1327 (West 2012).
2. As a matter of law, one cannot legitimately record a lis pendens prior to filing a complaint challenging title to the property. Cafua v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys. Inc., No. PC 2009-7407, 2012 WL 2377404 (R.I. Super. June 20, 2012) (Rubine, J.). The primary purpose of notice of lis pendens is to give notice to all potential buyers of a pending lawsuit concerning real property. Id. (citing Darr v. Muratore, 143 B.R. 973 (D.R.I. 1992)); see also Montecalvo v. Mandarelli, 682 A.2d 918 (R.I. 1996).
3. Plaintiffs decided it was “necessary to dissect the Payette Decision for the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island to understand [the] abomination” which is that decision. (Pls.’ Mem. in Supp. of Obj. to Mot. to Dismiss 57.) This Court will continue to follow the reasoning and result of the well-reasoned, thoughtful, and concise prior decisions of the Rhode Island Superior Court.
4. The instant matter did not involve a mortgage servicer—FNMA was the mortgagee and FNMA foreclosed on the Property. Nevertheless, the Court will address this argument.
It’s an addiction for both sides and nothing will ever get done until the government breaks itself from settlements. If you can’t handle your business then step down and let someone competent do the job.
HuffPO-
Even in the movie version of the financial crisis, the giant mortgage company accused by the U.S. government of rampant fraud and abuse wouldn’t be so obvious as to nickname its mortgage lending program “the Hustle.”
The real-life Countrywide Financial, however, was not known for its subtlety. In 2007, as the mortgage market was collapsing, Countrywide, now part of Bank of America, used the hustle — officially, a program it called the “High Speed Swim Lane” — to eviscerate lending standards in order to keep pumping out home loans, even though many were fraudulent, according to a lawsuit filed by the U.S. government last month.
Despite the abuses alleged in this lawsuit, described as “spectacularly brazen in scope” by Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, the federal government accused no individual bank executives with wrongdoing in the case. Nor have authorities singled out individuals in recent civil lawsuits against Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase or Credit Suisse, the three other banks sued in the last two months by members of a high-profile task force created by President Barack Obama this year to investigate mortgage fraud.
On November 19th, the core of the Obama “Justice” Department’s “49 State Settlement,” of the millions of fraud claims by the suing mortgagees against the mega-banks who were trying to foreclose on robo-signed and other dubious mortgages, was finally announced, and it basically gave the mega-banks what they wanted: all of the money they could possibly get out of those mortgagees, and with future U.S. taxpayers furthermore absorbing the resulting losses, in the form of taxpayers needing to pay off the federal debt for the massive bailouts of Wall Street and its “counter-parties,” losses which were being absorbed by Timothy Geithner’s U.S. Treasury, and by Ben Bernanke’s U.S. Federal Reserve.
There would be no prosecutions of mega-bank executives for any of the frauds those mega-bank executives had planned and overseen, which had led to these enormous crimes, and thus to the 2008 crash. Those mega-bank executives were permitted to keep their millions of dollars in pay and bonuses, which they had earned from these frauds.
In order to understand what was happening here, one needs to know first this relevant background, the back-story:
Congress should take another break, this time forever. We don’t need them because they don’t solve anything the right way.
Business Week-
While Congress wrangles over a debt deal, struggling homeowners may be facing a cliff of their own. That’s because a tax break aimed at helping distressed borrowers—set to expire at the end of the year—is caught up in the taxes vs. spending debate paralyzing Washington.
In the early days of the housing crisis, Congress passed the Mortgage Debt Relief Act of 2007, which waives taxes on up to $2 million in loan forgiveness. Normally, forgiven debt is taxed as income. The bill shields borrowers from taxes in three situations: when a bank modifies a mortgage to reduce the principal; when a borrower sells her home in a short sale and the purchase price is less than the outstanding balance on the mortgage; and when a bank waives the portion of the mortgage balance it couldn’t recoup in a foreclosure.
Tell President Obama: Appoint a real champion for Wall Street accountability to the S.E.C.
Neil Barofsky has actually put bankers in jail as both an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District in New York and as Special Investigator General for the TARP program. A career prosecutor, he is one of the only people this decade who have prosecuted complex financial fraud.
Former Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware is, according to Simon Johnson, “a consistent advocate for financial-sector reform and was one of the clearest voices during the 2010 legislative process that led to Dodd-Frank.”
Dennis Kelleher is, per Johnson, “a former senior Senate leadership aide with a great deal of political experience, including during the financial crisis and in the negotiations that led to Dodd-Frank, and now runs the pro-reform group Better Markets…No one has been a more effective advocate of implementing substantive reforms.”
Sheila Bair is widely acknowledged in government circles and the media as one of the first people to identify and accurately assess the subprime crisis. Elizabeth Warren said that Blair “is a strong voice for Wall Street accountability and financial reform…[whose] leadership during the financial crisis made a real difference for working families…”3
You can bet that Wall Street is already lining up support for their preferred candidates. So we can’t afford to be silent.
Please speak out and help push Obama to appoint a chair of the S.E.C. who will be a real force for Wall Street accountability.
Determining the exact number of children living in poverty can depend on what Census calculation you go by. More than 16 million children, or roughly one in five, were living in poverty in 2011, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s official poverty measure (pdf). That is higher than any other age group. Among 18- to 64-year-olds, the poverty rate was 13.7 percent, while among seniors the rate was 8.7 percent.
The Census Bureau’s official figures fail to paint a complete picture, though. The formula the government uses to calculate the poverty rate was designed in the 1960s, and does not account for expenses that are necessary to even hold a job — such as transportation costs and child care. Nor does the formula account for government programs for the needy, such as food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
When the Census Bureau factors in (pdf) those types of variables in a new experimental formula the number of children found to be living in poverty falls to 13.4 million.
While some homeowners struggle month after month to make their mortgage payments to avoid facing foreclosure, others are intentionally walking away from their homes. It’s called strategic foreclosure, and it’s a new trend that has hit the Grand Valley.
A strategic foreclosure involves someone who is capable of making their mortgage payment, but choose not to, usually because their home is not worth the value it used to be.
“They’re financially savvy, they understand what’s going on with the market, they understand what the financial ramifications are of a foreclosure, and they understand that the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs,” said Paul Clement, mortgage lender with Guild Mortgage.
How exactly did they correct over 1 million documents?
What about the forgeries coming out of LPS in Minnesota?
What will happen to all the investor lawsuits/investigations against LPS?
What will happen to former LPS CEO’s who knew this was going on back in 2009 but did not alert anyone, especially their investors?
What happens to all the people who were damaged by these documents?
What happens to the two ousted former FL Assistant AG’s from Florida, June Clarkson and Theresa Edwards, who were fired for investigating LPS?
NYT-
The founder and former president of DocX, once one of the nation’s largest foreclosure-processing companies, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to fraud in one of the few criminal cases to have arisen out of the housing crisis.
The executive, Lorraine O. Brown, 56, entered a guilty plea in federal court in Florida and a plea agreement in state court in Missouri related to DocX’s preparation of improper documents used to evict troubled borrowers from their homes. Ms. Brown’s guilty pleas will lead to a prison term of at least two years, the Missouri attorney general said.
Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), the biggest U.S. home lender, must face a lawsuit that accuses the bank of overcharging veterans under a federal loan-refinancing program, a judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg in Atlanta denied Wells Fargo’s bid to dismiss the complaint filed by two mortgage brokers, saying their allegations are “plausible and sufficient,” according to a decision filed yesterday.
The plaintiffs “have made factually specific allegations regarding mechanics of defendant’s routine practice of creating false documents and making false statements to the VA in order to obtain guarantees on loans,” Totenberg wrote.
Over One Million Documents Prepared and Filed with Forged and False Signatures, Fraudulent Notarizations
U.S. Department of Justice November 20, 201
WASHINGTON—A former executive of Lender Processing Services Inc. (LPS)—a publicly traded company based in Jacksonville, Florida—pleaded guilty today, admitting her participation in a six-year scheme to prepare and file more than one million fraudulently signed and notarized mortgage-related documents with property recorders’ offices throughout the United States.
The guilty plea of Lorraine Brown, 56, of Alpharetta, Georgia, was announced by Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida Robert E. O’Neill; and Michael Steinbach, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Jacksonville Field Office.
The plea, to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, was entered before U.S. Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson in Jacksonville federal court. Brown faces a maximum potential penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine or twice the gross gain or loss from the crime. The date for sentencing has not yet been set.
“Lorraine Brown participated in a scheme to fabricate mortgage-related documents at the height of the financial crisis,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “She was responsible for more than a million fraudulent documents entering the system, directing company employees to forge and falsify documents relied on by property recorders, title insurers, and others. Appropriately, she now faces the prospect of prison time.”
“Homeownership is a huge step for American citizens,” said U.S. Attorney O’Neill. “The process itself is often intimidating and lengthy. Consumers rely heavily on the integrity and due diligence of those serving as representatives throughout this process to secure their investments. When the integrity of this process is compromised, illegally, public confidence is eroded. We must work to assure the public that their investments are sound, worthy, and protected.”
Special Agent in Charge Steinbach stated, “Our country is increasingly faced with more pervasive and sophisticated fraud schemes that have the potential to disrupt entire markets and the economy as a whole. The FBI, with our partners, is committed to addressing these schemes. As these schemes continue to evolve and become more sophisticated, so too will we.”
Brown was the chief executive of DocX LLC, which was involved in the preparation and recordation of mortgage-related documents throughout the country since the 1990s. DocX was acquired by an LPS predecessor company and was part of LPS’s business when LPS was formed as a stand-alone company in 2008. At that time, DocX was rebranded as “LPS Document Solutions, a Division of LPS.” Brown was the president and senior managing director of LPS Document Solutions, which constituted DocX’s operations.
DocX’s main clients were residential mortgage servicers, which typically undertake certain actions for the owners of mortgage-backed promissory notes. Servicers hired DocX to, among other things, assist in creating and executing mortgage-related documents filed with recorders’ offices. Only specific personnel at DocX were authorized by the clients to sign the documents.
According to plea documents filed today, employees of DocX, at the direction of Brown and others, began forging and falsifying signatures on the mortgage-related documents that they had been hired to prepare and file with property recorders’ offices. Unbeknownst to the clients, Brown directed the authorized signers to allow other DocX employees, who were not authorized signers, to sign the mortgage-related documents and have them notarized as if actually executed by the authorized DocX employee.
Also according to plea documents, Brown implemented these signing practices at DocX to enable DocX and Brown to generate greater profit. Specifically, DocX was able to create, execute, and file larger volumes of documents using these signing and notarization practices. To further increase profits, DocX also hired temporary workers to sign as authorized signers. These temporary employees worked for much lower costs and without the quality control represented by Brown to DocX’s clients. Some of these temporary workers were able to sign thousands of mortgage-related instruments a day. Between 2003 and 2009, DocX generated approximately $60 million in gross revenue.
After these documents were falsely signed and fraudulently notarized, Brown authorized DocX employees to file and record them with local county property records offices across the country. Many of these documents—particularly mortgage assignments, lost note affidavits, and lost assignment affidavits—were later relied upon in court proceedings, including property foreclosures and federal bankruptcy actions. Brown admitted she understood that property recorders, courts, title insurers, and homeowners relied upon the documents as genuine.
Brown also admitted that she and others also took various steps to conceal their actions from clients, LPS corporate headquarters, law enforcement authorities, and others. These actions included testing new employees to ensure they could mimic signatures, lying to LPS internal audit personnel during reviews of the operation in 2009, making false exculpatory statements after being confronted by LPS corporate officials about the acts, and lying to the FBI during its investigation. LPS closed DocX in early 2010.
This case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Ryan Rohlfsen and Assistant Chief Glenn S. Leon of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark B. Devereaux of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida. This case is being investigated by the FBI, with assistance from the state of Florida’s Department of Financial Services.
Today’s conviction is part of efforts underway by President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF), which was created in November 2009 to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. attorneys’ offices and state and local partners, it is the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory, and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud. Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state, and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions, and other organizations. Over the past three fiscal years, the Justice Department has filed more than 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants, including more than 2,700 mortgage fraud defendants. For more information on the task force, visit www.stopfraud.gov.
The New Jersey Appellate Division found that homeowners’ excessive delay in raising their standing arguments precluded potential defenses and affirmed that a foreclosure judgment received by a party lacking standing is not necessarily void.
JD SUPRA-
On November 14, 2012, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed an order denying the defendants/homeowners’ motion to vacate a final judgment of foreclosure entered on March 17, 2009 and their application to further restrain a sheriff’s sale. Nearly three and half years after being served with the foreclosure complaint and over two years after plaintiff obtained a final foreclosure judgment, the defendants/homeowners filed an order to show cause seeking to stay the pending sheriff’s sale and to vacate the 2009 final judgment as void and for other reasons justifying relief from the judgment pursuant to New Jersey Court Rule 4:50-1 (d) and (f). The defendants/homeowners argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to file the foreclosure complaint because it did not take an assignment of mortgage until after the complaint was filed.
Attorney General Chris Koster today announced that the state of Missouri and Lorraine Brown, former President of DocX, LLC, have reached a plea agreement. Under the agreement, Ms. Brown will plead guilty to one felony count of forgery, one felony count of perjury, and one misdemeanor count of making a false declaration.
Brown will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than two years and not to exceed three years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.
Ms. Brown is the former President of the company DocX, LLC. During the period of March to October 2009, DocX, at the direction of Brown, instituted a surrogate signing policy whereby employees signed, not their name, but the names of other employees on thousands of mortgage documents that were notarized and filed across the country. Prior to 2009, similar signing practices were also employed at DocX. Brown concealed these practices from her clients, the national mortgage servicers, and the parent company of DocX. The practices of DocX were brought to national attention by a “60 Minutes” report and resulted in several major lenders temporarily suspending foreclosures in 2010.
“DocX’s robo-signing practices were the worst in the county. Surrogate-signing crosses the threshold into criminal activity,” Koster said. “This agreement brings to justice the person most responsible for these activities and upholds the principle that when you sign your name to a legal document, it matters.”
Brown’s plea of guilty to forgery and making a false declaration will be entered in Boone County where a criminal prosecution is ongoing by the Missouri Attorney General and the Boone County Prosecutor. Brown’s plea of perjury will be entered in Jackson County where a criminal prosecution is also ongoing by the Missouri Attorney General and the Jackson County Prosecutor.
The Attorney General’s Office worked in coordination with the Boone County Prosecutor, the Jackson County Prosecutor, the Boone County Recorder of Deeds, and the Jackson County Recorder of Deeds.
Continued Legal Action by State-Federal Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group
Schneiderman: Credit Suisse RMBS Trusts Incurred Billions In Losses And Will Be Held Accountable
NEW YORK – Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today filed a Martin Act complaint against Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and its affiliates for making fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions to promote the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) to investors. According to Attorney General Schneiderman’s lawsuit, Credit Suisse deceived investors as to the care with which they evaluated the quality of mortgage loans packaged into residential mortgage-backed securities prior to 2008. RMBS sponsored and underwritten by Credit Suisse in 2006 and 2007 have suffered losses of approximately $11.2 billion.
Attorney General Schneiderman’s complaint is the most recent enforcement action by the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, a state-federal task force created by President Obama earlier this year to investigate those responsible for misconduct contributing to the financial crisis through the pooling and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities. In October, Attorney General Schneiderman filed a Martin Act lawsuit against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (formerly known as Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.), JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., and EMC Mortgage LLC (formerly known as EMC Mortgage Corporation) for making fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions to promote the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) to investors.
“This lawsuit against Credit Suisse marks another significant step in our efforts to hold financial institutions accountable for the misconduct that led to the worst financial crisis in nearly a century,” said Attorney General Schneiderman. “Our investigations and legal actions demonstrate that there must be one set of rules for all – no matter how big or powerful the institution may be – and that those rules will be enforced vigorously. We need real accountability for the illegal and deceptive conduct in the creation of the housing bubble in order to bring justice for New York’s homeowners and investors.”
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs
LORRAINE BROWN
EXCERPT:
LORRAINE BROWN, the defendant herein , did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with others to commit certain offenses, to wit:
a. execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, by utilizing the United States mail and private and commercial interstate carriers, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341 ; and,
b. execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, by transmitting and causing to be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate and foreign commerce, writings, signs, visual pictures, and sounds, for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
Manner and Means of the Conspiracy and Scheme and Artifice
8. The manner and means by which Brown, co-conspirators, and others sought to accomplish the purposes and objectives of the conspiracy include, but are not limited to, the following :
a. Beginning in or about 2005, employees of DocX, at the direction of Brown and others, began forging and falsifying signatures on the mortgage-related documents that they had been hired to prepare and file with property recorders’ offices throughout the United States.
b. Unbeknownst to DocX’s clients, the Authorized Signers were instructed by Brown and other DocX employees to allow other, unauthorized, DocX employees to sign, and to have the document notarized as if the actual Authorized Singer had executed the document.
c. Brown also hired temporary workers to sign as Authorized Signers. These temporary employees worked for much lower costs and without the quality control represented by Brown to DocX’s cl ients. In fact, some of these temporary workers were able to sign thousands of documents a day. These mortgage-related documents were fraudulently notarized by DocX employees even though the Authorized Signer did not actually sign the document.
d. These unauthorized signing and notarization practices allowed DocX, Brown, and others to generate greater profit and make more money.
e. After these false documents were signed and notarized, DocX filed them through the mails or by electronic methods with local county property records offices. Many of these documents, particularly mortgage assignments and lost note or assignment affidavits, were later relied upon in court proceedings, including property foreclosures and in federal bankruptcy court. Brown knew that these property recorders, as well as those who received the documents such as courts, title insurers, and homeowners, relied on these documents as genuine.
f. Brown and others also took various steps to conceal their actions from detection from clients, LPS corporate headquarters, law enforcement authorities, and others.
[…]
9. Factual Basis
Defendant is pleading guilty because defendant is in fact guilty. The defendant certifies that defendant does hereby admit that the facts set forth in the attached “Factual Basis,” which is incorporated herein by reference, are true, and were this case to go to trial, the United States would be able to prove those specific facts and others beyond a reasonable doubt.
I have a senior citizen friend who is getting ridiculous amounts of snail mail and telephone calls on a daily basis describing this exact warning for a reverse mortgage.
CFPB-
Today, along with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), our Office of Enforcement sent letters to a number of lenders concerning potential violations of the Mortgage Acts and Practices – Advertising (MAP) Rule, a new rule that took effect in August 2011. The MAP Rule addresses claims and statements in mortgage advertising that may be misleading to consumers.
Many of these potentially misleading practices seem to be directed at older Americans and servicemembers/veterans. So today we are writing jointly to highlight things to be on the lookout for when you get mortgage advertisements. We have seen examples of the following potentially misleading practices through our complaint system, and also heard about them as we travel the country talking to consumers.
Be suspicious of ads with:
Official-looking seals or logos that imply some kind of government status, for example making you think they come from the VA or HUD. Although government agencies do guarantee some loans, they are not involved in the actual lending or advertising of loans.
Promises of amazingly low rates – which may turn out in the fine print only be in effect for a short period and then will readjust to a higher amount.
Promises that a reverse mortgage will let you stay in your home payment-free. Typically borrowers with reverse mortgages still have to keep up with tax and insurance payments – and will most likely lose their homes if they don’t.
Announcements of “pre-approval” and large amounts of cash or credit available to you. Typically there’s no guarantee that you will be approved for a loan, or the size of the loan, until you go through a standard qualification process.
Crystal Clear: “Oregon legislature intended the ‘beneficiary’ to be the one for whose benefit the [deed of trust] is given, which is the party who lent the money,” rather than MERS
A controversial appellate court decision about the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems in Oregon is stalling lending in the state with smaller banks worried about the decision’s impact on access to the secondary mortgage market.
The case, which is called Niday v. GMAC Mortgage, is on appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court.
Until a decision is reached, Paul Cosgrove, a government relations spokesperson for the Oregon Bankers Association, expects uncertainty to scale back lending in the state’s mortgage market, especially among smaller players.
The appellate court in the Niday decision limited the meaning of the term beneficiary of the mortgage contract as the agent or person that is owed repayment on a loan. Under this equation, MERS has no authority to assign foreclosing authority, which disempowers the construction of many lending assumptions made by financial firms in their contracts. This construction has forced many institutions in Oregon’s nonjudicial foreclosure state to pursue judicial foreclosures by default, Cosgrove added.
Here is the REAL truth for you judges that don’t understand…
The Nature of MERS’ Business
MERS does not take applications for, underwrite or negotiate mortgage loans.
MERS does not make or originate mortgage loans to consumers.
MERS does not extend any credit to consumers.
MERS has no role in the origination or original funding of the mortgages or deeds of trust for which it serves as “nominee”.
MERS does not service mortgage loans.
MERS does not sell mortgage loans.
MERS is not an investor who acquires mortgage loans on the secondary market.
MERS does not ever receive or process mortgage applications.
MERS simply holds mortgage liens in a nominee capacity and through its electronic registry, tracks changes in the ownership of mortgage loans and servicing rights related thereto.
MERS is not named as a beneficiary of the alleged promissory note.
Ownership of Promissory Notes or Mortgage Indebtedness
MERS is never the owner of the promissory note for which it seeks foreclosure.
MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the promissory note underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the loan instrument underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”
MERS has no legal or beneficial interest in the mortgage indebtedness underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
MERS has no interest at all in the promissory note evidencing the mortgage indebtedness.
MERS is not a party to the alleged mortgage indebtedness underlying the security instrument for which it serves as “nominee”.
MERS has no financial or other interest in whether or not a mortgage loan is repaid.
MERS is not the owner of the promissory note secured by the mortgage and has no rights to the payments made by the debtor on such promissory note.
MERS does not make or acquire promissory notes or debt instruments of any nature and therefore cannot be said to be acquiring mortgage loans.
MERS has no interest in the notes secured by mortgages or the mortgage servicing rights related thereto.
MERS does not acquire any interest (legal or beneficial) in the loan instrument (i.e., the promissory note or other debt instrument).
MERS has no rights whatsoever to any payments made on account of such mortgage loans, to any servicing rights related to such mortgage loans, or to any mortgaged properties securing such mortgage loans.
The note owner appoints MERS to be its agent to only hold the mortgage lien interest, not to hold any interest in the note.
MERS does not hold any interest (legal or beneficial) in the promissory notes that are secured by such mortgages or in any servicing rights associated with the mortgage loan.
The debtor on the note owes no obligation to MERS and does not pay MERS on the note.
Beneficial Interest in the Mortgage Indebtedness
MERS holds legal title to the mortgage for the benefit of the owner of the note.
The beneficial interest in the mortgage (or person or entity whose interest is secured by the mortgage) runs to the owner and holder of the promissory note and/or servicing rights thereunder.
MERS has no interest at all in the promissory note evidencing the mortgage loan.
MERS does not acquire an interest in promissory notes or debt instruments of any nature.
The beneficial interest in the mortgage (or the person or entity whose interest is secured by the mortgage) runs to the owner and holder of the promissory note (NOT MERS).
MERS’ Rights To Control the Foreclosure
MERS must all times comply with the instructions of the holder of the mortgage loan promissory notes.
MERS only acts when directed to by its members and for the sole benefit of the owners and holders of the promissory notes secured by the mortgage instruments naming MERS as nominee owner.
MERS’ members employ and pay the attorneys bringing foreclosure actions in/via MERS’ name.
The nation’s largest mortgage company may finally be bending to public pressure. A St. Paul homeowner has scored a pair of victories against Freddie Mac that have allowed her to stay in her foreclosed home, but only after being misled in a move that’s called “dual tracking.”
Caylin Crawford’s problems began when she had a snowboarding accident and wasn’t able to work for a few months. Without the income, she realized she would have trouble making her monthly mortgage payments. U.S. Bank was the originator of her mortgage and Freddie Mac had purchased it on the secondary market. She called U.S. Bank and explained her situation. A U.S. Bank representative told her she could probably qualify for a HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) loan but she had to stop making payments, which she did.
Nobody knows who owns what or what assignments are legit. The title to these homes are destroyed. Yes, they can be fixed but who will pay down the road? It’s the title.
They thought they fixed this massive fraud with a settlement but how are they fixing the titles to the homes?
Where are the satisfaction of “notes” not mortgages? Make sure you request these if allowed in your state!
Business Week-
The $25 billion National Mortgage Settlement signed in February was supposed to right the wrongs exposed in the robo-signing scandal and provide relief to homeowners, with a focus on making mortgages more affordable by reducing how much borrowers owe. In a new report from Joe Smith, the settlement’s monitor, one number jumps out: About half the payouts so far are being used to clear troubled mortgages but aren’t keeping people in their homes.
Banks have provided homeowners $20 billion in relief since March. Of that amount, 49 percent has gone to forgive debts in short sales, whereby a bank lets a borrower sell his or her home for less than the outstanding balance on the mortgage. Banks have waived an average of $115,672 in unpaid principal balances in 113,534 short sales. Typically, a short sale is better for a borrower than a foreclosure, but it still means homeowners ultimately lose their houses.
President Obama is holding on to Eric Holder as the nation’s top law-enforcement official, The Post has learned.
The newly re-elected president asked his controversial attorney general to stay for the second term, and Holder has agreed despite enduring a firestorm of criticism from Republican lawmakers.
“I don’t know if everyone in the White House wants him [Holder] to stay, but the important guy does, and that’s all that matters,” said one person briefed on the matter.
This isn’t the way guys. Taking your life is not the answer.
AP-
WARWICK, R.I. (AP) – Police believe a man in Rhode Island barricaded himself in his home, set it on fire and then killed himself after being served with foreclosure papers.
Warwick Police Capt. Joseph Coffey says authorities responded to a report of gunshots and fire at home on Greylawn Avenue on Monday morning. A constable attempting to serve the foreclosure papers heard the shots after the resident locked the door and refused to allow anyone in.
Recent Comments