It’s going to get really interesting to see how this all plays out with the AG’s role.
According to the New York Times, the the servicers, which violated state and local laws and regulations governing foreclosures, are agreeing to improve their methods in numerous ways. They will be required to have more layers of oversight and proper training of their foreclosure staff. The oversight will extend to third party groups, including the law firms that do much of the actual work of eviction.
[…]
The investigators reviewed the policies and procedures, structure and staffing of the top servicers, as well as their use of law firms and other third parties. They examined 2,800 foreclosures in various stages.
The banks examined were Bank of America, Citibank, GMAC, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and nine others. The examination found critical deficiencies and shortcomings in foreclosure preparation and oversight, resulting in violations of state and local foreclosure laws, regulations and rules.
The servicers will probably be assessed fines at a later point.
Here’s the banks’ counterproposal for a servicing fraud settlement. I can sum it up in two words: drop dead. Or two letters: F.U. This proposals is so pathetically thin that it’s not a good faith counterproposal. This document only deals with servicing standards–nothing in it whatsoever about penalties, modification quotas, etc. But even on servicing standards it is a bunch of empty promises to have internal controls and try harder.
The first point about this counterproposal is simply to note what’s absent from it:
(1) nothing about principal reductions
(2) nothing about second liens and conflicts of interest
(3) nothing about MERS (reserved for later)
(4) nothing about in-sourced vendor fees or force-placed insurance to affiliates. This makes the fees and force-place insurance sections pretty meaningless.
Recent Comments