SCUMBAG COLONIAL Bank Sues State Lawmaker

Sarah Buduson
Reporter, KPHO.com

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — Ariz. Rep. Michele Reagan, R-District 8, is better known for fighting for new laws, but now, she is speaking about her fight against a lawsuit.

 

Reagan is being sued by her mortgage company after she questioned who owned held the note on her home. 

“It’s really scary,” she said, “I think that this really needs to be brought to light that this is happening to people in Arizona.” 

Reagan had wanted to find out she and her husband, David Gulino, could refinance their south Scottsdale home. 

“In doing research, I began to wonder if the lender even owned the note to my home,” she said. “So I sent them a letter and asked them and asked them several things. I want to know who owns my property. Am I paying the right person?” 

Soon after, Colonial Savings filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Reagan and her husband. The company says the couple is trying “to rescind their home loan,” or back out on the loan. 

“We’re not interested in walking,” Reagan said. “We’re not interested in saying we’re not going to pay. We just need a little help with the interest rate.” 

“I’m current on my loan. Never missed a payment. We’ve never been late. We were sued for asking too many questions,” said Reagan. 

As a state lawmaker, Reagan said she had been hesitant to speak out about her ordeal. 

“This has now snowballed into something so much bigger and scarier than refinancing and asking who owns your note,” she said. 

With a state senate campaign on the horizon, she feared some people may get the wrong impression about the lawsuit, but she ultimately decided speaking out was the right thing to do. 

“I finally thought if this could happen to me, how many people has happened to mean to or that means it could happen to people without the resources I have,” she said. “Even with all the information that I have and all the contacts I have, they scared the bejesus out of us and that was their intent and it worked.” 

CBS 5 News attempted to contact Colonial Savings and its attorneys, but has yet to receive a comment.

 

Advertisements

FUCK YOU OBAMA. THE IMBECILE SCUMBAG PRESIDENT

This is for telling people they’re deadbeats. YOU GOT YOUR HOUSE PAID BY THE SAME SCUMBAG THAT BOMBED PLACES IN THE 60’S. SCUMBAG BANK, CHASE, ALSO CLEARED ANOTHER HOME. WHO’S THE DEADBEAT NOW, IMBECILE?

WHAT DID WE EXPECT FROM AN INEXPERIENCED ILLEGAL ALIEN?

Oct. 18, 2010 — Foreclosures In Missouri Wayne Godsey, KMBC President And General Manager

HOW MUCH $ IS THIS SCUMBAG AG GETTING PAID BY THE BANKSTERS?

POSTED: 7:27 pm CDT October 18, 2010


KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster made the right call when he chose not to interfere with home foreclosures in the state. 

Koster’s decision was in response to a request from Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser and a group called Communities Creating Opportunities. 

It is sad to see anyone lose their home, particularly when it’s the result of a lost job or other unfortunate circumstances. But many people simply paid too much for homes, thinking that values could only increase. 

Some lenders like Bank of America and Chase have voluntarily suspended foreclosures in order to review internal procedures. If faulty practices exist, they say they’ll correct them. 

But a government-dictated moratorium is a bad idea, just like the government lending policies that created the mortgage crisis. If individuals can’t pay their mortgages, foreclosures are necessary to stabilize the real estate market, for the benefit of homeowners and lenders alike.

 

VIDEO – SHERIFF TOM DART, EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHY HE WON’T ENFORCE FORECLOSURE EVICTIONS

Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on October 21, 2010 ·

Sheriff Tom Dart

“This is not the lotto… this isn’t something where we’re rolling the dice and saying, possibly this has been done legally. Maybe it hasn’t but in the meantime, you and your children go find someplace else to live, plenty of homeless shelters out there. We can’t do that.”

AND SO IT BEGINS – CHICAGO SHERIFF SAYS NO TO ENFORCING FORECLOSURES

The sheriff for Cook County, Illinois, which includes the city of Chicago, said on Tuesday he will not enforce foreclosure evictions for Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase and Co. and GMAC Mortgage/Ally Financial until they prove those foreclosures were handled “properly and legally.”

Bank of America, the largest U.S. mortgage servicer, and GMAC, on Monday both announced rollbacks from their foreclosure moratoriums.

The announcement by Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart comes after weeks of damaging accusations of shoddy paperwork that may have caused some people to be illegally evicted from their homes.

“I can’t possibly be expected to evict people from their homes when the banks themselves can’t say for sure everything was done properly,” Dart said in the statement.

“I need some kind of assurance that we aren’t evicting families based on fraudulent behavior by the banks. Until that happens, I can’t in good conscience keep carrying out evictions involving these banks,” he added.

Or as Denniger puts it…

Here’s a message to all the County Sheriff’s: Tell the banks to **** off!

The sheriff for Cook County, Illinois, which includes the city of Chicago, said on Tuesday he will not enforce foreclosure evictions for Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase and Co. and GMAC Mortgage/Ally Financial until they prove those foreclosures were handled “properly and legally.”

Imagine that: A lawman who understands that The Bill of Rights actually applies to the people!

The 5th Amendment, specifically: You may not be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law.

“Robosigned” documents violate that right.  So does perjury in court proceedings.

“I need some kind of assurance that we aren’t evicting families based on fraudulent behavior by the banks. Until that happens, I can’t in good conscience keep carrying out evictions involving these banks,” he added.

Now that’s even better.  Will Sheriff Dart extend this all the way back to the origination of these loans, their pooling into securities, and questions about whether or not they were in fact sold more than once, rendering the person who claims to be foreclosing not necessarily the real party at interest?

What if the note has been bifurcated and nobody has a right to foreclose? Sue to collect, yes.  Foreclose, maybe not.

Let’s see lawmen and lawwomen all across this nation refuse to accede to the banksters demands until they prove that the law was complied with – up and down the line.

Sheriffs are elected officials.

The elections are coming.

We the people must demand that each and every Sheriff standing for election take a position on this – will you stop enforcing foreclosures NOW and continue to do so until the banks prove that each and every one is 100% legal, including all required transfers and endorsements, from origination to eviction?

BOUT TIME – AG’S OFFICE REPRIMANDS ERIN CULLARO FOR “FORECLOSURE MILL” WORK

ANOTHER SCUMBAG P.O.S INVESTIGATED. ERIN “CULO” CULLARO OF THE FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW CRIMINALS..

Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on October 21, 2010 ·

AG’S OFFICE REPRIMANDS ITS ATTORNEY FOR “FORECLOSURE MILL” WORK

By SHANNON BEHNKEN | The Tampa Tribune

TAMPA – The Florida Attorney General’s Office has reprimanded one its attorneys for notarizing documents for one of the “foreclosure mills” the office is investigating. Erin Cullaro, an assistant attorney general for the office’s Economic Crimes Division in Tampa, is a former employee of Tampa-based Florida Default Law Group.

The Attorney General is investigating the firm, along with three other Florida firms, for what “appears to be fabricating and/or presenting false and misleading documents in foreclosure cases.”

Cullaro was given permission from the Attorney General’s Office in April 2008 for dual employment, allowing her to notarize law firm documents for 15 minutes three days a week.

But, according to the written reprimand, Cullaro failed to renew the application into the new fiscal year, “which would have altered the {Attorney General’s Office } to your continued outside employment and accurately reflected the time commitment involved.”

In addition, the reprimand says, “your continued dual employment created an appearance of impropriety” because the attorney general’s office was inquiring into the practices of foreclosure law firms. The reprimand states that Cullaro’s says she quit her notary role before the formal investigation begun. Even so, she could ultimately lose her job, according to the reprimand. Tom Ice of Ice Legal in West Palm Beach represents homeowners in foreclosure and wants to question Cullaro about documents she signed in some of his cases. Her signature varies drastically and court documents assert she signed off on documents while out of town on business with the attorney general’s office.

Court documents reviewed by the Tribune show Erin Cullaro’s signature varied from a full, cursive signature to a squiggly “E.” When she signed the reprimand letter, she used the “E.”

You can check out the rest of the story here…

For those who do not the story behind the Cullaro’s, it is a must see link…

LINK – SCANDALOUS – SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF FORECLOSURE FRAUD THAT IMPLICATES THE FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE AND THE FLORIDA DEFAULT LAW GROUP

Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on March 26, 2010 ·

Pay attention all! We have been sitting on this information for some time now due to ongoing investigations but since the cat is out of the bag here we go… Over at  Matt Weidner’s Blog He reports on the transcript and motion from a hearing held in a Volusia County Courtroom from Ice Legal. Bombshell- … Read more

 

STOPA STOMPS ON THE LOAN MOD LIES – LOAN MODIFICATIONS – HOW BANKS DUPE HOMEOWNERS

SCUMBAG BANKS WILL DO ANYTHING TO DEFRAUD YOU…

Posted by Foreclosure Fraud on October 20, 2010 ·

Mark Stopa has been fighting this fight along with the rest of us and he just did a spot on piece on loan mods…

Keep it up!

LOAN MODIFICATIONS – HOW BANKS DUPE HOMEOWNERS

Posted on October 20, 2010 by mstopa

I’ve repeatedly expressed my frustrations with the loan modification process, or lack thereof, on this blog.  Honest, well-intentioned homeowners cannot get a bank representative to communicate with them.  Many such homeowners were actively induced to default, purportedly to become eligible for a modification that, in my experience, never arrives.  Even in those rare instances where a loan modification is offered, it’s typically not a meaningful modification – the homeowner is essentially making the same monthly payment that he/she was paying all along.  What does that accomplish?  What’s the point?

Unfortunately, it’s even worse than that.  As this article illustrates, banks often want homeowners to enter a modification just so a subsequent foreclosure will be easier for them!  I’ve seen this often enough that I feel comfortable opining:

Banks aren’t offering modifications to help homeowners – they’re offering modifications to help themselves!

Lest you disagree, consider the loan modification agreement that just came across my desk.  Like most modifications I’ve seen, three aspects of this agreement are just brutal for homeowners:

1)  All foreclosure defenses are waived. Under most loan modification agreements, if a homeowner signs, then defaults on the modification agreement, the homeowner agrees that all defenses to foreclosure are waived.  Essentially, if the homeowner defaults on the modification agreement, the bank can dribble up to the basket and slam-dunk a foreclosure without opposition.

“But the bank doesn’t own and hold the Note,” you argue.  Maybe so, but since the homeowner warrants otherwise in the modification agreement, the homeowner is barred from challenging the bank’s standing after defaulting on the modification agreement (or that’s what the bank will argue, anyway).

What does this mean?  Essentially, the homeowner takes what may be a very defensible foreclosure case – one where the bank may be unable to prove it owns and holds the Note and Mortgage – and turns it into an easy case for the bank by signing a modification agreement.  In my view, the banks are offering modifications to make it easier for themselves to foreclose! It’s a one-sided agreement – for the banks!

With this in mind, if the modification agreement doesn’t entail a significant reduction in payments, what’s the point?  In my view, modification agreements generally aren’t a good idea (the way they’re currently set up) unless the homeowner is absolutely certain that he/she can make the requisite payments indefinitely into the future.  After all, once you default on a modification agreement, chances are it’s “game over.”

2)  The foreclosure lawsuit remains pending.  In most lawsuits, when the parties enter a settlement agreement, the lawsuit is dismissed.  Sometimes, the suit is dismissed with a court order that reserves jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement, but this is standard fare – lawsuits are dismissed when the parties settle.  Unfortunately, that’s not how it works with loan modification agreements in foreclosure cases.  To illustrate, the modification agreement in my hands says “The Lender agrees to suspend all foreclosure activities so long as I comply with the terms of the Loan Documents.”  Hence, if the homeowner defaults – or if the Bank asserts the homeowner defaults – all the Bank has to do is resume prosecution of the existing foreclosure lawsuit, which remains pending.  It doesn’t matter if the default occurred six months after the modification or two years – all the bank has to do is resume the existing foreclosure case.  And since the homeowner has waived all defenses, obtaining a foreclosure judgment truly is the equivalent of Shaq dunking the ball on an 8-foot basket without any defense.

(Judges, I respectfully submit you should do something about this.  How many pending cases are on your dockets where nothing has happened because the parties agreed to a loan modification but the bank refuses to dismiss?  I’d suggest an Administrative Order that requires dismissals of foreclosure lawsuits where the parties enter a Loan Modification Agreement.  There is no reason for cases to remain pending for months or even years when the parties have amicably resolved their dispute.)

3.  The bank makes no representations whatsoever.  You know what scares the heck out of me with these modification agreements, more than anything else?  The bank that is receiving the money does not make any warranties or representations whatsoever – not even a representation that it is the rightful owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage!  Lest you think that’s “no big deal,” consider this.

We all know that most Notes and Mortgages have been transferred or assigned from one bank to another, many times over.  Often the banks don’t know who owns/holds the Note and Mortgage, much less prove it.  If the Bank you’re entering a loan modification with does not represent, in writing, that it owns and holds your Note and Mortgage, then what’s to stop another bank from emerging, months down the road, and suing you for foreclosure on that same Note and Mortgage?  Unfortunately, absolutely nothing. That’s why, if it were my client, I’d require the bank to sign the loan modification with a written representation that it owns and holds the Note and Mortgage and is the party entitled to collect mortgage payments.  I’d also demand to see the original Note.  Without these precautions, my clients may be handing out money to an absolute stranger – one with no right to collect – and with what I know, that’s not a risk I’d feel comfortable recommending.

But even that’s not good enough.  In addition to this representation, I’d want the bank to indemnify my clients from any losses they incur as a result of another bank making a successful claim on that Note and Mortgage.  In other words, if another bank sues my client for foreclosure, after the modification agreement, the bank that modified with us should bear the losses, not my clients.  To ensure the bank would be able to foot this bill, I’d also want some financial disclosures, especially if the bank was one I’m not familiar with.

In sum, if you’re a homeowner facing foreclosure and the bank is offering you a loan modification, I’d be very careful about what you’re getting.  Read the fine print closely.  If your payments aren’t going down significantly, you’re waiving defenses, the foreclosure lawsuit remains pending, and the bank isn’t making any written representations, chances are the modification agreement is designed to help the bank, not the homeowner.

This entry was posted in Main. Bookmark the permalink.

You can check out Mark in more detail here…

Anyway, in other words, they are stealing your money and setting you up to fail…

Ever wonder where all your trial payments went while you were waiting for the permanent modification?

Have you noticed the whole time you were making those payments you were being reported delinquent?

Did you catch all the late fees piling up every month?

Yea, me too.

After they decline you for your modification, although you have done EVERYTHING possible, and you get foreclosed upon anyway, ever wonder why all those “trial payments” never reflected on your amounts due and owing…

Thousands upon thousands of dollars lost into the abyss…

They trick you into getting all your financial information to calculate how long they can string you along until you have exhausted every last resource, 401k, kids college fund, your cookie jar etc., and once they sucked you dry, they foreclose.

As Capt Jack puts it…

Savings drained – check, 401ks all gone – check. Kicked out of their homes – check. “Lenders” made whole many times over via Credit Default Swaps – check. Homeowners foreclosed and “lender” buys back property for pennies on the dollar – check.

Don’t believe me? Ask one of the tens of thousands of Americans that had it happen to them…

Then, on top of all that, they use all your financials that you submitted to profile you on how to collect the “deficiencies” for decades…

Sound crazy? Of course it does…

Try this America.

If you decide to go through with submitting your loan mod package with all your financial information, WATERMARK all of the documents you submit to the “lender” with something like “THIS INFORMATION IS FOR LOAN MODIFICATION PURPOSES ONLY”

Cause that’s what it’s for right?

Right?

Watch what happens…

 

Fed Wants {SCUMBAG} Banks to Buy Back Some Bad Mortgages

By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ

To the long list of those picking fights with banks over bad mortgages, add theFederal Reserve.

Two years after the Fed bought billions of dollars in mortgage securities as part of the financial bailout, its New York arm is questioning the paperwork — and pressing banks to buy some of the investments back.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and several giant investment companies, including Pimco and BlackRock, have singled out Bank of America, which assembled more than $2 trillion of mortgage securities from 2004 to 2008.

Bank of America is already dealing with the fallout from the fight over whether foreclosures were handled properly. It insists that no foreclosures have been initiated in error, and on Monday announced it would resume the foreclosure process in 23 states where court approval is required to go ahead.

But while the human toll of the foreclosure crisis has grabbed the headlines, the fight over how these loans were created in the first place could last longer and ultimately cost the banks much, much more. And it is setting the stage for a huge battle between mortgage holders like the government, hedge funds and other institutional investors on one side and the big banks on the other.

“It’s very serious,” said Glenn Schorr, an analyst with Nomura Securities. “The numbers are all over the map.”

If the Fed and the investors succeed, it could cost Bank of America billions of dollars. On Wall Street and in bank boardrooms, the question of whether investors can force banks to buy back, or “put-back,” the bad mortgages to the banks that sold them is dominating the debate and worrying analysts, money managers and banking executives.

It also makes for some strange bedfellows. After all, it was the government that bailed out Bank of America — twice — during the financial crisis, the same government that includes the Fed.

And it is going to be a fight. On Tuesday, after watching its shares get pummeled again, Bank of America went on the offensive, vowing to “defend the interests of Bank of America shareholders,” and hire more lawyers.

“It’s loan by loan, and we have the resources to deploy in that kind of review,” saidBrian T. Moynihan, Bank of America’s chief executive, on a conference call to discuss the bank’s results for the third quarter.

Although the bank turned in better results than expected, much of the call was given over to the put-back issue. “We have thousands of people who are willing to stand and look at these loans,” Mr. Moynihan told analysts. “We’d love never to talk about this again and put it behind us, but the right answer is to fight for it.”

The legal battle turns on the question of whether the banks properly represented the loans they put together into mortgage-backed securities when they sold them to investors. If the banks ignored evidence that the underlying mortgages did not conform to underwriting standards or they lacked the proper paperwork, the banks could be obligated to buy the troubled mortgages back.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the other large investors are pressing Bank of America to buy back a portion of the $47 billion in mortgages it originated, most of which were assembled by Countrywide Financial just before the real estate boom turned to bust in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

Countrywide, which specialized in subprime mortgages, was acquired by Bank of America in July 2008.

“People did not think bondholders would be able to organize themselves, but they can,” said Kathy Patrick, a Houston lawyer who is leading the effort. “It’s a large amount of money but the principle is simple. When you promise to do something in an agreement, you should do it.” A letter from Ms. Patrick detailing the claims was obtained by The New York Times.

The danger posed by angry — or opportunistic — investors ‘putting-back’ mortgages to the banks is hardly limited to Bank of America. Other giants like Citigroup andJPMorgan Chase face similar claims, and last week JPMorgan set aside $1.3 billion just for legal costs, including put-backs.

JPMorgan has said it expects repurchases of mortgages to run at about $1 billion a year, but that expense should be covered by $3 billion it has earmarked specifically for put-backs.

At Bank of America, repurchases have been running at about half a billion dollars a quarter. The bank estimates total put-back claims stand at $12.9 billion, as of Sept. 30. In the third-quarter, Bank of America recorded an $872 million expense for put-backs.

Besides the major institutions, hedge funds like York Capital and Moore Capital have been jumping into the game recently, buying up bad debt in the hopes it will eventually be bought back, according to traders and money managers. Both funds declined to comment.

And smaller ones are sniffing around, hoping to ride the depressed securities higher as the fight over put-backs gathers steam.

“Any hedge fund with a distressed desk is contemplating this trade,” said one analyst who insisted on anonymity. “The idea of bottom-fishing vulture funds buying this stuff up for a nickel on the dollar so they can sue the banks to get 100 cents must be pretty odious for the Treasury, which bailed out the banks in the first place.”

Indeed, the group that includes the Fed is one of two coalitions that is gearing up for a fight with the banks.

Bill Frey, chief executive of Greenwich Financial Services, leads a group of investors that holds just under $600 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities.

But it is the recent controversy over foreclosures that has jump-started interest by pension funds, hedge funds and other players. “In the last two weeks, there has been a flood of new investors,” Mr. Frey said. “We haven’t even had a chance to do the arithmetic, that’s how fast they’re coming in.”

Besides all the lawyers that billions can buy, the banks have other weapons in their arsenal. Some hedge funds and other investors are nervous about challenging the banks too forcefully, because they trade with them daily.

There is risk too for the government, despite the Federal Reserve claims. If the banks are indeed forced to spend tens of billions to buy back securities, they could turn once again to the federal government for help.

Given the legal resources available to the banks, though, that is unlikely to happen quickly. And for now, broader conditions in the financial services are improving. On Wednesday, Bank of America reported that operating earnings in the third quarter hit $3.1 billion, in contrast to a loss a year ago.

A substantial portion of the profit gain came from the expectation of lower losses among credit card and mortgage borrowers, rather than new business, but the bank was able to recapture money it had earlier set aside. It released $1.8 billion from reserves, compared with a release of $1.45 billion in the second quarter.

On a noncash basis for the quarter, the bank reported a loss of $7.3 billion because of a $10.4 billion write-down in the value of its credit card unit, attributed to federal regulations that limit debit fees and other charges.