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?

Battle Lines Forming in Clash Over Foreclosures

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON and ANDREW MARTIN

About a month after Washington Mutual Bank made a multimillion-dollar mortgage loan on a mountain home near Santa Barbara, Calif., a crucial piece of paperwork disappeared.

But bank officials were unperturbed. After conducting a “due and diligent search,” an assistant vice president simply drew up an affidavit stating that the paperwork — a promissory note committing the borrower to repay the mortgage — could not be found, according to court documents.

The handling of that lost note in 2006 was hardly unusual. Mortgage documents of all sorts were treated in an almost lackadaisical way during the dizzying mortgage lending spree from 2005 through 2007, according to court documents, analysts and interviews.

Now those missing and possibly fraudulent documents are at the center of a potentially seismic legal clash that pits big lenders against homeowners and their advocates concerned that the lenders’ rush to foreclose flouts private property rights.

That clash — expected to be played out in courtrooms across the country and scrutinized by law enforcement officials investigating possible wrongdoing by big lenders — leaped to the forefront of the mortgage crisis this week as big lenders began lifting their freezes on foreclosures and insisted the worst was behind them.

Federal officials meeting in Washington on Wednesday indicated that a government review of the problems would not be complete until the end of the year.

In short, the legal disagreement amounts to whether banks can rely on flawed documentation to repossess homes.

While even critics of the big lenders acknowledge that the vast majority of foreclosures involve homeowners who have not paid their mortgages, they argue that the borrowers are entitled to due legal process.

Banks “have essentially sidestepped 400 years of property law in the United States,” said Rebel A. Cole, a professor of finance and real estate at DePaul University. “There are so many questionable aspects to this thing it’s scary.”

Others are more sanguine about the dispute.

Joseph R. Mason, a finance professor who holds the Louisiana Bankers Association chair at Louisiana State University, said that concerns about proper foreclosure documentation were overblown. At the end of the day, he said, even if the banks botched the paperwork, homeowners who didn’t make their mortgage payments still needed to be held accountable.

“You borrowed money,” he said. “You are obligated to repay it.”

After freezing most foreclosures, Bank of America, the largest consumer bank in the country, said this week that it would soon resume foreclosures in about half of the country because it was confident that the cases had been properly documented.GMAC Mortgage said it was also proceeding with foreclosures, on a case-by-case basis.

While some other banks have also suggested they can wrap up faulty foreclosures in a matter of weeks, some judges, lawyers for homeowners and real estate experts like Mr. Cole expect the courts to be inundated with challenges to the banks’ actions.

“This is ultimately going to have to be resolved by the 50 state supreme courts who have jurisdiction for property law,” Professor Cole predicted.

Defaulting homeowners in states like Florida, among the hardest hit by foreclosures, are already showing up in bigger numbers this week to challenge repossessions. And judges in some states have halted or delayed foreclosures because of improper documentation. Court cases are likely to hinge on whether judges believe that banks properly fulfilled their legal obligations during the mortgage boom — and in the subsequent rush to expedite foreclosures.

The country’s mortgage lenders contend that any problems that might be identified are technical and will not change the fact that they have the right to foreclose en masse.

“We did a thorough review of the process, and we found the facts underlying the decision to foreclose have been accurate,” Barbara J. Desoer, president of Bank of America Home Loans, said earlier this week. “We paused while we were doing that, and now we’re moving forward.”

Some analysts are not sure that banks can proceed so freely. Katherine M. Porter, a visiting law professor at Harvard University and an expert on consumer credit law, said that lenders were wrong to minimize problems with the legal documentation.

“The misbehavior is clear: they lied to the courts,” she said. “The fact that they are saying no one was harmed, they are missing the point. They did actual harm to the court system, to the rule of law. We don’t say, ‘You can perjure yourself on the stand because the jury will come to the right verdict anyway.’ That’s what they are saying.”

Robert Willens, a tax expert, said that documentation issues had created potentially severe tax problems for investors in mortgage securities and that “there is enough of a question here that the courts might well have to resolve the issue.”

As the legal system begins sorting through the competing claims, one thing is not in dispute: the pell-mell origination of mortgage loans during the real estate boom and the patchwork of financial machinery and documentation that supported it were created with speed and profits in mind, and with little attention to detail.

Once the foreclosure wheels started turning, said analysts, practices became even shoddier.

For example, the foreclosure business often got so busy at the Plantation, Fla., law offices of David J. Stern — and so many documents had to be signed so banks could evict people from their homes — that a supervisor sometimes was too tired to write her own name.

When that happened, Cheryl Samons, the supervisor at the firm, who typically signed about 1,000 documents a day, just let someone else sign for her, court papers show.

“Cheryl would give certain paralegals rights to sign her name, because most of the time she was very tired, exhausted from signing her name numerous times per day,” said Kelly Scott, a Stern employee, in a deposition that the Florida attorney general released on Monday. A lawyer representing the law firm said Ms. Samons would not comment.

Bill McCollum, Florida’s attorney general, is investigating possible abuses at the Stern firm, a major foreclosure mill in the state, involving false or fabricated loan documents, calling into question the foreclosures the firm set in motion on behalf of banks.

That problem extends far beyond Florida.

As lenders and Wall Street firms bundled thousands of mortgage loans into securities so they could be sold quickly, efficiently and lucratively to legions of investors, slipshod practices took hold among lenders and their representatives, former employees of these operations say.

Banks routinely failed to record each link in the chain of documents that demonstrate ownership of a note and a property, according to court documents, analysts and interviews. When problems arose, executives and managers at lenders and loan servicers sometimes patched such holes by issuing affidavits meant to prove control of a mortgage.

In Broward County, Fla., alone, more than 1,700 affidavits were filed in the last two years attesting to lost notes, according to Legalprise, a legal services company that tracks foreclosure data.

When many mortgage loans went bad in the last few years, lenders outsourced crucial tasks like verifying the amount a borrower owed or determining which institution had a right to foreclose.

Now investors who bought mortgage trusts — investment vehicles composed of mortgages — are wondering if the loans inside them were recorded properly. If not, tax advantages of the trusts could be wiped out, leaving mortgage securities investors with significant tax bills.

For years, lenders bringing foreclosure cases commonly did not have to demonstrate proof of ownership of the note. Consumer advocates and consumer lawyers have complained about the practice, to little avail.

But a decision in October 2007 by Judge Christopher A. Boyko of the Federal District Court in northern Ohio to toss out 14 foreclosure cases put lenders on notice. Judge Boyko ruled that the entities trying to seize properties had not proved that they actually owned the notes, and he blasted the banks for worrying “less about jurisdictional requirements and more about maximizing returns.”

He also said that lenders “seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance.” Now that their practices were “put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the court to stop them at the gate,” the judge ruled.

Yet aside from the actions of a few random judges, little was done to force lenders to change their practices or slow things down. Since March 2009, more than 300,000 property owners a month have received foreclosure notices or lost their home in a foreclosure, according to RealtyTrac, which tracks foreclosure listings.

What finally prompted a re-examination of the foreclosure wave was the disclosure in court documents over the last several months of so-called robo-signers, employees like Ms. Samons of the Stern law firm in Florida who signed affidavits so quickly that they could not possibly have verified the information in the document under review.

Lenders and their representatives have sought to minimize the significance of robo-signing and, while acknowledging legal lapses in how they documented loans, have argued that foreclosures should proceed anyway. After all, the lenders say, the homeowners owe the money.

People who have worked at loan servicers for many years, who requested anonymity to protect their jobs, said robo-signing and other questionable foreclosure practices emanated from one goal: to increase efficiency and therefore profits. That rush, they say, allowed for the shoddy documentation that is expected to become evidence for homeowners in the coming court battles.

For example, years ago when banks made loans, they typically stored promissory notes in their vaults.

But the advent of securitization, in which loans are bundled and sold to investors, required that loan documents move quickly from one purchaser to another. Big banks servicing these loans began in 2002 to automate their systems, according to a former executive for a top servicer who requested anonymity because of a confidentiality agreement.

First to go was the use of actual people to determine who should be liable to a foreclosure action. They were replaced by computers that identified delinquent borrowers and automatically sent them letters saying they were in default. Inexperienced clerical workers often entered incorrect mortgage information into the computer programs, the former executive said, and borrowers rarely caught the errors.

Other record-keeping problems that are likely to become fodder for court battles involve endorsements, a process that occurs when notes are transferred and validated with a stamp to identify the institution that bought it. Eager to cut costs, most institutions left the notes blank, with no endorsements at all.

Problems are also likely to arise in court involving whether those who signed documents required in foreclosures actually had the authority to do so — or if the documents themselves are even authentic.

For example, Frederick B. Tygart, a circuit court judge overseeing a foreclosure case in Duval County, Fla., recently ruled that agents representing Deutsche Bankrelied on documents that “must have been counterfeited.” He stopped the foreclosure. Deutsche Bank had no comment on Wednesday.

Cynthia Veintemillas, the lawyer representing the borrower in the case, Patrick Jeffs, said the paperwork surrounding her client’s foreclosure was riddled with problems.

“Everybody knows the banks screwed up and loaned out money to people who couldn’t pay it back,” she said. “Why are people surprised that they don’t know what they are doing here either?”

Meanwhile, another judge on Wednesday indicated that the courts would not simply sign off on the banks’ documentation. Jonathan Lippman, the chief judge of New York’s courts, ordered lawyers to verify the validity of all foreclosure paperwork.

“We cannot allow the courts in New York State to stand by idly and be party to what we now know is a deeply flawed process, especially when that process involves basic human needs — such as a family home — during this period of economic crisis,” Judge Lippman said in a statement.

 

CLASS ACTION AGAINST THE MAJOR SCUMBAG LAWFIRMS

Below is a Class Action against all the major SCUMBAG law firms defrauding people.

class56

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…

 

CHICAGO SHERIFF SAYS HELL NO…

TAKE THAT BITCHES….

Published: Tuesday, 19 Oct 2010 | 2:48 PM ET
Text Size

CHICAGO – Two of the largest U.S. mortgage servicers have said they will resume home foreclosures, but a big-city sheriff has news for them: he won’t enforce their foreclosure evictions.

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.

Bank of America, GMAC and JPMorgan Chase along with their subsidiaries, make up around a third of the roughly 3,700 eviction orders filed at the Cook County sheriff’s office, the statement said.

The foreclosure controversy, which has drawn public outrage and sparked government probes, has threatened bank earnings and the health of the fragile housing market.

Two years ago Dart refused to carry out foreclosure evictions in cases where renters apparently had not been informed that they were about to be evicted from buildings in which their landlords had fallen into foreclosure.

Some 20 Cook County sheriff’s deputies execute around 14,000 foreclosure and rental eviction notices every year.