Tag: foreclosure crisis

Robo Signing Began With Debt Buyers

On By southwerkIn business ethics, ethics, Philosophy of Business, White Collar Crime

From the St. Louis Dispatch –

When Michael Gazzarato took a job that required him to sign hundreds of affidavits in a single day, he had one demand for his employer: a much better pen.

“They tried to get me to do it with a Bic, and I wasn’t going – I wasn’t having it,” he said. “It was bad when I had to use the plastic Papermate-type pen. It was a nightmare.”

The complaint could have come from any of the autograph marathoners in the recent mortgage foreclosure mess. But Gazzarato was speaking at a deposition in a 2007 lawsuit against Asset Acceptance, a company that buys consumer debts and then tries to collect.

His job was to sign affidavits, swearing that he had personally reviewed and verified the records of debtors – a time-consuming task when done correctly.

Sound familiar?

That’s right. This brilliant idea was thought up by debt collection agencies, the ones that buy up debts for pennies on the dollar and then sell them back and forth trying to make a buck.

Now, all we have to do is figure out what incredible genius thought you could use the same practice with mortgages.

Mortgages are a different ball park. In the United States property cannot change hands without a written contract. Further, land is surrounded by laws and guarantees dating back centuries. Robo signing on unsecured debts like credit cards is probably pretty stupid but robo signing on mortgages is just asking for hard core exciting trouble and they are getting it.

Hold on to your hats, this scandal just keeps getting better by the day!

James Pilant

Bank Agrees To Modify Your Mortgage – Then Kicks You Out – Standard Practice!

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Philosophy of Business, White Collar Crime

From the Washington Post –

Across the country, struggling homeowners are increasingly tripped up by mortgage lenders that press ahead with foreclosures regardless of any effort they make to provide borrowers with relief on unaffordable mortgages.

Amid the worst housing crisis since the Great Depression, mortgage companies have established a dual-track approach toward troubled homeowners, negotiating with them over loan modifications while trying to seize their homes.

Top government officials have been urging lenders to redouble their efforts at modifying burdensome loans and have barred lenders from foreclosing on homeowners who are seeking to rework their mortgages under a federal program. Mortgage companies, however, have continued to pursue this two-track strategy, with a widening toll especially on those homeowners who have been trying to resolve their mortgage difficulties before they snowball, according to federal and state officials and consumer advocates.

During the last month, several major lenders have temporarily halted thousands of foreclosure cases amid reports that fraudulent court documents and improper procedures have been used to evict people from their homes. But disarray within the mortgage industry goes much further. And the foreclosure pause has done little to address the common industry practice of taking homes from people who’d been led to believe they could save them.

“It’s still happening everywhere,” said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, who has tried to bar the dual-track process in his state, one of the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. “It’s one of the largest complaints I get. . . . The lenders need to make a choice. What do they want: a foreclosure or a loan modification?”

The banks are playing it both ways. They foreclose on you when you are delinquent on payments and they foreclose on you when you get your payments modified with them since you’re not paying the full amount. Confused? Think how you would feel after reaching an agreement with the bank to lower your payments and your house is auctioned!

Take a look at the case of Mr. Roberts.

In Centreville, Woodrow Roberts III said he enrolled last October in a loan modification program with Bank of America. At the time, he was still current on his $3,000-a-month payments but wanted some relief until he could find a second job. The bank agreed to trim the monthly payment by $600 for a three-month trial period and consider Roberts for a permanent modification, he recalled.

After three months, he said, he heard nothing from the bank. “I called in every week to see the status of my loan,” Roberts said. “After a year of phone calls and no real information, I received a letter in the mail.” It said he had been rejected for a modification and that he owed more than $8,800 – the total he’d thought his payments had been reduced over the course of the year plus fees. If he didn’t pay, the letter warned, his home would be sold at a foreclosure auction Nov. 12.

“If I knew this type of program could risk everything, I would have never entered into this program,” Roberts said. He explained he can’t afford to pay the sum demanded all at once and hasn’t been allowed to spread it out over time.

In response to a reporter’s question about the case, Bank of America spokeswoman Jumana Bauwens said Roberts was turned down for a permanent loan modification under the federal program because his income was too high to qualify. But she said the bank is now reviewing whether he is eligible for alternative relief.

Sounds like he had a deal to me. But he didn’t. The deals only work one way. If the bank wants to go with the deal, it’s fine. If they don’t, your home is auctioned and they don’t feel obligated to talk to you about it.

Here’s some more –

The Mortgage Bankers Association said lenders often file initial foreclosure paperwork as they work to modify a loan. John Mechem, an MBA spokesman, said they want to make sure that if the modification effort fails, they can promptly move forward with the foreclosure, which can take up to three years to complete depending on the state. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration impose deadlines for filings on loans these agencies guarantee or own, he said.

But Phillip Robinson, a lawyer at the nonprofit law firm Civil Justice Inc. in Baltimore said, “Attorneys and housing counselors here and all over the country complain every day about this kind of thing.”

I don’t understand. I thought if you called and talked to someone at a bank, a loan office, etc., and they said they would take the payment late, they would take a buyout, they would accept a lower payment over a longer time, etc, etc, that we had a deal.

Apparently not. If you’re negotiating a mortgage with a bank, and they agree to modify it, you need to get it in writing. What’s the catch? I don’t see why they should let you have any such evidence of their intent. When they can decide to foreclose or not regardless of the arrangements they have made with you, why should they put anything on paper?

If you have a mortgage, and you have made arrangements with a bank, have a backup plan in case foreclosure is pushed through anyway.

James Pilant

How Arrogant Are Foreclosure Firms?

On By southwerkIn business ethics, ethics, Government Failure, Philosophy of Business, White Collar Crime

This arrogant! – (from Money Talks News) –

How many people didn’t get an attorney and thought they were safe because they made all their payments?

James Pilant

Due Process

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Government Failure, Philosophy of Business

When someone takes your house, you have a right to be heard. Okay, not really. You’re just supposed to.

The courts have held to a presumption that the banks acted responsibly when they sought a foreclosure. This is because for decades the banks had acted as reliable, responsible members of the community. Only 23 states require a judicial proceeding to take someone’s home.

Unfortunately in those states, the hearing was the merest formality, because once again, there was a presumption in favor on the banks. The banks did not have to produce the documents and prove their case, they only had to provide an affidavit that they had looked at the documents and the facts were as stated.

The banks are no longer stable, reliable members of the community. I’m sure some still are. Nevertheless, piracy is more a correct synonym for modern financial practices than the word, banking.

No one who has watched the financial casino betting of the last decade can have the kind of trust in banks that used to be the norm.

It’s time to change the rules.

If you steal a car or shoplift a $4.95 toy from a store, you are entitled to due process. You have to be arraigned and told what the charges are. The state is required to produce evidence to convict in open court. The defendant is able to produce evidence of his own and call his own witnesses.

But a bank can take a half million dollar home based on the affidavit of former supermarket checker with no knowledge of the mortgage process at all (who didn’t look at the documents anyway). The bank does not have to provide supporting documents, and many judges are uninterested in hearing the problems of “dead beat” homeowner.

Now I recognize the difference between a criminal and a civil matter. However, that a criminal has far more rights than a law abiding homeowner should be a matter of concern.

It is time for banks to bring the documents to court. It is time for a full hearing of the homeowners claims.

No more “sworn” affidavits. Since the foreclosure industry has lied in these affidavits hundreds of thousands of times, I find them valueless.

Now, you might say, “James, just because these people lied on their affidavits doesn’t mean that we should change the system. After all most people who swear out an affidavit are telling the truth.”

I would say, “Okay, if you want to keep affidavits, you have to make them believable.”

You would respond, “How would we do that?”

“You jail or fine those who have filed false affidavits. Only then will the system have the necessary integrity.”

That’s what I want. Penalties for those that deliberate lie to the court for the financial gain of their employer and I want penalties for the banks that engaged in these practices.

Can you tell me that these companies had hundreds of thousands of these affidavits signed over two years and didn’t notice it? What definition of the word, affidavit, is a mystery to the attorneys of the banking industry?

As ridiculous as it may sound, I want justice.

James Pilant

Foreclosure Freeze (via Lesslie Giacobbi’s Blog)

On By southwerkIn business ethics, ethics, Government Failure

Few writers have mentioned the dangers of the title insurers deciding to sit this dispute out. She does. I’d pay attention if I were you, particularly if you are thinking of buying a house.

James Pilant

What’s going to happen with the foreclosure freeze and should I wait to buy? Gary P. Hi Gary, There are several things to consider, and here are just a few. Right now, with the freeze, there may be a little less inventory to choose from. Some experts have even thought that we’ll have a little upward blip in pricing because there will be fewer houses to choose from and fewer distress sales on the market. Most people think that if this fiasco takes … Read More

via Lesslie Giacobbi's Blog

Katherine Porter to Senate: No Non-Judicial Sales While System Is In Doubt (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Government Failure, Philosophy of Business

I found this site about foreclosures. It has case law and a great deal of useful information for those in foreclosure. I recommend you give it a look.
On the other hand, if you are an attorney, it’s a good place to start your hunt for the case law on this issue. And I promise you the case law is developing very rapidly in this area.
James Pilant

10.27.2010 KATHERINE PORTER SENATE testimony-102710-porter see also 10.27.10 OHIO AG ROBO AMICUS BRIEF ParmaForeclosureBrief Katherine Porter is a visiting law professor at Harvard. Her 2007 study was the seminal work on mortgage and foreclosure irregularities. She found that 40% of the notes had been "lost" or destroyed. The following is an excerpt from her testimony today before a Senate Committee. The entire transcript is in the link above. Du … Read More

via Livinglies's Weblog

More Evidence That Foreclosures Were Done Incorrectly – 55,000 Times!

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Government Failure, Philosophy of Business, White Collar Crime

Remember everybody including the White House says there is no systematic problem with the mortgage industry. Wells Fargo is apparently not cooperating with the narrative

From MSNBC Real Estate –

Wells Fargo admitted Wednesday it made mistakes in the paperwork for thousands of foreclosure cases and promised to fix them.

The San Francisco-based bank said it plans to refile documents in 55,000 of the cases by mid-November. The company said not all those cases included errors but didn’t say how many thousands did.

Wells Fargo described the mistakes as technical and said it has no plans to halt the foreclosure process, though filing new paperwork will cause some delays.

“We don’t believe that there are instances in which the foreclosures would not have occurred otherwise,” said Teri Schrettenbrunner, a Wells Fargo spokeswoman. The documents are being refiled in the 23 states where a judge’s approval is needed to complete a foreclosure.

I guess there isn’t any real problem. Oh! and they think so too – (from further down in the article) –

On a conference call with investors this month, Stumpf said the bank is “confident that our practices, procedures and documentation” are accurate.

Well, that’s reassuring. Except for those, well, 55,000 mistakes, they’re accurate.

I teach. By their standards, not only did all my students pass with A’s, they passed and got full credit for all the classes meeting nearby. They may have passed courses in other dimensions and forms of reality.

I hate to tell them this, but 55,000 mistakes is a lot of mistakes! Further, it doesn’t make claims that A) “We don’t believe that there are instances in which the foreclosures would not have occurred otherwise,” and B) “the bank is confident that our practices, procedures and documentation are accurate,” sound very convincing.

It’s kind of like a married man being caught with another woman. He didn’t really cheat except for those 55,000 times. Both he and Wells Fargo want you to know that it isn’t that big a deal.

James Pilant

The Vast Majority Of Foreclosures Were Done Correctly?

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Government Failure, White Collar Crime3 Comments

We have been told over and over again during the last few weeks that the vast majority of foreclosures were done correctly. The White House and the various cabinet departments have echoed this claim.

This is all very odd. Since, the foreclosure documents were in hundreds of thousands of cases not even looked at, how would the banks or the Obama Administration know how many were done correctly?

They can’t. It’s impossible for them to have such knowledge.

Why would they say so? I suppose it’s a matter of faith, a belief that these huge institutions are run by competent, moral people. Faith is not a good substitute for factual data.

Well, new information is coming in. I have predicted that this kind of data would be coming in and here is the first.

From the New York Daily News –

Thousands of foreclosures across the city are in question because paperwork used to justify the seizure of homes is riddled with flaws, a Daily News probe has found.

Banks have suspended some 4,450 foreclosures in all five boroughs because of paperwork problems like missing and inaccurate documents, dubious signatures and banks trying to foreclose on mortgages they don’t even own.

So, 4,450 botched mortgage foreclosures have been found in five boroughs. That hardly squares with the idea that virtually all foreclosures were done correctly.

Here’s what one of the judges said, (again from the article) – Schack told The News he expects to see more paperwork snafus. “It’s like an onion we keep peeling,” he said. “It seems to be layers and layers of problems.”

Do you believe that the vast majority of foreclosures were done correctly?

I expect much more data to come out and it will not be to the foreclosure industry’s benefit. Nor will the Obama administration escape blame for its ridiculous unsupported claims about the crisis.

James Pilant

White House Claims Amusing

On By southwerkIn business ethics

Andrew Leonard writing in Slate makes fun of the White House’s claims of there not being any serious problem with the foreclosure system. (But he doesn’t have anywhere near as much fun as I did.)

But in the same press conference he (HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan) also asserted that “we have not found any evidence at this point of systemic issues in the underlying legal or other documents that have been reviewed.”

That is simply nonsense. The widespread use of robo-signers, the epidemic of lost paperwork, the proliferation of lawsuits, the potential invalidation of mortgage-backed securities — everything points to a systemic problem. The only real question is how big the mess will get. The White House should be far more out in front. Right before an election, the administration couldn’t have asked for a development that better illustrates the necessity for tight government supervision of the financial sector and industrial-strength consumer protection.

But maybe Obama’s just afraid of being called “anti-business” again.

The Human Touch

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, Government Failure, Philosophy of Business, White Collar Crime

The word, home, has powerful meanings for Americans. Who can forget, Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, saying over and over, “There’s no place like home.” How many of us “want to go home?” How many of us when overseas, look back at the U.S. and think about going “home.”

Home is a human concept life love, caring, kindness,.. those kinds of things.

It’s hard to quantify.

For most of American history, homes were very simple, often one room, generally little more than shacks. But as time went by and with urbanization, homes became larger and more complex … and more expensive.

For most Americans, purchasing a home all at once became impossible. A market for mortgages developed and people bought their homes over time.

Banks were small and deeply embedded into the fabric of the community. Social fabric is a fancy word for multiple relationships. A local bank with small resources depended heavily on the success of its loans, even the smallest, for its continued success. So, the bank exploited its connections, it knew a great deal about a creditor, may have known him personally, probably his family as well. They knew what he did for a living, not in the sense of the job title on the application, they knew what he did.

The bank was also well known. It’s officials were church goers, customers, friends, etc. The locals knew the bank by its continuously developing reputation.

Thus, there was social pressure both ways. For the homeowner, it was a disgrace to fall behind on payments. For the bank, it was dangerous to its moral authority to foreclose without consideration of many factors. Generally, speaking there was a great deal of pressure, rightfully so, to work out the problem rather than seize the home.

That’s gone. Beginning roughly in 1999, banks began selling their loans as assignments to investment banks to be bundled into “securities” to be sold to the foolish and the more foolish.

There is no knowledge of the community or the borrower beyond the thinnest veneer of computer data. The bank might as well be orbiting Pluto for all the effect of public opinion.

Human and business are both relegated to key strokes.

This limited knowledge is probably entirely adequate for “World for Warcraft.”

Taking a process developed from a community developed series of relationships has been disastrous. Banks were given the benefit of the doubt because as community citizens they could be trusted. This made the process of mortgage foreclosure easier for the banks, streamlining a difficult problem in the community to be as painless as possible.

Maintaining that level of trust in bank integrity has been disastrous in an age where banking has become more a world of bonus obsessed, financial buccaneers than respectable community bankers.

The human recipients of the mortgages have suffered terribly. They have very often expected that their loans could be modified as since they were making what in the past were reasonable offers only to be tossed from “the gates of the temple.” What was reasonable no longer mattered. What was the best decision no longer mattered.

The only thing that mattered was the process. Humans need not apply.

We can no longer pretend that banks are reasonable, that they will act intelligently, or that they have the interest of the community or their nation in mind, when they make decisions.

James Pilant