Tag: foreclosure freeze

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

Why False Affidavits Matter

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

I found this video today. It’s short and precise. I recommend you watch it. It explains (generally speaking) the affidavit’s importance in law.

Good Stuff!

Stay tuned. I spend hours a day reading about the foreclosure mess from major news sources, internet sites, legals sources and the foreign press.

I’ll keep you up to date.

James Pilant

Sheldon Whitehouse Weighs In On The Foreclosure Crisis

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, ethics, Government Failure, Philosophy of Business2 Comments

There is deep concern in Washington over the damage the foreclosure crisis might do to banks and the “recovery” in the marbled halls of our elected representatives, their expensive lobbyists and the beltway media.

They worry about the banks. I don’t waste a moment on them. The poor banks. God, I’d hate to get up in the morning and be as friendless, attorneyless and helpless as a major financial institution.

Here what I would like to hear more of. From the Huffington Post –

I have heard from constituents being ignored and abused in the foreclosure process: documents repeatedly lost, inconsistent advice, hours trapped on the phone, and common sense turned on its head to reject fair modifications in favor of foreclosure. I have heard from mayors about the terrible collateral cost to communities from foreclosure. I have watched the big loan servicers drag their feet in the Obama Administration’s well-intentioned mortgage modification program. And most recently, we have all learned that these companies have been playing fast and loose in their foreclosure process, carrying out foreclosures in the cheapest manner possible, often outsourcing the process to a “foreclosure mill” document processing company.

Trapped in administrative purgatory, real families suffer when the big banks and their servicers force foreclosures. Children pack up their rooms; parents struggle to find a temporary roof. We owe these families a fair chance to stay in their homes, and a humane, logical and orderly foreclosure process if all else fails.

That’s what I want to hear.

James Alan 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

Confessions Of A Robosigner

On By southwerkIn business ethics

He Spent So Many Hours Writing His Name That His Signature Morphed Into A Series Of Four Circles Overlapping One Another.

From CNN Money.com –

The paperwork he robo-signed most often were the notices to delinquent borrowers that the servicer was proceeding to foreclosure. By signing that document, he was affirming that the bank had reviewed the loan and it didn’t qualify for a modification. But, he said, the reality was he had no idea whether Bank of America had really tried to save the borrower’s home.

“We had no knowledge of whether the foreclosure could proceed or couldn’t, but regardless, we signed the documents to get these foreclosures out of the way,” he said, noting that he assumed another department had checked that the review was done.

In his final weeks on the job, a notary routinely left him stacks of 20-page files, each one with a tab indicating where he needed to sign or initial. He had no idea what those documents were.

He spent so many hours writing his name that his signature morphed into a series of four circles overlapping one another. He said that he and his co-workers joked that they got so used to the rapid-fire signatures that they started signing personal paperwork that way.

There was no examination of whether or not the homeowner qualified for a modification. That was not fair. The bank failed in its duty to its customers and stockholders. Stockholders? Yes, the banks would make more over time with modifications.

When we talk about a mortgage holder qualifying for a modification, we’re not talking about whether or not the holder is a good person or a bad one, the criteria are designed to tell the bank that they make more money renegotiating than not.

We are not talking about the bank doing a homeowner a favor. We are talking about a bank ignoring its own procedures and its own profits.

From further down in the article –

Now that he’s not in the thick of the foreclosure process, Doan said he has had time to reflect on what his actions meant. Each signature likely led to a borrower losing his or her home. While he got numb to that fact while he was on the job, he now feels guilty.

“I shudder to think how many foreclosure documents have my name on it,” he said.

It was needlessly cruel to deny borrowers the opportunity to renegotiate. It was a failure of ethical judgment and of the principles of basic fairness.

James Pilant