Modification Fraud — the latest game in town

Here is a good article from NYT but once again they are describing the news instead of reporting it. No investigation. Why do you think that servicers et al are not REALLY interested in modifying your mortgage? Why do you think they want you to believe that you are “in process” for mortgage modification when your request was denied months before? The answer is simple: if the obligation is modified then it isn’t in default. If it is not modified then it IS in default. And the pretender lender intermediary players NEED your loan to be in default.

The actions of the servicers and other intermediaries are designed to achieve two results: (1) to make you think that you are negotiations to modify your mortgage and (2) to deny your request for modification. As this New York Times article points out, the decision not to modify comes within days of receiving your request but they NEVER tell you that. Why? Because they are running the clock in order to have you in an incurable position of default. Why? Because ONLY a default will trigger the credit default swaps that “insure” your obligation along with hundreds or thousands of others. And they have “insured” your loan as much as thirty times over. So if your loan is $300,000 it is possible that they get as much as $15 million — but only if you are in default (or at least only if the pool defaults on the obligation owed to the investors). They can’t get that money if your loan is modified. And even if your particular loan is not delinquent or in default, as long as the pool defaults, they still get paid.

So adding to the misrepresentations to borrowers and investors in the creation of these securitized “loans” (which are in reality “securities”) is the misrepresentation to borrowers and their lawyers that they are in good faith negotiations to modify the loan because (a) the servicer has been promised the house as part of the scheme (even though they never put up a dime for the loan) and (2) the Wall Street players are getting a pornographic amount of money based on the premise that your loan is in default whether it is or it isn’t, and whether it was paid by third parties or not.

And NOBODY wants to bring this to the attention of the “investors” who purchased bonds that were mortgage backed securities because some people might do a little arithmetic and quickly come to the realization that they paid as much as 3 or four times the amount actually funded in the loan and are now sitting on an unenforceable promise of security that at best is worth a tiny fraction of what they paid.
So who do you think paid for all this? YOU did along with all the taxpayers of this great nation. Do you really think that the Wall Street players like AIG who made a living assessing risk, never peeked under the hood to see what was going on? In a real deal, they inspect deals the way my grandmother inspected chickens before she made the purchase. No, they had to know that the ultimate payment on these “bad bets” (which incidentally were guaranteed to be triggered to the advantage of anyone holding a credit default swap), they must have known that the ONLY source of payment would be the Federal Government with taxpayer money and newly printed money. The TARP money went not to holders of “troubled assets” but to holders of these bets and we paid them off for a horse race that was rigged from the start.
September 4, 2009

Judges’ Frustration Grows With Mortgage Servicers


PHOENIX — Bobbi Giguere had no luck in securing a loan modification from her mortgage servicer, Wells Fargo. For months, she had sent the bank the financial documents it requested to process her modification. But each time she called to check on the request, she was told to send her paperwork again.

“I submitted the paperwork three times, and nothing happened,” said Mrs. Giguere, 41, who has a high school education and worked as restaurant manager before losing her job.

On Thursday, something happened. She questioned a Wells Fargo official about the bank’s lack of response — under oath.

The spectacle of a high-ranking banking executive being grilled by an ordinary homeowner was the result of an unusual decision by Judge Randolph J. Haines of the United States Bankruptcy Court to summon a senior executive from Wells Fargo to appear in Mrs. Giguere’s bankruptcy case.

At the hearing, Judge Haines made it clear that he was acting out of concerns about Wells Fargo’s mortgage modification practices generally.

“This is certainly not an isolated case,” he said. “The kind of story I hear from this debtor is one that I and other bankruptcy judges around the country are hearing over and over and over again.”

With consumers complaining about the difficulty of getting any response from their mortgage servicers, the effectiveness of the Obama administration’s plan to provide homeowner relief is being threatened. As they wait for an answer on whether they might qualify, homeowners are succumbing to foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings and winding up in courts — at times in front of judges who are also frustrated.

Ms. Giguere filed for bankruptcy protection as she was trying to keep her three-bedroom house in a Phoenix suburb, where she lives with her 15-year-old son. Representing the bank at her hearing on Thursday was Joseph Ohayon, senior vice president of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Servicing.

Under preliminary questioning by one of the bank’s lawyers, Mr. Ohayon stated that Mrs. Giguere had repeatedly failed to provide a financial worksheet, a critical document in processing a loan modification.

Under cross-examination by Mrs. Giguere (who had a little assistance from Judge Haines), the bank’s defense withered. From her files, Mrs. Giguere produced a letter from Wells Fargo describing the paperwork that she needed to file for a loan modification. In the witness chair, Mr. Ohayon read the letter.

“Mrs. Giguere is right,” Mr. Ohayon concluded. “The letter did not ask for a financial worksheet.”

Experts said the hearing in Phoenix reflected rising frustration by federal bankruptcy judges with mortgage servicers, which process payments for banks and the investors who own large pools of loans. In recent months, judges in Ohio and Pennsylvania have chastened mortgage servicers for failing to process payments properly and for errors in foreclosure filings, among other concerns.

“The judges are seeing more and more of a pattern of indifference to record-keeping and good business practices,” said Robert Lawless, a law professor at the University of Illinois who specializes in bankruptcy law.

One of the biggest complaints by homeowners has been poor communication by mortgage servicers on the status of their applications for loan modifications. In the case of Mrs. Giguere, Wells Fargo decided back in March shortly after she faxed the bank her application that she did not qualify for the Home Affordable Modification Program.

She did not learn of the bank’s decision until Thursday.

“When did you tell the debtors that their loan was no longer being considered for modification?” Judge Haines asked Mr. Ohayon.

“We haven’t. They’ve never been told,” said Mr. Ohayon, adding: “Customer communication is something we’re taking a serious look at, your honor.”

The hearing with Wells Fargo did not result in any sanctions against the bank for its failure to provide timely information to Mrs. Giguere about her mortgage modification application. But the bank did pledge to improve its communications with customers and to explore avenues for increasing the ease with which homeowners can seek loan modifications.

Wells Fargo has also scheduled a three-day seminar at the Phoenix Convention Center, beginning on Tuesday, in which customers who have submitted loan modification applications can meet with a bank representative in person and learn whether their application has been approved or denied.

Wells Fargo has been criticized for its slow pace in modifying mortgages under the Treasury Department’s foreclosure prevention initiative, which was begun in April. The bank has started trial modifications on about 20,000 home loans under the program, or 6 percent of those who meet the program’s guidelines. JPMorgan Chase, by comparison, has begun modifications on nearly 20 percent of such loans. The banks’ information was issued in a recent report from the Treasury on the progress of the program.

At the hearing, Wells Fargo blamed a series of revisions in the program by the government for the slow pace.

It has also pledged to renew negotiations with Mrs. Giguere over modifying her home mortgage. Yet difficult financial circumstances make it unclear whether she will ultimately be able to keep her home, mortgage modification or not. She has recently gone on food stamps and is receiving free state medical aid; her $240 weekly unemployment check is her main form of income.

When her home shot up in value, she refinanced it several times, pulling out equity to pay off credit card debt and other expenses. She and her husband are divorcing, and he is no longer willing to help pay the mortgage. With little in savings, she has not made a full mortgage payment since November.

“I’m not perfect, I’ll be the first to admit that,” Mrs. Giguere said. “I’ve fallen behind.”

30 Responses

  1. […] so that a mod becomes impossible. Those are deliberate systems put into place by the big banks to manipulate the intent of modification programs like HAMP and to scam their […]

  2. At least one and a half year major banks such as Bank of America and Wells Fargo have conducted nationwide loan modification massive fraud which is felony. Authorities headed by Mr. Change by the way ignore this because they are not only accomplices, but initiators of this crime. They have designed this to replace weak payers with strong ones to strengthen economy on the account of the people. The job number one of the government defending the people from external and internal enemies, but this government is the enemy of the people. How it is sad that the people don’t understand it. What a nation of morons!

  3. […] Re: New tactics required Modification Fraud — the latest game in town Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  4. I read an article about a month ago about a ONEWEST BANK employee whose only job was to keep as many home loans in default and to prevent any modification as long as possible. It seems all of these commie banks have a “mortgage default insurance policy” through ..guess who..AIG. A $200,000.00 in default can pay the lender as much as $8,000,000.00 on that policy. Three weeks after I got a fixed rate through IndyMac they went belly up and were taken over by the FDIC. I didn’t know it at the time but the same scumbag that founded CountryWide home loans in 1969 ,Angelo Mozili also founded IndyMac Bank. When Bof A took over Country wide he rode off into the sunset with about 500 million bucks. Then Mr. Computer ,Michael Dell formed Onwest bank and bought IndyMac for 14 billion.With that purchase he and his financial terrorist picked up about 300 billion in assets. When I called information in Dallas to get the phone number of the Nazi bank (who financed Hitler) Deautsche (sic) I was connected with OneWest bank who I guess are now partners with Onewest Bank. They refused to answer my question about whether or not they recieved an offer for consideration and blew me off . ONCE A NAZI ALWAYS A NAZI!!!
    They should all be charged with FINANCIAL TERRORISM found guilty and given the electric chair on LOW! Under no circumstances will I ever buy another product made by Dell Computers. White middle class America is almost over!

  5. I didn’t read everyone else’s responses but…..I’d like to see homeowners SUE servicers for the accrued interest and late fees, etc. that get capitalized on their loans because of this BS stalling tactic.

    That would sooooooooooooooooooo rock!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And its fitting because we all know that that’s part of the game.

  6. About 3 or 4 weeks ago I read an article concerning a One West Bank and one of their employees. It addressed her job description “keeping all home loans in default as long as possible and stall ANY modification program by any means as long as possible”. If anyone has that article please email it to me at Would be greatly appreciated.

  7. […] See also modification-fraud-the-latest-game-in-town […]

  8. Rose

    Thank you for your response. We are all in this together – I am not in foreclosure but I am so disturbed as to what has been going on. Have heard about difficulties in many states across USA. NY seems to be front runner in challenging fraud. Rest of country usually follows NY (and California) in courts but this does not seem to be happening.

    I still think Bankruptcy Court is best to force issue of real party in interest and possible fraud in foreclosure. If any fraud is discovered in Bankruptcy Court – this could possibly reopen state court actions. Need attorneys to keep questioning issues in state, federal, and bankruptcy courts.

    Want Congress to know that Bankruptcy Bill was critical to help homeowners. It would have provided checks and balances to other courts and saved homes for the people. The American people were deceived to believe that their homes were worth far more than actual value. Sure, home prices can decline – but not the drastic decline demonstrated in a year or two that was precipitated by the financial “crisis”.

    Wish there were more attorneys to take on these issues in Court – and in every state across the country. But we also need legislation to stop what is happening to so many people.

    My heart goes out to you – and all others who have been similarly harmed.

  9. Anon, thanks for the reply. I was just thinking out loud… seems like if the local courts are not being responsive then the logical step would be to go straight for Federal court. Especially if (as is the case in my state, Georgia) the state court does things like call the foreclosing attorney to notify them that there’s a TRO in front of them and the head judge will refuse to sign it if the attorneys pull the foreclosure. Which is exactly what happened when my fiancee and I petitioned for a TRO.

  10. Rose

    I am not a lawyer. I believe if you file a suit, and have federal claims and diversity, you can file in federal court. I was just talking about plaintiffs that have filed their foreclosure action against borrower in state court, and decision has already been made. In this case, borrower should be alert to “Rooker Feldman” if borrower files a NEW action against party in federal court.

  11. Anonymous — if a homeowner knows that they are not likely to get an impartial hearing at the local county courthouse (state level) and they have the ability to make a federal case (diversity jurisdiction — since most lenders are not in the same jurisdiction as the homes– non-responsive replies to QWR, over 75k, etc.) then why would they not simply file in federal court to begin with?

  12. Alan M. White
    Valparaiso University – Law School

    This man has researched, written of, and lectured on mortgage and foreclosure cases for much of his professional life.

    Here’s an example of his published work:

    Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 41, p. 1107, 2009

    The subprime foreclosure crisis has resulted in residential mortgage debt burdens far beyond what borrowers can repay. Many economists have recognized the need to deleverage the American homeowner. The excess mortgage debt is depressing home prices and consumer spending, and acting as a drag on the broader economy. Empirical evidence from mortgage servicer reports to investors show that for the most part, the necessary deleveraging of homeowners is not happening.

    In a prior paper I compiled mortgage foreclosure and modification data from a sample of securitized subprime mortgage pools. This paper reports on an expanded study of data on more than 3.5 million subprime and alt-A mortgages, including about one-sixth of all foreclosures pending, and about 20% of the monthly total modifications in November 2008.

    My findings from both the smaller sample and the larger sample are consistent, and are as follows:

    1. Modifications are not reducing principal debt, they are increasing it. Almost no modifications include significant cancellation of either past due interest or principal, and many modifications involve capitalizing unpaid interest and fees and reamortizing the loan. This occurred in 68% of loan modifications. The average capitalized amount added to loans was $10,800, on average mortgage debt of about $210,000. Some principal was canceled, and reported as a partial loss, for about 10% of modifications. However, two servicers (out of 43), Litton Loan Servicing and Ocwen Loan Servicing, accounted for nearly all of these principal reductions. Only 8% of loans reflected some write-off of unpaid interest.

    2. Servicers are incurring huge losses for investors by foreclosing. The average foreclosure loss on a first mortgage in November 2008 was $145,000 or about 55% of the average amount due. Loss severities increased steadily throughout 2007 and 2008 and are expected to worsen in 2009. In these circumstances, rational investors should accept mortgage principal reductions corresponding to home value declines of 20% or so, were it not for the various obstacles to servicers’ restructuring of mortgage loans.

    3. Voluntary mortgage modifications are not consistently reducing monthly payment burdens. Only 49% of modifications in the November 2008 report reduced monthly payments below the initial payment, while 17% left the payment the same and 34% increased the monthly payment.

    4. The variations among servicers in the number and quality of modifications are enormous. This variation suggests that not every servicer is doing the maximum possible to reach and work out terms with every defaulted borrower.

    5. Fewer than half of modifications made in January 2008 were current in payments on November 25, 2008. This is not surprising, given the onerous terms of the 2008 modifications.

    6. Many modifications are temporary. For example, some adjusted interest rate and amortization term only for five years, with rate and payment increases after five years. Servicers also use balloon payments and other forms of deferrals in order to reduce payments without reducing total debt. Thus, the totals reported by the industry include many loans that are being modified to include deferred payment shocks, negative amortization or other non-amortizing features of the sort that caused the foreclosure crisis.

    7. Significant numbers of mortgage loans are seriously delinquent, but not in a modification program or in foreclosure. The foreclosure crisis is overwhelming the ability of servicers to either restructure or foreclose on all the delinquent loans.

    The paper discusses the many reasons that necessary mortgage restructuring is not happening and proposes several policy responses.

    To read more abstracts, look here:

    To see a YouTube segment on Foreclosure Crisis: (And see right sidebar for more of Mr. White’s informative YouTube presentations)

    Lisa E (Pro Se, Florida)
    Lisa Bep @ gmail . com (remove spaces to email)

  13. Just a little advice for those who have lost in state court and want to go to federal court. Research all you can about “Rooker Feldman”. I am not a lawyer, but I have seen too many cases tossed out of federal court because the issue was supposedly already decided in state courts.

    I have emphasized that the biggest hit against consumers during this mess was that Congress did not pass the Bankruptcy Bill, which would have allowed borrowers to write down their mortgages and modify payments. While no one wants to be in Bankruptcy – this many have been the only way Congress was truly looking out for mortgage fraud victims – who would then be able to legitimately “modify” their mortgages.

    At the end of July, before Congress recess, Barney Frank made a statement that if servicers do not start modifying mortgages the Bankruptcy Bill will be brought back. I would urge everyone here, and all your friends, to contact your senators and congressmen to remind them that modifications are not happening and that the Bankruptcy Bill must be brought back.

    For those that have already lost in foreclosure actions, know “Rooker Feldman” well, and remember that the 2009 Financial Stability Act mandated that TARP and TALF recipients modify mortgages. It is not until AFTER foreclosure that the real party who had the right to foreclosure is identified – because title cannot pass clearing to foreclosed homes buyers without clear chain of title.
    Also remember that Trusts were set up only for receivable pass-throughs. That means current payments. Servicers, who like hold a financial interest in the bottom tranche of trusts, to which all defaults are subordinated, usually will have to front the default cash payments to the senior tranche “certificate holders” ie the security underwriters, while the loan is in default. They do not pass on the foreclosed home proceeds to the senior tranche “certificate holders”. The foreclosure proceeds, as discussed by Neil, are recouped by the swap holders after the swap holders have purchased the rights to collection by activation of the “swapped” out pool of defaults (swap contract) and foreclosed. Swap holders compensate the “servicer” for any current cash payment defaults advanced by the servicer.

    Thus, servicers have the incentive to foreclose fast and quickly. Further, as discussed, some servicing companies such as AHMSI have been purchased by hedge funds/private equity and the default and non-default loans (entire pool) have been acquired at bargain prices. For example, if a home is currently valued at $400,000 and the loan is currently stated at $600,000, and the loan is acquired at bargain price of $200,000, the hedge fund can make an immediate profit by foreclosing and selling home for current price of $400,000. This is immediate profit – and there is no incentive to modify the loan.

    The security underwriter (bank) on whose “off” balance sheet books the original loans are accounted for, and who has “swapped” out, or sold outright to hedge fund, the loans and collection rights, get the write-off (which is unavailable to mortgage fraud victims). Borrower loses home, and first time home buyer with tax credit of $8000 gets a great deal at a low interest rate.

    Because of first time homeowner tax credit, and TARP and TALF, mortgage fraud victims, who are also taxpayers, are, in effect, funding their own foreclosure.

    Was the government aware of all of this when they set out to “rescue” the financial system? Yes – and they knew that there must be casualties. On the other hand, I think the Bankruptcy Bill went down because they trusted that servicers would modify loans. Servicers did not.

    Today, Labor day, we are also reminded that over the past decades, Congress shifted our country’s economy from industrial to services. Financial Services was the engine for the shift. Financial Services became the US “crown jewel”, and anything they wanted – Congress gave them.

  14. These scammers should be investigated by the FTC and the applicable state’s Attorney General. For shame..

  15. Is there a citiation to the New York Times article on the blog post from 9/4/09 entitled, “Modification Fraud — the latest game in town?”

  16. Anon… AHMSI is one of the WORST mortgage servicers around. They are NOT honest. See this link for some of their slight of hands and outright lies in re modifications!

    On another note, a friend of mine has been foreclosed upon and he needs any info you (or anyone else) can share in re IndyMac. Any links, instructions on looking into their SEC filings, etc would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you!

  17. “And since when do banks or servicers have rights?”__DyingTruth

    That question was settled in 1886 when the US Supreme Court “decided” that a corporation is a person.
    Actually the decision was erroneously entered when the clerk read the decision wrong. The error still stands today and it is costing us dearly.

    If you want to know more:
    118 U.S. 394 (1886)

    Marcus @

  18. Fortunately for me, Wisconsin is a non-deficeincy state; lenders cannot come after you for the deficeincy judgment. I am going to file a suit in Federal Court for the fraud in the origination and ask for injunctive relief. HSBC as Plaintiff was successful in hiding behind “holder in due course” and my claims were not allowed against them. I could file a BK, but I really have no debt other than the mortgage and a $5000 installment loan. I will confer with a BK attorney pronto, but I think the Federal action will get the claims in front of a judge. I’m not crying in my beer (yet) but it is heartbreaking.

  19. Dying truth

    Credit Default Swaps REMOVE loans from trust. Thus, the term – “swapped out”. CDSs are not securities – but instead contracts against the securities. The Securities and Exchange Commission have verified the “swapped out” process to me. This applies to securitization of all asset RECEIVABLES (current account in financial accounting). Only receivables are securitized. The process is the same for credit card receivables, auto loans, student loans etc. Once receivables are non-existent, the loan is swapped out of the trust.

    Usedkarguy – keep plugging away. Know of case in which elderly couple was foreclosed upon, and plaintiffs then when after the excess amount that they could not recover in foreclosure (certain states allow this). Can you imagine? Couple is now in bankruptcy with stay against collection of additional amount not recovered in foreclosure, and are questioning the fraud, via real party in interest regarding foreclosure, in bankruptcy court.

  20. CDS’s are just like how everyones loans are pooled together into a trust so when one borrower doesn’t make payment, the other ones make up for it. Difference is we don’t get the same kind of luxuries of being informed, not getting forclosed on etc.. which not equal rights just like how they deny class action(pooling resources) status to plaintiffs seeking rescission but alow defendant banks defending rescission to pool their resources. And since when do banks or servicers have rights? I don’t remember the word bank or banks anywhere in the bill of rights. then I read some pricks article stating that because all the shareholders of banks are citizens denying a banks rights would be denying theirs, NO they have individual rights as citizens. They should not be allowed enhanced(or additional) rights just because their fat pig bankers all grouped together filled up to their snouts in corruption. On another note

    Have you looked at the net revenue of title insurers and their unrestricted merger ability I looked at one of mine, “CalCounties Title Nation, from monthly revenues of $100,000 in 2007 to over $1.2 million in May 2009”. I think more of this needs to be looked into, if much of the unjust inrichment is occurring in the insurance sector no doubt they’re probably scoundrelly taking a chuch of the loot.

  21. wtf… why wasn’t this wells fargo wanker sanctioned ??

    maybe we call start mass mailing these luke warm judges the info such as

    John George, on September 4th, 2009 at 1:00 pm Said:
    Love this website!
    It’s really no wonder why the modifications aren’t going through – – It’s because the Trusts do not allow for any practical or meaningful assistance to the Borrower!
    The following typical language is from the Wells Fargo Alternative Loan 2007-PA1 Trust.

    how lame is this shit?!
    NOOOO thank you mr.judge.. what a service to the public NOT!

  22. it was like getting a life insurance for your spouse and wish him dead so you could collect his life insurance. this is exactly what a “credit default swap’ mean. the more a lot of defaulted loans and foreclosure, the more they could collect the money from credit default swap. what a big scam.

  23. I don’t have a scanner, but I will fax to FDG and let them post.

    Anonymous, I’m going back in with a Federal suit. This comment is exactly on point.



    Can we see a Copy of The Summary Judgment?

    Did they give any explanation for ignoring your

  25. Good summary. However, two points: 1) default swaps are not “securities” but rather “contracts” that are derived from the securities. Default swaps remove loans from the original securitized trust – and the trustee no longer has authority to act on behalf of the certificate holders to the trust – which are the security underwriters. 2) All certificates to trust are sold to security underwriter before they are repackaged into CDOs/CMOs for sale to receivable cash pass-through investors. The swap holders are waiting to honor their contract obligation and remove the “pool” of default loans from the trust – end of trustee authority.
    3) Many default swap holders were unable to perform their contractual obligation and purchase default loans – thus, the loans remain on security underwriters books along with the related securities that were “dumped” by the CDO/CMO investors.
    Either mortgage loans remain with the financial institution security underwriter – or they have been removed by default swaps – and if default swap holder could not perform – then distressed debt private equity buyers steps in and purchased the “toxic” loans at a steep discount. Now the servicer represents the distressed debt buyer (most likely a hedge fund) – and foreclosure is far more profitable, since the debt was bought at deep discount, rather than modifying the loan.
    Servicer will never divulge that a hedge fund (debt buyer) now owns the loan. These are privacy issues related to deregulated hedge funds/private equity. They will try to attach themselves to the original trust – which has been dissolved, broken apart, and no longer trades in any market. and from which the loans have been sold. Government relies on private equity since no other investors want the securities or the mortgage loans themselves.

    This is the problem and why there are no modifications – and why courts and judges are confused. The real issue remains – who now holds the mortgage and has the right to collection?

    Check out Wilbur Ross, hedge fund billionaire who purchased American Home Mortgage Servicing, Option One, and Citiresidential (after Citiresidential purchases Ameriquest Mortgage Servicing, but Citiresidential subsequently failed – and Wilbur Ross came to the rescue. Wilbur Ross is well respected, and I believe, an honest man, so about forcing servicers to tell the truth, Mr. Ross?

  26. For mortgage companies like Wells Fargo, loan modification INTERFERES with it SHAM foreclosures and false IRS form1099-A operations! Modification also interferes with real estate FLIPPING frauds! In fact, some foreclosure filings (Wells Fargo is also guilty) which lack proof of ownership of the note are NOT mistakes in the first place (and increasing numbers of foreclosures are being dismissed by courts). INTENTIONAL false cases (some even filed under defunct mortgage names) often includes illegal fees in excess of “Acceleration Clauses,” and make it even harder to pay arrears; moreover, people become evicted despite those SEIZURES WERE NOT LAWFUL. Lawsuits for “Unfair Debt Collection Practices” fetch even more $S$ for these lawyers. *FACTS / PROOF:


  27. Love this website!

    It’s really no wonder why the modifications aren’t going through – – It’s because the Trusts do not allow for any practical or meaningful assistance to the Borrower!

    The following typical language is from the Wells Fargo Alternative Loan 2007-PA1 Trust.

    Line 21,557: … Provided the borrower is current in his or her mortgage payment obligations, the Sponsor may agree to refinance the mortgage loan in order to reduce the borrower’s mortgage interest rate, through the extension of a replacement loan or the execution of a modification agreement, without the application of any significant new borrower credit or property underwriting standards.

    How many borrowers seek modification if they are not in default? How many of these current borrowers are provided practical assistance from the servicer? Don’t most servicers wait for that technical default before they will have an open ear for modification? Why?

    Line 22,196: Servicer may also, with the consent of the Master Servicer, modify the payment terms of Mortgage Loans that are in default, or as to which default is reasonably foreseeable, that remain in the Trust Estate rather than foreclose on such Mortgage Loans; provided that no such modification shall forgive principal owing under such Mortgage Loan or permanently reduce the interest rate on such Mortgage Loan. Any such modification will be made only upon the determination by the Servicer and the Master Servicer that such modification is likely to increase the proceeds of such Mortgage Loan over the amount expected to be collected pursuant to foreclosure.

    How many defaulted borrowers obtain a modification they can really live with? If neither the principal nor the interest is reduced, what else is left? The term of the debt! But, who, in their sane mind, would modify their 15 or 30 year Note into a 40 or 50 year debt and still be upside-down with their equity at signing?

    It’s all about the non-taxed, bankruptcy -remote income stream produced under the Trust. The Trust will allow for a same or greater return of investment over time – period.

    To expect anything else from a pretender lender is just whistling in the hurricane.

  28. Hey Neil, put this on the front page, okay?

    USED KAR GUY GOES DOWN IN FLAMES! Kenosha County, Wisconsin. I got shut down today by a motion for summary judgement. Yes, that’s right! None of the issues presented to the court were considered germaine to the conversation. Not the fraud, the bad servicing, standing, NOTHING! So listen up! GET A LAWYER! You can’t do this on your own. I invested oodles of time. I still feel it was worth it. BUT BANKRUPTCY COURT AWAITS!!! Maybe there I can get the fraud acknowledged.

  29. Citibank and now Bayview in FL has been promising a loan mod for almost a year now. Same story, send paper work and they never get it done. Bayview Started foreclosure process a month ago. I answered the suite with the help of So far since our answer they responded with a letter in regular mail? Guess what it said? They sent a letter requesting information to do a loan modification. I will let you know how it goes over the next few months. Robert

  30. Spot on, Neil. I attended this hearing and these were the questions that were rumbling around in my head. Props to the judge for at least getting part of the story out there but the debtors were not represented and there was nobody to really cross-examine and hone in on these underlying issues, although the pro se debtor was very credible and believable and did a good job.

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: