Banks Ready to File Suit Against Short-Sellers

editor’s note: This is part of what we have been talking about. years down the road these bankers are looking to sue borrowers for deficiencies after people recover from the disaster the bankers caused. Also set to explode in a few years are title defects that are incurable resulting from the securitization of loans and incorrect parties bringing foreclosure actions and taking title while the Lender sits blithely unaware that his rights are being twittered away.

Banks Threaten Lawsuits Against Short Sales

Updated: Oct 05, 2009 4:25 PM

Banks Threaten Lawsuits Against Short Sales

There’s a new warning out for struggling homeowners who think a short sale is their way out of a foreclosure. Big name banks like Bank of America, Citibank, and Wells Fargo are threatening to come after those who sell their homes through short sales years later once their credit is restored.

Realtors say banks threatening to do this are causing some fear, but homeowners have no other options but to turn to short sales over foreclosure. Remember that bail out money these banks were given? Realtors say if banks do go after people, that bail out money should be given back to the government.

Realtor Tammy Truong started in the short sale market two years ago when she noticed home owners were desperate and didn’t consider foreclosure as an option. “They’re confused and don’t know what to do. They want to do the right thing and they don’t want to walk away and foreclose,” she said.

But short sales are now being threatened by banks. “They are pushing out the short sale process for as long as possible and looking for new avenues to try and sue people after a short sale is completed,” said Realtor Justin Chang.

Chang says at a recent realtors meeting, big name banks were on hand and made it clear they had no problem with going after homeowners who short sell years from now as they attempt to improve their credit. “In a meeting with a lot of bank officials who came out here, they came out here and said we are able to track for up to six years peoples credit, so if they do get back on track and are able to purchase again and employment comes back, that’s when they’ll try to tag them and sue them for the difference,” he said.

Both Truong and Chang say banks were given millions in bailout money to help them survive and help the crippling housing market. Going after owners who complete short sales was not part of the plan. “If they go back after all these people, I feel they should give back all the bailout money,” said Truong.

Realtors are turning to Nevada’s Congressional Delegations, hoping to get them involved in this and stop these banks before anyone is sued years from now.

16 Responses

  1. always i used to read smaller articles which as well
    clear their motive, and that is also happening with this article which I am reading at this time.

  2. I attended your seminar this past weekend because as a realtor I have wanted to help give my customers an option besides just short selling.
    What an eye opener! Thanks to all of you pioneers that challenge the status quo.
    Most of my customers that end up short selling have tried to do a loan modification, but were unsucessful on their own. Most who did get a mod just got a small token payment reduction, with no principle reduction.
    A short sale is still better than a foreclosure if the homeowner needs to move.
    I hope that your viewpoints can become more exposed to the majority.
    Joe Murphy 941-7803260-short sale expert in manatee county

  3. Upon completing Auction Sales, Pretender Lenders recover ALL expenses from the Investor/Beneficiary, who “receives title” via the Trustees Deed Upon Sale, at $ZERO Book Value! Sham auctions are taking “unscionable advantage” of the borrower in default (and unduly extracting equity and property taxes from the community at large).

    Investors predatorily devalue homes at auction by 20-25% BELOW Real Market Values as of the moment of Untitled Transfer by the auctioneer. Almost all minimum bid disclosures are initially made known only by a single auctioneer’s pronouncement. With no bidders, deeds transfer “Back to Bene”.

    The receiving Phantom Beneficiary, an “unnatural, unreal investment trust”, WAS entitled to the securitized value of the toxic mortgage bonds (which lost value at Wall Street’s behest). BENE now converts its investment losses directly to the real collateralized asset. This unfair, unwarranted, unannounced and unjust enrichment is charged to the unwitting foreclosee,

    After auction, REO properties are held “off balance sheet” until recycled via captive realtors, who collude with unlicensed asset managers to lop another 7%-10% off real estate comps. This repeating 25-30% decline curve has tracked for almost 3 year with no end in sight.

    Everybody wants cash/liquidity in a DEPRESSION. Retaining a mortgage ties up investor/pretender lender CASH to be gained via foreclosure! If the Servicer DOES complete a Short Sale, they recover far less than via final “trustee sale”. They are also “at risk” for future title and tax disputes!!. Why? In a S/S they AND the borrower are faced with rules for The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief and Debt Cancellation by IRS.GOV:,,id=179414,00.html

    Audit of CA homes shows Beneficiary “pays” Servicer (including intermediaries beteen Phantom Investor and Real Borrower) an average of 46% of amounts claimed in the NOTS. At resale, BENE holds equity to the remaining 54% to gain FULL RECOVERY(including realty/AMC expenses) before losing money.

    Based on the above, plus Credit Default Swaps between MERS lenders and Phantom Investors (with neither party identified AT THE TRUSTEE SALE) America must be told that TARP money WAS NEVER NEEDED.

    The BIG NINE Bank Holding Companies TARP-lined their pockets and then gave the funds right back to treasury!!! Today, they are more profitable than ever. Meanwhile, the unjust transfer of real wealth has gone worldwide!

    Bye the bye, to answer some earlier comments, following are excerpts directly from The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief and Debt Cancellation Act of 2007:

    “If you owe a debt to someone else and they cancel or forgive that debt, the cancelled amount may be taxable.

    The Act of 2007 generally allows taxpayers to exclude income from the discharge of debt on their principal residence. Debt reduced through mortgage restructuring, as well as mortgage debt forgiven in connection with a foreclosure, qualifies for the relief.

    This provision applies to debt forgiven in calendar years 2007 through 2012. Up to $2 million of forgiven debt is eligible for this exclusion ($1 million if married filing separately). The exclusion does not apply if the discharge is due to services performed for the lender or any other reason not directly related to a decline in the home’s value or the taxpayer’s financial condition.”

    REPEAT TOGETHER NOW: Investors, pretender lenders and servicers have every greedy reason to steal as many homes as possible on the courthouse steps… any attempt to “assist borrowers” is just a “LIVING LIE!”

    Neil, Brad and this blog have pinpointed the most diabolical system for rapid transfer of wealth IN HUMAN HISTORY! … Our evidence calls it “Tyranny on The Courthouse Steps!”

    SDpops @ 760-787-9966

  4. To JLSemidey: I am happy to hear you have switched teams, it’s the right thing to do, and i also appreciate the fact you acknowledge having made a mistake. That’s what a responsible person does. I admire that. There is no worse pain felt that the one felt by oneself after knowing we have hurt others.

  5. “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

    – Thomas Jefferson



    The Federal Reserve System is a Private Bank

    NOTICE: Please Read!

    Thomas Jefferson, declared, “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

    Did Jefferson have a crystal ball when he spoke these words? Has a private bank taken control over our nation’s money supply?

    The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco, Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation reconstructed to the best of my ability from notes taken during the conversation on October 8, 1992.

    CALLER – Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?

    MR. SUPINSKI – We are an agency of the government.

    CALLER – That’s not my question. Is it owned by my country?

    MR. SUPINSKI – It is an agency of the government created by congress.

    CALLER – Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Yes CALLER – Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?

    MR. SUPINSKI – No, it is owned by the member banks.

    CALLER – Are the member banks private corporations?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Yes CALLER – Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?

    MR. SUPINSKI -Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people.

    CALLER – Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Yes CALLER – What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?

    MR. SUPINSKI – The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets.

    CALLER – What are these assets comprised of?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities.

    CALLER – What value does the Federal Reserve Bank carry gold per oz. on their books?

    MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t have that information but the San Francisco Bank has $1.6 billion in gold.

    CALLER – Are you saying the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has $1.6 billion in gold, the bank itself and the balance of the assets is government securities?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Yes.

    CALLER – Where does the Federal Reserve get Federal Reserve Notes from?

    MR. SUPINSKI – They are authorized by the Treasury.

    CALLER – How much does the Federal Reserve pay for a $10 Federal Reserve Note?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Fifty to seventy cents.

    CALLER – How much do they pay for a $100.00 Federal Reserve Note?

    MR. SUPINSKI – The same fifty to seventy cents.

    CALLER – To pay only fifty cents for a $100.00 is a tremendous gain, isn’t it?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

    CALLER – According to the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve pays $20.60 per 1,000 denomination or a little over two cents for a $100.00 bill, is that correct?

    MR. SUPINSKI – That is probably close.

    CALLER – Doesn’t the Federal Reserve use the Federal Reserve Notes that cost about two cents each to purchase U.S. Bonds from the government?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, but there is more to it than that.

    CALLER – Basically, that is what happens?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, basically you are correct.

    CALLER – How many Federal Reserve Notes are in circulation?

    MR. SUPINSKI – $263 billion and we can only account for a small percentage.

    CALLER – Where did they go?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Peoples mattress, buried in their back yards and illegal drug money.

    CALLER – Since the debt is payable in Federal Reserve Notes, how can the $4 trillion national debt be paid-off with the total Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

    MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know.

    CALLER – If the Federal Government would collect every Federal Reserve Note in circulation would it be mathematically possible to pay the $4 trillion national debt?

    MR. SUPINSKI – No CALLER – Am I correct when I say, $1 deposited in a member bank $8 can be lent out through Fractional Reserve Policy?

    MR. SUPINSKI – About $7.

    CALLER – Correct me if I am wrong but, $7 of additional Federal Reserve Notes were never put in circulation. But, for lack of better words were “created out of thin air ” in the form of credits and the two cents per denomination were not paid either. In other words, the Federal Reserve Notes were not physically printed but, in reality were created by a journal entry and lent at interest. Is that correct?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Yes CALLER – Is that the reason there are only $263 billion Federal Reserve Notes in circulation?

    MR. SUPINSKI – That is part of the reason.

    CALLER – Am I mistaking that when the Federal Reserve Act was passed (on Christmas Eve) in 1913, it transferred the power to coin and issue our nations money and to regulate the value thereof from Congress to a Private corporation. And my country now borrows what should be our own money from the Federal Reserve (a private corporation) plus interest. Is that correct and the debt can never be paid off under the current money system of country?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Basically, yes.

    CALLER – I smell a rat, do you?

    MR. SUPINSKI – I am sorry, I can’t answer that, I work here.

    CALLER – Has the Federal Reserve ever been independently audited?

    MR. SUPINSKI – We are audited.

    CALLER – Why is there a current House Resolution 1486 calling for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve by the G.A.O. and why is the Federal Reserve resisting?

    MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know.

    CALLER – Does the Federal Reserve regulate the value of Federal Reserve Notes and interest rates?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Yes

    CALLER – Explain how the Federal Reserve System can be Constitutional if, only the Congress of the U.S., which comprises of the Senate and the House of Representatives has the power to coin and issue our money supply and regulate the value thereof? [Article 1 Section 1 and Section 8] Nowhere, in the Constitution does it give Congress the power or authority to transfer any powers granted under the Constitution to a private corporation or, does it?

    MR. SUPINSKI – I am not an expert on constitutional law. I can refer you to our legal department.

    CALLER – I can tell you I have read the Constitution. It does NOT provide that any power granted can be transferred to a private corporation. Doesn’t it specifically state, all other powers not granted are reserved to the States and to the citizens? Does that mean to a private corporation?

    MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t think so, but we were created by Congress.

    CALLER – Would you agree it is our country and it should be our money as provided by our Constitution?

    MR. SUPINSKI – I understand what you are saying.

    CALLER – Why should we borrow our own money from a private consortium of bankers? Isn’t this why we had a revolution, created a separate sovereign nation and a Bill of Rights?

    MR. SUPINSKI – (Declined to answer).

    CALLER – Has the Federal Reserve ever been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?

    MR. SUPINSKI – I believe there has been court cases on the matter.

    CALLER – Have they been Supreme Court Cases?

    MR. SUPINSKI – I think so, but I am not sure.

    CALLER – Didn’t the Supreme Court declare unanimously in A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. vs. U.S. and Carter vs. Carter Coal Co. the corporative-state arrangement an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power? [“The power conferred is the power to regulate. This is legislative delegation in its most obnoxious form; for it is not even delegation to an official or an official body, presumptively disinterested, but to private persons.”
    Carter vs. Carter Coal Co.]

    MR. SUPINSKI – I don’t know, I can refer you to our legal department.

    CALLER – Isn’t the current money system a house of cards that must fall because, the debt can mathematically never be paid-off?

    MR. SUPINSKI – It appears that way. I can tell you have been looking into this matter and are very knowledgeable. However, we do have a solution.

    CALLER – What is the solution?

    MR. SUPINSKI – The Debit Card.

    CALLER – Do you mean under the E.F.T. Act (Electronic Funds Transfer)? Isn’t that very frightening, when one considers the capabilities of computers? It would provide the government and all it’s agencies, including the Federal Reserve such information as: You went to the gas station @ 2:30 and bought $10.00 of unleaded gas @ $1.41 per gallon and then you went to the grocery store @ 2:58 and bought bread, lunch meat and milk for $12.32 and then went to the drug store @ 3:30 and bought cold medicine for $5.62. In other words, they would know where we go, when we went, how much we paid, how much the merchant paid and how much profit he made. Under the E.F.T. they will literally know everything about us. Isn’t that kind of scary?

    MR. SUPINSKI – Yes, it makes you wonder.

    CALLER – I smell a GIANT RAT that has overthrown my constitution. Aren’t we paying tribute in the form of income taxes to a consortium of private bankers?

    MR. SUPINSKI – I can’t call it tribute, it is interest.

    CALLER – Haven’t all elected officials taken an oath of office to preserve and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic? Isn’t the Federal Reserve a domestic enemy?

    MR. SUPINSKI – I can’t say that.

    CALLER – Our elected officials and members of the Federal Reserve are guilty of aiding and abetting the overthrowing of my Constitution and that is treason. Isn’t the punishment of treason death?

    MR. SUPINSKI – I believe so.

    CALLER – Thank you for your time and information and if I may say so, I think you should take the necessary steps to protect you and your family and withdraw your money from the banks before the collapse, I am.

    MR. SUPINSKI – It doesn’t look good.

    CALLER – May God have mercy on the souls who are behind this unconstitutional and criminal act called the Federal Reserve. When the ALMIGHTY MASS awakens to this giant hoax, they will not take it with a grain of salt. It has been a pleasure talking to you and I thank you for your time. I hope you will take my advice before it does collapse.

    MR. SUPINSKI – Unfortunately, it does not look good.

    CALLER – Have a good day and thanks for your time.

    MR. SUPINSKI – Thanks for calling.

    If the reader has any doubts to the validity of this conversation, call your nearest Federal Reserve Bank, YOU KNOW THE QUESTIONS TO ASK! You won’t find them listed under the Federal Government. They are in the white pages, along with Federal Express, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), and any other business. Find out for yourself if all this is true. And then, go to your local law library and look up the case of Lewis vs. U.S., case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982. It reads in part: “Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the federal reserve are NOT federal instrumentalities . . . but are independent and privately owned and controlled corporations . . . federal reserve banks are listed neither as `wholly owned’ government corporations [under 31 U.S.C. Section 846] nor as ‘mixed ownership’ corporations [under 31 U.S.C. Section 856] . . .

    28 U.S.C. Sections 1346(b), 2671. `Federal agency’ is defined as: the executive departments, the military departments, independent establishments of the United States, and corporations acting primarily as instrumentalities of the United States, but does not include any contractors with the United States . . .

    There are no sharp criteria for determining whether an entity is a federal agency within the meaning of the Act, but the critical factor is the existence of the federal government control over the `detailed physical performance’ and `day to day operations’ of that entity. Other factors courts have considered include whether the entity is an independent corporation . . . whether the government is involved in the entity’s finances, . . . and whether the mission of the entity furthers the policy of the United States . . . Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities . . .

    It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks . . .

    The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act . . . Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker’s compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services . . .

    Finally, the Banks are empowered to sue and be sued in their own name. 12 U.S.C. Section 341. They carry their own liability insurance and typically process and handle their own claims . . .”

    According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, “When the Federal Reserve was created, its stock was sold to the member banks.” (“The Hats The Federal Reserve Wears”, published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia)

    The original Stock-holders of the Federal Reserve Banks in 1913 were the Rockefeller’s, J.P. Morgan, Rothschild’s, Lazard Freres, Schoellkopf, Kuhn-Loeb, Warburgs, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs.

    The MONEY-CHANGERS wanted to be insured they had a monopoly over our money supply, so Congress passed into law Title 12, Section 284 of the United States Code. Section 284 specifically states, “NO STOCK ALLOWED TO THE U.S.”

    * Monopoly – “A privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right (or power) to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity, A form of market structure in which only a few firms dominate the total sales of a product or service.

    `Monopoly’, as prohibited by Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, has two elements: possession of a monopoly power in relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior power, business acumen, or historical product. A monopoly condemned by the Sherman Act is the power to fix prices, or exclude competition, coupled with policies designed to use and preserve that power.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition)

    The Federal Reserve Act goes one step farther, “No Senator or Representative in Congress shall be a member of the Federal Reserve Board or an officer or director of a Federal Reserve Bank.” They didn’t want We The People to have any say in the operation of their monopoly through our elected officials.

    What can you do about it? Contact your congressman and senators to protest and demand hearings to investigate the unconstitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act. You can find their name, address, email address, phone number or fax number at . But most of all, remove your support for the Federal Reserve System by using the statutes to remove your collateral from the system. Remove your assets from their control, remove your Strawman Corporation from their control.


  6. Dear Charlie A.,

    99.99% of Real Estate Agents have no idea of what goes on behind the lenders ( servicers) doors, they are just factoring the commission and that is it. And yes, some times to tell the truth you must also get hit, but that is OK, I understand and appreciate your point of view.

    For one I had no idea until I started researching why these servicers were not doing what common sense would dictate, until I talked to a Private Mortgage Insurance underwriter and then he laid it out for me. And then run into this fantastic source of information, I have sent over five law firms in VA, MD, DC, and FL to Mr. Garfield’s seminars. Now instead of helping people to lose their homes as many real estate agents are doing, I am assisting over 1,500 people who are in the process of suing their respective servicers, lenders, etc.

    And I am in the process I am also fighting for mine as well.

  7. Capital-ocracy at it’s finest!

    I suppose the dubious bright side to this is that many people won’t be able to, or don’t have the lifespan time left to “recover” enough to make it worthwhile for the banks to go after that short-sale/foreclosure deficiency.

    Florida legislators tried to emulate the non-deficiency states by introducing legislation to prevent deficiency judgments in short-sales/foreclosures. I was SHOCKED to learn that “banking executives and lobbyists” seemed to sway the tide away and the bills died before they saw the light of day.

    Fun Times. Fun Times!

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

  8. *from—defi.html

    The HVCC – Definition of the Problem – Top 10 List of Problems with the Home Valuation Code of Conduct

    Top 10

    Before we can suggest changes to the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC), I think we have to step back, identify and examine the issues and problems surrounding the appraisal profession and lending industry to consider solutions that would be effective and in the end, resolve more issues than they cause.

    With that in mind, what are the key issues? Taking a lead from Late Night’s David Letterman, let’s name the “Top Ten” and if we can, get a consensus and go from there to figure out the solutions.

    1 – Pressure, value shopping and comp checks

    “What’s it worth without my client having to pay for your opinion?” From the lender’s perspective, they do not want to pay for an appraisal if they cannot make the loan. From the appraiser’s perspective, we do not know the answer until we have done the work.

    Clients need answers and we need to be paid for our time and efforts. What can be done (changes in USPAP, limited scope assignments, staged assignments, etc.) to provide the client with some idea of home prices in the area, without compromising the appraiser’s objectivity?

    Lenders don’t know (in advance) the answers regarding credit scores, title issues, etc. either and they have to pay for those services. Perhaps a staged assignment resolves the issue. What are your thoughts for providing some level of service to resolve this problem?

    2 – Low fees, turn times and pressure from clients and AMC’s

    I don’t think appraisers would dislike the AMC’s so much, if we were paid appropriately for the assignment, didn’t get the daily e-mails or calls for updates and the AMC was staffed with competent professionals. If those issues were resolved and if AMC’s were licensed and regulated, would you have a problem with AMC’s?

    3 – Do Not Use and Blacklists

    The ability of clients to place an appraiser on a “do not use” list without notification, justification or recourse has been an issue for many years. The HVCC addresses this however it also provides for complaints to made against the appraiser (and an investigation started) without basis or justification.

    Not only can a complaint be made, but also the complaint is forwarded to state and national agencies. This area needs to be amended to insure that only complaints with merit are forwarded to any agency for investigation. Should there be “appraisal review committees” at the state level (made up of volunteer appraisers) to review complaints and establish validity prior to further action being taken?

    4 – Appraiser Independence

    Independence is typically an issue associated with items 1, 2 and 3 above. Most of the independence problems would go away if those issues were resolved.

    5 – Loss of clients and established relationships

    Appraisers have spent time and effort to find clients and develop good business relationships. The HVCC would appear to favor “blind ordering” via AMC’s or lender staff appraisers, which would affect those relationships. What changes should be made to the HVCC to insure objectivity without affecting existing relationships?

    6 – Unlicensed Mortgage Brokers and limited recourse for unethical practices.

    In many areas, mortgage brokers are not licensed and or there are no provisions (similar to real estate agents, appraisers or title representatives) for recourse against unethical tactics or business practices.

    Many states are licensing mortgage brokers, however there isn’t a central repository for complaints or investigations nor do mortgage brokers have a national standard (similar to USPAP) that binds them to a certification that has both financial and civil liability. Should mortgage brokers be required to sign a certification with each loan that holds them liable for unethical actions and would this resolve the appraisal ordering issue cited in the HVCC?

    7 – National and state appraisal licensing agencies are under-funded to investigate problem appraisers.

    While the HVCC provides for reporting of problem appraisers, it falls short of providing additional funds for investigations of those identified. We have appraisal regulations in place, however many state agencies lack sufficient funding to enforce those regulations in a timely manner.

    Transitioning to the system proposed by the HVCC (The Independent Valuation Protection Institute) is neither necessary and in most cases would be redundant to the Appraisal Foundation and state level agencies already in place. Instead of creating a new agency (IVPI), would the funding from FNMA and FHLMC be better used to support enforcement actions with existing agencies?

    8 – Geographic Competency

    This is an ongoing issue and one that was addressed by the HVCC. What should the geographic limitations of appraisers be and why?

    9 – AMC’s not licensed and therefore not regulated

    If AMC’s were licensed, regulated and subject to standards similar to those of other real estate and lending related professionals or businesses, would many of the issues be resolved?

    10 – Poorly trained appraisers, lenders, brokers, etc.

    Regulating and licensing professionals is one-step in the right direction, however to be more effective, those professionals must also be trained and have a better understanding of the issues, problems and solutions related to appraisals and mortgage fraud. Should additional specific appraisal and fraud training be mandatory for all individuals involved in the lending process?

    In the interest of change, what issues are clients and appraisers faced with that should be addressed in any response we formulate. What are the best ways to resolve these issues? We cannot simply suggest changes that favor our cause without considering the impact of our recommendations to our clients and users of appraisal services.

    NOTE: funny how lenders take the consumers $300+ dollars (for a required appraisal), call “themselves” the customer & pick their favorite AMC because they know how to get the job done and blackball the honest appraisers… how ironic!

  9. It is ironic that ‘we the people’ are some of the most manipulated on earth. It is equally odd that even though we ‘think’ we’re part of the greatest democracy the world has ever known – we do not actually participate in a democracy at all; nor do we recognize one when we see it. These facts attest to how thoroughly the ‘American people’ have been propagandized by corporate media and govt.’talking heads’. Americans are slaves to a system that preys upon them and turns around and tells them how well they are treated.

  10. Pardon my ignorance or lack of coffee – but, am I missing something?

    In a short sale, the mortgage holder (actual or pretender) issues a Discharge of Mortgage (and records it) and will return the Note marked “PAID” (hopefully). This happened in my short sale.

    What basis does any entity have to sue on deficiency after that? (And yes, I did receive a Form 1099-C)

  11. On the other hand my opinion is that the bankers/thieves/pretender lenders are trying to pull a fast one to get people scared, they want to use that as distraction so that people simply let go of their homes to land right on the thieves’ hands as foreclosures so that they can keep making millions of money and making millions homeless, it is a psychological move on their part to keep us looking the other way while they steal our homes, we all know what they want and what they will do to get it, it’s not secret folks. Let’s keep on moving forward having Neil as our guide, let’s follow the master’s steps and save whatever we have left, i am not even sure if many of these lenders/thieves will still be around many years from now after we Americans clean their clock, you see guys and gals it’s not even close to being over, the worse is yet to come, perhaps for both parts, the good and the bad guys but at the end we will raise our hands in victory as they march into the dark with their heads down in shame.
    To victory America!!!!

  12. to JL Semidey: based on your comments i feel lots of resentment in you, but i am not quiet sure for what, however i have a feeling you are using a double edge sword with sharpest edge towards yourself, here is why: first you acknowledge being a real estate agent for 15 years, then you acknowledge having had (allegedly) 120 short sale listings and having sold 3 out of 120 (pretty pathetic), and by admitting to the previous you are also admitting that you came out off of those three sales you had “with several thousand dollars in commission” and didn’t care about the other 117 people; in fact i think that you thoughts at that very particular moment must’ve been: ” who cares” I “made my money”, as for the very last paragraph “so if you are trying to sell your homes in short sales, think about who is making the money and get out of it” , i think that it should really say the following: **so if you are trying to sell your homes in a short sale, make sure you don’t even come close to JL Semidey, because chances are he will NOT get the job done! think about who is not making the money and sounding biter now** . I wonder if you ever told your clients your very own words above “get out of it. Fight for your home, it is worth it. Do not give up” i seriously doubt you did so, but instead you were probably doing what any other RE agent is doing out there today, or like the agent I used did. in short all i can say is that your bitterness is clear as water to me now.

  13. I have said this for a couple of years, those “accounts” are being tossed into the “to be delt with later” pile. If they don’t go after the homeowners, they can sell the receivable to a collection agency. Folks that thought they had solved the problem in many cases, have solved nothing. This is not right on the banks part.

    If the bank sends them a 1099 for the loss, then they are in the clear. They can’t write it off and go after them. If there is no 1099 issued to the homeowner after the sale, bet you will hear from them somewhere down the road… perhaps the best advise is to explore how to become judgement proof. Bankruptcy will wipe it out and the best time to do it is when things are there worst for the homeowner.

    Also, while this applies to short sellers, the same is true of those homes foreclosed on. There really is no easy way out of this.

    I just can’t believe these bankers are even American citizens…

  14. What a sad state of affairs. In the year 2007 I had over 120 short sale listings,, the servicers at the time were refusing as they still are doing to give up the name of the interested parties, what kind of a resolution is a short sale if out of 100 listings only 3 get approved.

    As a former real estate agent for over 15 years, I feel sad about the NAR and their minions upselling a recovery that does not exist to prop up a business that they helped to kill.

    I will tell you why Real Estate agents still use the insanity model for their marketing. They know their efforts a futile, how ever if they list 100 homes for short sale and only sell thee a month, and I am being very generous in my math, they come out on top with several thousand dollars in commissions, and in their ever mindset if the other 97 lose their homes who cares, they made their money.

    So if you are trying to sell your homes in short sales, think about who is making the money and you get out of it. Fight for your home, it is worth it. Do not give up.

  15. This disgusts me…how much more blood do they want?

  16. I think the banks which do this should not only return every penny of bailout money they’ve not already returned – but then those banks should have every customer’s outstanding loans forgiven and wiped off the books. The banks, their major shareholders, directors, and senior executives should have their assets auctioned to the highest bidder with the bank, its competitors, its directors, major shareholders, and senior executives prohibited from purchasing. The proceeds of the auctions should then compensate the victims of the banks evil and anything else should be divided amongst the whole nation (except the above excluded people).

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: