EDITOR’S RANT: They turned the financial world upside down, taking our society with it. So it should come as no surprise that they would accuse homeowners of trying to get what the banks have been doing now for over three years — GETTING A FREE HOUSE. They never funded the loan and they never purchased the receivable. Yet somehow the government ignores the basic reality and offered window dressing to homeowners in the form of false modifications with servicers and other securitizers who only had the incentive to steal the house. Modifying the loan removes the only incentive they have to stay in the game.

Just because the real lenders won’t step in and make claims or settle with the homeowners who received some of the money that was advanced by the buyers of bogus mortgage bonds, doesn’t mean that that LEGALLY a disinterested third party can come in and say “OK, then I’ll take it.”

Big Banks Save Billions As Homeowners Suffer, Internal Federal Report By CFPB Finds

Elizabeth Warren

First Posted: 03/28/11 07:41 PM ET Updated: 03/28/11 07:58 PM ET


NEW YORK — The nation’s five largest mortgage firms have saved more than $20 billion since the housing crisis began in 2007 by taking shortcuts in processing troubled borrowers’ home loans, according to a confidential presentation prepared for state attorneys general by the nascent consumer bureau inside the Treasury Department.

That estimate suggests large banks have reaped tremendous benefits from under-serving distressed homeowners, a complaint frequent enough among borrowers that federal regulators have begun to acknowledge the industry’s fundamental shortcomings.

The dollar figure also provides a basis for regulators’ internal discussions regarding how best to penalize Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial in a settlement of wide-ranging allegations of wrongful and occasionally illegal foreclosures. People involved in the talks say some regulators want to levy a $5 billion penalty on the five firms, while others seek as much as $30 billion, with most of the money going toward reducing troubled homeowners’ mortgage payments and lowering loan balances for underwater borrowers, those who owe more on their home than it’s worth.

Even the highest of those figures, however, pales in comparison to the likely cost of reducing mortgage principal for the three million homeowners some federal agencies hope to reach. Lowering loan balances for that many underwater borrowers who owe less than $1.15 for every dollar their home is worth would cost as much as $135 billion, according to the internal presentation, dated Feb. 14, obtained by The Huffington Post.

But perhaps most important to some lawmakers in Washington, the mere existence of the report suggests a much deeper link between the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, led by Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren, and the 50 state attorneys general who are leading the nationwide probe into the five firms’ improper foreclosure practices, a development sure to anger Republicans in Congress and a banking industry intent on diminishing the fledgling CFPB’s legitimacy by questioning its authority to act before it’s officially launched in July.

Earlier this month, Warren told the House Financial Services Committee, under intense questioning, that her agency has provided limited assistance to the various state and federal agencies involved in the industry probes. At one point, she was asked whether she made any recommendations regarding proposed penalties. She replied that her agency has only provided “advice.”

A representative of the consumer agency declined to comment on the presentation, citing the law enforcement nature of the federal investigation into the mortgage industry’s leading firms.

The seven-page presentation begins by stating that a deal to settle claims of improper foreclosures “provides the potential for broad reform.”

In it, the consumer agency outlines possibilities offered by the settlement — a minimum number of mortgage modifications, a boost to the housing market — and how it could reform the industry going forward so that investors in home loans and the borrowers who owe them would be able to resolve situations in which borrowers fall behind on their payments without the complications of a large mortgage company acting in its own interest.

The presentation also details how much certain firms likely saved in lieu of making the necessary loan-processing adjustments as delinquencies and foreclosures rose. Bank of America, for example, has saved more than $6 billion since 2007 by not upgrading its procedures or hiring more workers, according to the report. Wells Fargo saved about as much, with JPMorgan close behind. Citigroup and Ally bring the total saved to nearly $25 billion.

The presentation adds that the under-investment far exceeds the proposed $5 billion penalty that has been on the table. People familiar with the matter say the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency wants to fine the industry less than $5 billion.

The alleged shortchanging of homeowners has prolonged the housing market’s woes, experts say, because distressed homeowners who are prime candidates to have their payments reduced aren’t getting loan modifications and lenders are taking up to two years to seize borrowers’ homes.

The average borrower in foreclosure has been delinquent for 537 days before actually being evicted, up from 319 days in January 2009, according to Lender Processing Services, a data provider.

The prolonged housing pain has manifested itself in various ways.

Purchases of new U.S. homes dropped last month to the slowest pace on record, according to the Commerce Department. Prices declined to the lowest level since 2003, according to the National Association of Realtors. About 6.9 million homeowners were either delinquent or in foreclosure proceedings through February, according to LPS.

A penalty of about $25 billion — based on mortgage servicing costs avoided — would have “little effect” on the five firms’ capital levels, according to the presentation, since the five banks collectively hold about $500 billion in tangible common equity, the highest form of capital. Those numbers notwithstanding, banks and Republicans in Congress have complained that such a large penalty would have a disproportionate impact on bank balance sheets, hurting their ability to lend or pay dividends to investors.

The presentation adds that given the extent of negative equity — underwater homeowners owe $751 billion more than their homes are worth, according to data provider CoreLogic — “we have gravitated towards settlement solutions that enable asset liquidity and cast a wide net.” The solution is an emphasis on reducing mortgage debt and enabling short sales, thus allowing borrowers to refinance into more affordable loans or to sell their homes and move on.

Top Federal Reserve officials and other economists have pointed to the large numbers of underwater homeowners as being one of the reasons behind high unemployment, as underwater homeowners are unable to move to where the jobs are. More than 23 percent of homeowners with a mortgage are underwater, according to CoreLogic.

The proposed settlement, as envisioned by the consumer agency, could reduce loan balances for up to three million homeowners. If mortgage firms targeted their efforts at reducing mortgage debt for three million homeowners who owe as much as their homes are worth or have less than 5 percent equity, the total cost would be $41.8 billion, according to estimates cited in the presentation.

If firms lowered total mortgage debt for three million homeowners who are underwater by as much as 15 percent and brought them to 5 percent equity, that would cost more than $135 billion, according to the presentation. That would include reducing second mortgages and home equity lines of credit.

In its presentation, the consumer agency said the new program, titled “Principal Reduction Mandate,” could be “meaningfully additive to HAMP” — the Home Affordable Modification Program, the Obama administration’s primary mortgage modification effort.

The CFPB estimates that there are about 12 million U.S. homeowners underwater, most of whom are not delinquent, according to its presentation. Of those, nine million would be eligible for this new principal-reduction scheme born from the foreclosure deal. The new initiative would then “mandate” three million permanent modifications.

News of the level of the consumer agency’s involvement in the state investigation would likely be welcomed by consumer and homeowner advocates, who have long complained of the lack of attention paid to distressed borrowers by federal bank regulators like the OCC and the Federal Reserve.

But Republicans will pounce on the news, creating yet another distraction for a fledgling bureau that was the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s efforts to reform the financial industry in the wake of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Meanwhile, the banking industry will likely celebrate government infighting as attention is diverted away from allegations of bank wrongdoing and towards the level of involvement of Elizabeth Warren, a fierce consumer advocate and the principal original proponent of an agency solely dedicated to protecting borrowers from abusive lenders.

Warren is standing up the agency on an interim basis. It formally launches in July, at which point it will need a Senate-confirmed director in order to carry out its full authority. One of those areas will be how mortgage firms process home loans for distressed borrowers.

A spokeswoman for JPMorgan Chase declined to comment. Spokespeople for the other four banks were not immediately available for comment.

63 Responses

  1. true… but ultimately, like the how a wise man once said: Corruption never has been compulsory.

  2. Steve,

    All is up to the judge — and the discovery that is allowed. And, even if you get discovery — what you get – is what you get — that is all.

    I have – since the time I started posting here — stated that much will not be done without complete and thorough investigation by authorities.

    Fact that they want a “settlement” before an investigation — is disconcerting – to say the least.

    As far as fraud statutes — believe that is the way it should be.


    I wasn’t intending to introduce new concepts. It was just an observation since I didn’t find much out there related to the subject but I see your point.

    Regarding fraud, borrower prior to foreclosure uses due diligence sending averment notice to servicer requesting all copies of origination. Servier denies being originator.
    Borrower sends same averment notice to originator. Letters come back rejected and unable to forward. Phones disconnected.

    The only location of original loan records is with custodian of PSA. Borrower has no knowlege of PSA existence until shown in Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale and even then borrower wouldn’t have thought to look. So fraud statues couldn’t commence at origination if borrower is sending notice. Correct?

    So does average Joe borrower have any access or right to get loan records from Custodians Fire Proof Vault?

    And why is Custodian of mortgage loans and Trustee behalf of Investor buying the foreclosures?

  4. DyingTruth,

    Quality Loan appears to be another LPS. Tells you little as to path of loan.

    Federal Government?? Maybe involved as 1) was a Freddie/Fannie loan as the govt. now owns F/F. But, if this is case — loan probably put in default before it was even defaulted on (insurance fraud) — collection rights likely sold anyway 2) was a failed institution – and FDIC is involved — but they likely sold off collections rights too.
    3) as security holders for Maiden Lane acquired securities. But, security holders are not the creditor. Do not possess collection rights.

    So not sure how Fed Govt would hire Quality Loan – or any other default loan servicer — or default law firm – to proceed with foreclosure. But, for sure Quality Loan did not act on it’s own behalf.

    Not that I am fan of the Fed Govt. — by far – not so. But, Fed Govt.’s goal is to dispose of any collection rights they may hold under certain circumstances. It is not their goal to make a profit on foreclosed properties. The secret – and concealment is — who do they dispose of collection rights to???. The government is great at concealment.

    Govt. has always been outspoken as to distressed debt disposal.

  5. boots,

    I remember that Quality Loan conducted your trustee sale. Quality is an empty shell company, with an expired license and zero employees registered with Cal Dep of Corp (check their website). Quality is just the sheep’s clothing over McCarthy & Holthus who represents Quality as their Attorney and manages all of their ‘trustee’, eviction etc. operations.

    Who has hired them is a little hard to swallow for some people. Honestly, it’s the Federal Government. They are on the west coast counsel roster for foreclosure services (kind of like the California version of Ben Ezra & Katz).

  6. anonymous,

    you have a good point, maybe these attorneys representing all the defendants could be representing insurance company for subrogation claim. i wonder if Neil could address this issue.

  7. boots

    Want to point out that even attorneys, not just pro-se, are having difficulty in courts. One reason is that little or no discovery is allowed.

    You pose a great question in #5. I suspect that “servicer” attorneys may actually be working for the likes of entities such as LPS. I have seen these same attorneys then also represent the trustee. And, I have seen cases in which borrower is not in default — but same law firm (as for those in default) represents servicer and trustee. This supports my contention that many were in false default before they even defaulted.

    I have seen other attorneys represent multiple banks and originators — sometimes in same case. I suspect, but cannot confirm, that these attorneys may actually be representing some insurance corp.

    There is no way to answer this question because judges do not question attorneys on their representation. But, like you, I would love to have this answer.

  8. Anonymous,
    you are correct that we need strong judges to understand how this “GAME” played by debt collectors influence the outcome of each case esp. if you are a pro-se.

    1. how could these entities claiming to be” trustees” under a deed of trust , such as NDEX West, Quality, TD, Cal-western and etc, when they are in fact disclosing under FDCPA a mini- warning that such as ” we are attempting to collect a debt” if they are not a debt collectors under FDCPA ?

    2. These pretender “trustees” have favorable court ruling esp. in Ca using the word ” trustee” Pro Value vs. Quality Cal. App. 4th 579 (2005) the Trustee is merely a ministerial actors providing procedural notices and performing statutority actions in advancement of non- judicial foreclosure. on this particular decision , the plaintiffs Pro- Value did not dispute the role of Quality as the “trustee” but rather disputing the role of Quality as “trustee” for selling the property and disputing how much interest rate Quality would pay based on the amount of the sale price. this decision has nothing to do with FDCPA.
    But most attorneys used this decision in Ca. to prove that “trustee” has limited function. sometimes we have a stupid court decisions that derived from stupid arguments from stupid attorneys esp. when you were never been given a chance to argue the case in the state & federal court.

    3. i believed that these debt collectors including loan servicer, pretender trustees, debt collectors attorneys are number ” FRAUDSTER & SCAMMER”
    in these foreclosure fraud. they invented the word ‘ ROBO- SIGNER’ on their fabricated documents such as assignment of deed, NOD, Substitution of trustee, trustee’s deed upon sale through fraudulent auction in front court house to make it legitimate auction, and their “affidavits” in support of their motions. the debt collectors have to create this documents in order to comply foreclosure laws in each states.

    4. did you notice if you sue MERS, the loan servicer, the pretender trustee, the securitize trust and its trustee, all most of the defendants were represented by one law firm?
    5. now the questions who’s really paying the attorneys representing all the defendants? my guess is probably someone we really did not know. probably another party in the dark.
    6. anonymous, can you answer my no. 5 question please? thanks.

  9. boots,

    Excellent post.

    The reason why we have had so few meaningful modifications — and why banks and the likes of Jamie Dimon claim they will not do principal reductions — is because they cannot do them. Someone else now owns the collection rights.

    Even when you win in court, and a “settlement” is on the table (which most judges push), you will have difficulty settling because the named party is not the current real party.

    It will take a strong judge (since government will not)– who is not afraid of exposing the systematic fraud – to expose the truth.

  10. i still have pending cases against AHMSI, the debt collectors don’t want to admit that they are one because if they did, it expose the debt collectors agency into unsecured loan because they are consider a junk debt buyers. there is nothing wrong as being a debt collectors, the problems is their behaviors in collecting the debts. that is why FDCPA were created to protect consumers. These debt collectors misrepresented that they are the secured creditors, they are substituted trustees in order to comply foreclosures laws in each states.
    in my opinion, when you received a notice of default there is a disclosure that stated that they are a debt collectors attempting to collect a debt and you have 30 days to dispute the amount of debt. this is the first step a debt collectors will do use the NOD in order to collect. if you disputed the amount, then you could sent a Debt Validation Letter to a debt collectors to dispute the amount and use FDCPA as your ammunition. usually these debt collectors will not answers your debt validation letter.
    then if you pay the amount in default then there is no foreclosure or trustee sale. but if you sent them a debt validation expect after 90 days ( it depends on the state laws) these debt collectors will become your “SUBSTITUTED TRUSTEE UNDER YOUR DEED OF TRUST” that is why the substituted trustee were recorded in the county where the property is located after the notice of default has been mailed to the borrowers. even if you received the NOTICE of TRUSTEE SALE , the was still a disclosure that the pretender Trustee is attempting to collect a debt. Please review your NOD, Substitution of Trustee, Notice of Trustee sale , Assignment of deed and Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale. if you look further in your documents , the first things these debt collectors will do with the help of the foreclosure attorneys mills is to find out the secured creditor name out of their computer system and instructed loan servicer like jeffrey stephan to sign the assignment of deed in order to start the foreclosure process. sometimes the loan servicer will hire a sub-serviceror third parties vendors usually a debt collectors or a debt collectors company affiliated with the foreclosure mills attorney. if you notice different documents has been handles by different hands. like example in my case, the assignment of deed form MERS to DALT 2007-AO3, then the NOD stated that the beneficiary of my deed is MERS, then on the subs of trustee said the beneficiary is my loan servicer which is AHMSI the discrepancy of all informations could tell that all the documents were created by different hands who has no experience in handling of how the chain of title needs to be followed. the debt collectors cut corners in doing this foreclosure fraud.
    no loan modification is allowed because most of the defaulted loans has been bought by private investors or junk debt buyers or hedge managers. those who bought by volumes of defaulted promissory notes were given no assurance that they notes they bought could be challenge in the court.
    The notice of default is a collection of a debts through a possession of promissory note and, on the other hand you could foreclose on a deed of trust.
    this is where the separation of deed and notes apply. if the the promissory notes becomes unsecured, then the deed cannot suffer default because the deed has no obligation to pay.
    there are a lot of incompetent attorneys i’ve known during the course of my litigations and through Bk that they would file a Proof of claim naming other entities as secured creditor while at the same time on their motion for relief from stay , it would name different secured creditors with matching affidavit of supports from a robo- signers that contradicts the Proof of Claims. the end result of these stupid attorneys , their proof of claims and their motion for relief can be challenge in BK court. if BK court find out the inconsistency of the informations then the promissory notes becomes unsecured.

  11. cubed2k

    Specific code?? NO. The consumer laws mandate compliance with the law for debt collection. That means there can be debt collection — but under the law.

  12. Steve

    AHMSI did not sell the loan to Deutsche Bank — that is what they WANT you to believe.


    The problem is that it is fraud to represent yourself as creditor — when you are not the current creditor. The FDCPA (federal law) demands disclosure — but, FDCPA has short Statute of Limitations. Fraud SOL is longer — but some states also have short fraud SOLs. However, Fraud upon the Court – has NO SOL. That is, if the wrong creditor is named — Fraud Upon the Court.

    Mortgages loans are subject to the same fraud and FDCPA SOL. (and new TILA law). New amendment to TILA demands identification of the current creditor and contact information. Beyond me – as to why attorneys are not using this law — just an oversight – in my opinion.

    If debt buyers want to play games as to identification of the creditor — go after them for fraud/fraud upon the court/FDCPA/TILA violations. Cannot collect debt under fraud — and debt collector SHOULD NOT get a second chance.

    But attorneys are weak in this area of the law. Only avenues to borrowers is violation of the law itself. Trying to introduce new concepts that will not be granted full discovery for disclosure — is worthless.

    And, will go further here — there are criminal violations in foreclosure fraud. Time to look at what is blatantly falsely stated in courts of law. Tying to convince judges that some other “law” is being broken — that is not a defense to consumer fraud – -is worthless. All we have is violations of consumer law and fraud. Have to know consumer fraud law. However, the other information that implicates criminal violations — must be sent to agencies — and borrowers should group together to demand investigation.

  13. Dying truth and Anonymous,

    Do you not think this has anything to do with ABS and MBS and RMBS?

  14. Anonymous & dying truth:

    I f I had a credit card with JP Money Chase me bank, and I used $5k of the $5k credit they gave me, and then I defaulted, and then they attempted to contact me and they were not successful, and they wrote off the debt, and then they sold the wrote-off debt for lets say 10 cents on the dollar or $500 to another company that collects debts,

    so, what specific california civil code states that I must pay the collection company the original debt of 5k?

  15. so Anonymous, dying truth,

    If credit card was defaulted by a person, and credit card company sold debt to another company, what specific california civil code says the defaulted person has to pay the collection company? What specific code?

    Do you know the answer?

  16. Anonymous & Dying Truth:

    thanks for replay.

    Dying Truth:

    SECTION 1427-1428

    1427. An obligation is a legal duty, by which a person is bound to
    do or not to do a certain thing.

    Ý1428.] Section Fourteen Hundred and Twenty-eight. An obligation
    arises either from:
    One–The contract of the parties; or,
    Two–The operation of law. An obligation arising from operation of
    law may be enforced in the manner provided by law, or by civil
    action or proceeding.

    what/where is the contract between collection company and person who defaulted on debt?

    And what does Two mean?

  17. If we stay wimps, we will go down. Our so called founding fathers were not wimps, and they prevailed. You have to have a strong, positive outlook. Kick their butts. Burmese8@yahoo.com

  18. I understand but AHMSI sold the home to Deutsche and trying to explain fraud to a judge let a lone find a lawyer in Calif. non-judicial was impossible.
    My main hang up was how did the scummy broker fraud the income. Easy, but now I’m just starting to figure it out. The Genesis 2000 Inc. mortgage software I talked about where my loan app was created by the broker has file extensions such as .sty, .uut, .let,. The extension “.let” can allow you to open the file with Adobe .pdf. You then get a copy of Adobe Writer/Editor and you can change what ever you like. I have a copy of my loan app. on .pdf and tested this yesterday to make sure. During the fraud years all loans were sent using .pdf files. This article explains the process.


    If I get my hands on the program to demonstrate or even get a broker to admit that this method can be done then wouldn’t that put a huge halt on this fraud crisis.

    I’ve found little on how the documents got transferred and what software programs were used.

  19. Louise

    Very likely that Wilbur – himself — is your creditor.

  20. Steve, AHMSI is not the creditor. They are a servicer. A servicer that does not have a legal assignment cannot foreclose and does not own the debt. You are supposed to have a creditor, a servicer, a trust where the securitized debt was sold into. However, if you put it in a trust, you have sold it. Now, it cannot be sold again. So, you tell everybody you put it in the trust, but you don’t. Then you sell it multiple times to investors as MBS. Fraud and more fraud. Look at the records at the county recorder’s office and look them over very carefully. Burmese8@yahoo.com

  21. Steve

    Wilbur is a distressed debt buyer. I have pointed out the coal mining incident — in which coal miners died because Wilbur “forgot” to install safety requirements on his distressed debt coal mine investment.

    Wilbur purchased the whole package with his acquisition of Option One/AHMSI. The servicing rights included collection rights on non-performing debt.

    Can someone help LInda in Arkansas?

  22. Lousie,

    The Dept. of Corporations in California back in 2007 pulled the licenses because ABC, AHM and AHMSI were all the same. Actually AHM was parent and ABC and AHMSI were subsidies. ABC and AHMSI filed for BK within one week of each other in August. And we both know they were at 538 Broadhollow Melville New York.

    So when Wilbur Ross buys them and he continues to service the loans. Is he released from liability to send clients their documents or did he go out and buy more than he can afford?

    I get burned out writing letters to AHMSI getting replies saying they are not the originator. Problem is are they or are they not the originator?

    Plus my loan closing docs say AHM. Heck my 1st payment went to AMHSI in Aug. 2006

  23. Steve, ABC went bankrupt in August 2007. The assignment of mortgage starts when ABC supposedly funded the transaction and moves the loan to AHMSI. They did not do that and defunct entitites cannot assign anything. The bankruptcy Trustee would have to do that. Burmese8@yahoo.com

  24. from the article:

    Here are seven charts (and another that was borrowed from the Wall Street Journal) along with some facts and figures that will help sketch out the scope of the problem.


  25. PLEASE HELP! Recontrust stole house in Arkansas and reconveyed to Freddie Mac. Judge threw our lawsuit out with lies! No court, no notice!

  26. First — not Cathy – and I am not Anonymous (small letters) posting any reference to anyone’s business. Do not care what anyone’s business is — just want results for homeowners.

    Second — I am aware of Liquidating trusts (see LIQUIDATING TRUSTS: A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE FOR FUNDING NON-PERFORMING MORTGAGES — by DBRS — for a good explanation). These trusts are not the creditor either. Usually trustee for both original trust, and liquidating trust, and for swap administration — is the same. Under all three cases — the trustee — again, is not the creditor – and neither is the servicer. And, loan must still be validly conveyed to original trust – unlikely that it was. A liquidating trust – is not the original trust — and does not have the same “investors/debt buyers.”


    I agree with you. Unfortunately, courts do not. However, if courts are given accurate information on discounted debt that is purchased for pennies on the dollar, perhaps their view would change. This is not divulged in courts because debt buyers stand a better chance of success if they name the original creditor — not the current creditor debt buyer of the charged-off debt. Paying these “current” debt buyers is useless as your credit will always reflect non-payment to the original creditor.

    Until courts understand the truth, BK is best option. And, becoming more apparent that charged-off mortgage loans may also fit this criteria.

    TARP OVERSIGHT PANEL REPORT — again, FN 35 is important —

    “Both the note and the mortgage need to be properly transferred. Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

    During the subprime fiasco heyday – refinances were nothing more that a modification of the prior “default debt”. Thus, new mortgage is not a mortgage — and, as FN states — “without the mortgage a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

    The fact that so many – including mortgage brokers – profited from the scam — is criminal. But, we cannot even get valid and meaningful modifications. Why?? The government does not want you to have one — if they did, we would not be jumping through hoops to save our homes.

  27. Goodmorning and peace out guys… Learned a new term… Kangaroo court … We don’t get kicked out we get bounced out.

  28. in my case the bankster issued a note with their name on it, however, in the closing instructions, they named Lehman and Aurora as the actual new owner of the loan ana aurora as the servicer. this is prior to zettlement. now they are fofeclosing under their name because they never transfered the note, on which they posted a blank endorsement

    i fear they are going to get a free house and several attorneys tell me they can do this because they hold the note, the DOT had mers on it.

  29. Hey Maher S.- whatever happened to “there’s no such thing as a dumb question”? Can you at least give me credit for a line of thought that will get me kicked out of court? For cryin out loud. Imagine the humiliation-“yeah,they kicked him out”
    How’s this for a question: What do you know about double-funding, where the perpetrator had the audacity to record said (bogus) loan in the county land records, and has, unbelieveably forwarded the bogus settlement sheet to my atty? This was yesterday. Does this void everything else filed afterward? Chew on that for awhile. I’ll be waiting for a reponse, sitting on the sidewalk outside the coourthouse after I get kicked out.

  30. cubed2k

    If you live in CA here you go > http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=civ&codebody=&hits=20

    TITLE 1. DEFINITION OF OBLIGATIONS ………………………. 1427-1428”

    up to “TITLE 1.4B. SUPERMARKET CLUB CARDS ………………… 1749.60-1749.66”

    and I’m sure elsewhere. It’s not so much that you broken a law is that (allegedly) you entered into a binding obligation difined by law that prescribes remedies which can be sought if the creditor isn’t satisfied with your performance.

  31. Louise- that is the clearest,simplest point made here this month! Any idea if others have used that or similar in court and what happened?

    A void ab initio will like maritime law and the constitution of the United States -GET YOU THOWN OUT OF COURT.

    1. You are the maker of the note they accepted
    2. You provided the deed in one action state and
    3. You grant deeded your home to a sale
    4. The grant deed was to a title company as a fiduciary
    5. A trustee for title or substituted trustee or trustee’s agent only can hold the collateral as an insured custodian
    6. A practitioner acting under the FDCPA is not a fiduciary or acting incidental to a fiduciary
    7. There is no note, DUE TO DIVESTITURE. Only stock held in bankruptcy court
    8. The foreclosure is for a cyber-loan and moral obligation
    9. You may never win on even a moral obligation as evidenced over history
    10. You a title holder to realty and you can defend title from adverse and hostile claims to title if conditioned subsequent to any interest held.


    [Nothing herein is to be construed as legal advice – see your state bar for a list of attorneys who can assist you]


    (I mean no disrespect to NG – just that he is not being accurately quoted)

  32. Roger WTF Stop …Please —-Stop. NG can meet me on a broadcast radio cast or any cast to debate the soundness of what you’re saying. “D”. Bank is a Trustee and administration for the Preferred Trust Asset. There is a deeper darker story here …but please…..you do not have all the facts …as I gave them to your TWO YRS AGO Please Gibberish

  33. MSOLIMAN, on March 31, 2011 at 1:19 am said:

    M. SOLIMAN of nationwide loan services received an f rating, the lowest rating they have from the BBB in Los Angeles ca. what’s up? cathy said

    Cathy Aka Abby and Mas …we sold / closed that in 2001 -that’s the BBB name you submitted and want people to believe.
    Don’t do this on line anymore. Our attorneys were right on the slander – you cannot stop or resist can you.

  34. M. Soliman of Nationwide Loan Services received an F rating, the lowest rating they have from the BBB in Los Angeles Ca. What’s up?

    Cathy Aka Abby and MAS …we sold / closed that in 2001 -Thats the BBB Name you subitted and want people to belive. Shame shame …hmmmm

    Don’t do this on lline anymore . Our attorneys were right on the slander angel. You cannot stop or resist can you .

    The BBB Give me a break

  35. It probably doesnt mean anything

  36. Anonymous were you refering to this link?


  37. M. Soliman of Nationwide Loan Services received an F rating, the lowest rating they have from the BBB in Los Angeles Ca. What’s up?

  38. btw if you dont think the government didnt know about this from day 1…high up officals…your asleep. they are the ones who set it up and the banks took full advantage of it and you and I are the foder to this mess.

    the ceos were licking their chops all the way to thier personal bank accounts.

    also if u were offended at some of my comments so be it. I know many of you feel just as I do, you just dont want to express it. Me personally am pissed off beyond reason. The event has stressed me to no end with a uncertain housing future.

    If you we all gather we could probably do something about it. Unfortunatly we have all left it in the hands of our government and lawayers who actually will reap the benefits of this whole mess.

  39. oh so what I was saying 2 years agao didnt hold any water…so what I fought to retain my house and lost everything because of it why??

    now it is coming to light that the HOPE program was an impotent piece of legislature, that the mortgage companies are ripping ppl off left and right….that a home I was never late or missed a payment on that I am now 10K under it. These things my fault..

    NO, ex JPM employee (not lending mind you, but rather maintaining a database) of 10 years. Laid off just because those corp pigs lost money, those same corp pigs are utilizing my DB that I developed saving them millions of dollars a year, in which prior to me they were writing government equipment off because they were tracking 400K pieces of equipment over 33 states in excell spreadsheets. I alone was the one that brought that error ratio from 20% to below 1%. Thus saving both JPM and the government millions…

    fuck them all…fuck the government for being just limp dick cocksuckers and having no teeth and fuck the banks. If you ask me these corporate pigs should be hung by the neck by the people for the people.

    at this pint they can choke on my house, Im leaving it and the foreclosure process hasnt even started yet. I will make the property value plummet and they could try to sell it with 8 other homes on my dead end street. Furthermore I put money into the house in which I do plan on taking my equity with me.

    I figure I have paid half of my mortgage already and my prinicleple as barely moved. Which i was ok with up until this mess. When Wilshire sold my loan 2 weeks before my trial being accepted to BOA and then BOA after draggin me along for 6 months said that I was never in a modification, I told Jason Sanchez the congressional liason and Pedro somethingrather the senior quality assurance analyst with the presidents office to bite me and that I will not make another payment.

    I may not be able to sue them for breach of a singed contract but that doesnt mean I just wont leave the home and as joe six pack indicated, there is no law saying that I cant…the worst they can do is try to sue me at which point they (and I will make sure of it) will set themselves up for everything they did to me to come up in a court of law. They way i see I didnt voilate any laws, but they did.

    btw someone stated jail time for the CEO’s. They deserve far worse as they would prob get minimum security. They need ferderal time so they can get ass raped by bubba.

  40. I know nothing and if I think I know something I know nothing. I do not give legal advice because I don’t know legal things.

    The Title…let’s think this through.
    If it belonged to the bank, why didn’t they just hold on to in the transaction, securitize the note, and later if they got a default, they keep the title…Ta Da…no foreclosure.

    If the title belonged to me, the bank isn’t going to let me keep it; because on a ‘supposed loan’ you have to put something up as collateral, and it has to be of value, and the value has to equal or exceed the value of the loan.

    If the title belonged to me, and I couldn’t keep it to ensure I kept my end of the bargain, paid back the loan, and got the title back, then what are we in disagreement about?

    The bank, appointed a trustee to hold the title. The instructions were, “whoever had the note and an interest secured in the home”, could approach the trustee to get the title.

    Now the trustee could be removed at any time as long as some corporation had the note AND a security interest (be it the original Deed/Mortgage or a Deed/Mortgage by Assignment).

    So who’s title is it?

    The Trustee did not put up the title nor the loan, so they are holding the Title in “trust” for the ‘private agreement of two parties.”

    Who’s title is it?

    Any bank or servicer THAT KNOWS the Trustee is holding the title and that there was a ‘private agreement’ where payment was to be made.

    Who’s title is it?

    One member of the private party, who had a private agreement where they put the title up as collateral for payment of a loan, but the other party abandoned the agreement and abandoned the ‘trust’ leaving it with no ‘beneficiary’, so the Trustee has no ‘trust’ to manage, and the Homeowner is the grantor of the trust and the trust is holding the Grantor’s property as collateral.

    Who’s title is it?

    One member of the private party, who had a private agreement where they put the title up as collateral for payment of a loan, but the other party was careless with the security and didn’t properly transfer the Deed when they transferred the Note, so they do not have possession of both, and although they have a secured interest and access to the title, they can’t demand payment because they don’t have the loan.

    The only way this last one can get any money is in the sale of the home. They could negotiate a contract to release the encumbrance so the homeowner can get the title back from the trustee, and then sell the home and the new buyer pays off the encumbrance when the put the title up with a trustee to hold as collateral for a new loan.

    There’s absolutely no reason for all the GREED that has happened today except someone bought into a business model that is flawed and is trying to make it work in fraud.

    If a beneficiary abandons the trust without assigning the beneficial interest to another party the trust is void and unenforceable.

    No one can ‘pretend’ to be the beneficiary and assign the trust ‘after’ the beneficiary abandons it.

    All of this Hoo-Haa about these mortgages are snake oil. The more they bicker back and forth about a settlement as if there is something to settle, the more the ‘people’ who have no clue will ‘feel grateful’ someone is willing to settle with them and ‘let them keep paying someone for their own property.’.

    AG’s can’t do anything except get people their stolen property back, but they can’t make us enter into another ‘unconscionable agreement’ to get it back..thus the ‘moral hazard’.

    If everyone realized they could stop paying because by law, their very own statutory law, they can sue on the note but foreclose on the mortgage and they DON’T have the mortgage, then the courts should be filled with lawsuits, but not foreclosures.

    AG’s cannot create a law, or overturn a law, nor negotiate the violation of a law that impairs the obligations of contracts.

    Thus the dilemma.

    What will happen?

    Probably those that didn’t throw away their wealth through bankruptcy to keep their house, will throw away their ‘right to get THEIR title back’ by entering into an agreement with the people who wants to steal it.

    Me, I know my rights, I asserted my rights and by judgment of man my rights (and universal right, ie Free Will) was violated.

    I care not what man, AG, do about this because there is a scarlet letter of shame upon the Creator, living and breathing, who for the sake of a fiction, removed the Creator from the experience of home ownership.

    The Creator is within, and can have an overt role in one’s life or a covert role in one’s life. Each of us can choose a path in the creation to take as long as we don’t violate the rights of another in the Creation…thus all are equal and One….judges know this, but they forgot who they were while they only ‘occupied the office’ of being a judge, but they really cannot judge for they are judged by what they do.

    It’s all a balancing act in the creation and it’s all about contracts.

    The banking/servicing fiction had a flaw in their contract enforcement and once broken you can’t go back and fix it, you have to start over.

    Because of what has been done, I can tell you, ‘man’ no longer controls that which they thought they controlled. Sort of like Atlantis getting power that was out of their control and being destroyed, yet there is still life on this planet.

    Secret be told: Each action made by man has a vibrational frequency, good actions increase the vibrations, bad actions slow it down. Man cannot set their vibration level except by their deeds. The creation knows any male or female’s vibration because the thought/action/deed sets the vibration male/female is in.

    The banks, Band Of America, Wachovia, Wells Fargo, etc, aren’t alive so they don’t have vibrational changes like living man has. They vibrate as buildings, but they don’t have a choice to vibrate as wood or brick or cement. They are what they are.

    But man, by his vibration sets how he will be judged, and a time will come where those that vibrate at a lower frequency will not be able to share the same space as us who vibrate in a higher frequency of Light and Love.

    So I don’t care that a judge has helped an attorney, help a VP, or Senior VP, or CEO of a bank or mortgage company steal my home.

    When it’s all said and done, they will be gone, the bank buildings will be gone, the paper the Deed or Mortgage or even the Eviction or Writ of Possession will be gone, and all the computers that held the digits that referenced the bogus transactions will be wiped out.

    What will remain is land, where no one has title, or claim, and I’ll be walking that land, picking out a place to build my shelter and when that time comes, I will be have inherited what was rightfully mine.

    Rest easy people, the time is coming. I ask that you not lose yourselves in this. The battle was won as soon as it began, it just needed people to take sides so the Creation can know who to remove and who to let remain to live out their life without interference from another who is ‘equal and one’.

    The time is close, Mayans knew it, I know it, just relax. Let them talk, let them make all the plans they want, let them test the waters by leaking all kinds of nonsense about a settlement.

    It’s stolen…it will be returned. It never belonged to them.

    Quote this opinion:
    “The operated in an estate for which they had NO authority to do so, and the estate owner is coming to provide Notice and Demand that the property WILL be returned to the heirs of the estate.”

    My home was stolen. I am the true heir to the property in the Estate. I will get access to my inheritance. The unwinding is going on and on going…

    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, alive, allodial, corporeal, adult, life, free, freeman, live born, born alive, whole blood, in jure divino, in jure proprio

  41. Anonymous, you posted this comment on another story Neil posted on the right.

    “If proper creditor is not identified in any debt collection or court action, you still owe the debt because “collection rights” have been sold but that creditor never identified itself to you — or proved it’s right to collect..
    Even if insurance has paid off “investors” — collection rights — not the debt itself — is sold elsewhere at steep discount to the actual charged-off debt. Servicers have long concealed who purchases collection rights. Foreclosures are nothing more than an extension of credit card debt collection (rights) – which has been abused in courts for a very long time. What is needed to be determined is the party who is actually asserting debt collection rights — and the validity of “assignment/sale” of those collection rights.
    All this means is that foreclosures and credit card debt collection is, and has been for a long time, fraudulent.”

    Ok, I want to ask you, Neil, Louise, E Tolle, Angry, Soliman, Federal Reserve Bank, any bank, any collection company, any lawyer reading this, anybody out that reads this,

    And this question is about credit card debt.

    The question is:

    What specific civil code, law, statue, something written somewhere in the USA, something, please something as a law, federal code, civil code, something, black law, something,

    that specifically states if you do not pay your credit card, what happens?

    So, me Joe Six Pack living in the USA, I do not pay my credit card, min due or in full, what have I broken to get me in trouble?

    Me, Joe six pack, runs a red light, cop is there, see’s me do this, specific civil code or law is mentioned, you are fined X amount of dollars. Pretty simple.

    So, if I do not pay my credit card:

    What code, law, etc have I violated?

    If credit card company wrote off my unpaid debt, and they sell the wrote off debt to another company, what code, law, etc gives them the right to collect from me?

    If a public company writes off an unpaid debt for tax purposes, what gives them the right to sell written off debt to another to collect? What code or specific rule allows this?

    What rule, code, law, etc. gives collection company right to collect debt if they purchased it, and what rule, law. code, etc gives them right to sue on such purchased debt (which was written off debt)?

    Who can answer these questions so Joe six pack knows the rules of the game?

  42. Anonymous why didnt they expose the Judges name? Judges are public figures. We must remind them that we pay their salaries.


  43. Neil

    Excellent post.

    Louise — you are correct – mortgages/loans — sold before borrowers signed on dotted line. And, were they even a mortgage loan? There was a reason for this. We are talking about a period of fraud that nearly collapsed the entire financial system. Decision was made — to blame the homeowners — and there has been no going back on that decision on the part of the US government. But, much, much fraud yet to be exposed.

    The A Man — yes, everyone should be making phone calls to AGs.

    This is no longer a matter about who is right or wrong as to theory — this is about dealing with a power that can silence all — no matter what your theory..

    As to settlement — look at NJ just signed settlement. In the words of the judge that signed the settlement — ”this is between the banks and the courts” — This was a comment made that was directed at last minute attempted intervention on behalf of homeowners by Legal Services and a University that attempts to help homeowners.

    What??? homeowners have no say??? These are our homes — we were the victims. Our complaints are ignored in courts and filed away by government agencies.

    Who is representing homeowners in the 50 state AG settlement agreement? The AGs?? Not likely. . Likely same scenario as NJ settlement —- that is, a scene only between the courts and the banks. Not very good odds for homeowners in that scene.

  44. I am posting this here because of the brain trust posting to this topic. I sent for the third time, information to my county recorder trying to get him to go after MERS, et al for lost revenue and this is the response I finally got. Does this sound right to anybody???

    Thank you for your interest in this issue.Colorado law does not require assignments to be recorded. Accordingly, there does not appear to be anything done that was improper under Colorado law.In addition, unlike some states that set fees providing a substantial profit, Colorado sets fees based on recovery for the work involved. Thus were they to record a number of additional instruments, our fees would simply cover the cost of recording, so there would be little or no additional net revenue.

  45. Make a call to your Attorney General today.


    A good bankster is a Jailed Bankster.


  46. Thank You Lousie,

    Just of interest

    In those multi-state forms searching for AHM-2030N “The adjustable Rate Note”

    I found this from Mortgage Banking Systems


    Document AAAPZ1

    Chances are the document came from ProClose


  47. Ann: Thank you for the followup on Showdown in America. I could not get through to the CA AG. HOWEVER, I took the time to blast an e-mail to Kamala Harris and one to Tom Miller. One thing you should know: Kamala Harris’ office NEVER responds to my complaints. Even good old JB deigned to respond (and he even had a sister who is a Countrwide exec – no wonder CA got such a lousy deal on the so-called CW settlements)

  48. DT
    urgency =
    1- law of diminishing returns… makes me want to scream.
    2- A 2-minute attention span.

    Yesterday, thousands of you called your Attorney General and demanded that they choose a side: the homeowners they’ve sworn to protect or the big banks that broke the law and bankrupted the economy. Calls were made in 47 states!

    This is no small feat. And it’s all because of you.

    Because of your call, the Attorneys General will have YOUR WORDS in mind as they sit down today with the big banks to hammer out the terms of the settlement to their fraudulent practices. They know that we will accept nothing less than a settlement that saves homes and forces the banks to pay for their crimes.

    Here’s what some of you reported after the call:

    I tried 3 different numbers to leave a message and they were all FULL! I had to keep calling back. I’m glad so many people called, I’ve been so looking forward to today!!
    I told her (the receptionist) the middle class taxpayers are not going to stand for this any longer. We are going to demand that politicians all take heed that we want change now. We are tired of the rich and corporations stealing OUR money.
    I told them to make the banks pay – that it’s OUR MONEY. We bailed them out and they’re still taking people’s homes? It was clear that MANY people are calling.

    Keep the pressure on!
    Here’s how you can continue to build our voice:

    Keep the calls coming all week. We’ve received several emails asking if people can call their Attorney Generals throughout the week. The answer is: “ABSOLUTELY!” Please continue to spread the word and call in multiple times if possible.

    Demand nothing less than a strong settlement against the big banks. Tell them:

    “My name is [________] and I am a resident of [STATE]. The Attorney General must come out in support a settlement that provides justice for millions of homeowners and holds the big banks accountable for their crimes. Nothing less is acceptable.”
    Our goal is to generate 10,000 calls and send a clear message to our Attorneys General that we need a strong settlement with the big banks. Will you be one of the 10,000 calls?

    Like our Crime Shouldn’t Pay Facebook page – Help us reach 1,000 fans! Since launching the page a week ago, there’s been an outpouring of support. We’re at JUST OVER 900 as of today – tell your friends to Like the “Crime Shouldn’t Pay” Facebook page and to call their Attorney General.
    We will keep you updated on the settlement negotiations and keep the fight going!

    Thanks for all that you do.

    Showdown in America

  50. Why is there only an urgency to help underwater homeowners and no concern for helping the people who have already been robbed of their homes and are homeless?

  51. Louise- that is the clearest,simplest point made here this month! Any idea if others have used that or similar in court and what happened?

  52. The contract (mortgage and note) is void, because the lender you thought you were participating with in the contract is not in the contract. My mortgage said ABC was my lender, but the min # on my mortgage was on there BEFORE I signed anything at the closing. That means the Note was sold to somebody else. The sombody else is not in the contract I signed. Therefore, the contract is void. Burmese8@yahoo.com

  53. Can anyone figure this out.

    1. My loan application was done on Genesis 2000 Inc. systems software

    Here is the loan officers user set up guide ( of interest).


    Here is the loan application except mine has the bar code at the bottom.


    2. The Deed of Trust, Disclosure of credit, Initial Escrow, Maine Right of attorney and others are all done by VMP mortgage solutions Software. VMP documents usually have a bar code.

    VMP solutions also supplies Prepayment Riders, addendum to note, and adjustable rate note forms on their software.

    3. My Prepay rider, Addendum to Note, Adjustable Rae Note. show AHM-####’s (multi-state) forms in bottom right hand corner.

    With three different software programs. All the forms and signatures couldn’t have been gathered until the last day of closing?

    AHMSI sent a letter saying they were not affiliated with ABC the bankrupt originator. AHMSI is AHM. How is it that AHMSI is not affiliated with ABC at the origination when I signed using AHM forms?

    If I were a lawyer, the FBI, or A.G. I wouldn’t subpoena the forms. I’d subpoena the software.

  54. Maher, glad I caught you…..
    I love you, man, the typng cooments ar just a jok. I was the only guy in 2nd year typing. It’s my time to shine! And I can’t find your number. you have my e-mails. I need to talk to you.

    neil sez: “the bank never funded the loan”

    This is true. My Wells Fargo loan was funded with a Deutsche Bank check, 3 days prior. But now we know it’s the same company. Hmmm. might mean nothing.

    the writer says:
    “the banks saved…….”

    and flooded the system with fraud.

  55. oh i forgot about the Loan Servicer function well here’s the solutions

    1. if the loan defaulted within 90 days, loan servicer must remove the defaulted loan and notify the ‘TRUSTEE’ IF SECURITIZATION LOAN, this agreement was already included on their PSA agreement anyway, instead of having to continue the default and allow loan servicer to add an inflated amount of late payments and other items to secured a windfall of profits.

    2. allowed the Trustee to make a decision of how to handle a 90 days defaulted loans. it is trustees responsibility to take care of the “trust” they are being paid for that.

    3. strip off loan servicer some responsibilities- they should only be collecting payment from the homeowners mortgage payment such as a “Bill Collectors” not A debt collectors.

    4. dont allow any loan servicer to be a debt collectors after the loan has been defaulted.

    5. don’t allow loan servicer to have a percentage interest of the loans they are servicing.

    6. don’t allow loan servicer to buy defaulted loans under their servicing.

    7. just confined this loan servicer to collect monthly mortgage payment and send it to master servicer to send it to the trustee who manage the trust.

    8. don’t’ give too much power to loan servicer, because they tends to abuse the process.

    9. don’t allow the loan servicer to keep the amount for late payments.

    10. once they received the late payments it must be disclosed and send it to master servicer and send it to the trustee and applied that payment to the stream of investors who is beneficiaries of that trust.
    we have to remember also, we are not the only ones who are victims here, the real investors who put up the money such as our pension plans, our insurance plan, private investors who pulled their resources into buying this derivatives. i believed that if homeowners are late in paying their mortgage, those late payments should go to the real investors.

    the government allowed LOAN Servicer too much power in foreclosing houses even if it cause a fraud.

  56. By the Maker to the Holder …Your the Maker – check that !

  57. MSoliman;

    Save the CEO Banksters and Poor me victim stories. People you have a world of opportunity here . Really Get off this Banksters stuff . . .Read you civil code in a one action state and or court rules of procedure in a civil action state. Go line by line through it, more than a couple of times. Highlight and re-read all the deed or mortgage terms as well as the note.

    Include in your notes all the terms and conditions as set forth by the holder *y*o*u! In other words show us where they breached the terms of the private parties contract upon accepting the note and mortgage YOU gave them.

    These banking fools are whatever….let it go! Focus, they are Defendant who knowingly foreclosed on you , the plaintiff’s property while negotiations were pending and “you” the plaintiffs were not notified of a sale date by defendant and trustee of the property being sold.

    Your complaint should not lack merit with all this substance in this menagerie of malfeasances. But it’s not in the Wall Street side of things. It’s in your states civil code e of procedures. Get it. They breach and agreement your provided and they did by engaging a misjoinder of parties and by estopping the rules and laches, , just cite unlawful estopples when you meet with counsel.

    You’re the complainants who allege that there was an “illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive sale of property under a power of sale contained in a mortgage or deed of trust. In California start with the basic – ” munger v. moore (1970) 11 cal. app.3d. 1. You’re therefore a Plaintiff filing action for belief for claims and on supposition of fact that merit alleging a wrongful foreclosure action brought “Before” and “not After” the non-judicial foreclosure sale or Sheriff’s sale. .

    It’s the case you bring after that’s killing your chances.

  58. They never funded the loan and they never purchased the receivable. . . . .

    I’m not so sure about that and ….that seem’s a little off base with what you have proffered over the years Neil.
    1) Are you saying the ABA Fed Wire is not real; no debt against member bank regulatory capital accounts ?
    2) If they never purchased a receivable then what is your definition of a transfer of value in for liabilities or posting a liabiltiy as an asset in a sale of securities?

    Anyway , if your correct on these assumptions are you then saying the lender is the true holder in due course?

    I’m lost, are you saying that the alleged particpantation in these deceptive schemes did not involve the purchase and sale of toxic receivables?


  59. why banks are more focus on savings money than to address why there were foreclosures fraud in the first place? once this foreclosure s fraud will properly address, then the pretender lenders should do this following:

    1. stop hiring foreclosure mills
    2. . stop hiring a debt collectors who assumed to be the substituted trustee if they can’t collect though unrecorded notice of default.
    3. stop hiring third vendors who has unclean hands on the foreclosures.
    4. reach out those homeowners who has been wrongfully foreclosed on their property and if still vacant, allow to go back and have their loan modify with a principal reduction.
    5. if allowed to be modified, make sure the transaction should go to an escrow and identified the lender of the new transaction and have MERS not be a part of the DEED of Trust and the deed must be rewrite with an agreement that the transaction of the modification is not subject to “securitization” nor the promissory note could be sold and the lenders who is financing the modification must be held the modification loans in their “portfolio loan” for ten years until the homeowners refinance or sell the property.
    6. those homeowners who’s properties has been sold wrongfully must be paid according to their claim damages if proven that the foreclosures documents were sign by robo-signers.
    7. lenders should seek damages from the third parties vendors from whom they hired who uses robo-signers to speed up the foreclosures process to share in paying damages to the homeowners.
    8. lenders must settles all pending cases now in court by way of court settlements. instead of this foreclosure mills attorney making money of their legal fees.
    if lenders stop cutting corners, they will achieve their goal in helping distress properties and homeowners we can take back our community and start reviving our looming economy by starting paying our property taxes, taking care our property and i think we could help in achieving this goal.
    there is no size fits all solution when it comes to foreclosure settlements, each cases is different.
    these lenders should reach out to all defaulted homeowners in good faith instead of allowing our AG to dictates how much amount they will pay each homeowners who were victims of their fraud. anyway, IT WAS THESE LENDERS WHO PUT US INTO THIS SITUATION.

  60. The real cost is in the trillions. Any settlement less and letting a few C.E.O.s free from jail is nothing but a slap in the face for the US homeowner.

    Demand nothing less than accountability, justice
    and jail time for these theives.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: