OCC Decree Examined With Strategic Implications


COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE

by Patrick Pulatie
> In April, when the OCC Consent Decree came out, I reviewed it
> extensively, and the Foreclosure Review findings previously done by the
> OCC.
> I adapted my foreclosure exam to meet and exceed ALL the guidelines of
> the OCC Decree. Then, I contacted the OCC personally to see what it took
> to be one of the firms that would conduct the review.
> The OCC explained that each lender had the discretion to hire the firm
> of their choice, so I immediately knew that the whitewash would be in.
> Even then, I contacted the lenders and servicers about my exam, and was
> told that the firms had been selected. So, that was dead.
> In the Decree, the lenders do not have to reveal their findings to
> anyone but the OCC. The OCC will not publish findings.
> Only a sampling of foreclosures will be conducted, not every foreclosure
> as the article suggests. Those foreclosures sampled will be kept secret,
> and the homeowners not notified of what is found.
> The program for concerned homeowners being established by the OCC means
> little. It is left up to the lenders to review complaints.
> Now, the important news. How to fight this.
> 1. You need a competent attorney.
> 2. You need a Foreclosure Exam, compliant with the OCC Decree.
> 3. You use the Exam and the Decree to allege wrongful foreclosure.
> Now, there are critical things in the Decree that you must be aware of.
> 1. Nebulous arguments are not going to work. You need to be able to
> argue your points, with proof to back them up, and to meet a heightened
> pleading standard.
> 2. The Consent Decree identifies that MERS is an agent for lenders. So
> attempting to argue MERS will be extremely difficult, unless you
> understand your state laws. Even then, thanks to the OCC, there may be a
> claim of Federal Preemption, but in some states, the MERS issue may be
> valid.
> (There are other issues, but I am not going to educate firms claiming to
> do exams that don’t have a clue how to interpret this stuff.)
> Know this.
> The lenders have arguments that they will present as to why your
> arguments are not valid. Your attorney and examiner need to know what
> these arguments are ahead of time, and how to write the complaint so as
> to avoid these arguments.
> You cannot do this Pro Se. An attorney is needed. Period.
> Damages must be specifically alleged. If you go in and cannot be
> specific, then your lawsuit will be greatly reduced in effectiveness.
> Don’t go in thinking that you are going to get the home for free. You
> are looking for loan modification, and nothing else. Anything else will
> be ineffective.
> Now, at least you have an idea how to use the Decree to your advantage.
> One final thing.
> Most attorneys go in without a clue as to what modification terms to
> seek. Therefore, they let the lender control any argument regarding such
> terms. This gives the lender all the control in the outcome. Don’t do this.
> FYI, I have developed and have filed for patent a new product. It
> evaluates quantitatively the Default Risk of a loan. It is used for both
> approving new loans, and for determining Risk Default of Modified loans.
> At this time, two banks are involved with the product, and a major bank
> is considering it. Meetings are being held again this coming week about
> it. (No one else has such a product. In fact, the GSE’s said that it was
> too difficult to develop.)
> The Modification version allows for determining the terms that will
> lower Default Risk on modified loans. Presenting this, in context with
> modification requests, or with bankruptcy proceedings offers a powerful
> and logical reason for modification, as long as it is NPV positive.
> Patrick Pulatie
> LFI-Analytics
> http://www.lfi-analytics.com

55 Responses

  1. STAY AWAY FROM PATRICK PULATI,,,,I am disgusted that he is allowed to troll on this site trying to find new victims. He talks a good game and if he ensnares you full of promises and self accolades going on and on how his fees are $2000, on no, now it is dropping dropping dropping…(lies) then he gets his $600.00 and acts like he is working on your case day and night without rest. HA…his work comes back with sloppy numbers, guessed, and he knows it! He ignores the real violations and when you ask about it he defends the banks or says he doesn’t have dates. (Did he ask for them?) Then he says that the borrower couldn’t afford to repay, (assumption without merit)…
    OK Full warning to all my God fearing friends out there. Run the other way and get off the phone with this ridiculous person who really is all for the banks foreclosing on you. Oh and certainly do not do business with any of his fraud contacts. They are all interwoven with referral fees.
    I am going to the attorney general. On the government website is states that this analysis is fraud and a waste of money and a scam on the public!!!!

  2. Pat said:
    “Also, if you cannot afford a $3500 retainer, and you have not been making mortgage payments for several months, then what have you been doing with the mortgage payments? Using the money to live? Then how will you afford the mortgage payment again? Believe me. Judges understand this and will ask if you have been saving any money for the mortgage, and if you reply that you have not, you have just diminished your chances of winning by at least 50%”

    Pat, no, not everyone suffering in this BS debacle can afford complex litigation attorneys even though the subject mortgage is not being paid.
    We refied our 2003 mtg in mid-2005, because our son had surgery and we wanted to consolidate the balance ($215k) of our 30yr FR mtg, + a $70k 20yr FR personal loan. The prior mtgee refused a refinance (because “we didn’t make enough”), but then told us that we could refinance with its affiliate lender. Eventually, that affiliate lender qualified us for a 30yr FR (a bit more interest), telling us that our home value had appraised at $451k (exactly the amount he guessed on the app) which “saved” us $100/mo. The closing costs were abt $11k.
    We had $11k 401k, and $3k in the bank. We have children, and one breadwinner bringing home $650/wk after tax. It was a full-doc refi, and our broker knew that our son would need more surgeries. We closed at a Title Co. and our broker rushed us through the docs “because his son was in the hospital” (nice emotional play on us), and he said to give him a call if we had any questions. He never said we had a time limit, and no paper said so, either (ie, no NTC’s). When we got home, we found that there were 3 account numbers, 2 apps (one of them showing our broker as the “employee” of the lender), 2 HUD1’s, a GFE given at closing, broker agreements, escrow agreements, and an unreadable TILD. It was so confusing. We called the broker, but the secretary said we had to write. 16 days later, the number to the lender was disconnected, so we wrote letters (including to receive a copy of appraisal) but we were never able to reach him, and the servicer (who turned out to be the prior mortgagee which refused us a refi) kept telling us that it wasn’t responsible for answering our questions about the closing docs, and for months told us that we must keep trying the lender/broker because IT DID NOT HAVE COPIES OF ANY OF THOSE DOCS.
    The servicer began to delay responding to our QWR’s and to cause escrow “errors” (even forceplacing insurance for 2005, dumb because we had paid for that year in full at closing). We never knew if our mortgage statement was correct and the numbers kept changing. In early 2007, we needed to sell the home and buy a smaller one, I had one last chance to join the military reserves – this would provide income and benefits to our family. But, by late 2007, we discovered that we could not sell our home even for the mortgage amount. A real estate sales broker told us that there was no way our home was ever worth $451k, and that our home was probably overappraised. We searched for help, but attorneys wanted too much, we were hurting.
    Early 2008 we discovered the consumer protection laws online, and we exercised our ext right to rescind under TILA. I had just finished my MEPS and ASVAT, just needed to sign one more paper. The reserves contract would give me $3K/mo active pay for 4 months, college training for civil engineer, then $700/mo p/t for 4 years, a $20K bonus ($10K up front), a $25K GI bill. I wrote another letter telling the lender that time was of the essence because I needed to go to NC. I was awaiting the rescission. My spouse works full time and doesn’t speak English well, much less read it. Without an attorney, I had to wait on these people to rescind. Three months after we sent our notice to rescind, we financed the smaller home – there had been no reponse to our offer to tender, so we then stopped paying and started paying the new mtg. But now, we had to maintain 2 homes (2 gas, elect, etc.). This was hard, and that winter the radiator pipes broke in the new home (we were trying to keep the heating bill down so we could pay both bills, I guess 55 deg wasn’t good enough).
    That same month, the servicer refused deed-in-lieu and filed 4closure (8 mos after our NTC), and the judge refused appointed counsel. My Sarg told me that I would be rendered ineligible for the reserves while in 4closure. Almost immediately, our credit score went under 700 and our interest rates doubled along with our min paymnts to creditors. This did not help our financial situation. In early 2009 we filed Fed complaint (refused app counsel again) pro se and found 1. the appraisal overvalued our home by abt double 2. the lender added a phony $22k of rental income on the appraisal (I didn’t know we had a hotel) 3. The servicer had no standing to file foreclosure (didn’t own or hold note), and 4. the servicer’s attorney filed an false affidavit of assignment as a MERS officer after it filed foreclosure. The cases are ongoing, we still cannot afford an attorney, in 2009 I lost forever my chance to join the military, and we have permanent losses of opportunity and assets and severe financial damages. We can’t rent out the new home because it has no heat, and we can’t get a loan anywhere now to fix it. We also can’t sell it, because it is now underwater due to the 4closures in that neighborhood also. We are no longer interested in a deed-in-lieu for the subject home. Now, we need to keep the house to replace the income and benefits lost, and we need compensatory damages, as well. Newest news we have is proof that the servicer received 110% settlement of the debt in 2010 from another source, probably insurance – yet it is still trying to steal the subject property, as well. This refi was not only void due to fraud, it was also rendered void due to TILA rescission. The only bad thing is that since we cannot find an affordable attorney, we may well need to claim bankruptcy, as well, which would probably result in the home being foreclosed upon. After which I will find a way to appeal and file criminal fraud charges against all involved. We have lost pretty much all we worked for, our kids will have nothing to start with.
    You see Pat, our finances have worsened daily – and if we couldn’t afford attorney then, we sure can’t now. Any suggestions?

  3. I I understand properly this is a separate newly granted cause of action –it is my experience that they will not negotiate anything outside of litigation.

    This may be the best device to actually get a modification—–I would think that those jurisdictions with mediators would lean towards a formulaic approach. The part I question is what is relevance of why the default occurred 3 years ago in the midst of the 1st financial collapse–they did not worry much about why banks failed–its more about what can a borrower do today?

    and that is worsening daily————-it continues to amaze me at how much damage was inflicted by the originators—still driving global finances into the ground

    people need to really start worrying about their pensions——younger ones may be best off if they just get unshackled from any house debt—before the next financial sunami hits

    be damn happy if you are young enough to start over—–

  4. Well, in my situation there is no “provable” creditor/lender…and I don’t care to “modify” unsecured debt being falsely and illegally represented.

    and as anonymous says:

    “According to law, there can be default on collection rights. However, those collection rights are not to any secured mortgage/note.”

    But you knock yourself out…

  5. Carie,

    I only care about “provable facts”. If there is no proof to meet the standard level for an allegation to survive the demurrer, then why bother? Speculation does not get a person anywhere.

    Ever wonder why most lawsuits by homeowners go nowhere? it is because the allegations are not specific enough to survive the demurrer. This is especially true with fraud allegations.

    Now, you want “everything” in your battle. Fine, if the facts support the case. But if the facts do not support the case, then why not a reasonable compromise?

    The truth is that the most a homeowner can expect is a modification of a loan. Anything else for most homeowners is just “hope and prayer”. If you go into litigation knowing this, then fine. Argue what you want, and what your remedy will be. That is up to you and your attorney.

    Most homeowners only want a resolution that will allow them to keep the home, which for most is an affordable payment. And that is where the most people can be helped.

    The problem is that attorneys leave all the control and decisions regarding modification up to the lender. Submit the documentation and let the lender process and wait for an answer.

    That is absolutely the wrong way to go. It leaves the lender in complete control.

    The way to negotiate a modification is to show the flaws in the loan or foreclosure process, and then submit the modification documentation with REALISTIC terms for a modification. The terms should address and result in a lowering of the re-default risk of the home loan, negotiation to reduce or eliminate any second mortgage, and a strategy to reduce or eliminate consumer debt.

    Attorneys must use a financial planning model to achieve a modification. Will it always work? No. But at least it will present the lender with a working solution addressing all the issues that could prevent loan repayment.

    Does my firm offer? No. But we have the experience and product for part of the solution. We also have the relationships with other firms that can add to the package, and between all, we can present an attorney with the necessary information that is needed to employ this strategy.

    Does an attorney need to go through another firm to get the information? No. But does the attorney or the modification firm have all the resources necessary to employ this strategy? Not likely.

    Of course, this will not fit what you want or many others here would like, but for those who do not want the moon, but instead want an achievable resolution that is a win-win scenario for all, this is the best approach known today.

  6. Yeah—and I’m figuring it out—no thanks to and in SPITE of the a-holes “in charge”.

  7. i’m glad you said that carie because it can be a heck of a lot harder to prove those facts than you might think

  8. It’s NOT about BELIEVING. It’s about FACTS. What are provable FACTS. And it’s sad that you don’t give a crap.

  9. Carie,

    Believe what you want. And fight how you want. Frankly, I don’t care.

    There are too many people that just want reasonable resolution that I and others can help.

  10. As does yours…

    and as ANONYMOUS says:

    “…as TARP Inspector General points out in November 2010 report Footnote 35 — “without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.” This is likely the case for all subprime, alt-a, and jumbo “obligations.”

    Pat, sir, at the VERY LEAST—because of their CRIMES—they created UNSECURED DEBT…and it can be eliminated in BK.

  11. Carie,

    Your response speaks for itself.

  12. @Martha – i was referencing your earlier post where you appeared to say that you don’t hold legal title in the property. when i said that admission could prove fatal to some of your options, that was my basis. now your response is “i admit nothing, i object to everything”…

    now i have an admission – i admit that each time i engage you in discussion (even here, where I was responding directly to a question you posed) i come away confused and baffled by your responses. good luck to you in your endeavors

  13. Pat says:

    “The media and homeowners are screaming about the issues related to unlawful foreclosures every day. Whether the paperwork is tainted, or people who had no mortgage are foreclosed upon, the relentless stream of complaints continue.”


    Pat says:

    “What the end result would be is that, if carried to the extreme, none of the affected homes would have valid liens, or notes. There would be no debt. But, ownership of the homes would be open to question. With clouded title on these homes, it would be almost impossible to determine ownership.
    Essentially, such rulings would end up destroying the entire financial system in the country. All financial entities would cease to exist. Investors in MBS and properties would be wiped out. Lending would cease to exist. Ownership of homes would cease. The government would need to step in and take control of all housing, more than likely.
    Home values would plunge to nothing, since there would be no way to determine ownership, or value.
    Many would applaud such actions, but is that truly an outcome one would wish for? Anarchy would be the end result. Does anyone really want to live in that manner?
    The truth is that this will never happen, because the courts understand the logical outcome. They are not going to participate in the destruction of the country, at least what is left of the country today.”


    And by the way, Pat, people HAVE been winning money back from servicers who illegally took the money from a “loan” that was FRAUDULENT at origination…

  14. tn, I admit nothing! I object to everything. The only attorney I will trust is a retired attorney, who is not afraid of the system, and the crash and burn of his career in the LA County courts, if he takes my case. So far I can find this person. Any one else, they are in danger if they represent me, and that is a fact. The only reason a person would want ( in a normal foreclosure case) an attorney is to modify the fraudulent loan and save the precious house. Not one single case can I find that was successful in truth for a homeowner. as I judge success as being better off after then they were before.

  15. I think that comment was very well reasoned and not provocative in any way. You may not agree with it, but it’s an opinion and not merely an invalid one just because you disagree. Personal attacks based on a difference in philosophy belong on school playgrounds, not in adult conversation.

  16. The purpose of what I originally wrote was to offer a method whereby the OCC Consent Decree could be utilized in your foreclosure prevention efforts. My suggestion for attorneys to take control of the modification process was meant in the same vein. I had hoped that reasonable discussion would occur.

    My suggestions would obviously depend upon what the goal of the homeowner was. If it was to achieve a reasonable modification, then these tactics would hopefully assist in that goal.

    If the goal was “all or nothing”, then what I suggest has no purpose. Unfortunately, I misjudged in that I thought “all or nothing” was not the common belief, but it apparently is.

    The fact that I offer a Pre-Foreclosure exam for banks, or will work for banks against other banks, seems to have been a point of contention. Let me explain why I offer the Pre-Foreclosure exam.

    The media and homeowners are screaming about the issues related to unlawful foreclosures every day. Whether the paperwork is tainted, or people who had no mortgage are foreclosed upon, the relentless stream of complaints continue.

    The purpose of the Pre-Foreclosure Exam was to determine if the loan was in default or not, servicing was correct, and the paperwork was correct. If there were errors, or the loan was not in default, this would alert the lender to the issues, so that they could take appropriate action. After all, the objective is to ensure that unlawful foreclosures do not occur.

    Now, in response to this, many here will argue that almost all foreclosures are unlawful, based upon MERS and Securitization. But this needs to be evaluated in an objective manner.

    MERS is an issue related to agency relationships based upon state statutes, and then whether an ‘’agent” can foreclose or not, which is an issue in Michigan. If the state statutes like in CA allow for agency relationships to exist in regard to MERS, then there is a greater likelihood that MERS operations would be lawful. (In fact, the OCC in their Consent Decree to MERS states that since MERS is an agent for lenders, they gave them the authority to act in relation to MERS. It also seems to suggest that Certifying Officers are not an issue, if the corporate resolution issues and other identified matters are resolved.)

    Securitization is certainly much more confusing. Yes, there have been some cases whereby specific loans have been ruled not securitized, as in the Alabama case, but these rulings have been specific to the case, or the individual trust. None are applicable across the board. (In Alabama, the Trust specifically called for a “completed and recorded Chain of Assignments to all parties, which does not exist in most Trusts.) Other rulings were loan specific related to the foreclosure process.

    The truth is that at some point, Securitization will be settled at the US Supreme Court level, or by Federal legislative action. It can be no other way.

    Let’s assume that Securitization is ruled unlawful, MERS included. What are the practical implications of such a ruling?

    We all agree that every affected loan would involve at the minimum, issues of legal standing. In fact, the Note and Deed could be argued as void. This would mean that the 25% of current privately securitized loans would now be contested, with clouded titles, and void notes. But it does not stop there.

    Fannie and Freddie, using MERS and securitizing their own loans, would now suffer the same fate. Add 60% of the loans to the previous 25%. So 85% of the loans in the country are now affected by the ruling.

    But it does not stop there. Previous MERS or Securitized loans would also be affected, even though long since paid off. This would pretty much cover the rest of the outstanding loans, as well as many loans that had been paid off. Upwards of 90% of the homes in the country would be affected.

    What the end result would be is that, if carried to the extreme, none of the affected homes would have valid liens, or notes. There would be no debt. But, ownership of the homes would be open to question. With clouded title on these homes, it would be almost impossible to determine ownership.

    Essentially, such rulings would end up destroying the entire financial system in the country. All financial entities would cease to exist. Investors in MBS and properties would be wiped out. Lending would cease to exist. Ownership of homes would cease. The government would need to step in and take control of all housing, more than likely.

    Home values would plunge to nothing, since there would be no way to determine ownership, or value.

    Many would applaud such actions, but is that truly an outcome one would wish for? Anarchy would be the end result. Does anyone really want to live in that manner?

    The truth is that this will never happen, because the courts understand the logical outcome. They are not going to participate in the destruction of the country, at least what is left of the country today.

    For those who are not using an attorney, usually it is because the attorney either will not use the arguments that the person wants to make, or the person cannot afford an attorney. Here is my response for each.

    1. If the attorney is unwilling to use the arguments you desire, and he has foreclosure experience, it is likely that he knows the arguments will not work. Furthermore, the arguments distract with what are valid arguments in the complaint. Why destroy any chance you have by using arguments that distract?

    2. For those of you who cannot afford an attorney, why not? For most, the attorney is going to be cheaper on a monthly basis than what your mortgage payment is. So that should not be an issue. If you cannot afford the monthly fee, then how will you be able to afford a modified payment?

    Also, if you cannot afford a $3500 retainer, and you have not been making mortgage payments for several months, then what have you been doing with the mortgage payments? Using the money to live? Then how will you afford the mortgage payment again? Believe me. Judges understand this and will ask if you have been saving any money for the mortgage, and if you reply that you have not, you have just diminished your chances of winning by at least 50%.


    I have seen what you want, and this particular attorney would not take your case, even if you paid him $50k. He only takes cases with a viable chance of winning, and does not use arguments that will not succeed.

    People, when I take a homeowner client on, it is because the person has valid issues that have a reasonable chance of achieving a reasonable resolution. And these clients are undertaken only with the approval of their attorney.

    If a person comes to me with the “prove the note” theory and that he wants his home for free, I will not work with him. However, if his attorney has said to do the exam, and I know that the attorney is reputable, then I will abide by the attorney’s wishes. If I don’t know the attorney, I will call him and find out his perspective, and that determines whether I will work with the client. Most attorneys, I refuse to work with because they are their own foreclosure mills, in their own right.

    Most people who call, I find out how underwater that the person is. If they are underwater for large sums of money, like in CA $75k or greater, I let them know the truth, that the housing recovery will take many years to stabilize, and that even when prices begin to rise, expect only 2-3% per year. Then, evaluate your home retention as a financial decision, as if you are buying or selling stocks. Determine what you think that the value recovery period would be, and whether it makes more sense to lose the home, and purchase again in a few years, when values are still low, and you can get better for less. Then you make your decision as to what to do.

    As for the Pro Se clients, all attorneys know and say that “an attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client.” If you can afford a competent attorney, what does that say about you doing it yourself?

    Everyone, make your own decisions, but make them knowing all the facts on both sides. Don’t make decisions based upon knowing only partial facts. And don’t make decisions on raw emotions. Learn both sides, and then decide.

  17. @Martha – in response to your question about what are your options, you could maybe sue the bank or whomever eventually claims “ownership” of the property for unjust enrichment for the taxes and renovations you paid. you could look into claims for adverse possession in CA, although that’s usually a real long shot. but since you’re now saying you don’t hold legal title to the property, I’m not sure what options you’re hoping for. there’s always quiet title, but your admission about lack of legal title would be fatal to that i would expect

  18. Tn, my case is complicated, but more like this will follow.

    in a nutshell,
    7/07- husband buys new home. I acquire equitable title. not on the loans, was only required to sign the DOT. Price was supposed to be 711K.

    I found out the “fake lender” fraudulently increased the stated value of my homes price so they could lie to the “Banks” and claim the loan came in under the 80% ratio required. My taxes were increased due to this.-Thats my monetary damage, along with emotional distress.

    I was mad, thought my husband was involved, as we had been fighting in 07 about my refusal to sign the Dot, unless the price was dropped to 711K

    April 09,
    We went into what some might call “default” as I wanted a divorce, and he could not maintain the payments on two homes that we owned.
    I was defrauded, and I sent in letters to “chase” and told them so.

    May 2010 I find out the signatures are forged on the Deeds of Trust.
    I filed suit,

    June 2010 I find two other “loans” for my husband done the same day as the two on the home (1st & 2nds) I go to the FBI.

    I think that this is a “Ghost Loan” scam, (look this up)

    The FBI brings me into the offices, and they tell me “I was defrauded.”
    but “sorry lady, we don’t intervene in civil actions.”

    They withheld the truth from me, but did say I was a victim of fraud.

    I attempt to get TRO but made error in pleadings, denied. I don’t care.

    I tell the Judge I will not ask again. If they sell the house, they do so knowing my signature was forged and I did not sign the Deeds of Trust. I obtain expert handwriting analyst who backs it up.

    They keep postponing the “auction” until finally it is canceled.

    NOD is expired by statue at this point.

    June 2011, I discover (after an anonymous message) that the two “ghost loans” were for a house down the street, that my husband bought in a “Straw-Man” scam.

    I find the check he used for the down payment, and the receipt for it showing that lot number.
    (He claims his identity was stolen, but thats not enough for me, I have been lied to before) I serve him a summons.

    At this point the I hope the FBI are ahead of me on this, but if not, what happened is the builder “sold ” multiple homes to “straw-men” to build up fake comps, and sell the loans, on which they would intentionally default on.

    The homes stayed empty, and then they would bring in another “straw man” in some cases, and do a fake “SHORT SALE” the price was always $455, . In other cases, they would do a “foreclosure” but of course the “straw-men” did not care.

    In some homes they rented them out, or put buddies in them until the short sale or foreclosure. The names are now on the record, and the pattern is highly visible due to all the short-sales for $455K

    Last week, I made up flyers about this scam in the development, and put 100 on doors so far. One home that I knew was a scam, the “owner” moved out in two days!

    My husband is either, a liar, or a scammer, or a victim, but due to everything, I have no way to tell, and he will need to prove it in court in front of a jury!

  19. @Martha – I’m still not following your case. Now you claim that they can’t foreclose on you because you don’t have legal title. But technically they’re foreclosing on the property, not you, right? Your title is really not an issue. And wouldn’t your lack of legal title be akin to a claim against them for lack of standing? Do you have any basis to contest a foreclosure if you now claim to not have legal title?

  20. Yeah Patrick, Thanks for Sharing. We all need to hear the other side sometimes, Mr. KarGuy is right. But I would like to know what “is the Truth”? Do any of us mortals know?

  21. And tn called me hostile:)

  22. and Patrick, thanks for sharing. Some of us appreciate your perspective.

  23. How come nobody wants to hear the truth around here?? I’m no friend of Patrick, nor Harry. But why are you people so hostile when someone tells you the TRUTH. If Patrick works for the banks, and has the courtesy to share his insights as to what you may or may not expect, listen and decide for yourself what you can take away from the “comment” or post. Derision of the person making the statement is not constructive. I’ve been here a long time, too. But the whining, moaning, name calling, endless bullshit and personal attacks serve no one. I can’t imagine any real “professionals” hanging around here to offer a point of view when all you crybabies do is attack them because they’re not blowing smoke up your ass!
    I went through the court system pro se and got my ass kicked. Now, I’m doing it again. Lucky for me, I got a free pass when plaintiff vacated the judgment due to “agreement”; namely, I signed a bogus modification agreement that meant nothing. Got some breathing room and went back again (pro-se) with a different set of arguments (somewhat) before the SOL ran out. But I know what I’m in for, and I have an attorney who may provide “pro hac vice” at my request. Lucky for me he enjoys listening to my commentary on securitization and the like. But it doesn’t mean I’m going to do any better the second time around.
    The modifications are a joke if the loan has been extinguished. It’s just a re-affirmation of the original defaulted loan. I accept that and have decided that if I can’t get anything MEANINGFUL, like a balance in line with the value of the home, or a reasonable settlement to mimic a rescission situation, I will fight to the end. But you people need to understand something: you’re not as smart as you think you are, and every bit of legal knowledge and advice that comes over this wire must be taken with a grain of salt. Everyone has a different situation. The common thread is that you can’t make your payment. Period. Welcome to the “Broke and Stupid Club”. And I’m not just a member, I’M THE PRESIDENT!
    The only real attorney who was qualified to win my case wanted $20,000 up front, with no cap and no promises (he won the Kolodziej Appeal in Wisconsin and several others). But, that case was remanded for further action in the local court. The battle is not over, and neither are the legal costs. If you can be a thorn in the side of the lender, and you can tie them up for a year or two, they might make some kind of offer to modify or settle. But DON’T BET ON IT! “What’s it gonna take to make this go away, Mr. KarGuy?” That hint of an offer could be enough to take you off your guard, and while you’re waiting for that phone call back “after I speak to my client”, they WILL reschedule your house for a sheriff’s sale or file the motion for MSJ. The world sucks, the truth hurts, and I’m not an attorney, but I enjoy impressing my friends with all the big words I’ve learned. Does that make me a genius or a self-educated idiot? You decide.

  24. Kudos Carie!

    Would love to continue on my “crazy” rant, against the “Jokesters” and even invoke the “Illuminati and Freemasons” further, (as in my book,) which tnharry, offers up as proof of my apparent “Tin-foil-hat-nuttiness”.. but enough fun. I will take a pill, and back to the seriousness of the matters at hand for most.

    I have a Question/Riddle for the Over-Educated that might peruse this blog.

    I have been in litigation pro se a year now, but just discovered something…

    If my husband got a “Purchase loan” with…say “Any lender”, on a home, and they – later try to non-judicially foreclose, (yet mysteriously cancel the sale, after litgation is underway) ( I am equitable title only- comm. Prop state)

    Then suddenly I might perhaps say:

    “Wait, a second Johnny! It looks like I never had the legal title in the first place! There was an undisclosed owner, prior to my apparent ownership, and they never signed off!

    What options do the fraudsters have… Lets see. Hmmm.

    They cannot really foreclose on me…. as I claim I never had legal title.

    I am in the home.
    I have spent 50K improving the property.
    I have paid the defaulted 4 years of taxes.
    Gee Golly! What are the options?

    May 50 Thousand wishes granted to the best answer!

  25. oops…I meant nobody can WIN without money…sorry…getting punchy.

  26. Okay, I’d like to talk to the lawyer that will charge me $50,000 to really “win”. What exactly will he “win” for me? The $120,000 that a “servicer” stole from me for 4 years??? In addition to declaring the original (line of credit—NOT “real” loan) “loan docs” fraudulent and null and void??? Okay, the lovely lawyer can have $50,000 out of the $120,000 that he/she will DEFINITELY win for me—how about that??? LET’S GET ‘ER DONE!!!

    And by the way, this is what really makes me sick—Patrick’s lawyer friend says: “you bring me a client that can pay the true costs of litigation, and I will win.” So, nobody can with without money…only WITH money…disgusting, and makes me want to throw up.

  27. Tn, Sorry lil’ guy if I hurt your feelings.
    You admit you really are an Ass, and then berate me for calling you on it. Dang! I bet you fun at parties!

    DO NOT PLAY BOTH SIDES. A traitor is a traitor!

  28. You cad, Neil. See what you started? Like putting whoopee cushions on the pews at a funeral. It’s hysterical

  29. Patrick, What a load of trash! Do you rehearse this? I want to vomit, What are you? A lobbyist? Damm, I really hate politicians.

    As Jim says, You all just don’t get it!

    You claim to work both sides, what sort of like the Rosenbergs? Why are you here? Granted, I do not want you to leave, as I prefer to keep the enemy close, and it brightens my day to lash out at the ones who “work with lenders as well”
    But you just don’t get it.
    We are not fighting for our homes… We are fighting for our Country!. And if we are in the front line, so be it. Why would i pay a lawyer to go in a play the motion game, if I know I will lose.

    I would rather already have felt that I lost everything, and that I had nothing left to lose.
    That is why we fight!

  30. Martha I’m truly baffled by your hostility. I certainly can be an ass sometimes, but in this case all I said was that it’s Neil’s blog and he posts the entries, not third parties. He chose to put this on the site himself. So take it up with Neil if you don’t want it on the board. Patrick has a right to say and think whatever he wants but he may not have a right to break into your house and say it to you. In this instance, Neil invited him inside.

  31. “Yes, I do work with lenders as well.”

    A snake that slithers back to the pit.

  32. Patrick:

    Yup, you’re right. Most of us will lose. Kind like the first guys to hit the beach at Normandy. You just don’t get it yet. You really don’t.

  33. People,

    Rail against me all you want. After all of you claimed that the OCC was doing nothing, which I agree, I presented a way that you could fight using the OCC Decree. You can’t argue it as a private right of action, but you can use the information.

    Now, I only work for clients when attorneys advise me to. I am always under the supervision of an attorney. I don’t work with homeowners without an attorney.

    Yes, I do work with lenders as well. These are lender against lender actions. Lenders come to me because I do know what I am doing. And when I work with lenders, it is because they have legitimate claims against the other party.

    I provide totally unbiased reports. I present both sides of the argument, so that any attorney knows what he is getting into. He needs to know how the lender will respond, so that he can be prepared for it, and hopefully hope that his complaint will neuter the response.

    Being unbiased also serves me well, because those people who use me know that I am presenting arguments based upon factual information. When I state something, I can back up the issue with factual evidence. Whether the judge will accept it is another matter.

    Many of you complain that if you weren’t doing it yourself, you would already have lost your homes. Maybe true, but for those who used attorneys previously, perhaps it is the attorney you selected.

    The truth is that you get what you pay for with attorneys. If you are going to pay $3500 as a retainer, and then $1000 per month, which most of you would likely find too expensive, then you are going to likely lose. It is that simple. That is because those attorneys are doing “canned” complaints, spending one or two hours of work, and then moving on to the next client. The good attorneys take only what they can handle for a case load, resolve a case, and then add a client. They don’t take more than they can handle.

    Ask Neil. He will confirm this.

    The best attorney I deal with handles both homeowners and lenders. As he constantly says, “you bring me a client that can pay the true costs of litigation, and I will win”. I believe him because I have seen his work. (BTW, to win a case, you need to plan on at least $50k, if you are being realistic. This includes multiple depositions, and all sorts of other services.)

    The most a homeowner should reasonably expect from any action is to get a modification. Anything else is “gravy”. Yet, I speak with homeowners everyday going for the “grandslam”, and they have no hope of winning.

    In going for a loan modification, attorneys can use the lawsuit to attempt to force a modification. But, they have a major failing in their approach. This failing is because they do not understand “sales”.

    Any sales person will tell you that the salesman must control the negotiations and the terms of the offer. Neil keeps telling you that the attorney must control the “terms” or the “arguments” in court, and I agree completely.

    What the attorney needs to do after getting the attention of the lender, is to propose seeking a modification for the client, and perhaps staying the litigation, without prejudice. If the lender or servicer attorney accepts, then you have a reasonable place to start.

    But, the attorney should not stop there. When the income and debt information is submitted, the attorney should submit acceptable terms of a modification that reduce the likelihood of default. Get together a complete package and present it. Show that with the offer, the likelihood of re-default of the mortgage loan is greatly reduced.

    Take control of the situation.

    Do any of you know why 60% of HAMP mods fail? It is because the Back End Ratio mean average is 63.5%. 63 cents of EVERY dollar, before tax deductions, goes to debt service. That means that
    these people will re-default, and sooner than later.

    Know that the modification terms a lender offers you will not address Back End Ratios. Develop strategies that will reduce the Back End Ratio. That will improve the chances of getting a modification. Lenders are not going to do a modification whereby the loan will re-default in a few years. (Hint: Consider also a Chp 7, and see if that is acceptable to the servicer in your negotiations. If so, then that will certainly decrease default risk.)

    Give the lender a chance to say yes, and not to say no.

    Now, as to my own business, I don’t care if you use me or another service, or not at all. Just use one that knows ALL the arguments, pro and con. And, that they are accurate in their findings. I cannot tell you how many people claim to do exams, but since they do not understand the arguments on both sides, they give the impression that something will work, when it will not be accepted in a court of law.

    Okay, I am done. I have tried to offer realistic advice on how to use the OCC Decree and also how to try and improve the chances of a loan modification being accepted. That is all I can do.

    The decision is yours on how you want to fight for your homes. You make the decisions, and you live with the choices you make. And you live with the consequences.

  34. Hey folks, get a sense of humor. Neil sure has one. Why the f**k else would he post this crap on his own site.

  35. For the better part of the ’90s I had a futures trading website. Many people hung out regularly in the forum, anywhere from newbies wanting to hit it big at daytrading to more knowledgable “seasoned” commodity traders. The one constant I noticed over the years….while many people came and went, there was always an assortment of traders who realized the truth behind futures trading, that sooner than later you’ll end up losing the farm while trying to trade against the pit traders who have the whole system gamed.

    But rather than fade away, these folks almost always ended up developing and hawking their own trading systems, simply because if in fact you can’t come out ahead actually trading on a daily basis, you certainly can by selling systems to others who still had hopes of achieving success in trading. Trader beware.

    Why do I bring this up? Because it’s exactly like here. The “system” we’re dealing with here, from the lawyers to the courts and their judges, to the regulators sitting on their hands, the legislators who refuse to face the facts, they’re all allowing the rigged games to continue, knowing full well that very few if any will find the level area necessary to make a good trade, or in this case, have their merits weighed. The banks are floor traders with inside knowledge just like a rigged bookmaker back in the mob days of old.

    So when someone comes in here hawking a system that can’t possibly achieve the necessary results, but simply allows the criminality an ordained and acceptable appearance, it’s understandable that folks won’t take kindly to the assurances that all is proper. It’s not. The bottom line is you can’t modify fraud, and that’s one of the few things you can take that to the bank for sure.

  36. tn, that “excellent chance” I wrote of earlier in another post, about you possibly being an Ass? I motion to request leave to amend that statement.
    There is an 99 percent chance.

  37. i think you missed my point @papergate. If you’re pissed off, take it up with Neil, not Patrick

  38. To tnharry – I think if we’ve gotten this far we are fully aware of the – “Nebulous arguments are not going to work. You need to be able to argue your points, with proof to back them up, and to meet a heightened pleading standard.” bit – it is the adversaries that lack proof of their assertions – there is nothing wrong with this comment – it is not the comment that irks us – its the pushing of a website selling a product re modifications that are not going nowhere and this same entity represents lending entities – patrick is not offering us anything but empty adwords – it appears he is perhaps an attorney of sorts but he is not and the business site is not; we are all extremely tired of the relentless conversations with parties claiming to be attorneys but too afraid to work in law . . . patrick is not an attorney (I presume) and how is it this whole bit about the ‘patented’ product is going to assist us – nada – what is it exactly he is trying to convey or offer us besides a sales pitch of some sort?? How can we as predominantly pro se homeowners fighting get from either his discussion or business – nada – so why try to garner our attention we have little attention span right now and even less energy – we have less than one, maybe two nerves left at this point in time – rubbing that nerve the wrong way will truly piss us off at this juncture – if patrick is genuinely trying to sell or convey something to us we can actually use in the pro se fight – tell him to explain it – otherwise I and others regard this as a tactic to sell us something we don’t need or want – we don’t want modifications at this juncture – why don’t you guys get that? Modifications are BS to shovel the s77t under the financial entities’ carpets – and pull out while we’re standing on the carpet. Why insult us about “. . .not for in pro se” if he has never been in pro se or worked as an attorney or in a law firm how does he know what we can and cannot do?

  39. why are you guys railing against Patrick? Neil’s the person who posted this on the site after all. On the one hand you’re praising Neil and lambasting Patrick. But it wouldn’t be on the site at all if Neil didn’t want it here.

    One thing he says that I couldn’t agree with more : Nebulous arguments are not going to work. You need to be able to argue your points, with proof to back them up, and to meet a heightened pleading standard.

  40. It was either pro se or walk away. So I’m pro se. I am fighting for real–attorneys pretend to fight to not piss off judges or ” look crazy.” Lawyers told me I couldn’t do what I have now done. This is America–guerilla warfare is how we beat the banks the first time–in the American Revolution. And it’s how we’ll beat them this time, with motions instead of muskets. DIY! Resistance is victory!

  41. asking a pretender to modify your loan is the same as asking a thief to modify how much they stole off your dresser in the middle of the night.

  42. Okay — what I could not respond to — due to technical difficulties — under “Dimon” — was Carie’s post regarding continued fraud by mortgage servicers (Robo-signing) — despite a settlement by AGs in April

    So — we do have an AG settlement that has not yet been finalized but agreed upon refraining from Robo-signing — that continues anyway. AGs settled without investigation. Robo-signing was orchestrated to conceal the bottom line fraud. Robo-signing — although hugely fraudulent — is simply a cover-up for the huge mortgage fraud origination and foreclosure fraud.

    AGs settled for WHAT??? Nothing. that will benefit any victim homeowner. Investigation did not go beyond Robo-signing — which CONTINUES despite settlement agreement.

    Rob-signing orchestrated in order to cover-up the mortgage fraud and conceal the identity of the so-called current creditor/distressed debt buyer/fraudulent mortgage originator.

    Robo-signing — just the beginning — but, a big beginning that is continuing despite any so-called AG settlement.

    Stopping the distressed debt buyer fraudulent “loan mods” — only then will be get the bottom of the real fraud. These “loans” were bogus to start with – and “mods” compound the fraud.

    Coalition anyone??? — about time we stood up for our peers — need to join together. Need to stand up for our peers– whether or not you win or lose.

    Title??? Gone. — to many — due to fraudulent mortgage origination, fraudulent foreclosure, fraudulent modifications, and fraudulent AG negotiations.

    Everyone still sleeping???

  43. Martha Raysik

    The reason you will “never get Justice in LA County” — is because government is ignoring the fraud to save the banks/distressed debt buyers.

    Until the government acknowledges the fraud — courts will remain — “bamboolzed” — No way around it.

    The Shelbys??? And, others??? Who elected them??? NOT me.

  44. Come-on — Alabama is going to control???

  45. Anyone here from Alabama?? What were you thinking when you elected Richard Shelby??? And, the guy has a smile on his face on his website. When is he up for reelection?? Should never happen.

    See below —

    In Senate, Battle Over New Consumer Protection Agency Continues
    GOP will block confirmation of CFPB chief until it gets a more ‘accountable’ structure

    By Gil Weinreich, AdvisorOne

    July 19, 2011

    The fight over the controversial new governmental consumer finance watchdog agency continues two days before the agency is set to open its doors and commence its supervision of financial services companies.

    In Senate hearings held Tuesday, Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, reiterated his determination to block confirmation of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, arguing the agency’s single-director structure is unaccountable.

    “Given the fundamental flaws with the existing structure of the Bureau … the Senate should not confirm any person to lead the Bureau until some reasonable reforms are adopted,” Shelby said in opening remarks at the hearing. Shelby, with support from the financial services industry, claims the current arrangement gives “unfettered power” to a single director. Republicans and allies in the banking industry want to see a board or commission structure rather than a single director.

    In his opening remarks, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (left), D-S.D., advised his colleagues that past regulatory failures “brought the global financial system to near collapse” resulting in “the loss of millions of American jobs, millions of homes, and trillions of dollars in retirement, college and other savings.” Johnson said it would be “irresponsible” to undermine the new agency.

    Representing the American Bankers Association, Albert Kelly, the chairman and CEO of SpiritBank of Bristow, Okla., echoed Shelby’s call for restructuring the new bureau, and called for an expanded board to include members with consumer business experience and safety and soundness regulatory expertise.

    The thrust of Republican and industry opposition, though, remained the broad discretion a single director would have in running the agency. “Dodd-Frank gave the Bureau expansive new quasi-legislative powers and discretion to re-write the rules of the consumer financial services industry based on its own initiative and conclusions about the needs of consumers,” said Kelly in his testimony.

  46. @ Patrick Pulatie, your advice in this post is enough to make many of us PUKE.

    I have a mortgage that even Neil Garfileld has characterized as a “WILD mortgage”.

    THE NAMED LENDER CORPORATION DID NOT EXIST. Thousands of loans were written in this fictious corporation name from at least 2002-2007. Mine was not just a ‘mistake’.

    NO assignment of this mortgage is valid. Remember the named SUPPOSED CORPORATION was NOT a CORPORATION. The loan was NEVER PERFECTED because the ‘real lender’ was NEVER IDENTIFIED on the mortgage documents.

    IN FACT even the MERS MIN number was acquired for the mortgage by a different MERS member than the NAMED LENDER CORPORATION.

    NOW HOW do I have ANYONE negotiate with ANYONE?

    There are other firms that went defunct after issuing mortgages and no assignments were generated prior to them ceasing to exist. Still others went bankrupt but no papers were submitted to the BK Trustee for the firm in question to get the assignment of the mortgage properly generated.

    Instead, the servicer companies are coming forward and generating assignments from these non-existant companies. Judges in some courts have caught on to the fraud.

    So PLEASE, do not put forth a one-size-fits-all solution when there is NO WAY to make that ‘solution’ FIT!!!!!

  47. Odd — cannot post any more comments under — DIMON ADMITS MORTGAGES ARE FLAWED: ——

    Is it me?? A technical error??? Who knows.

  48. If I would have had an attorney, I would have folded under 2 years ago!
    Still, I spend over 8 hours a day studying, so not everyone can do this.

    And Loan Mods? Sounds like the Kool-aid again. Why would you want to buy a house, for $100k still then what will be worth in 12-19 months, when the Sh*t really starts to hit the fan.

    Thats what a mod does.
    Detach your heart from that box of wood, and then you can fight them. You will never be able to fight if you will do anything to try to “save” your house.

    You wil never get Justice in LA County, as it’s pretty well public knowledge that there re no Judges that uphold the law, at least from my experience, being mocked in court, cut-off, yelled at, and all case law tossed aside so the Court system can suck on the teat of the bank industry, backed by the Government.

    I went in thinking black letter law was on my side, and it is, but the Court is not, so that is my problem.

    My Husbands attorney? ( I am suing him too) He has never heard of MERS.
    Oh gee golly. I must be crazy.

  49. Patrick —

    Old “friend” and “nemesis” — sounds important as to loan modifications you may be promoting. Problem is — OCC has new information — obligated to investigate. If they will not investigate — Consumer Protection Agency must step in.

    Must let all investigations proceed.

    First step — identify the “lenders” — not happening.

  50. […] Livinglies’s Weblog Filed Under: Foreclosure Law News, Foreclosure News Tagged With: crisis, foreclosure, […]

  51. This is directed to Papergate ~ THANK YOU!! After having this sent to me from Niels blog I was ENRAGED!! I took the time to go to this guys website and then was sufficiently p.o.ed after reviewing it to come back here to leave my little two cents…. but you beat me to it!!

    But I do want to reiterate one thing in particular you said here ~

    Truly, WE ARE NOT IN THE MOOD ~ Especially for this kind of TRIPE.

  52. Opinion.
    spoken like a real attorney.
    I am in this world but not of it, as such I have the right of self determination and as such I have the right to establish a contract with one company without having another fraudulently interfere with it and steal my home.

    No I will not hire an attorney to get what was ‘stolen’ from me.
    Attorneys represent persons who are not competent to represent themselves. Attorney for one person tries to settle a dispute with attorney for the other person…but the other person is always a business that has no one by that name…it’s a building, so the first attorney represents a corporation (living man woman placed in the role of a corporation) to discuss terms with an attorney representing a corporation (not living, does not eat, sleep, speak, or think).

    Then you say don’t get a free house.

    Who stole the home. Who used sweat equity to pay money for the benefit of owning the home.

    Attorneys do not give full disclosure of who they represent. They even have to give a definition in their contract to tell you. You are the client and I am the attorney…what kind of crap is that unless you are hiding something.

    My home was stolen.
    Thou shalt not steal.
    Repatriate yourself and then you can tell me how to get my house back.

    Attorneys stole it and now they want to help us get it back..
    yeah right.

    Game over!
    Light and Love,
    Trespass Unwanted, corporeal, life, free, in jure proprio, jure divino,

  53. First off the bat Patrick is that there is no note to negotiate to do a modification if the Note was securitized. What are you talking about.

    I do an audit to determine who the Creditor is and work with the attorney to determine if they followed the law and filed lawful filings in the County.

    Good luck with your new product….

  54. You entities with this relentless push of “don’t do it without an attorney” – GET A CLUE – if there were able and willing attorneys we would elect to be represented – we don’t have a choice so please do not go into this whole diatribe about “not doing in pro se” – one must do what they must all because attorneys can’t get their acts together fast enough or their cajones in a solid strap – why do you readers/ advertisers think we have come as far as we have today – certainly not because of the bulk of what attorneys have done outside guys like Neil, Matt, Ice, Gardner, etc., providing this blog . . . it is because we homeowners are doing everything we can – in pro se because we can’t get attorneys who get it – I don’t know a single fighting homeowner that has an attorney – so please don’t advertise in these wonderful websites pushing your wares and consulting businesses if you are not willing to practice law and represent homeowners – I’m in pro se and could have told you – saved you the time and embarrassment the OCC decree was nothing more than window dressing for the pretender lenders – and we were never going to be privy to what was going on behind the corporate veils of secrecy – that’s why Elijah Cummings is fighting them – and how could a product touting to assist modification efforts that will never happen possibly assist the readers of Neil’s blog? Unless you are going to offer assistance, legal or otherwise to the homeowners – don’t waste an entire column pushing your product on us homeowners – we’re not in the mood.

  55. Pro se or lawyered up, you don’t argue for a loan modification with a pretender. Period.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: