FTC Orders BOA/BAC to pay $108 Million to 450,000 Homeowners Overcharged

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

see 8.04.2011 BAC-Home.Countrywide Consent Order

see 8.04.2011 BAC-Home.Country.COMPLAINT-FTC

BOA Ordered to Comply With Law and Specify Who is Charging For Fees and What the Fees are For

 EDITOR’S NOTE: As described below, the consent order does much more than give money back to people. It specifically states that BAC/Countrywide cannot misrepresent the status of the loan, the amounts due and all the other shenanigans that have been played on both borrowers and investor/lenders.

   3.    “Bank” shall mean a bank that is exempt from the FTC’s 14 jurisdiction pursuant to Section 5(a) (2) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 15 § 45 (a) (2), including Bank of America, N.A. “Bank” shall not 16 include any Person or entity controlled directly or indirectly by a 17 bank and that is not itself a bank, such as an operating subsidiary 18 or Affiliate of a bank that is not itself a bank;

“BAC Home Loans Servicing” shall mean BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, formerly doing business as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, and its successors and assigns, by whatever names they might be known, but not including any Bank

“Default-Related Service” shall mean any service ordered 8 as a result of a consumer’s payment default on a Loan, for the 9 purpose of protecting the note holder’s interest in the property and rights under the security instrument, for which the Loan account is 11 charged a Fee (e.g., services of a type currently or in the future 12 provided by BAC Field Services Corporation, Landsafe Default, Inc., 13 and the trustee-services business of ReconTrust Company, N.A., such 14 as property inspections, property preservation, broker’s price
15 opinions, title searches and reports, and foreclosure trustee 16 services);
entities in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined, in connection with the Servicing of any Loan in default or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, from:

Misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, the status of the Loan or amounts owed on the Loan, including but not limited to the amount of any Monthly Payment, Fee claimed or assessed, Escrow Shortage, or Escrow Deficiency; Misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, that any payment or Fee is allowed under the Loan Instruments or permitted by law; Misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, the amount, nature, or terms of any Fee or other condition or requirement of any Loan; and Making any representation, expressly or by implication, about the status of the Loan, amounts owed on the Loan (including but not limited to the amount of any Monthly Payment, Fee claimed or assessed, Escrow Shortage, or Escrow Deficiency), the date that any payment or Fee is
Case 2:10-cv-04193-JFW -SS    Document 6    Filed 06/15/10    Page 6 of 25
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants, their officers, 7 employees, agents, representatives, and all other Persons or entities in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order by personal service or otherwise, directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other device, are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined, in connection with the Servicing of any Loan in default or Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, from:

A. Misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, the status of the Loan or amounts owed on the Loan, including but not limited to the amount of any Monthly Payment, Fee claimed or assessed, Escrow Shortage, or Escrow Deficiency;
B. Misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, that any payment or Fee is allowed under the Loan Instruments or permitted by law;
c. Misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, the amount, nature, or terms of any Fee or other condition or requirement of any Loan; and
D. Making any representation, expressly or by implication, about the status of the Loan, amounts owed on the Loan
(including but not limited to the amount of any Monthly Payment, Fee claimed or assessed, Escrow Shortage, or Escrow Deficiency), the date that any payment or Fee is due, or any other information regarding the terms or conditions of a Loan, unless, at the time of making such representation, such Persons possess and rely on Competent and Reliable Evidence that substantiates that the representation is true.

If the consumer’s Loan goes into default and prior to assessing any Fees for Default-Related Services, Defendants’ notice of default shall disclose (1) any use of Affiliates for Default-Related Services; (2) if Fees are assessed for those services; and (3) a link to a schedule of Fees for those services (“Fee Schedule”) on Defendants’ website(s).
E. Misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, the status of the Loan or amounts owed on the Loan, including but not limited to the amount of any Monthly Payment, Fee claimed or assessed, Escrow Shortage, or Escrow Deficiency; Misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, that any payment or Fee is allowed under the Loan Instruments or permitted by law; Misrepresenting, expressly or by implication, the amount, nature, or terms of any Fee or other condition or requirement of any Loan; and Making any representation, expressly or by implication, about the status of the Loan, amounts owed on the Loan

FTC Returns Nearly $108 Million to 450,000 Homeowners Overcharged by
Countrywide for Loan Servicing Fees

The Federal Trade Commission is mailing 450,177 refund checks worth
almost $108 million to homeowners who were allegedly overcharged by
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. As part of the FTC’s efforts to protect
financially distressed homeowners, the FTC reached a settlement with
Countrywide last year over allegations that the company collected
excessive fees from borrowers who were struggling to keep their homes.

“It’s astonishing that a single company could be responsible for
overcharging more than 450,000 homeowners,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz
said. “Countrywide’s unconscionable behavior harmed American consumers
on a massive scale and we are proud to be getting every single dollar
back to hundreds of thousands of struggling consumers who can least
afford to lose the money.”

The FTC’s June 2010 settlement order required Countrywide, which is
now owned by Bank of America, to pay $108 million to be used for
refunds and barred the company from taking advantage of borrowers who
have fallen behind on their payments. The refunds are being
distributed to consumers whose loans were serviced by Countrywide
between January 1, 2005, and July 1, 2008, and who were subject to the
company’s allegedly unlawful practices.

According to the FTC, homeowners who were in default on their loans
were charged excessive fees for services such as property inspections,
lawn mowing, and other services meant to protect the lender’s interest
in the property. Rather than simply hire third-party vendors to
perform the services, Countrywide used subsidiaries to hire the
vendors. The subsidiaries allegedly marked up the price of the
services charged by the vendors – often by 100 percent or more – and
Countrywide then charged the homeowners the marked-up fees. The FTC
complaint alleges that the company’s strategy was to increase profits
from default-related service fees in bad economic times.

Also, in servicing loans for borrowers trying to save their homes in
Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, the FTC alleged that Countrywide
made false or unsupported claims to borrowers about amounts owed or
the status of their loans, and added fees and escrow charges to their
mortgage accounts without notice.

An administrator working for the FTC will send out refunds to
consumers who were overcharged for property inspections, maintenance
services, title searches, and foreclosure trustee services, and to
those who were in Chapter 13 bankruptcy, and were charged fees or
escrow charges without being notified.

Consumers who receive the checks should cash them by September 19,
2011. The amount of each check will vary from less than $500 to as
much as several thousand dollars. The FTC never requires consumers to
pay money or provide information before redress checks can be cashed.
Former Countrywide customers with questions should call the redress
administrator, Gilardi & Co., LLC at 1-888-230-3196 or visit the FTC’s
Countrywide settlement webpage.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide
information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in
English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call
1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into
Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than
2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of
consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

33 Responses

  1. […] title,rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND « FTC Orders BOA/BAC to pay $108 Million to 450,000 Homeowners OverchargedSECURITIZATION FRAUD SPAWNED HUNDREDS OF MORTGAGE FRAUD SCHEMES » Like Be the first to like […]

  2. QUESTION: WHY ARE NOT ALL OF THE US AND STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS DOING THE SAME? AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHY ARE NOT THE FORECLOSURE DEFENSE ATTORNEY’S IN WASHINGTON NOW INSURING ALL ‘TRUSTEES’ ARE DOING THE SAME? THE ONLY REASON THIS IS IN THE NEWS IS BECAUSE OF THE ‘SALE’ REVEALS WHO THE ‘TRUSTEE’ ACTUALLY IS AS SHOWN ON THE ‘AZTEC FORECLOSURE’ POSTING THAT LL THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH OF A COMMENT TO POST SO THE CONSUMERS HARMED IN CA, OR, WA, UT, ETC. THE STATES LISTED, KNOW THE ‘TRUSTEE’ ACTING AS REO LENDER/BROKER DURING FORECLOSURE DOES HAVE ACCESS TO WHO THE TRUSTEE/LOAN TRUST ACTUALLY IS AND DOES NOT RECORD THE INFORMATION WITH THE COUNTY CLERK AND COUNTY RECORDER UNTIL AFTER THE SALE, THE TAKING OF PROPERTY BY DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND IN A LARCENOUS MANNER, AND WITH INTENT OF SUBSTANTIVE OMISSIONS OF MATERIAL FACTS – NEGLIGENCE OF ‘TRUSTEES’ WITH FIDUCIARY DUTY AS STATED BY AG OF WASHINGTON

    KristinA1 @ ATG . WA . GOV
    August 5, 2011 11:42:57 AM PDT

    Rob McKenna ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
    1125 Washington Street SE · PO Box 40100 · Olympia WA 98504-0100

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Washington Attorney General sues ReconTrust for illegal foreclosures

    McKenna raps trustee’s claim that it doesn’t have to abide with state law

    SEATTLE – Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna today announced that his office is suing ReconTrust Company, a subsidiary of Bank of America, for conducting illegal foreclosures on thousands of Washington homeowners.

    “ReconTrust ignored our warnings, repeatedly broke the law and refused to provide information requested during our investigation,” McKenna said.

    “ReconTrust’s illegal practices make it difficult, if not impossible, for borrowers who might have a shot at saving their homes to stop those foreclosures.”

    ReconTrust is a foreclosure trustee that is legally required to act as a neutral party on behalf of both the lender and the borrower while conducting foreclosure proceedings in good faith and in accordance with the law.

    The lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court by McKenna and Assistant Attorney General Jim Sugarman, of the office’s Consumer Protection Division, alleges that “ReconTrust has failed to comply with the Washington Deed of Trust Act, RCW 61.24, in each and every foreclosure it has conducted since at least June 12, 2008.”

    The company is also accused of violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act.

    The Attorney General’s Office announced the suit during a news conference held outside a foreclosed home in Seattle. McKenna and Sugarman were joined by two women whose homes were foreclosed by ReconTrust and several private attorneys who are also concerned about ReconTrust’s actions.

    “My home is being foreclosed on. The situation has caused great pain for my son and myself,” said Myra Cole, a single mother from Spanaway who struggled to find employment after a layoff. Her loan servicer was reviewing her Spanaway home for a loan modification when ReconTrust sold the house at foreclosure.

    “I couldn’t understand how this could have happened,” Cole continued. “I got the run-around. I just can’t believe that the company that’s supposed to be helping me is foreclosing on me. … We are trying to save our homes. We’re doing the steps they tell us. In the end, it’s all for nothing. It’s an injustice.”

    Ruby Barrus told a similar story about the home where she and her husband live in Marysville. During a time of financial hardship, their loan servicer promised not to foreclose while they worked out a loan modification.

    “Our payments were never late,” Barrus said, adding that they only stopped making payments because the bank indicated they needed to default to qualify for the modification. “We just figured they knew what they were doing because they were our servicer. … Months later, we get a letter from ReconTrust saying they’re our foreclosure attorneys. We had never heard of them.”

    Both women are in court battles to keep their homes.

    McKenna said an essential requirement of the Deed of Trust statute is that a trustee maintains an office in the state where homeowners can go to ask questions, make last-minute payments and request a foreclosure be postponed for a legitimate reason.

    But ReconTrust doesn’t have an office in Washington.

    “ReconTrust’s claim that the company doesn’t have to follow Washington law and procedures because it is a national bank is wrong,” McKenna added.

    The Attorney General’s Office alleges the company:

    · Failed to maintain a physical office with telephone service in Washington.

    · Failed to identify the actual owner of the promissory notes being foreclosed.

    · Provided confusing information regarding how borrowers defaulted and how they can cure that default.

    · Failed to conduct foreclosures in a public place, instead holding them at private sites including an office park in Bellevue.

    · Created or permitted the use of documents that were improperly executed, notarized or sworn to. Sugarman said notices and agreements contained conflicting dates and improper notarizations and ReconTrust employees sometimes signed as officers of other entities.

    · Failed to exercise its duty of good faith toward the borrower by deferring solely to the lender when deciding whether to postpone a foreclosure.

    The complaint states that homeowners facing foreclosure are “captive to ReconTrust’s services” and that the company’s failures to abide by the law have concealed material information needed by homeowners to assert rights and defenses, negotiate a loan modification, cure defaults, and postpone or stop a foreclosure sale.

    Sugarman said, “It is particularly important right now for trustees to understand and strictly comply with Washington foreclosure law. There have been several changes including a new right for homeowners to request mediation to discuss a possible loan modification or forbearance before the bank pursues foreclosure.”

    The complaint asks that the court require ReconTrust to comply with the law and impose civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation, as well as restitution for consumers.

    Based on information obtained during its investigation, the Attorney General’s Office estimates that ReconTrust has issued 9,900 foreclosure notices since January 2008 in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties alone. ReconTrust forecloses across the state. It’s unknown how many of those foreclosures violated homeowner rights, although the Attorney General’s Office believes the problems are systematic and widespread. It’s also unknown how many foreclosures may have been prevented had ReconTrust complied with laws.

    In May 2010, the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division began investigating reports of lenders and trustee services not properly reviewing foreclosure documents or following other legal procedures. McKenna sent letters in October 2010 and April 2011, outlining concerns and calling on trustees to suspend questionable foreclosures in the state. The office is investigating more than a dozen other trustees for suspected violations.

    The office also remains very involved with the multistate investigation into problems in the foreclosure industry.

    For more information about these investigations and resources for homeowners, including new mediation rights, visit http://www.atg.wa.gov/foreclosure.aspx.

    Private lawsuits against ReconTrust have been filed in Utah, Nevada, California, Oregon and Arizona concerning its role in foreclosures in those states, as well as by private attorneys in Washington. The Attorney General of Utah sent a public letter to Bank of America threatening suit if ReconTrust continued to violate Utah foreclosure law.

    DOCUMENTS:

    ReconTrust Complaint

    This link lists properties that are listed for sale or have been sold by ReconTrust: http://www.recontrustco.com/upcoming_counties.aspx?state=Washington

    – 30 –

    Media Contact: Kristin Alexander, Media Relations Manager, (206) 464-6432, cell: (206) 437-2654, kalexander@atg.wa.gov

    Editor’s Note: AG McKenna is available for interviews until 12:30 today. Please call or e-mail Kristin to schedule.

    Subscribe to Attorney General’s Office news releases via our listserv or RSS. You can also follow us on

    Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, the All Consuming blog, Unredacted and In General.

  3. This is such a joke. They can offer this settlement, when in all actuality the banks were charging over $300 for “foreclosure expenses” and “property inspection fees” to borrowers who were in default, myself included. This paltry little settlement barely covers the cost and the headache. I agree with many others on this site, it seems as if the taxpayers are yet again being thrown under the bus.
    They also give a cutoff time of 2008. Sorry to inform you, FTC, but BAC Home Loans Servicing and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing’s shenanigans go way past 2008. What are the homeowners who don’t qualify under this settlement supposed to do, just simply lick their wounds?
    And also let’s not forget the bottom line….the servicers were charging homeowners these outrageous fees and escrowing items unbeknownst to the homeowners, when in all actuality the servicers nor the banks have any right to collect a dime from the homeowners because of fraudulent loans and fraudulent documents pinning the homeowner to the transaction.

  4. Really old yes but nonetheless rather important.

    Did anyone pay attention to the fact that the fees were charged by the SERVICER are for the REO ‘Contractor’ and that Countrywide was thereafter ordered to advise consumers if it intends to use ‘affiliates’ for default-related services, and if so, provide a fee scheduel of the amoutns charged by the affiliates. (See copy of info copied below). Wells Fargo Bank NA ‘TRUSTEE’ uses its subsidiary Premier Asset Services for its REO Contracting.

    “Mortgage servicers are responsible for the day-to-day management of homeowners’ mortgage loans, including collecting and crediting monthly loan payments.

    Those still in litigation still, who receive a check from the settlement, is that good evidence of facts information on FTC website.

    6/7/2010 Only 2 Countrywide mortgage servicing companies Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, formerly doing business as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, ordered to pay $108 Million to settle Federal Trade COmmission chargers they collected excessive fees and will reimburse overcharged homewoenrs whose loans were serviced by Countrywide bfore it was acquired by Bank of America in July 2008.

    When homeowners fell behind on their payments (THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ‘SERVICER’ AND REO SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES) and were in default on their loans,

    Countrywide ordered property inspections, lawn mowing, and other services meant to protect the lender’s interest in the property, according to the FTC complaint. But rather than simply hire third-party vendors to perform the services, Countrywide created subsidiaries to hire the vendors. The subsidiaries marked up the price of the services charged by the vendors – often by 100% or more – and Countrywide then charged the homeowners the marked-up fees. The complaint alleges that the company’s strategy was to increase profits from default-related service fees in bad economic times. As a result, even as the mortgage market collapsed and more homeowners fell into delinquency, Countrywide earned substantial profits by funneling default-related services through subsidiaries that it created solely to generate revenue.

    According to the FTC, under most mortgage contracts, homeowners must pay for necessary default-related services, but mortgage servicers may not mark up the cost to make a profit or charge homeowners for services that are not reasonable or appropriate to protect the mortgage holder’s interest in the property. Homeowners do not have any choice in who performs default-related services or the cost of those services, and they have no option to shop for those services.

    In addition, in servicing loans for borrowers trying to save their homes in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, the complaint charges that Countrywide made false or unsupported claims to borrowers about amounts owed or the status of their loans. Countrywide also failed to tell borrowers in bankruptcy when new fees and escrow charges were being added to their loan accounts. The FTC alleges that after the bankruptcy case closed and borrowers no longer had bankruptcy court protection, Countrywide unfairly tried to collect those amounts, including in some cases via foreclosure.

    In addition, the settlement order prohibits Countrywide from taking advantage of borrowers who have fallen behind on their payments. The defendants continue to service millions of mortgage loans, including tens of thousands of loans involving borrowers in bankruptcy and foreclosure. In the servicing of loans, the defendants are permanently barred from:

    Making false or unsubstantiated representations about loan accounts, such as amounts owed.
    Charging any fee for a service unless it is authorized by the loan instruments, by law, or by the consumer for a specific service requested by the consumer.
    Charging any fee for a default-related service unless it is a reasonable fee charged by a third party for work actually performed. If the service is provided by an affiliate of a defendant, the fee must be within limits set by state law, investor guidelines, and market rates. Defendants must obtain annual, independent market reviews of their affiliates’ fees to ensure that they are not excessive.
    In addition, Countrywide must advise consumers if it intends to use affiliates for default-related services and, if so, provide a fee schedule of the amounts charged by the affiliates.

    The settlement also requires Countrywide to make significant changes to its bankruptcy servicing practices. For example, Countrywide must send borrowers in Chapter 13 bankruptcy a monthly notice with information about what amounts the borrower owes – including any fees assessed during the prior month. The defendants also must implement a data integrity program to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data they use to service loans in Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

    This case was brought with the invaluable assistance of the United States Trustee Program, the component of the Department of Justice that oversees the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees. This action represents the FTC’s continuing work to help consumers who have been hurt by the economic downturn.

    For more information about the case and the FTC’s refund program, see http://www.ftc.gov/countrywide.

    The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint and settlement was 5-0. The complaint and settlement were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

    The Federal Trade Commission is a member of the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. For more information on the Task Force, visit http://www.stopfraud.gov.

    NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge.

    The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

    MEDIA CONTACT:
    Frank Dorman
    Office of Public Affairs
    202-326-2674
    STAFF CONTACT:
    Lucy Morris or Alice Hrdy,
    Bureau of Consumer Protection
    202-326-3224
    (FTC File No. 0823205)
    (Countrywide)

  5. Will this open the door to similar actions against JP Morgan Chase and others? First drop in the bucket, I’d say.

  6. Legislator seeks records, answers from Bondi’s officeA state senator from Hollywood is looking into the attorney general’s relationship with one of the firms under investigation for foreclosure malpractice.
    By TOLUSE OLORUNNIPA
    tolorunnipa@MiamiHerald.com Senator Sobel’s letter att.
    After two foreclosure fraud investigators were abruptly dismissed from their posts with the attorney general’s office, and a former deputy attorney general left Tallahassee to join a firm under investigation for foreclosure malpractice, a Hollywood state senator has launched a probe into the state’s top legal office.

    Florida Sen. Eleanor Sobel (D-Hollywood), sent public records requests to the office of Attorney General Pam Bondi on Thursday, seeking to understand the relationship between the office and Lender Processing Services, a Jacksonville firm under state investigation for shoddy foreclosure practices.

    Joe Jacquot, a former special counsel with the attorney general’s office, left that post and in May joined Lender Processing Services, LPS, as senior vice president.

    A week later, Theresa Edwards and June Clarkson, two assistant state attorneys investigating allegations of fraud at LPS and other foreclosure-related businesses, were abruptly asked to leave their jobs.

    Sobel, who is conducting the probe with state Rep. Darren Soto (D-Orlando), said she was investigating the issue on behalf of the homeowners she represents.

    “This is drawing national attention, I’m troubled by some of the relationships and want to get to the bottom of it,” she said. “I’m not sure at this point what it means, but we need to look into it.”

    The dismissals of Edwards and Clarkson led to backlash from consumer advocates, with some claiming that they were pushed out for political reasons.

    The attorney general’s office has denied such claims as “both unfounded and offensive,” maintaining that the two attorneys were dismissed for poor performance.

    “While these [public records] requests are politically motivated and not made in good faith, we will, of course, comply with public records law,” Jennifer Meale, a spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office said in an email.

    Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/08/04/2345690/legislator-seeks-records-answers.html#ixzz1UA7QgJ9T

    http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2011/08/04/senator-eleanor-sobel-rep-darren-soto-probe-deeper-into-firings-of-assistant-attorneys-general/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ForeclosureFraudByDinsfla+%28FORECLOSURE+FRAUD+%7C+by+DinSFLA%29

    See the AG Fraud report by Therea Edwards and June Clarkson at
    http://4closurefraud.org/2011/01/04/florida-attorney-general-fraudclosure-report-unfair-deceptive-and-unconscionable-acts-in-foreclosure-cases/

  7. “This blog is starting a Bank of America death watch.

    It is clear that the Charlotte bank has too much in the way of legal liability that it will not be able to shed and yet-to-be-taken writedowns on balance sheet items (for instance, roughly $125 billion of home equity loans and junior liens on residential real estate as of end of last year) for it not to be at risk of a death spiral. Its stock was down 7.44% yesterday, which puts its market cap at $89.5 billion, which is a mere 41.6% of common equity (total equity less book value of preferred) of $215 billion. That means if the bank is under pressure to raise its capital levels, it will be so dilutive as to be problematic, particularly if the stock market weakens further and banks continue to take it on the chin. And the entire mortgage industrial complex is coming under stress. Number three mortgage insured PMI posted yet another loss and fell short of regulatory standards. Although mortgage insurer woes are mainly a Fannie-Freddie issue, problems in tightly-coupled systems can ricochet in unexpected ways.”

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/bank-of-america-death-watch.html

    and another story of interest…

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/new-york-attorney-general-schneiderman-drops-bomb-on-bank-of-america-settlement-and-bank-of-new-york.html

  8. Nice nice… no on to Citibank and the U.S. Trustees Roosters protecting the henhouse:

    FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 2011
    Money-laundering Scumbags at Citibank draw California subpoena on mortgage securitization:

    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/08/sam-shaulsons-scumbag-mexican-drug.html

    FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, 2011
    KingCast/Mortgage Movies proof of mailing for U.S. Trustee FOIA Attorney Larry Wahlquist, who misrepresented case law for Journalist exemption.

    http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/08/kingcastmortgage-movies-proof-of.html

    Have a great weekend Neil.

  9. I don’t know, call me stupid or something, but if you accept the money on this, are you confirming them as a valid party? I would send the money back with QWR!! 🙂

  10. Posted on August 4, 2011 by Mark Stopa
    I hope you haven’t eaten yet today, because when you read this, you’re going to be sick.

    Today’s St. Pete Times details the story of Saji Mathew, who owns a Mobil gas station in Pinellas County. On October 13, 2010, Mr. Mathew went to pay his monthly mortgage payment to BB&T, which was due on October 12. BB&T refused to accept it. Mr. Mathew has been trying to pay, in full, ever since, only to have his payments rebuffed.

    Yesterday, he tried again, in court before St. Pete Judge Amy Williams. Despite his willingness to pay more than $50,000, the bank once again refused. This prompted Judge Williams to express some well-founded frustration:

    All the people that understand anything about mortgage foreclosures need to know this stuff,” Circuit Judge Amy Williams said in court. “This is the idiocrasy of this stuff. This is why we’re in a worldwide financial crisis because there’s no business sense any more in the foreclosure industry, none. And it blows my mind. Totally blows my mind.

    The article goes on to explain that there must be “some financial incentive” for BB&T not to accept these payments, but is unsure what it is.

    Well, I’ve awwn this fact pattern before, and I know what it is.

    As the article reflects, this loan originated with Colonial Bank, which was taken over by the FDIC, which then gave the loan to BB&T.

    Want to know why BB&T won’t accept Mr. Mathew’s payments? It’s simple. BB&T wants to have the entire loan balance paid in full. And it knows it will, one way or the other. You see, one of two things will happen here. Either Mr. Mathews is collectible, and will be forced to pay a deficiency judgment to BB&T in full (once the foreclosure is finalized) … or Mr. Mathews is not collectible, and the FDIC will pay the judgment to BB&T in full. Either way, BB&T will collect, in full.

    So that’s the dynamic at play here (and in countless other cases) – BB&T would rather refuse the monthly mortgage payments because it knows it can collect, in full, courtesy of the U.S. Government.

    If you think I’m speculating here, you’re wrong. I’ve had cases recently where this exact dynamic was discussed openly and repeatedly. When BB&T obtains a judgment on a Colonial Bank loan, it gets paid by the FDIC so long as it proves to the FDIC that (1) the judgment debtor is uncollectible; or (2) the judgment debtor is in bankruptcy. That’s it. What precipitated the default and the judgment is irrelevant … even if the default was minor and the owner can make the monthly payments, that’s irrelevant – BB&T gets paid in full by the FDIC.

    So, if you’re like many other Floridians wondering why BB&T refuses to accept Mr. Mathew’s payments, wonder no more. Quite simply, BB&T would rather foreclose, and collect from the FDIC, than continue accepting his monthly payments.

    If you agree with me that this dynamic is perverse and disgusting, do something about it. Complain to your Congressman. Talk to the media. It’s up to you and me to stop this insanity.

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/one-day-late-with-mortgage-payment-gas-station-owner-could-lose-business/1184102
    Mark Stopa Esq. http://www.stayinmyhome.com

  11. “Courts in civil Martin Act cases have held that “fraud” under the Martin Act “includes all deceitful practices contrary to the plain rules of common honesty and all acts tending to deceive or mislead the public, whether or not the product of scienter or intent to defraud.”

    In other words, in order to prove a Martin Act violation, the attorney general is not required to prove that the defendant intended to defraud anyone, only that a defrauding act was committed.”

  12. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/banking/2011/05/the-martin-act-what-is-it-and-how-can-it-be-used-to-hold-wall-street-accountable.html

    “Most recently, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is using the Martin Act as the basis for his investigation of mortgage bond fraud. He is conducting “discussions” with executives of Bank of America Corp., Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley and UBS AG.”

  13. LET’S HOPE SCHNEIDERMAN HAS SOME BRASS ONES—

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/new-york-attorney-general_n_919008.html

    “Schneiderman’s Thursday court filing objecting to Bank of America’s proposed settlement with mortgage investors is a result of his office’s investigation into mortgage irregularities. It’s the kind of probe that could be stopped if his office agreed to such a release as is being contemplated for Bank of America in the state and federal settlement talks.

    In court documents, Schneiderman is demanding that his agency be allowed to further examine loan documents to ensure the securities were properly created. New York’s top law enforcement officer is using the Martin Act, a powerful state law that gives prosecutors broad powers to investigate fraud.”

  14. The answer is, there is no agreement that we will ever see. It is just how they want it. I will have a copy of this letter on my website soon, or if you want a copy, let me know.

    THX,

    John

  15. Carie,

    I’d do the same but me wife wouldn’t let me. I’d add a sign Banks, Wall Street this is for YOU.

  16. no mention regarding how much of the $108M went to the attorneys. Probably $35-40M.

    Allan, how are you? (As of late?)

  17. ST. PETERSBURG — Saji Mathew missed the Oct. 12 mortgage payment on the Mobil gas station he co-owns.

    On Oct. 13, he took the money to the bank, thinking that would make things right.

    He tried to make his November and December payments as well. But each time, BB&T kicked back his money.

    Ten months later, Mathew is still trying to pay. In circuit court on Tuesday, he offered BB&T $50,000, the total amount due since October.

    BB&T didn’t want the money.

    It wants the gas station.

    ~snip~

    “The bank would rather drive (Mathew) into foreclosure,” he said. “There’s got to be some financial incentive for them to not work with my client. This is disturbing, especially in this economy. It is really wrong.”

    Mathew vows to fight the foreclosure at a trial set for December.

    “This is devastating,” he said. “This is all I have. This is how I make my living.”

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/realestate/one-day-late-with-mortgage-payment-gas-station-owner-could-lose-business/1184102

  18. i received a lousy $36.00 . nobody is getting 500 or 5000, all a bullsh#t PR scam. why is this posted on this site now, it is about a month old news anyway.

  19. Randy,

    I did the exact same math and got the same result you did (1st post). Ask John below why… He just struck it really, really rich with his $12.00! Know why? ‘Cuz Alan made an absolute killing at $800.00.

    As I said earlier, a really sick joke. And no one seems to know what the exact terms of that “agreement” are, as usual.

  20. It’s no wonder Washington, D.C., is so f—-d-up. That math isn’t even close. The article claims that each homeowner will get from $500.00 at the low end to several thousand dollars at the high end. If you do the simple division, dividing $108 million by 450,000 checks, the average amount to EACH homeowner is a whopping @240.00 !!! So where is the rest of the money coming from ??? The taxpayers AGAIN ??? I have no beef with the homeowners, they deserve a LOT more for having been put through all this. I’m just sick and tired of being played for the fool by our “leaders”. WE NEED TO FIRE ALL OF THEM, all of the D’s AND all of the R’s. There isn’t 2 cents difference between them.

  21. @cubed2k—I thought you would like this one:

    http://www.aol.com/2011/08/04/david-muscat-australia-middle-finger_n_918137.html

  22. Wonder if he knows how screwed up the title is on his new house….probably just as screwed up as his morals…

    http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/176_148/stevens-fha-mba-mortgage-1040796-1.html?zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

    A Five-Bedroom Colonial

    Stevens was FHA commissioner until the end of March, but his calendar began winding down after his move became official. Appointments began filling with events like meetings with HUD human resources to discuss his separation package and a series of goodbye parties.

    The departing commissioner was also in the market for a house. On March 22 he booked a tour of a five-bedroom home in a stately part of northwest Washington D.C., which he bought in June for $1,899,000, District of Columbia records show.

  23. Alan Barcon or :
    Any one who got a check should keep it as evidence, of course that is my opinion. I also got a check and I am sending this evidence in my amended complaint in the Federal Court in my law suit against U.S. Bank N/A & Bank of America ect …I believe if you cash the check you are waiving your rights to demand ownership or more money,

  24. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/dow-jones-industrial-closes-down-513-points_n_918796.html

    Gee, what a surprise…just another symptom resulting from the massive fraud…they did it to themselves…and it’s just going to keep getting worse until the WHOLE truth comes out…that’s when things will REALLY get interesting…

  25. In forging the agreement, HUD decided to forgo steep monetary damages or admissions of error from the bank.

    Aw, isn’t that thoughtful! But be careful using the term forging, BAC’s liable to heap more fiat money on the table thinking you’re accusing them of some other transgression. Besides, they have access to all our money they need. Plus, they get to pass go, collect $200, AND get out of jail free! Such a deal!

  26. That is a joke. I have one of those checks, and the total amount is $12.00. That should be criminal what Countrywide and Bank of America are doing.

    John Walters

  27. Haha! Carie, you and me are the on the same wavelength today : )

  28. Oh boy, the “good news” just keeps on coming today…and yet another PALTRY “settlement”. Our government has once again thrown the taxpayers under the bus.

    http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/176_151/stevens-fha-bank-of-america-gaither-hud-mortgage-settlement-1040918-1.html?zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

  29. I got one for almost 800.00 , not sure I want to cash it as i am still fighting them. Any thoughts out there on ” sighing way the your rights to sue in the future “.

  30. This is the first time in a long time that I have seen anything done by the FTC. Usually, you send them a complaint, and you get a response that they got it, but nothing happens. You mean we have a government agency that is actually doing (sort of) its job? I bet we won’t see much more from the FTC. I am still interested in what the FBI is doing with regard to major felonies by banking instututions. Nothing, it seems.

  31. Countrywide was charging $300 to mow a lawn and yet Angelo Mozilo gets off with a slap on the wrist fine and NO INCARCERATION.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/business/08ftc.html

  32. This has to be a sick joke!

    Average payout: $240/person. If some of them collect “several thousand dollars”, I take it that the great majority will receive… peanuts. Probably not nearly as much as people were actually defrauded of.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: